Sitting of 8 February 2000

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

  GREENHAM AND CROOKHAM COMMONS BILL (By Order)
  Order for Second Reading read.
  To be read a Second time on Tuesday 15 February.

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

    New Deal
    Ms Oona King: If he will make a statement on the progress of the new deal for communities. [107305]
    Mr. Peter Snape: What steps the Government are taking to provide a new deal for local communities. [107313]
    The Minister for Local Government and the Regions (Ms Hilary Armstrong): We have now made offers of funding to 10 new deal for communities pathfinder partnerships to help them to deliver sustainable change for some of our poorest neighbourhoods. Seven more pathfinders will submit their proposals at the end of March. The success of the pathfinders has encouraged us to launch a second round of the programme in 22 further areas of England.
    Ms King: I welcome that statement. My right hon. Friend the Minister will be aware that Tower Hamlets is one of those pathfinder areas. Will she be able to issue guidance to other Departments—in particular, the Benefits Agency—so that they can work more closely together in delivering the objectives of the new deal?
    Ms Armstrong: I congratulate my hon. Friend on the close interest that she is taking in the new deal for communities in her constituency on the Ocean estate, a community that has had many difficulties. She has agreed to chair the partnership and is working very hard to pull all the different groups together, for which she is to be commended. I reassure her that the Government take the fact that it is a whole Government programme very seriously—it is not simply a programme from our
    100
    Department. I chair a ministerial committee on which all Departments have a representative to deal with the wide range of issues that the new deal areas cover. I assure her that the Department of Social Security is represented on that committee and we are working with it to seek new ways forward.
    Mr. Snape: I thank the Minister for the £56 million recently received for the Greets Green area of the borough of Sandwell. Together with the funding for the new bus station and the town centre redevelopment in West Bromwich, it will go a long way to making up for nearly two decades of neglect in Sandwell. I am sure that I speak for you, too, Madam Speaker, when I say that making up for those years of urban decline and poverty in a town such as West Bromwich will require similar initiatives in future and we shall press the Minister along those lines again.
    Ms Armstrong: My hon. Friend is right. We offered the Greets Green partnership £56 million to implement its long-term strategy over the next 10 years. It is a good strategy backed with a real determination to increase the number of jobs; to improve the skills and educational attainment of people living in the area; to reduce ill health; and to tackle crime. I hope that he continues to take a close interest and ensure that we do whatever possible to turn the area round and make people proud to live and bring up their families there.
    Mr. Archie Norman: It is a particular pleasure to stand in front of the Deputy Prime Minister, and I look forward to maintaining the tradition of robust exchanges established by my illustrious predecessor. In the light of the last few days' revelations regarding my interests, I wish to make an apology. I apologise for the fact that my 20 years of real-world experience of planning, the environment and transport means that I have some practical grasp of the subject, which is not a problem that afflicts the Deputy Prime Minister.
    As the new deal for communities is the Government's flagship programme to tackle deprivation in our cities, can the Minister tell the House whether the number of priority homeless cases has fallen under Labour; whether brownfield development in our cities has risen under Labour; what happened to inner-city crime last year; and how much hard cash has been delivered to the communities after nearly three years of Labour government?
    Ms Armstrong: I welcome the hon. Gentleman to the Dispatch Box. We, too, have real-world experience. Mine has been in working in areas of deprivation to build up local communities and work with them. Under the previous Government, that was an extremely difficult task. We are determined on all those issues to give the right sort of support to enable local communities to work effectively to turn their areas round. I wish to goodness that his Government had been slightly interested in that.
    Mr. Norman: Now we know what the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle) meant when he said of the Government that minor functionaries give a wholly erroneous impression of what is going on. Are not the facts that under this Government, homelessness has risen by 3,500, brownfield development in our cities has fallen and crime is rising? Is it not also true that less money is

    101
    being spent under the new deal than was spent on urban regeneration by the previous Conservative Government? When I read on Saturday that there was a vacuum at the heart of new Labour, little did I expect to find it sitting opposite me on the Government Front Bench. Is not the truth that Labour has abandoned the north and the inner cities, and is that not why its Ministers are abandoning the Government?
    Ms Armstrong: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will learn to work out what questions mean. These questions are about the new deal for communities. It is one of our regeneration programmes; there are many others. Perhaps he would like to add them up—then he might get the right figures. This Government, unlike his, will work for the whole country: north and south, east and west, rural and urban. If he really is worried about the north, why did he support the closure of steelworks, pits and shipyards that did far more to undermine the north than anything else that his Government did?
    Mr. Hilary Benn: Will my right hon. Friend join me in extending an invitation to the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mr. Norman) to visit my constituency to see the real-world deprivation that exists, largely as a consequence of his party's policies for 18 years? In that respect, will she review the eligibility criteria for the new deal for communities so that some parts of my constituency can put in bids for the new deal communities? They would like to benefit from the fortune that places such as West Bromwich are enjoying.
    Ms Armstrong: I echo my hon. Friend's concern about the lack of knowledge of Opposition Front Benchers about some of our northern cities. Perhaps some day they will learn about them. I am sure that he will be pleased to know that Leeds is in fact able to bid for the new deal for communities in the next round.

    National Air Traffic Services
    Mr. James Clappison: If he will make a statement on the timetable for the partial privatisation of National Air Traffic Services. [107306]
    The Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. John Prescott): Powers to create the public-private partnership for NATS are being sought in the Transport Bill. We intend to secure the benefits of the public-private partnership soon after those powers have been granted. This could be as early as 2001.
    Mr. Clappison: Can the Secretary of State assure the House that the Government's proposed golden share in the public-private partnership for NATS is legal under European law?
    Mr. Prescott: Yes.
    Mr. Tam Dalyell: If we were to go ahead without the acquiescence of the airline pilots, the British Air Line Pilots Association and the Institution of Professionals, Managers and Specialists, which represents the air traffic controllers, and unfortunately there was a
    102
    smash-up—let alone a mid-air collision—before any public inquiry could possibly report, who does the Deputy Prime Minister think would get the blame?
    Mr. Prescott: Those who were guilty, and I do not necessarily accept my hon. Friend's assumptions.
    Mr. Bernard Jenkin: Can the Deputy Prime Minister confirm that, contrary to the assurances that he has given to his Back Benchers, the so-called public-private partnership envisages that NATS may be split up at some future point? Will he confirm that several different companies may provide air traffic services and that there will be several strategic partners? Will he confirm that the Government's shareholding could be reduced to 25 per cent, a point that has just been included in the Transport Bill? Will he confirm that the Government envisage circumstances in which NATS could be floated?
    The Deputy Prime Minister ducked the question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison), so will he now confirm that he has received an opinion from the European Commission that suggests that the golden share in BAA is illegal? That implies that the golden share in NATS will also be illegal. Does he deny the existence of that opinion, and will he come clean on his negotiations with the Commission on this crucial matter? Will he confirm that the opinion suggests that the concepts of national security and national interest are not recognised by the European Commission?
    Mr. Prescott: I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman continues to misunderstand the situation, just as he does in the Standing Committee on the Transport Bill. The BAA case is not the same as that of NATS, and that is why I was so easily able to tell the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) that there was no conflict. The PPP, involving a strategic relationship with a private partner, is the best way to go. We have explained to the Standing Committee—and will continue to explain on Report—that it will mean long-term investment, that safety will be properly maintained and that the advances and growth that we require from NATS will occur.

    Regional Development Agencies
    Mr. Ian Pearson: What steps the Government are taking to promote economic development in the west midlands through regional development agencies. [107308]
    The Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. John Prescott): Advantage West Midlands has produced a well-balanced regional strategy for economic development in the region. We await detailed action plans and look forward to working with the organisation as we begin to implement the strategy.
    Mr. Pearson: I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend for his long-standing commitment to the regions. All the signs suggest that Advantage West Midlands will make a big impact. Does he agree that one cannot download a fridge or a hi-fi, and that we therefore need to ensure that goods ordered through dotcom companies are manufactured in areas such as the west midlands? Does he agree that we

    103
    need the world-class infrastructure—road and rail links—that would allow those goods to be delivered quickly to the market? Will he ask his Department to examine conditions in the west midlands, where the transport infrastructure is clearly the worst around any major conurbation in Europe?
    Mr. Prescott: I agree with a great deal of what my hon. Friend said. In particular, I believe that regional development agencies play an important part in developing prosperity in the regions. Such agencies were successful in Scotland and Wales, and we cannot see why the English regions should be denied them. They will play an important part in the transport strategies being developed with regional planning bodies and assemblies. I accept that transport could improve a lot in Birmingham, and we are giving that point considerable attention and taking advice from people in the regions.
    I congratulate the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mr. Norman) on his appointment. He is my third shadow in less than three years, and I hope that he stays in post a little longer than his predecessors did, although his first appearance suggests that that might not be so. We shall wait and see. The job's previous occupant came out with a flurry of punches, but did not last long.
    May I ask the hon. Gentleman to confirm the statement that I read in the—
    Madam Speaker: Order. Question Time is for the Opposition.
    Mr. Prescott: It is Question Time, Madam Speaker, but my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley, South (Mr. Pearson) asked about regional development agencies, and the Conservatives, having previously stated that they would abolish RDAs, have said today that they intend to keep them. Perhaps the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells could let the House know what the Tory position is.
    Mr. Peter Luff: The Deputy Prime Minister will know that I am no fan of regionalism. May I ask him carefully to consider the strategy produced by Advantage West Midlands? It is written in incomprehensible English, and is so bad that the Plain English Campaign criticised the agency for falsely claiming that it had the campaign's blessing. It is also a facile document that contains no substance. He should consider what that says about the quality of the agencies that he has, in my view mistakenly, put in place.
    Mr. Prescott: I cannot agree with the hon. Gentleman. Wide consultations were held with people in the regions, including Tory councillors and the local authorities, all of whom played a major part in the development of the strategy. It has now been refined by the Government to determine priorities. Perhaps he will tell the House whether he still believes that the RDAs should continue to play a part in the regions.

    Housing
    Dr. Brian Iddon: If he will make a statement on Government policy in respect of housing directly managed by local authorities. [107309]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Chris Mullin): The Government continue to attach the highest priority to housing and are committed to a policy that promotes decent and affordable housing for everyone. Local authority housing is an essential resource in achieving that objective.
    Dr. Iddon: As Bolton is a band 1 housing authority, and in view of recent press rumours, will my hon. Friend say whether well-managed housing authorities will be able to continue to manage their local stock as they always have done? More important, will adequate funds be made available for the maintenance and management of that stock?
    Mr. Mullin: I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. The recent press reports are inaccurate. It is up to each local authority, in consultation with its tenants—I emphasise that point—to decide on the best way to manage its housing stock. There are some advantages to voluntary transfers that we should expect local authorities to consider, but the process is not compulsory.
    As for resources, the Government have already provided £5 billion extra for housing during this Parliament, so we have made quite a good start.
    Mr. Nigel Waterson: Will the Minister confirm that the housing Green Paper has been delayed yet again? It was due to appear last autumn and then this spring. Will he confirm that it will now appear in July? After almost three years, is it not time that the Government had a proper housing strategy? As the Green Paper will not appear until after the comprehensive spending review, does not that mean that, yet again, the Treasury has scored a victory over his Department and that he and his colleagues have backed away from any meaningful reform of housing benefit?
    Mr. Mullin: It is not true that the Green Paper has been delayed, because we gave no undertaking on when it would be published. However, it will be published shortly and will set out a clear statement of our vision for housing policy. As I pointed out, we have already committed an extra £5 billion for housing during this Parliament, so no one can say that we are neglecting the subject.
    Dr. Lynne Jones: Will my hon. Friend explain why the Government continue to treat local councils differently from registered social landlords when it comes to raising commercial investment for improvements in the same housing occupied by the same people?
    Mr. Mullin: We are anxious to encourage local authorities to consider the best ways to manage their housing stock and not to think that there is only one way of doing so. We want them seriously to examine the possibility of transfers. However, as I pointed out to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon), there is no compulsion and they must always consult their tenants.

    London Underground
    Mr. Tom Brake: If he will make a statement on progress in achieving a public-private partnership for London Underground. [107311]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Keith Hill): Excellent progress has been made, which will enable us to tackle the £1.2 billion investment backlog on the tube that we inherited from the previous Tory Government, and to achieve our objective of a massive £8 billion of new investment to modernise London's underground network.
    Bids for the two deep-tube public-private partnership contracts are due back by the end of next month. There has been strong interest in the sub-surface lines and property PPP competitions as well. Submissions to pre-qualify for those contracts are due back later this month.
    Mr. Brake: I thank the Minister for his response. Has he read the report by University college, London on the funding of the tube? Does he agree with its findings that the PPP will cost £1 billion more than a bond issue to raise the investment that is needed? Does he agree that the PPP will not allow for expansion of the tube network, that it will leave a shortfall between passenger fares and the infrastructure service charges of between £110 million and £175 million per year, and that that will have to be funded either by the Government or by the mayor and the Greater London Assembly?
    Mr. Hill: I know that the hon. Gentleman follows these matters carefully, but he must not believe everything that he reads in academic reports. The academics have got it wrong again. If the PPP competition leaves a funding gap, that will be allowed for in the grant that we pay the mayor; we shall not leave London to pick up the bill. The PPP is all about obtaining best value. Public sector bonds would cost £4.5 billion more over 15 years.
    Mr. John Wilkinson: The travelling public in London do not need to read academic reports to know that they have been short-changed by the Government. Their manifesto promises are no nearer to being realised now than they were almost three years ago. Is it not the case that daily the delays persist and that there is no sign of the investment that was promised at the last general election? In other words, Labour's promises were fraudulent.
    Mr. Hill: The hon. Gentleman might bear it in mind that the Government have invested hundreds of millions of pounds more in the tube system than was ever planned for by the Conservative Administration. Currently, £1.8 billion of new investment is going into the tube system overall. Let me also remind him that in the autumn, the Government announced a massive extra £50 million for London's bus system.

    Housing
    Kali Mountford: What assessment he has made of steps taken by local authorities to improve the quality of housing since 1997. [107312]
    The Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. John Prescott): Good quality housing is a right not a privilege. We are taking a great many measures to help local authorities improve the quality of their housing. They include a number of actions to raise building standards, the increased involvement of tenants and a new regime of Government funding that will release a massive £5 billion increase in the resources available for housing, a factor that the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mr. Norman) should take into account.
    Kali Mountford: I am pleased to hear what my right hon. Friend has said about cowboy developers. He will know that my constituency, which is rural, has had significant problems with rogue developers. My constituents will be pleased to know that we are dealing with those problems. Will he also say how many council homes he expects to be improved as a result of his measures? He is right that council tenants deserve good quality homes.
    Mr. Prescott: We faced a backlog of about £10 billion in housing, and the £5 billion that we have devoted to it over the life of this Parliament is a major step towards improving it. So far, we have improved 300,000 council homes and we plan for an additional 1.5 million council homes to be improved over the three years of the comprehensive spending review expenditure programme.
    Miss Anne McIntosh: Is the Secretary of State taking a keen interest in the reform of housing benefits? Will he assure the House that local housing associations will not lose their income under the housing benefit reforms?
    Mr. Prescott: These are very important issues. We are considering them and changes will be set out in the Green Paper. Housing benefit support is an important issue in regard to sustaining the existing agreements on housing. However, it also needs reform and we intend to cover that in the Green Paper.
    Mr. Bill Rammell: I welcome my right hon. Friend's commitment to council housing. Does he agree that no area of public expenditure was cut as much under the previous Government as housing? Although the release of capital receipts has been wholly welcome, we need sustained year-on-year increases to undo the damage done by the vandalism in the 18 years of the Conservative Government.
    Mr. Prescott: Yes, quite apart from leaving a backlog, the previous Administration cut their housing programme between 1992–93 and 1997–98 by half—from £1.5 billion to £751 million a year. That was their order of priorities. Another dividing line between the two parties is that we

    107
    choose to use the money from capital receipts to refurbish housing and to make the investment that should have been made rather than keeping it in the banks earning interest.
    Mr. Simon Hughes: Will the Secretary of State assess himself the policy of Labour-run Southwark council, which proposes to demolish perfectly good council housing that was built in about 1980 near Tower bridge and replace it with a smaller amount of council housing and private housing so that it can raise money from land sales? Other estates are much worse and, on any basis, they should be demolished, but they have not been included in the scheme. Will he ensure that all policy has the agreement of the residents first and that it is consistent with keeping sustainable communities?
    Mr. Prescott: I am not aware of exactly what has happened in the hon. Gentleman's constituency, but social housing is an important matter. It is about mixed development and obtaining the agreement of tenants. I am sure that, in all cases, councils try to achieve that, but, in areas where there are differences of opinion, decisions have to be made. However, I am conscious of the importance of putting social housing at the top of the list.
    Mr. Andrew Love: I welcome the £5 billion of investment that will improve 1.5 million homes over the next three years, which is in complete contrast to the failures of the 18 years of the previous Government. Will the Secretary of State ensure the critical involvement of tenants in the use of that investment, which will improve their estates and their lives, so that the compacts that will come into operation from April will ensure local democracy?
    Mr. Prescott: I agree with my hon. Friend. That agreement will come in from 1 April, along with best value. We intend to improve the services provided by local authorities. It is important to do that as well as providing extra resources. That shows the Government's comprehensive approach to housing compared with that of the previous Administration. It is a pity that the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mr. Norman) was concerned not about housing but simply about building on greenfield land. He has experience of that because he has spent most of his time building on it.

    Green Belt
    Sir Sydney Chapman: If he will make a statement about the protection of established greenbelt land, and the acreage of it that has been approved for non-conforming use for development during the past 33 months. [107314]
    The Minister for Housing and Planning (Mr. Nick Raynsford): The Government are entirely committed to the green belt as a method of restricting urban sprawl. The area of green belt has been increased under this Government by around 30,000 hectares. As I have already indicated in a written answer to the hon. Gentleman, information on inappropriate uses in the green belt is not held centrally.
    Sir Sydney Chapman: The integrity of our greenbelt policy depends entirely on no part of it being built on.
    108
    Is it not spurious to allow development on greenbelt land and then say that the problem is overcome by adding more land to the green belt elsewhere—land that would not in any case be built on?
    Mr. Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman will know from his background in planning that it is always important to keep policies under review and that there are circumstances in which policies that might appear to be unduly rigid may need some modification to achieve a more sustainable outcome. That should always be allowed for. The Government whom he supported consistently allowed development on greenfield and greenbelt land up until their last year in office when the then Secretary of State released 1,200 hectares of greenbelt land for development. That was a shameful record, and this Government are protecting the green belt.
    Mrs. Alice Mahon: Northowram hospital in my constituency, which is in the green belt and has beautiful lands, is due for closure. My hon. Friend will know that NHS Estates is essentially the landowner. Is there anything that he can do to prevent NHS Estates from going for the easy option of more housing in an already crowded village and make it consider alternatives for that beautiful site?
    Mr. Raynsford: Inappropriate development in the green belt is a strong prima facie ground for refusal of planning permission. Certainly, any concerns that my hon. Friend has about an inappropriate proposal for development in her green belt should be referred to the local authority, which should be guided by PPG2, the relevant planning policy guidance note, which makes it clear that inappropriate development in such circumstances should be refused.
    Mr. Peter Lilley: Does the Minister recall justifying last week his approval of the building of 10,000 houses in the green belt in my constituency on the basis that the land is near the transport links of the A1 and the railway? Does he recognise that planning in this country works on precedent, and will he admit that the precedent that he has created gives the green light to ribbon development along motorways and railways, even when they go through greenbelt land? Will he remove that precedent by lifting his approval for the monstrous building of 10,000 houses on greenbelt land in my constituency?
    Mr. Raynsford: No. As the right hon. Gentleman ought to know by now—he has heard it often enough from the Dispatch Box—the decision was properly made by the local authority in his area, which felt that it was better to concentrate development in one area with good access to transport links rather than to allow sprawl throughout the surrounding rural area. That was a decision properly reached by democratically elected local representatives who were facing up to their responsibilities rather than uttering cheap soundbites, of which he should be ashamed.
    Dr. Alan Whitehead: Does my hon. Friend acknowledge that, under the previous Conservative Government, substantial development, particularly ribbon and dormitory development, took place outside the green belt, with a consequent impact on

    109
    transport and services? Does he accept that a sane and rational planning policy must take account of that, and that the Government must plan accordingly for the future?
    Mr. Raynsford: My hon. Friend is right to highlight the appalling record of the previous Government in permitting consistent and profligate use of greenfield land, including the nibbling away of the green belt, for inappropriate housing developments. We have adopted a different approach. We are seeking to ensure that the principles of sustainability are at the top of the agenda and that greenfield land is protected wherever possible, to ensure that the bulk of development is concentrated in our cities and on brownfield sites.
    Mr. Damian Green: The House and the country will be alarmed to hear the Minister say, as he did a couple of minutes ago, that greenbelt land is under review. Will he give us a commitment today that if the Government adopt any part of the Crow report, which disgracefully advocates concreting over large parts of the south-east, no greenbelt land will be lost? Does he agree that the Government's failure to protect the green belt has led to comments such as the one in this month's Environment and Planning Review, which states that
    "considering Labour's pre-election pledge that the party would form the 'greenest ever Government'",
    environmentalists have every right to feel let down? Is not that exactly right?
    Mr. Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman is wrong on all three counts. First, he misinterpreted my comments about the need to take a serious approach towards policy, and not to be utterly rigid when circumstances suggest that there are real gains to be made from an adjustment of policy. That occurs in certain cases, and any sensible, serious Government recognise that.
    Secondly, the hon. Gentleman is quite wrong to suggest that the Government favour concreting over the countryside. As I pointed out in response to an earlier question, it was his party that allowed so much of rural England to be built on in a shameless and disgraceful way.
    Thirdly, if we are speaking of the merits of individual hon. Members in terms of their environmental credentials, perhaps he will record that his right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood), the former shadow Secretary of State, recently received the award for being the least green of all Members. That is a pretty shameful comment on the Opposition Front-Bench team.

    Regeneration
    Mr. Clive Efford: What factors he will take into consideration in determining regional quotas for the allocation of future regeneration funds; and if he will make a statement. [107315]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Ms Beverley Hughes): The 2000 spending review that is currently under way will determine funding levels from 2001–02 to 2003–04 for all domestic regeneration programmes. Factors that will be taken into account in deciding regional spread will depend on the objectives
    110
    and priorities agreed for the programmes, together with our policies for economic development and renewal, social inclusion and urban renaissance.
    Mr. Efford: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. She will be aware of the concern that some areas have taken precedence over others that show high levels of deprivation and social need. To clarify the position, will she undertake to publish the data used in drawing up the new indicators of social need, and the way in which the indicators have been weighted?
    Ms Hughes: As my hon. Friend knows, there has been heavy criticism of the methodology used for the current index, which is why we propose to change it. We need a better indication of small pockets of deprivation and of disadvantage in rural as well as urban areas. However, we recognise that no index is perfect and that an index cannot provide a measure of absolute deprivation, so it is important to use the index sensitively and flexibly in deciding future regeneration resources. We shall look into the question that my hon. Friend raises in relation to the data.
    Mr. Owen Paterson: Why did the Government allow the European Union to cut Britain's allocation of EU regeneration funds last July?
    Ms Hughes: The English regions will receive some £4 billion of European structural funds from the Commission this year. That, together with the £5.5 billion that the Government have committed to regeneration in our English regions, demonstrates how serious we are about tackling social exclusion, wherever it occurs. It is the legacy of the previous Government that social exclusion and deprivation exist in every region of the country.

    National Bus Company (Pensions)
    Ms Rosie Winterton: If he will make a statement on the latest position regarding the bus employees' superannuation trust scheme and the National Bus Company pension fund scheme. [107316]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Keith Hill): I have made it clear to the National Bus Company pension trustees that the Government understand and share the concern of NBC pensioners about the time it is taking to distribute the settlement sum we paid last July. I was pleased to be able to say in a written answer yesterday to a question from my hon. Friend that I understand that the trustees intend to make initial payments to some 8,000 older pensioners in March and April, and that they are also urgently investigating the feasibility of making an initial payment to other pensioners as soon as possible.
    Ms Winterton: I thank my hon. Friend for his reply, and the Government for taking steps to right the injustice that the previous Tory Administration inflicted on NBC pensioners. The initial payment is welcome, but those pensioners are again at the mercy of lawyers, who despite having all the evidence, have failed to return to the High Court to get the final go-ahead for paying pensioners what

    111
    they are owed. Will my hon. Friend take up the matter with the trustees urgently and tell them to get their act together? Fifty thousand pensioners should not spend their twilight years feeling like characters in "Bleak House".
    Mr. Hill: My hon. Friend has done NBC pensioners a good service in highlighting possible delay in instituting further court proceedings. I shall pursue the matter with the chairman of the trustees when I meet her shortly.
    My recollection of the case of Jarndyce v. Jarndyce in "Bleak House" is that it was never resolved. That will not happen to the NBC pensioners. After the Tory years of plunder and procrastination, the Government have made possible the distribution of the £350 million pension fund surplus to those pensioners. We are determined that that distribution will take place as quickly as possible.

    Regional Assemblies
    Mr. A. J. Beith: When he will set a date for a referendum on the setting up of a regional assembly for the north-east of England. [107318]
    The Minister for Local Government and the Regions (Ms Hilary Armstrong): The Government are committed to moving to directly elected regional government in England, demonstrated in a referendum. The north-east is strengthening its regional presence through the work of ONE NorthEast, the north-east regional assembly, and other regional stakeholders.
    Mr. Beith: Does the Minister recognise the need for those bodies to have some democratic accountability, and the desire of people in the north-east to have a strong regional voice, which can press for the sort of funding that Scotland receives for its public services? Am I to conclude from the fact that she, not the Deputy Prime Minister, is answering the question, that the right hon. Gentleman is believed to have gone too far over the top in insisting that the Prime Minister has not gone off the idea and that we will have a referendum on a Parliament for the north-east in a reasonable period of time?
    Ms Armstrong: There is no division between us. We, as a Government, are determined to move forward with regional policy. The right hon. Gentleman knows that we established the Northern Development Company and our own regional assembly in the north-east more than 10 years ago. We did that in the face of opposition by the previous Tory Government. It would be interesting to know what the Tories would do in the north-east, where the institutions that I mentioned were developed by people in the region. Conservative Members continue to say that they will get rid of them. Will they really do that?
    Mr. Jim Cousins: I welcome my right hon. Friend's repetition of the pledge that we are moving towards democratic government in the north-east and, hopefully, other regions. People like me have campaigned passionately for that for more than 20 years because we want to tackle the long-term
    112
    economic, health and education inequalities of our region. We do not do it because we want to break Britain up, but because we want to bring it closer together.
    Ms Armstrong: I know that. I have campaigned alongside my hon. Friend for many years for a decent regional policy. The Government are committed to that. We shall continue to develop our policy because we want the regions of this country to have the sustainable growth that will enable the whole country to develop steadier and more sustainable growth. That will mean that all people, wherever they live, will get the opportunities that they deserve.
    Mr. David Prior: Will the Minister explain the impact of that wholly unnecessary layer of government on traditional and existing local government?
    Ms Armstrong: I suspect that the hon. Gentleman has not recognised or realised that local government very much supports regional development and the Local Government Association is holding hearings on precisely that issue. Indeed, 105 Tory councillors are involved in regional assemblies and many of them are also involved in regional development agencies. They support it; their party does not.

    Town Centres
    Mr. Christopher Leslie: If he will make a statement on Government support for the location of new retail outlets in existing town centres. [107319]
    The Minister for Housing and Planning (Mr. Nick Raynsford): Our policy is set out in planning policy guidance note 6, entitled, "Town Centres and Retail Developments". We have strengthened the guidance by requiring applicants for out-of-town centres to demonstrate that there is a need for the store and by making it clear that extensions to existing out-of-town developments are subject to a sequential test.
    Mr. Leslie: I welcome the strong stance taken by the Government. Is my hon. Friend aware that retail shopkeepers in the town of Bingley in my constituency were threatened by an out-of-town shopping proposal, which the local council was able to stand firm against and reject thanks to the strong guidance given by the Government? Will he send a strong message to those who have profited from the plundering of town centres, including certain Conservative Members, that the Government will stand firm in fighting for the viability of our town centres?
    Mr. Raynsford: I strongly endorse my hon. Friend's comments and simply add that there was an explosion of out-of-town shopping under the Conservatives. No fewer than 7.7 million sq m of out-of-town shopping centres and retail parks were built between 1979 and 1997. That involved serious damage to many existing town centres. We are determined to concentrate development in existing centres and delighted that the bulk of retailers—including,

    113
    I believe, Asda Wal-Mart—have recognised that their future developments should be located primarily in town centres.
    Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: If that is indeed Government policy, will the Minister undertake to talk to his colleagues in the Treasury with responsibility for the district valuers office and see whether the uniform business rate can be adjusted so that out-of-town supermarkets have a more sensible rate and in-town shops can compete with them?
    Mr. Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman raises an interesting point about the need to achieve a level playing field wherever possible. My evidence to the Select Committee stressed the Government's objective of ensuring that there is—as far as possible—a level playing field, not perverse incentives that make it easier to develop in unsustainable locations. I cannot give the specific commitment that he seeks because he appears to want an increased rate in certain areas. I am not sure that that would be an appropriate solution, but I can assure him of the Government's commitment to the principle of achieving a more level playing field.

    Environmental Services
    Gillian Merron: What steps he is taking to encourage initiatives by local authorities to improve the quality of their environmental services. [107320]
    The Minister for the Environment (Mr. Michael Meacher): The Local Government Act 1999 imposes a duty of best value on local authorities. It requires them to secure continuous improvement in the quality and effectiveness of their services and provides them with a major opportunity to drive up standards, including those for environmental services.
    Gillian Merron: Will the Minister join me in congratulating Lincoln city council on its excellent initiative in establishing a graffiti hotline, which actions the removal of offensive and racist graffiti within 24 hours? What plans has he for ensuring that that best practice and determined action is mirrored across the country?
    Mr. Meacher: I am aware of the good example that Lincoln has set by establishing a 24-hour telephone anti-graffiti service and a policy of removing offensive graffiti—particularly racist graffiti—within 24 hours, which my hon. Friend described. That is another good example of a Labour-controlled council improving local environment services and driving up standards.
    We are keen to disseminate best practice. This is a good example of precisely how it can be done better. The Government regard graffiti vandalism very seriously. There are significant penalties, particularly where the damage is severe, in excess of £2,000, with a maximum penalty of up to 10 years. We want to see that enforced.
    Mr. Nick St. Aubyn: If the Minister is serious about giving local authorities a bigger role in
    114
    improving their local environment, will he make sure that they have more power and more say over the allocation of new housing within their boroughs?
    Mr. Meacher: We are concerned about ensuring that local authorities have greater control over all their services. That is why this Government have made a major change compared with the previous Government, in releasing local authorities from the excessive and unreasonable bureaucratic controls that they had under that Government. That is why we have made a change, in particular, from compulsory competitive tendering to best value, which enables local people to have much greater control over the quality and cost of services, including housing services.
    Mr. Peter L. Pike: Has any environmental services department yet come forward with a solution to the problem of discarded chewing gum that we experience everywhere? It really needs to be solved.
    Mr. Meacher: I am certainly not stuck up on these kinds of problems.
    Depositing chewing gum on pavements, or on any surfaces, is a particularly disgusting habit. We intend in both the urban and rural White Papers to come forward with proposals to deal with litter as well as graffiti. I am in touch with one of the major manufacturers of chewing gum to see whether it can find a way of producing biodegradable chewing gum.

    Traffic Congestion
    Mr. Stephen O'Brien: If he will make a statement on the levels of traffic congestion in Great Britain (a) today, (b) a year ago and (c) two years ago. [107321]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Keith Hill): It will be of interest for the House to learn that no Government of any political hue have ever published a measure of congestion. The answer to the hon. Gentleman's question, therefore, is that no estimates of congestion currently available would allow an assessment to be made of changes year on year. However, since the general election, this Government have begun work on measures of congestion, which could be used to monitor these changes in the future. Although we may not yet be able to measure congestion, we clearly know that it exists. Our report, "Tackling Congestion and Pollution", published last month, showed that, with widespread support from local authorities, businesses and the general public for the measures in our integrated transport White Paper and Transport Bill, currently before the House, we can reduce congestion over the next decade.
    Mr. O'Brien: With the glaring evidence before you, Madam Speaker, and indeed all hon. Members, of the most appalling traffic congestion daily in Parliament square, it is no comfort to hear from the Minister's answer that the present Government accept that they have failed to deliver yet another pre-election pledge, to
    "reduce and then reverse traffic growth".

    115
    Will the Minister confirm that the Government's failure is because they have slashed the roads programme while cutting spending on public transport? Does he now realise that most people in this country use their car out of necessity? Is not the Government's failure yet another example of the great Labour lie?
    Mr. Hill: At least the hon. Gentleman had one good point, about traffic congestion in Parliament square. The House may be interested to learn that we have been informed that the work in Parliament square is scheduled to take two weeks, but I can assure the House that the Government are bearing down heavily on the companies undertaking that work.
    The hon. Gentleman said that there was no evidence of a reduction in traffic growth. That is simply not true. The evidence is that we are beginning to turn the corner on traffic growth. Last year in London, for example, the number of people entering the central area by car in the morning peak decreased by 2 per cent. Moreover, for the country as a whole, provisional traffic statistics suggest that since 1997 the volume of traffic has grown by about half the rate it did during the 18 years of Tory rule. That is a remarkable achievement in a period of strong economic growth. The trends are moving in the right direction, and will be reinforced by the Government's policies for reducing congestion and increasing public transport use.
    Fiona Mactaggart: Is the Minister aware that the busiest road junction in Europe—the junction between the M4 and the M25—is on the edge of my constituency? Is he aware of the application for the building of a so-called rail freight transport station there, and is he aware that 80 per cent. of movements will be by road? When the proposal is submitted to him, will he consider it carefully with a view to saying no, in the light of the impact that such a development would have on the M3, the M4, the M25 and the M40, which are already congested?
    Mr. Hill: My hon. Friend is, as ever, an outstanding advocate for her constituency, but I am afraid that quasi-judiciality prevents me from making any comment about that specific proposal.
    Mr. Don Foster: Does the Minister agree that one way of reducing traffic congestion would be to take robust action in respect of tour buses? Especially at the height of winter, such buses travel around historic cities such as Oxford, Chester, York and, indeed, Bath, clogging the roads, when almost or completely empty. The only purpose of the drivers is to make themselves eligible for the fuel duty rebate. Will the Minister conduct a review of the rebate as it applies to such vehicles?
    Mr. Hill: I am tempted to ask whether the hon. Gentleman is talking about the Liberal battle bus, empty as usual; but I appreciate his concern. As he will know, the traffic commissioners have certain powers in this respect, which are strengthened by the current transport legislation. Moreover, the fuel duty rebate is paid only on the basis of compliance with a number of conditions.
    116
    The Department carries out checks from time to time to ensure that those conditions are met, and, in fact, may well be doing so at around this time.
    The Commission for Integrated Transport is currently conducting an inquiry into bus subsidies, and we await with interest the report that it will produce later in the year.
    Mr. Alan Simpson: I am sure that the Minister realises that far more people are stuck up in traffic each day than are stuck up in chewing gum. Will he consider, in particular, the number of vehicles carrying goods in transit, often travelling through cities two or three times before the goods end up back in the shops? Will he and his ministerial colleagues give thought to specific measures that might encourage a reduction in food miles? Perhaps local partnerships could be established between urban consumption centres and rural producers, both to shorten food miles and to strengthen and shorten lines of food accountability.
    Mr. Hill: I assure my hon. Friend that the Department is doing a great deal of work on precisely those issues. I shall ensure that his observations form part of its considerations.

    Brownfield Sites
    Mr. Crispin Blunt: What assessment he has made of the potential for development on brownfield sites in the south-east. [107322]
    The Minister for Housing and Planning (Mr. Nick Raynsford): The Government are fully committed to the re-use of land for development in preference to greenfield sites, and have set a national target that 60 per cent. of additional housing should be built on previously developed land. Over 50 per cent. of dwellings are already built on recycled land in the south-east. Our national land use database indicates that over 10,000 hectares of land are available for recycling in the region.
    Mr. Blunt: Is not the harsh truth that in Surrey, for example, there simply are not enough brownfield sites to meet the Government's 60 per cent. target, if they accept the Serplan figures or, worst of all, the Crow report figures for the number of houses to be built in the south-east? Unless the Government attack the factors underlying the household growth projection figures and change those figures, the Minister's policy can end only in the concreting over of the countryside.
    Mr. Raynsford: Concreting over the countryside is a phenomenon that the hon. Gentleman will be well familiar with because it took place repeatedly throughout the 18 years of Conservative Government, when there was a laissez-faire approach to private developers building houses throughout that area. It is sad and sobering that, until the Government were elected, there was no record of how much brownfield land was available. Until our national land use database was published, no one knew the potential for achieving what the Government are determined to achieve: a focus on development on brownfield sites within not just the south-east, but the whole region.

Points of Order
3.30 pm
Mr. Andrew MacKay: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. As the House will be aware, all stages of the Northern Ireland Bill are shortly to be considered by the House. To paraphrase the Bill, it is to bring direct rule back to Northern Ireland, the reason being that there is apparently no decommissioning of illegally held arms or explosives by the relevant paramilitary groups. To help the House to decide whether there has been any decommissioning, surely it is essential that General de Chastelain's report be published. Have you had any indication from the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland that it is to be published, or do you believe that, even at this last moment, it will be placed in the Vote Office for the benefit of Members?
Madam Speaker: I have had no indication about the availability of the report. I am aware that, only yesterday, one of the right hon. Gentleman's colleagues, the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), raised the issue with the Leader of the House in the hope that the report might be available. It is a Government report. I am afraid that I have no responsibility for it. I am not certain when it will be made available.
Mrs. Alice Mahon: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Yesterday, my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) raised a point of order with you concerning the recent outbreak of violence against United Nations forces in Mitrovica in Kosovo. Since the last statement, more than 200,000 members of ethnic minorities have been expelled from Kosovo and hundreds killed. I wonder whether there is anything that you could do, or whether it is in your power to get the Foreign Secretary to make a statement on what is a deteriorating position.
Madam Speaker: I have no power to instruct the Secretary of State or any Minister to come to the House to make a statement. I understand the hon. Lady's concern and, of course, I recall very well the point of order that was raised with me yesterday. I indicate to the Government Front-Bench team the interest that there is in the matter, in the hope that it will be reported to the appropriate quarter.

Petrol Tax (Promulgation)
3.32 pm
Mr. Tony Baldry: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to impose an obligation on petrol retailers to display prominently at the point of sale of petrol a notice showing the percentage and amount of the cost of a litre of petrol which go to the Exchequer by way of tax and duty.
The Bill will make it a statutory obligation that, at petrol pumps, the amount of tax per litre is clearly displayed. Rightly, over the years, Parliament has sought to ensure that, as far as possible, consumers have available the greatest possible information, on the basis of which they can make sensible judgments. Clearly, critical information for consumers is the true price of goods.
That is why, for example, at petrol stations, for a long time, there has been a clear indicator on petrol pumps of the equivalent cost of petrol in gallons and litres, so that consumers do not become confused. However, the Government are increasingly raising revenue by stealth taxes. It must be right that consumers, as both purchasers and taxpayers, have a full understanding of what they are actually paying to the Treasury and how much of what they are spending is going in tax. It is no good the Government trumpeting that they are not increasing the standard rate of income tax if they are simply increasing by stealth indirect taxes, often to the disproportionate cost of poorer members of the community.
Recent research by the AA showed that huge numbers of motorists are still unaware of how much of the price of a litre of petrol goes to the Government. Even after an intensive campaign last year, the AA estimated that only about one motorist in three is aware of that. It is plausible that those figures have tailed off further since and that, even if they have not, the vast majority of drivers are still completely in the dark. The Bill will bring to the attention of all motorists the substantial proportion of the cost of a litre of petrol that goes straight to the Treasury and Government.
The latest figures from the European Union weekly oil bulletin, compiled from petrol prices and tax rates in every member state, show that the UK petrol pump price is the highest in Europe. In most comparisons, it is considerably higher.
As I am sure hon. Members are aware, in this country, one pays at the pumps on average 73p for a litre of petrol. A litre would cost 64p in France, and only 60p in Germany. In Greece, a litre would be almost half our cost. In Europe generally, on average, it would be 14p per litre less than it is here.
The considerable price difference is not the fault of petrol distributors. Indeed, as we are one of the few European countries whose pre-tax price is less than the European Union average, the absurd price difference is even more perplexing. The fact is that our pre-tax petrol price is the second lowest in Europe but, despite that, the petrol price paid by United Kingdom motorists is twice that paid by motorists in Greece, for example.
As our pre-tax price is one of the lowest, it seems reasonable to expect the pump price here to be lower. That substantial difference is the fault not of retailers but of the Government, who force prices sky high with 80 per cent. taxation. A staggering £8 of every £10 spent on petrol goes in tax. Consequently, Britain's petrol tax rate is

119
almost 10 per cent. higher than that of all our European Union neighbours. Another consequence is that we end up with crazy situations in which Britain's retailers might pay one quarter less for petrol in Holland, yet our Exchequer takes a disproportionate 10 per cent. more in tax. The only reason for the difference is the need to fill the Exchequer's coffers and the Chancellor's election war chest.
As the first step towards bringing us into line with Europe, it would be fair to make the public fully aware of the amount of tax being paid. My Bill would bring to the attention of all motorists just how high a proportion of the cost of petrol is paid in tax. It would also bring to motorists' attention the fact that petrol tax now costs them more than £15 billion annually, and that—because of increases imposed since 1997, in the past three Budgets—petrol tax costs each motorist a further £150 per year.
If retailers have to raise prices to try to make a profit, the consequence for motorists is serious. Last month, the cost of unleaded petrol increased by more than 7p a litre, which is an additional burden created soley by the Government and forced directly on the motorist. It is clear that the vast majority of motorists are completely unaware—although they need to be made aware—that the burden is a burden simply because of the Government.
It is obvious, too, that the burden hurts most those who are least well-off and those who live in rural areas. The Government's tax on petrol is a double blow to those who live in the countryside. Those people have to contend not only with excessively high petrol costs but with a cost that will increase even further, when petrol is distributed to rural areas. Clearly, small rural filling stations have to pay a significant premium because of the distribution cost of petrol. The premium adversely affects the price of rural forecourts' petrol, with some prices as much as 10 per cent. higher. That only makes life more expensive for the rural driver.
As an extensive and detailed paper by the Institute for Fiscal Studies recently showed, one small increase in petrol tax can have a hugely distorted effect on a household's cost of living. That effect can only increase for those living in rural areas. Consequently, the situation can be very difficult if one is a less affluent rural driver.
Moreover, rural motorists tend to use their cars the most, simply because they have to use their cars the most. According to the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, 85 per cent. of those who live in the countryside own a car, compared with the national average of 69 per cent. The Department also estimates that annual car mileage in the countryside is one third more than it is in urban areas. The reason for that difference is that, invariably, in the countryside, there is no viable alternative to the car.
Those who live in rural areas simply cannot rely on a bus service that is "Not Saturdays" or "Fridays and Saturdays Only". In some parts of my constituency, on a Friday, if one wants to catch a bus from a village to Banbury, one will have to do so before 5.30 pm or wait until Monday. It is a familiar situation that, as a recent survey by the Rural Development Commission revealed, must be reflected in many rural constituencies. The survey confirmed just how insufficient public transport is in the countryside, and discovered that, in the past decade, the number of parishes with absolutely no bus service had steadily increased, to almost one quarter of all villages.
120
The survey also found that, even in rural areas that did have some sort of service, another quarter of villages were without a daily service. A necessary conclusion must be that, at the very least, half of Britain's rural communities have to live without remotely sufficient public transport. The commission found an even poorer situation in rail services in rural areas. The truly astonishing fact is that, for 97 per cent. of those areas, there is no rail service at all.
Public transport provision is inadequate or non-existent for many people who live in the countryside. That is why so many of them have to use a car. The Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions estimates that the number of journeys involving public transport is a quarter lower in the countryside than elsewhere. That should be blamed not on local councils, but on the Government, who have made less than 5 per cent. of the revenue generated from petrol tax available for public transport.
A bad situation is made even worse by Government policies, including the likely relaxation of planning policy guidance notes, which will create more out-of-town shopping centres away from residential areas and force drivers to use cars more. Even if public transport services were more reliable, those centres would be inaccessible. The south-east regional planning guidance looks likely to mean more housing and more travelling, mostly by car.
It is not surprising that rural motorists are hurt most by the Government's petrol tax. The Bill would make it clear why the tax was hurting by making it clear how much tax motorists were paying. That is only fair to motorists as consumers and taxpayers. Neither is it surprising that the amount of petrol consumed has risen. The Department of Trade and Industry estimates that 5 per cent. more petrol is being consumed since the general election. The increases in petrol tax, generating around £2 billion in revenue for every increase above inflation, have clearly not been introduced because of a loss in revenue from lower sales. That is all the more galling for motorists who have been unfairly penalised.
The Chancellor has announced plans in the pre-Budget report, after considerable pressure from the Conservatives, to abandon the fuel tax escalator. Even if he keeps that pledge, it will only put a stop to the automatic rise in petrol tax and will not remove the rises that the Government have already put in place. Neither will it alter the purpose of the Bill. The first and fairest step for all consumers must surely be a full public understanding of how much the Government are syphoning off in tax on petrol.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Tony Baldry, Mr. David Curry, Sir Peter Emery, Mr. John Gummer, Mr. Robert Jackson, Mr. Michael Mates, Miss Anne McIntosh, Mr. Nicholas Soames.

Petrol Tax (Promulgation)
  PETROL TAX (PROMULGATION)
  Mr. Tony Baldry accordingly presented a Bill to impose an obligation on petrol retailers to display prominently at the point of sale of petrol a notice showing the percentage and amount of the cost of a litre of petrol which go to the Exchequer by way of tax and duty: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 7 April, and to be printed [Bill 62].

Northern Ireland Bill (Programme)
3.42 pm
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Peter Mandelson): I beg to move,
That the following provisions shall apply to proceedings on the Northern Ireland Bill:—

Northern Ireland Bill (Programme)

  Timing of proceedings
  1.—(1) Proceedings on the Bill shall be completed at today's sitting.
  (2) Proceedings on Second Reading shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion four hours after the commencement of proceedings on this Motion.
  (3) Proceedings in Committee shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion six hours after the commencement of proceedings on this Motion.
  (4) Remaining proceedings on the Bill shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion seven hours after the commencement of proceedings on this Motion.
  2.—(1) When the Bill has been read a second time—

  (a) it shall, notwithstanding Standing Order No. 63 (Committal of bills), stand committed to a Committee of the whole House without any Question being put,

  (b) proceedings on the Bill shall stand postponed while the Question is put, in accordance with Standing Order No. 52(1) (Money resolutions and ways and means resolutions in connection with bills), on any financial resolution relating to the Bill,

  (c) on the conclusion of proceedings on any financial resolution relating to the Bill, proceedings on the Bill shall be resumed and the Speaker shall leave the Chair whether or not notice of an instruction has been given.

  (2) On the conclusion of proceedings in Committee the Chairman shall report the Bill to the House without putting any Question; and if he reports the Bill with Amendments, the House shall proceed to consider the Bill as amended without any Question being put.

  Questions to be put
  3.—(1) For the purposes of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph 1 the Chairman or Speaker shall forthwith put the following Questions (but no others)—

  (a) any Question already proposed from the Chair;

  (b) any Question necessary to bring to a decision a Question so proposed;

  (c) the Question on any amendment moved or Motion made by a Minister of the Crown;

  (d) any other Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded;

  and on a Motion for a new Clause or Schedule, the Chairman or Speaker shall put only the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill.
  (2) If two or more Questions would otherwise fall to be put by the Chairman or Speaker under sub-paragraph (1)(d) in relation to successive provisions of the Bill, the Chairman or Speaker shall instead put a single Question in relation to those provisions.

  Lords Amendments
  4.—(1) Any Lords amendments to the Bill shall be considered forthwith without any Question being put.
  (2) Proceedings on Consideration of Lords Amendments shall be brought to a conclusion, if not previously concluded, one hour after their commencement.
  5.—(1) This paragraph applies for the purpose of concluding in accordance with paragraph 4 any proceedings on any message received from the Lords relating to the Bill.
  (2) The Speaker shall first put forthwith any Question already proposed from the Chair and not yet decided.
  (3) If that Question is for the amendment of a Lords Amendment the Speaker shall then put forthwith—

  (a) the Question on any further amendment of the Lords Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown, and

  (b) the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House agrees or disagrees to the Lords Amendment or (as the case may be) to the Lords Amendment as amended.

  (4) The Speaker shall then put forthwith—

  (a) the Question on any Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown to a Lords Amendment, and

  (b) the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House agrees or disagrees to the Lords Amendment or (as the case may be) to the Lords Amendment as amended.

  (5) The Speaker shall then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House disagrees to a Lords Amendment.
  (6) The Speaker shall then put forthwith the Question, That this House agrees to all the remaining Lords Amendments.
  (7) As soon as the House has agreed or disagreed to a Lords Amendment, or disposed of an Amendment relevant to a Lords Amendment which has been disagreed to, the Speaker shall put forthwith a separate Question on any other Amendment which is moved by a Minister of the Crown and relevant to the Lords Amendment.

  Subsequent Stages
  6.—(1) Any further Message from the Lords on the Bill shall be considered forthwith without any Question being put.
  (2) Proceedings on any further Message from the Lords shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.
  7.—(1) This paragraph applies for the purposes of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph 6.
  (2) The Speaker shall first put forthwith any Question which has already been proposed from the Chair and not yet decided.
  (3) The Speaker shall then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown which is related to the Question already proposed from the Chair.
  (4) The Speaker shall then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown on any item.
  (5) The Speaker shall then put forthwith the Question, That this House agrees with the Lords in all the remaining Lords Proposals.

  Reasons Committee
  8.—(1) The Speaker shall put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for the appointment, nomination and quorum of a Committee to draw up Reasons and the appointment of its Chairman.
  (2) A Committee appointed to draw up Reasons shall report before the conclusion of the sitting at which it is appointed.

  Miscellaneous
  9.—(1) This paragraph applies if—

  (a) a Motion for the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 24 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) has been stood over to Seven o'clock; but

  (b) proceedings to which this Order applies have begun before then.

  (2) Proceedings on that Motion shall stand postponed until the conclusion of those proceedings.
  10.—(1) No Motion shall be made to alter the order in which any proceedings on the Bill are taken.
  (2) No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of, proceedings to which this Order applies shall be made except by a Minister of the Crown; and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.
  (3) No debate shall be permitted on any Motion to recommit the Bill (whether as a whole or otherwise), and the Speaker shall put forthwith any Question necessary to dispose of the Motion, including the Question on any Amendment.
  11. Standing Order No. 82 (Business Committee) shall not apply to this Order.
  12.—(1) The Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order shall be put forthwith.
  (2) Standing Order No. 15(1) (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings to which this Order applies.
  (3) If the House is adjourned, or the sitting is suspended, before the time at which any proceedings are to be brought to a conclusion under paragraph 1, 4 or 6, no notice shall be required of a Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order.
  13. Proceedings to which this Order applies shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.
  I am grateful for the co-operation of the Opposition and other parties in taking the Bill through its Commons stages today. The whole House will appreciate the reasons for the urgency with which the Government are acting. We are dealing with a serious situation. Over the next two days or so, critical decisions will need to be taken about the immediate future of devolved government in Northern Ireland. Without a substantive change in the situation, there may in a very short time be insufficient cross-community basis and support to sustain the institutions of devolved government in Northern Ireland, which is why we are bringing forward the Bill.
  Mr. Michael Howard: Would not the House have an even greater appreciation of the urgency of the legislation if it had sight of the de Chastelain report? Why will not the Secretary of State make it available to the House?
  Mr. Mandelson: As I explained to the House in my statement last Thursday, when I described the de Chastelain report in full terms, it is the property not simply of the British Government, but of both the Irish and British Governments. It is reasonable for me to repeat the assurance that I have already given the House that, in the event of a further report being issued by General de Chastelain and his colleagues, I shall ensure that the original report is published alongside it so that right hon. and hon. Members may draw any comparison that they wish.
  Mr. Howard: If the Secretary of State is in a position to ensure that the de Chastelain report is published in the circumstances that he just identified, why on earth is he not in a position to ensure that report is made available to the House now?
  Mr. Mandelson: For this reason: the report's usefulness to the House—bearing in mind that it is a report to the two Governments, not simply the British Government—would arise in the event of a further report being issued by General de Chastelain's decommissioning
  124
  body. In those circumstances, I would judge that it would be appropriate and necessary to publish both the original and further report, so that the House could see them.
  Mr. John Bercow rose—
  Mr. Mandelson: I think that I have dealt with the issue to most people's satisfaction. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] Certainly to my own satisfaction. [Interruption.] If hon. Members will excuse me, I will complete my remarks about the programme motion.
  In these circumstances, the Government must act, and possibly act very quickly if conditions demand. Through the Bill, we are seeking to take power to suspend the operation of the Executive and all the associated institutions that were set up following the implementation of the Good Friday agreement. It is essential that the Government have that power and should be in a position to exercise it, if necessary, by the end of this week.
  That provides the essential reason for the urgency, should circumstances demand that I act quickly—in two or three days. I hope that hon. Members will use the time that we have available today for a full and thorough debate of the important issues at stake. The terms of the programme motion—which have been agreed through the usual channels—are such that there is generous time available at each stage of our proceedings for full and thorough consideration of every aspect of the Bill.
  3.47 pm
  Mr. Andrew MacKay: You will be aware, Madam Speaker, that, for some weeks, as decommissioning has increasingly seemed unlikely, my colleagues and I have called for the suspension of the Executive and the Assembly. We believe that it is essential that that happens by the end of this week. To suspend, there has to be legislation that brings back direct rule. In those circumstances, we very much support the Secretary of State's business motion.
  Without wishing to trespass unduly on your time, Madam Speaker, and reiterating my point of order, I emphasise the point made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard). It is difficult for the House properly to consider the merits of decommissioning and whether it is right—as I believe—to suspend the Executive unless we know what is said in the general's report. If not an abuse of the House, it is certainly riding roughshod over the House for that report not to be available.
  If the Secretary of State were to say that there are security-sensitive matters in the report, it would be wrong to insist that the whole report be published. If he were to say that, I would fall back on the argument that at least the report's conclusions should be published. We want them published now, while the House is debating these matters. When we pass the timetable motion, the Bill will go through all its stages during the course of today. On the assumption that it is not amended in the other place, there will be no other chance for us to deliberate on these matters. We have to do so without all the facts being available to us, and that is an unsatisfactory state of affairs.
  Mr. Andrew Robathan: Some of us are concerned that the Government are not prepared to

  125
  publish the de Chastelain report because it is so damning of terrorist organisations. Would my right hon. Friend care to comment on that?
  Mr. MacKay: No, I would not, as it is unhelpful to speculate. However, if the Secretary of State does not publish the report, inevitably there will be speculation in a variety of quarters, which could be damaging. It is precisely for that reason that I am urging him to publish the report in full if he feels able, but, if it is security-sensitive, at least its conclusions. We can then reach our own conclusions, as it is important for the House to do. Even at this late stage, I call upon the right hon. Gentleman to place in the Vote Office this report or its conclusions so that we can deliberate properly.
  3.50 pm
  Mr. Paul Tyler: As the Secretary of State will be aware, this is the first programme motion agreed this Session. I regret that it takes an emergency of this sort for us to be able to handle our business in this sensible way, and that we do not have more such motions.
  We support the motion, but a serious point, to which the right hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay) has just referred, must be addressed. Clearly, it is not just a question of dealing with an emergency in a vacuum. We are dealing with an emergency in a complicated context. The more the House can be informed about that context, the better our deliberations on the measure will be. I hope that, in the discussions that will continue and in terms of any further back-up information that may be available, the Secretary of State will bear that in mind.
  It is important that we do not have a knee-jerk reaction, and we must think carefully about what will happen next. I am sure that that is uppermost in the Secretary of State's mind. However, it is important for the whole House to be as fully informed as possible in taking decisions. We must have a measured timing of our debate, and it must be as fully informed as possible.
  We hope that the debate will be as well balanced as it can be. We support the motion, and hope that it will go through without dissent.
  3.52 pm
  Mr. Eric Forth: Since the Secretary of State was so coy about giving way and giving us the full story behind this matter, it might help the House enormously, in deciding whether we want to approve this timetable motion, if he would tell us more about the role of the Irish Government. As far as I know, this is the first time that reference has been made to the role of the Irish Government at this stage in these proceedings. The Secretary of State has rather teasingly said that the de Chastelain report belongs jointly to Her Majesty's Government and the Government of Ireland.
  What is not clear is whether the Secretary of State is bursting to share the report with the House, but has been prevented from doing so by the Irish Government. We do not know whether he has asked the Irish Government if they would agree to the publication of the report. We do not know what response the Irish Government might have given him. It is not unreasonable for us to get some more information from the Secretary of State, either to let
  126
  himself off the hook—so that we would not dream of accusing him of withholding information from the House—or to establish the relationship between Her Majesty's Government and the Irish Government in the crucial matter of what most of us regard as vital information not being shared with the House.
  Mr. Crispin Blunt: During the Secretary of State's statement last week, my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maples) asked him whether the Irish Government supported the proposed actions of the British Government. The answer was somewhat opaque. In reinforcing the point that my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) is making, we need to be clear on the attitude of the Irish Government to not only the publication of the de Chastelain report but the process on which we are embarking this afternoon.
  Mr. Forth: My hon. Friend is quite right. One of the reasons why the House needs to know this in the context of a timetable motion—which is urging us to allow this matter to be dealt with expeditiously—must be the availability of required information to the House at this point in our proceedings. Our decision will have to be whether we feel that we can agree to this expedited procedure without having available vital information. All I am asking the Secretary of State is to tell us more about why he feels unable to bring the contents of the report forward—or, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay) said, even the summary of the report. We are not asking for all sorts of confidential security information—we simply believe that, to make a judgment about whether we agree to the timetable and then the substance of the Bill, we must have available all relevant information. The de Chastelain report is a key part of that.
  I hope that the Secretary of State will feel able, when he replies to this brief debate on the timetable motion, to tell us much more than he has hitherto. Simply saying in his charming way, "Trust me, it will all be all right and there might be another report in the future," is not good enough.
  3.55 pm
  Rev. Ian Paisley: When the Minister made his statement last week, I asked him whether we would have the report before this debate, because this debate would not be taking place if the general's report had not been issued. It seems to me unfair and unjust that some people in a part of Ireland who are not under the United Kingdom can have knowledge of the report, while the Parliament of the United Kingdom is having a debate in which none of us, except the Government, are privy to what is in it. That is outrageous. I wonder how the people of Scotland, Wales or England would like that to happen to them. It is behaviour that could not be tolerated in a proper democracy.
  The people of Northern Ireland should know why we are in the House today and why this debate is taking place. We do not know the real reason, because the real reason is the report. As was said earlier, it is important to know the attitude of the southern Government to the issue. Do they not want the people of Northern Ireland to know what is in the report? Is it being withheld because the Minister is not free to give the information to the House?

  127
  If, as was suggested earlier, the report contains sensitive security matters, we do not need to have them, but we do need the end of the report, including the main reasons for certain findings. The people of Northern Ireland deserve to have those made known so that we can debate the issue in the House today.
  3.57 pm
  Mr. Richard Shepherd: Even more curious is the fact that the Secretary of State invokes the fact that the report has gone to two Governments and then tells us that, should there be another report, he will ensure that it is made available to the House. There is a profound contradiction somewhere in that. In truth, we are asked to accept what would be—in ordinary circumstances—a draconian guillotine motion, which includes reducing to one hour the consideration of Lords amendments, should there be any. That would roll up the entire production into a debate that could reduce consideration to three hours.
  The Secretary of State should bring the de Chastelain report to the House. Some hon. Members have speculated about what the report might contain, but my right hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay) said that he did not wish to do so. However, the Secretary of State is creating the circumstances in which the wildest speculations accrue around his proposition. To carry this motion with the confidence of the House, the Secretary of State should ensure that the de Chastelain report is made available to the House. If he cannot, he should tell us whether it is because the Irish Government have expressed a wish that it should not be revealed.
  It is not only a question of the people of Ulster being informed, as the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) has just said, because it is also a question of the House of Commons being informed. Today, we will undo that which we have made only recently, so, at this late stage, I urge the Secretary of State to place the de Chastelain report in the Library.
  Question put and agreed to.

  Orders of the Day

    Northern Ireland Bill
    Order for Second Reading read.
    4 pm
    The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Peter Mandelson): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
    I have to acquaint the House that I have it in command from the Queen to acquaint the House that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Bill, has consented to place her prerogative and interest, so far as they are affected by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.
    This is a Bill that I had hoped very much not to have to introduce. I still hope that it will prove unnecessary to implement it, but that depends on changes and developments which have not yet taken place but which would need to take place speedily, and certainly over the next two or three days, to prove it unnecessary.
    Last Thursday I made a statement to the House in response to the latest report of the Independent International Commission on Decommissioning. I think that I said enough about that report last Thursday for the entire House to understand that what was significant about de Chastelain's report was more what it did not say had happened than what it was able to describe had happened since the previous occasion in December when General de Chastelain had reported.
    In summary, General de Chastelain and his colleagues reported that, as far as the IRA is concerned, to date they had received no information from the IRA as to when decommissioning will start.
    Mr. Andrew Hunter: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Mandelson: I should like to make some progress. I said then that if further information came to light which rendered my statement out of date, I would of course inform the House. Intensive discussions continue, and there remains the possibility of a further report by General de Chastelain and his colleagues on the international body.
    Mr. Hunter: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Mandelson: In a moment. At present, I have no further substantive progress to report. It is therefore necessary to put this legislation in place, so that if it remains necessary because cross-community confidence has been undermined, we can create a pause in the operation of Northern Ireland's devolved political institutions from the end of this week.
    Mr. Hunter: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for giving way. In dealing with the report, will he address a point that has been put from the Opposition Benches? Have the Irish Government expressed the opinion that the report should not be made public or available to the House?
    Mr. Mandelson: Both Governments have agreed that for the time being, no further useful purpose is served by

    129
    publishing the report because it does not contain additional information, other than that which I have already given the House, that would inform the House. We have, however, said that in the event of a further report being delivered to the two Governments by General de Chastelain, we shall publish both so that they can be seen alongside each other.
    Mr. John Bercow: Will the Secretary of State give way?
    Mr. Mandelson: No, if the hon. Gentleman does not mind. There is no doubt in my mind that the necessary cross-community consensus which has existed, which supported the establishment of the Executive and of the institutions in Northern Ireland and north and south across the island of Ireland, and which is essential in creating those institutions and sustaining their existence, has been severely dented by the absence of credible progress on decommissioning—indeed, the absence of an unequivocal commitment to decommission, or a specific time frame in which decommissioning will occur.
    Mr. David Winnick: Has my right hon. Friend seen the remarkable article in today's edition of The Irish Times by my hon, Friend the Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume), in which he pleads with the IRA to start decommissioning and explains why that is so essential? Can my right hon. Friend give the House a guarantee that, whatever the circumstances, he will continue to do his utmost to work closely with the Irish Government on decommissioning and other aspects of the Good Friday agreement?
    Mr. Mandelson: I have read the article by the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) in The Irish Times today, and I heard his statements at the end of last week. I shall refer to what he has said later in my speech, but, for now, suffice it to say that I have absolutely no doubt that his remarks speak for the overwhelming mass of nationalist opinion in both Northern Ireland and southern Ireland.
    Mr. Bercow: Will the Secretary of State give way?
    Mr. Eric Forth: Will the Secretary of State give way?
    Mr. Mandelson: If right hon. and hon. Members do not mind, I should like to make a little progress.
    One reason why the hon. Member for Foyle has expressed his views and his impatience on decommissioning is that, like the rest of us, he has derived enormous satisfaction from the implementation of the Good Friday agreement. On every other front, the agreement has brought a better way of life for the population as a whole than Northern Ireland has ever known before. It has brought an inclusive Executive, responsible to a locally elected Assembly. There are no longer any outsiders—no more second-class citizens—in the administration of Northern Ireland.
    The agreement places the principle of consent at the heart of the Northern Ireland constitution, and the Irish constitution has been amended to reflect that fact. The
    130
    agreement has enabled serious, practical north-south co-operation, which has benefited all parts of the island. It has strengthened ties within the United Kingdom and has built a new and vigorous relationship with the rest of the island of Ireland.
    The devolved institutions are functioning effectively, proving that it is best to apply local minds to local problems. The agreement has brought Ministers together from different parties of hitherto highly conflicting views. Indeed, those views still conflict strongly in many respects, yet the new Ministers are working together, irrespective of the traditions from which they come, in good faith and in the interests of all the people of Northern Ireland.
    The new Ministers are working co-operatively with their counterparts in Dublin, London, Edinburgh and Cardiff. The vigour that they have applied to their new responsibilities proves conclusively that self-rule is far and away the best form of government for Northern Ireland. In addition, there are all the new institutions, and we must spare no effort to ensure their long-term survival.
    However, the Good Friday agreement was a finely judged deal. Every detail and every word was included in it for a reason and contributes to its overall balance. That is why every other part of the agreement has been implemented, is in the process of being implemented or has a plan in existence for its implementation in the near future. We must acknowledge the importance of having all parts of the agreement go forward together. Each part is interdependent. To maintain confidence in the agreement as a whole, it is necessary that each part moves forward.
    Alongside the new Executive, north-south ministerial and implementation bodies have been set up. Human rights and equality commissions have been established. Reform of policing and of criminal justice are moving forward. Prisoner releases continue—causing, I must say, understandable anguish among many victims' families, but going ahead none the less. Normalisation of security arrangements grows as the security threat subsides.
    All those things are happening, and much else besides. All of it is necessary if we are to build confidence in the peace process. However, confidence building is not a one-way street.
    Mr. Malcolm Savidge: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the Good Friday agreement commits all parties to work in good faith for the fulfilment of all parts of the agreement, including decommissioning?
    Mr. Mandelson: I can confirm that. As recently as the Mitchell review and its outcome, Sinn Fein again recorded its view that decommissioning is an essential part of the peace process. That is most important, because members of both traditions need to feel that their commitment is reciprocated, but, at present, that confidence has slumped.
    Mr. Crispin Blunt: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Mandelson: I will in a moment.
    Actual, verifiable decommissioning is vital if we are to retain the faith of all parties in the Good Friday agreement—not just decommissioning by the IRA, but by all the paramilitary organisations. Each of them has

    131
    an obligation; we must see decommissioning being undertaken by all of them, if the agreement as a whole is to be properly and effectively implemented.
    Mr. Blunt: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Bercow: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Mandelson: I give way to the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt).
    Mr. Blunt: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for giving way. Was it not implicit throughout all the negotiations for the Good Friday agreement that Adams and McGuinness spoke for the IRA? Indeed, it was reported in The Sunday Times that McGuinness made explicit the fact that he spoke for the IRA. That is why we are in our present pass. Will the Secretary of State confirm that? Will he tell us whether the Irish Government support the legal process that we are about to put in train?
    Mr. Mandelson: The hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I do not get drawn into the intricacies of the relationships between different parts of the republican movement—I am not an expert on that subject. I only note that it was significant that, at the conclusion of the Mitchell review, the IRA issued a statement in which it pointed out, among other things, that it acknowledged the leadership of Sinn Fein in those matters. Implicit in that was an acceptance of the strategy, the policies and, indeed, the expressed positions that had been taken by Sinn Fein. I shall deal with the hon. Gentleman's question about the Irish Government in a moment.
    Mr. Bercow: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Mandelson: I am going to save up the hon. Gentleman's interventions. It would be an enormous shame if I were to take them all in a rush at the outset of my remarks, because I should have nothing to look forward to later.
    It is important to note what George Mitchell—
    Mr. Bercow: I am not going away.
    Mr. Mandelson: I know that.
    In December last year, when George Mitchell celebrated the success of his review of the agreement, he said:
    "I believe that the basis now exists for devolution to occur, for the institutions to be established, and for decommissioning to take place as soon as possible."
    He concluded that
    "there is no other way forward".
    He was absolutely right.
    Against that background, Ulster Unionists always made it clear that, if there was no progress on decommissioning by the end of January, it would be very difficult for them to remain in the Executive. No commitments or guarantees were made on the other side. I have always made that clear; I have never claimed that anyone guaranteed that anything would happen by any particular date. Indeed, Sinn Fein made it clear that premature public
    132
    deadlines made its task—of persuading the IRA to move—all the more difficult. Nor do I think, in that connection, that it helps matters for anyone to accuse anyone else of acting in bad faith. Nobody has a monopoly of good intentions in this situation.
    None the less, it was made clear to all those involved in the Mitchell review that substantive, tangible progress in decommissioning would be needed to sustain Unionist commitment to the Executive beyond the end of January.
    Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: I recognise that the Independent International Commission on Decommissioning has ruled out the possibility of the purchase of decommissioned equipment. Will that proposal still be on the agenda in the difficult months that now face us?
    Mr. Mandelson: I am not conscious of that proposal ever having been placed prominently on the agenda. However, in so far as it was being considered, it may still be considered in its proper place and by the appropriate people—the international decommissioning body and its three commissioners headed by General John de Chastelain.
    Whatever the virtue of that proposal, it is not simply the continued absence of actual decommissioning that is causing the current difficulty. It is the uncertainty about whether decommissioning will ever happen and, if so, when and on what terms it will take place. When I say, "on what terms," I do not mean British terms and I do not mean Unionist terms, either. It is not for the British Government, the Ulster Unionist party or any other group to impose on any other organisation the terms on which it voluntarily carries out actions of arms' decommissioning. It is, however, a matter for those organisations to engage properly with the de Chastelain commission and to agree with it—within the terms of the Northern Ireland Decommissioning Act 1997—how decommissioning will take place and within what acceptable time frame. All that remains, I am afraid, unclear, despite the availability of the de Chastelain commission to take matters forward.
    Of course, I applaud the fact that the Provisional IRA's guns are silent. Everyone in Northern Ireland is enormously relieved that those guns are silent. Its ceasefire during the past two and a half years has been an indispensable condition for politics to work in Northern Ireland. I welcome its expressed desire for a permanent peace. The absence of the word "permanent", as some hon. Members and certain right hon. Members are aware, was once an insuperable obstacle to progress. Now it has been said and the obstacle has been surmounted.
    If the war is over, we have to ask the Provisional IRA why arms still need to be retained. If violence is a thing of the past, why cannot weapons of violence be put permanently beyond use, as they should be, and as the Good Friday agreement lays down that they should be? I know of absolutely no section of nationalist opinion anywhere that disagrees with that sentiment. Of course—[Interruption.] Perhaps the hon. Gentleman knows of a section of nationalist opinion that disagrees with that sentiment.
    Mr. Andrew Robathan: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way at last. He has said some extraordinary things. Does he not think that, possibly,

    133
    Sinn Fein might be a section of that opinion that does not wish to give up weapons because Sinn Fein and the IRA, as his own Prime Minister has said, are inextricably linked? Surely, the right hon. Gentleman therefore realises that, if the IRA does not want to give up weapons, Sinn Fein does not want to give up weapons, either.
    Mr. Mandelson: As the hon. Gentleman will acknowledge, I was referring not to republican opinion but to nationalist opinion, and the key point stands. Anything that smacks of surrender is unjustified; nobody is seeking to humiliate anyone in these circumstances. I cannot think of anything that would be more destructive.
    Any cause or sentiment that unites the Irish Government, the American Government, editorial writers in Dublin, Cork, Boston, Washington and New York, the leadership and rank and file of the SDLP and public opinion in the north and south of Ireland surely cannot be wrong. All that coalition—that breadth and wealth of opinion—has stated unambiguously that the time for decommissioning is now, and that a start must be made by the Provisional IRA. Yet, as matters stand, a way forward continues to elude us.
    Mr. Robert McCartney: Is the Secretary of State aware that after the atrocities at Enniskillen, Omagh and Canary Wharf, world opinion expressed much the same sentiment as is now being expressed, but inevitably gravitated back towards support for Sinn Fein and their aims?
    Mr. Mandelson: Public opinion was right then and it remains right—decommissioning needs to start. I was disappointed and slightly taken aback that, when my hon. Friend the Member for Foyle the other day supported an early token act of decommissioning, his intervention was dismissed as inappropriate by the chairman of Sinn Fein. That is a lordly and arrogant rebuff to someone who has committed much to the peace process and who has been rewarded with a Nobel peace prize for his efforts.
    As I said in my statement last week, the circumstances mean that the cross-community support necessary for the institutions to operate successfully is, I am afraid, fast ebbing away. I hope that the circumstances will yet change, but that requires clarity about whether decommissioning will happen, how it will happen and when it will begin. Without such clarity, the current loss of cross-community confidence is so serious that the Executive would simply fall apart. Where that is clearly foreseeable, we must ensure that good government for all the people of Northern Ireland continues.
    Mr. Bercow rose>—
    Mr. Tony Benn: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
    Mr. Mandelson: I give way first to my right hon. Friend.
    Mr. Benn: Given what my right hon. Friend has said, and the broad measure of world support for
    134
    decommissioning and the process, why is he terminating the north-south links and the intergovernmental links, when nobody could possibly blame the Irish Government for having played any part whatever in delaying decommissioning and when, indeed, they have been entirely positive in their contribution to the agreement?
    Mr. Mandelson: I shall come to that in a moment. It is enormously regrettable that we have to suspend the north-south institutions and the implementation bodies, not least because already in their short time they are making a valuable contribution to life in the island of Ireland. However, all those institutions are interdependent; they are all interlocked in terms of the Good Friday agreement, to which we have all been signatories.
    I give way to the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) before resuming my speech.
    Mr. Bercow: My patience is rewarded, and I am immensely grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. There is much good will towards him in the Chamber today, but I hope that he will not risk sapping that good will by continuing to try to imitate Kafka in the opaqueness of his statements. Will he state categorically to the House how he believes that confidence, about which he rightly talked, is increased by non-publication of the de Chastelain report?
    Mr. Mandelson: If the hon. Gentleman lived in Northern Ireland and had lived through the enormous encouragement and excitement that people in Northern Ireland have experienced with the establishment of those institutions, as well as through the disappointment and demoralisation that they feel now that those institutions are threatened, he would be focusing on something else, and something frankly more significant than a single report by General de Chastelain. The hon. Gentleman says that his patience has paid dividends. I must express my disappointment in him. Unless he comes up with rather more substantive interventions, I may not be tempted to give way again.
    Rev. Martin Smyth: The Secretary of State should give way. It was emphasised in the House last week that we were discussing the Belfast agreement. In the light of the Secretary of State's answer to his right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), may I point out that the only link with Good Friday is that the innocent are suffering with the guilty, whereas it should be the guilty who suffer?
    Mr. Mandelson: The House has heard the hon. Gentleman's point and will evaluate it.
    Some people have said to me—indeed, some of my hon. Friends have remarked—that we should not be taking an axe to the institutions, that we should sustain them and keep them going, and that the last thing that anyone in Northern Ireland needs is for the very successful Executive and institutions to be suspended, as may well be the case at the end of the week, unless circumstances change.
    However, those people are posing a false choice. The choice before us is not between institutions being suspended and institutions which, if they were left alone, would continue to perform successfully in the future,

    135
    as they have done to date. We are not faced with the choice between suspension and imperfect continuation of the Executive.
    We are faced with a very different choice. It is a choice between suspending the institutions, or seeing them progressively and quite rapidly collapse because confidence in them has plummeted. In other words, it is not a choice between suspension and carrying on as we are. It is a choice between pause or bust in the institutions.
    Mr. Hunter rose—
    Mr. Mandelson: If the hon. Gentleman does not mind, I have already given way to him.
    It is in no one's interest for those fragile institutions to be allowed to shatter irreversibly, simply because it is too hard or too painful to take the necessary action to forestall that now.
    Delay in acting will not buy us time in the present circumstances. If we delay, it will only make the landing harder, unless between now and the end of the week a substantial turnround of events occurs and we have answers to the essential decommissioning questions—whether it will take place and when.
    A pause in the operation of the institutions, far from allowing them to collapse, will preserve them, save them for the future and enable them to be revived at a future date. It will allow all our efforts to focus on finding a way forward, through a review that would ensue following a suspension—a way, I hope quickly, to restore the institutions and make progress on decommissioning and all the other aspects of the agreement.
    Dr. Norman A. Godman: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. Last Thursday I urged him to ensure that if suspension must take place, the period of suspension will be as short as possible. Will he confirm that the review will be treated as a matter of urgency? Who is to conduct the review? Is it likely to be jointly chaired by my right hon. Friend and Mr. Cowen of the Irish Government?
    Mr. Mandelson: Those are important details, which I need to consider with the Irish Government under the terms of paragraph 7 of the Good Friday agreement. We will do that speedily. It is important that every hon. Member understands the imperative for and urgency of our actions. If we do not put the operation of the institutions on hold, subsequent events would so severely compromise and shatter their operation, that they would rapidly and irreversibly unravel. No hon. Member should doubt—I do not believe that any hon. Member will doubt—that the First Minister and his colleagues would resign their positions in view of the loss of confidence in the Executive and the institutions.
    We must be clear about what would ensue if we lost the First Minister from his position. First, the Deputy First Minister would automatically cease to hold office at the same time. I cannot choose, or wave a magic wand, to change that. As sure as night follows day, consequences would follow. No other credible candidates would secure a majority of Unionists and a majority of nationalists in the Assembly. An alternative First Minister and Deputy First Minister would have to do that if they were to stand any chance of election. The cross-community majority would not exist for another ticket.
    136
    In such circumstances, I would be obliged within six weeks to call fresh Assembly elections. At best, those elections would cement the existing stalemate. At worst, they would further polarise the divisions that have emerged, and make conducting a successful review almost impossible—let alone reverting to the existing Executive and institutions. The last thing to emerge from those circumstances would be another consensual, cross-party Government in Northern Ireland. The Government of Northern Ireland would simply cease to operate. I will not let that Government simply collapse into a black hole. That would happen if we allowed events to unfold—as they certainly would—without taking the necessary action before reaching that point at the end of week.
    Mr. Peter Robinson: If the Secretary of State intends to comment on the point that I am about to make later in his speech, I am happy to wait until then. What is the ingredient that is required for reinstating devolution? For the Secretary of State, is it simply a statement from the Provisional IRA that it intends to decommission and that it has a timetable, or will he ask for product up front?
    Mr. Mandelson: It is not me who has to be satisfied. First, General de Chastelain and his commission have to be satisfied that all the paramilitary organisations are properly and effectively engaging not only with the principle of decommissioning, but with the modalities of how it will be achieved. More important than satisfying General de Chastelain and his colleagues, the community and public opinion in Northern Ireland must be satisfied. That means that both traditions in Northern Ireland must be satisfied that decommissioning is taking place on an acceptable, effective basis. Unless both traditions are equally satisfied, and confidence in the implementation of all aspects of the Good Friday agreement is properly rebuilt, the Executive and institutions will not be able to resume their current operation. That is the bottom line.
    Mr. Gordon Prentice: Is it not the case that not only the IRA, but the loyalists are not decommissioning? How does my right hon. Friend address Sinn Fein's point that the British Government are responding to an artificial deadline imposed by the Ulster Unionists? The real deadline is a couple of months down the road, in May.
    Mr. Mandelson: I am sure that my hon. Friend was present at the beginning of my speech when I addressed that point by saying that the problem we face is indecision or reluctance to decommission not only on the part of the Provisional IRA but on the part of all the paramilitary organisations. De Chastelain has obtained from certain of the loyalist paramilitaries an undertaking that they would follow if the Provisional IRA were to decommission. That is progress—something we can tuck under our belt—but we have to be absolutely realistic, as I am sure my hon. Friend will be. The biggest such stumbling block is the Provisional IRA's inability even to address the need to give a clear and unequivocal indication of its intention to decommission, let alone when and how it will do so. Without any sense of recrimination, threat, anger or anything else, I say that that is what we need to make progress, and for confidence in the institutions to be rebuilt.
    Mrs. Maria Fyfe: As that is such a massive problem, what does my right hon. Friend think

    137
    of a national day of reconciliation on which all relevant bodies might act together to provide reassurance to the others?
    Mr. Mandelson: That is a creative and imaginative suggestion. I have always said—without in any way conceding an equivalence between legally and illegally held weapons—that normalisation of the security profile and elimination of the threat should go hand in hand. I am very willing to give further thought to those general ideas.
    Let me quickly run through the contents of the Bill. It enables what I hope—if it proves necessary—will be the temporary return to Northern Ireland of direct rule. Under clause 1, while the institutions, including the Executive, are on hold, neither the Assembly nor its Committees will meet. All Northern Ireland Ministers and the Chairmen and Deputy Chairmen of Statutory Committees will cease to hold office, although under clause 3 all Ministers and other office holders who lost office but are still eligible are automatically reappointed to their previous office when the institutions are restored.
    Clause 2 allows the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to make a restoration order to end the suspension, taking into account the outcome of the review. The schedule sets out that executive responsibility will return to the Secretary of State and the Northern Ireland Departments acting under the direction of the Secretary of State. Legislation that would normally be made by the Assembly will be made by Order in Council approved by Parliament. A restoration order and its revocation must, under clause 7, be approved by both Houses of Parliament. Clause 5 requires the Secretary of State to return the functions of the implementation bodies to the relevant Northern Ireland Departments, in line with arrangements agreed with the Irish Government. That reflects the underlying principle of the agreement that all these institutions are interlocking and interdependent.
    Those are serious steps, but in the absence of any progress they will, I believe, preserve the institutions from collapse and enable us to revive them at the earliest possible date. May I say this to the House in conclusion? The bomb attack in Fermanagh on Sunday reminds us that, tragically, there are still people in Northern Ireland who prefer violence and chaos to peace and stability. My sympathy goes out to all those in Irvinestown whose property has been destroyed and whose peace has been shattered.
    These futile, cowardly assaults on the overwhelming will of the people are what the Good Friday Agreement sought to end. I believe it is the duty of the British Government, and, indeed, of the Irish Government, and of all the political parties, to deliver the people's will and put this process back on track.
    There will never be a better agreement than this. The Good Friday Agreement is a replete and robust agreement. It is a near perfect settlement, and I believe that if we were to scrap it and start negotiating it from scratch what we then ended up with would be very, very similar indeed to what we have at present. I really do not think there will be a better agreement than this. With this Bill the Government are moving to guard its integrity and the confidence of all sides in it.
    I hope that all hon. Members will feel able to give us and the Bill their support, so that we can preserve and save what we have, in order to revive it another day, if it
    138
    should prove necessary, as I hope it will not, to put on pause the operation of the institutions at the end of this week.
    4.41 pm
    Mr. Andrew MacKay: I should like immediately to associate the Opposition with the Secretary of State's remarks about the people of Irvinestown. It was a devastating blow to that small and peaceful community when, at 7.20 on Sunday evening, a bomb exploded in the town and caused such damage. Can we as a House send one absolutely clear message to the men of violence, wherever they happen to come from? They will never succeed in their objectives by such dastardly actions, which are always, without exception, completely counter-productive.
    We strongly support the Bill and shall vote for it if need be. We support it for a very simple reason: ever since it became clear that it was most unlikely that any substantial decommissioning would take place, we have believed that the only way forward was for the Secretary of State to suspend the Executive, the Assembly and the other relevant institutions. Clearly, for that to be done we must put direct rule back in place. That, basically, is what this legislation is all about.
    Before I go into detail on the Bill, I hope that I shall be forgiven if I return for a final time to what I think has been a dreadful mistake by the Secretary of State. I believe that the House was owed an explanation as to why the de Chastelain report has not been published. The House has been put in an unenviable position, having to take decisions tonight on direct rule without knowing what the general said in that report.
    I repeat again to the Secretary of State that I fully accept that there might be sensitive, particularly security-sensitive, items in that report. By all means exclude those, but we need to see the conclusions. Even at this late hour, I hope he will reconsider and, before we vote on Second Reading or on any of the amendments, will place the report, or at least its conclusions, in the Library or the Vote Office.
    Mr. Steve McCabe: The right hon. Gentleman overstates his case. He has already told us twice today that he welcomes the Bill. He has been calling for this suspension for weeks. Whether he sees the report has no bearing on his judgment; he has made it absolutely clear where he stands. Surely there is no point in pursuing this.
    Mr. MacKay: I think that the hon. Gentleman has missed the point. The House must have the maximum information available before reaching a decision: that is how it works. The Secretary of State rightly referred to the report both today and in his statement on Thursday, and, as right hon. and hon. Members have said—not just Conservatives, but Liberal Democrats and Unionists—if a report has been referred to, it is only proper for the information to be placed before the House so that all Members can reach a decision.
    I willingly acknowledge that—as the Secretary of State has heard me say a number of times, from the Dispatch Box and elsewhere—I believe suspension to be right. I am not convinced that all Members share my views at this stage, but they might if they saw what was in the

    139
    report. I believe that the report should be published, but I will not dwell on the issue. I leave the Secretary of State to reflect on it further as the debate proceeds.
    This is an extremely sad day for the people of Northern Ireland. They, naturally, yearn for a lasting peace, and they have hoped and prayed for decommissioning. They have been dreadfully let down. Over the past few weeks, they have enjoyed having their own Executive and elected Assembly. The democratic deficit that I consider to have been so damaging to the body politic in Northern Ireland had been eradicated, and we saw Northern Ireland's elected politicians taking responsibility for much that happened in the Province. That was healthy, right and proper. As the Secretary of State willingly acknowledged, it is the first and best option for the present and future governance of Northern Ireland. It was working, and I believe that it would have continued to work.
    A number of distinguished past office holders are present—Members who have served in the Northern Ireland Office as Secretaries of State, Ministers of State and Under-Secretaries of State. I know they would agree that the alternative, direct rule, is very much second best. Although it will now be necessary, it is a great pity that it had to happen at all.
    It is worth reflecting on why the Secretary of State has introduced this Bill, and why it is gaining support on the Opposition Benches. I believe that, towards the end of last year, the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) was courageous in agreeing to serve on the Executive along with his Unionist colleagues, although there had been no decommissioning by the Provisional IRA, and to serve with Sinn Fein Ministers. It was a brave decision, but it was also the right decision—a decision that I have consistently and strongly supported. That decision was made, however, because there was an understanding that, once the Executive had been set up, decommissioning would commence in a matter of weeks. The Secretary of State confirmed that to me at the Dispatch Box on Thursday.
    I do not wish to apportion blame unduly, but I think that we must be clear about this. The simple truth is that the First Minister, the Secretary of State and I, along with the whole House, have been let down by Sinn Fein and the Provisional IRA. They have failed to deliver the decommissioning that it was understood would happen once the Executive was in place. It must be said that with the paramilitaries, whether republican or so-called loyalist, it has been all take and, to date, absolutely no give.
    As the Secretary of State rightly pointed out, every other aspect of the Belfast agreement has been implemented, or is being implemented. In other words, the two Governments, British and Irish, and the constitutional parties, Unionist and nationalist, have fulfilled all their obligations. The only people who have not fulfilled their obligations under the Belfast agreement are the paramilitaries, republican and loyalist: they have failed to decommission any of their illegally held arms and explosives.
    I want to address the arguments presented by Mr. Adams, Mr. McGuinness and some of the so-called loyalist paramilitary leaders. They say, "All that the Belfast agreement stated was that over a two-year period, concluding on 22 May, all illegally held arms and explosives must be decommissioned; so why the rush?
    140
    We do not have to do it yet." Looking at the situation and knowing that all illegally held arms and explosives have to be decommissioned over a two-year period by 22 May, any reasonable person would conclude that, 21 months on, the fact that not one gun or ounce of Semtex has been handed in by any of the parties that signed up to the agreement shows that they are not fulfilling their obligations. That is why it is absolutely essential that decommissioning commences before the Executive and the Assembly can be reinstated.
    As the Secretary of State confirmed, prisoner releases are a sensitive issue. If we go back to the summer of 1998, when the House passed the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Bill, initially, we understood why the Government released terrorist prisoners early back on to the streets of Belfast. It was right—in fact, it was essential—that the Government showed their good will to the paramilitaries and moved first. However, by the autumn of 1998, it was clear that a large number of prisoners, republican and loyalist, had been released early, yet there had been no decommissioning whatever.
    It was at that point that we said clearly that we believed that no further prisoners should be released until there had been genuine progress on decommissioning. We have repeated that again and again in the House. We have the reprehensible situation today that more than 300 terrorist prisoners have been released early, but still not one gun, or ounce of Semtex, has been decommissioned.
    I want to say in the gentlest way possible to the relatively new Secretary of State that we sincerely and deeply believe that, had we been listened to in the autumn of 1998 and thereafter, when we said, "Stop prisoner releases until there is some decommissioning," we would not be in the position today of finding no decommissioning and of having to suspend both the Executive and the Assembly. That is regrettable. I will not dwell further on the matter, but it is important that the point be made.
    Mr. Winnick rose—
    Mr. Nigel Beard rose—
    Mr. MacKay: I give way to the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick).
    Mr. Winnick: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that there is a different view? The reason why the republicans, and certainly the IRA, are so isolated today is because we have honoured the Good Friday agreement. If we had not, if prisoner releases had been stopped and the rest of it, they would have had an excuse. They would have said, "Look. The British have not done what they claimed they would do." It is precisely because we have honoured the Good Friday agreement and the IRA has not even issued a statement on decommissioning that it is isolated, not us. That is recognised internationally.
    Mr. MacKay: I beg to differ with the hon. Gentleman because I sincerely and deeply believe that, had we stopped prisoner releases earlier, decommissioning would have started. The reason why the paramilitaries are isolated today is because of the courage of the First Minister, the right hon. Member for Upper Bann, and of his colleagues in going into that Executive and testing

    141
    whether they were prepared to decommission and be of their word. Sadly, we have found that that is not the case. It is deeply regrettable.
    As to the future, I have some observations and some questions for the Secretary of State, which I hope he will find helpful and to which I hope the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland will respond at the end of the debate. If pressure is brought to bear on the paramilitaries, it will be essential—I agree with the hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice)—that both loyalist and republican paramilitaries decommission. The reason why we emphasise the role of the Provisional IRA is simply because, as the Prime Minister has rightly told us, it is inextricably linked to Sinn Fein and it is Sinn Fein that holds ministerial office in the Executive. However, to achieve lasting progress, we shall have to have decommissioning in full, quickly, by all the paramilitaries—from both the republican and the loyalist wings—who signed up to the agreement.
    If we do get decommissioning moving to the satisfaction of General de Chastelain—I emphasise again to the Secretary of State our confidence in the general and his international commission—may we have an undertaking that the suspension of the Executive and the Assembly will be immediately lifted? I think that the Secretary of State shares my view that direct rule is very much second best, and that we shall be anxious to return to an Executive and an Assembly as soon as possible.
    It seems to me essential that, if the legislation proceeds through both Houses—as I hope and believe that it will this week—it should receive Royal Assent on Friday. Subsequently, it will be within the Secretary of State's power to suspend as and when he sees fit. On the assumption—I hope that it is a false assumption, but fear that it is a realistic one—that there is no substantial decommissioning of illegally held arms and explosives by the Provisional IRA to the general's satisfaction, may I have an absolute undertaking that the Executive and Assembly will be suspended by the end of this week? For reasons that are self-evident and that I do not wish to dwell upon, it would be most unwise to delay any longer, as that could be extremely damaging to the process.
    I hope that, when the Under-Secretary replies to the debate, he will be able to give me positive replies on those points.
    Mr. Seamus Mallon: I note the seriousness of the point that the right hon. Gentleman is making. Perhaps that seriousness would be reinforced if he gave us the reasons why he feels that it is essential that that should be done by this Friday.
    Mr. MacKay: It is essential—as I think the hon. Gentleman, the Deputy First Minister, will be aware—because, in a democratic, civilised society, it is not right, practical or possible for people to share ministerial office for any length of time with those who have not completely renounced violence for good. If anyone is inextricably linked to the Provisional IRA—as Sinn Fein is—and if the Provisional IRA has failed to decommission any of its
    142
    illegally held arms or explosives, it would not be right or proper for him or her to be in ministerial office for any length of time with other Ministers.
    Mr. Mallon rose—
    Mr. MacKay: The hon. Gentleman did ask me a question. Although I should be very happy to allow him to intervene again, I should do him the justice of completing my answer. I shall then be only too pleased to give way to him again.
    I believe that, in those circumstances, it is inevitable, right and proper that others who hold ministerial office would be forced to resign those offices, bringing down the Executive. I think that that would be the wrong way forward. The Secretary of State knows that I believe that, at the end of this week, if there has not been a proper start to decommissioning, the right way forward would be for him to suspend the Executive and Assembly. That would be in the Province's best interests and in everyone's best interests.
    I hope that that satisfies the Deputy First Minister on my position. I should be very happy to give way, if he wishes to cross-examine me further.
    Mr. Mallon: I thank the right hon. Gentleman. My questions are asked only in the interests of clarity, which is so important in these issues. If I were to suggest that it should happen on Monday, Tuesday or Wednesday—in the hope that that would provide time to achieve the type of movement on decommissioning that could prevent a suspension—would the right hon. Gentleman agree that it would be wrong to do it on Friday? Does he agree that we should provide that time, if there is a hope that it might work?
    Mr. MacKay: I would need a huge amount of convincing. Time and again the paramilitaries and their political friends have broken timetables and assurances, and failed to abide by understandings. The only way forward is either—as I hope—for decommissioning to have commenced to the satisfaction of the general by the end of the week or for the Secretary of State to suspend. I do not think that there is any other option.
    Mr. Tony Benn: I have listened intently to the right hon. Gentleman. Why does he think that a Minister should take away the rights of the electors in Northern Ireland? Ministers come and go and can be sacked, moved or defeated even in this country, but the characteristic of the Belfast agreement was that it gave the people of Northern Ireland the right to decide. The right hon. Gentleman is now saying that he wants their electoral rights taken away by Friday. When Assemblies are dissolved there are further elections. What makes him so sure that the Government should abolish the democratic electoral rights of the people of Northern Ireland? What gain would that bring to anyone?
    Mr. MacKay: It will be up to the House to decide what happens in a vote or a series of votes later tonight. I have told the Secretary of State clearly that he has my full support in introducing the Bill. I have confidence in his making the right decision and suspending on Friday because, as I said in answer to the Deputy First Minister a few moments ago, I believe that in a free, democratic,

    143
    civilised, liberal democracy, people who fail to decommission their illegally held arms and explosives cannot hold ministerial office. It may be acceptable for them to hold office for a short time to encourage them to decommission. That is why I supported the establishment of the Executive and backed the right hon. Member for Upper Bann and his colleagues when they entered into office with Sinn Fein. There was an understanding when they did so that there would be decommissioning within weeks. As we all know, after more than just a few weeks—we are now well into February—that has not happened. It is deeply regrettable, but that is the position that the Secretary of State and the House are in.
    Mr. Brian Cotter: Does the right hon. Gentleman believe that, if General de Chastelain and the commission were to say that a few more days after Friday could produce a result, that would be enough for a possible route forward?
    Mr. MacKay: I would need to study carefully the text of what General de Chastelain said. As we do not have the current report and we are not getting very far with his text today, I am not confident. I repeat what I said to the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon). The people of Northern Ireland, the House and world opinion have been let down time and again. We have been strung along with promises, understandings and timetables that have not been kept. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I am not confident of believing anything short of decommissioning. I would need an awful lot of convincing, even from a report from the general—even if the Secretary of State chose to publish it.
    Mr. Robert McCartney: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that, from its inception with the Downing street declaration, the understanding that only parties totally committed to peaceful and democratic methods could be included has been inherent in the process? From then on there has been a continuous resiling from that principle. It is perfectly in order for the democratic majority in Northern Ireland to say that we are not going to sit down in an institution of government that claims to be democratic with the political representatives of a paramilitary terrorist group.
    Mr. MacKay: Over the past 18 months, the hon. and learned Member for North Down (Mr. McCartney) and I have clashed and disagreed over the Belfast agreement and its implementation, but on the point that he raises, we are probably as one. For no sustainable period can one have people who are inextricably linked to paramilitaries who are not decommissioning being Ministers in any part of a civilised democracy, such as the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland. I like to think that I can carry the whole House with that view. That is precisely why we are supporting the Bill and why I have—for some weeks, after it became abundantly clear that decommissioning was unlikely—been urging the Secretary of State to suspend the Executive and the Assembly.
    I hope that suspension will be for the shortest period possible and that pressure will be put on the paramilitaries—so-called loyalist and republican—to decommission. I hope also that the House will send a clear and unanimous message to the men of violence that there is no way they will ever achieve their objectives; the right
    144
    way forward is through the democratic process; and that they have real opportunities, through the Assembly and the Executive, to be part of that process at last. They will not easily be forgiven by the people of Northern Ireland if they do not grasp that opportunity quickly. The eyes of the world will be on them. I hope and pray that they are listening.
    Several hon. Members rose—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. Many right hon. and hon. Members requested at a late stage to speak in this debate. I therefore make the plea for contributions to be brief.
    5.6 pm
    Mr. John Major: During the last 10 years or so, this House of democrats has taken a great deal on trust from the present Government and its predecessor Government over Northern Ireland. It is clear from the Secretary of State's speech that we must take a certain amount on trust again today. In the present circumstances, I hope that the House will be prepared to do so.
    This is a Bill that no one wished to see. Over the years, great progress has been made—old hatreds disentangled and old opponents working together in a way quite unprecedented at any time during recent years in Ireland. Nationalism and Unionism have learned a great deal, one about the other, as they have worked together over the past months. As a result, for a period the guns have been silenced, peace has had a chance, and for many everyday people of Northern Ireland a hope was born that previously was not there. Almost at the final hurdle, there is a stumble and optimism turns to despair.
    There are three possible outcomes to the present impasse. The happy outcome is that there will be a change of heart and decommissioning will begin. I hope for that outcome profoundly, but it is unlikely in the short term. I certainly do not expect it in the next few days.
    The unhappy outcome is that the old antagonisms will return in full flood and the murder, mayhem, killing and bombing will recommence. I do not expect that outcome either, although fringe groups—as, tragically, we have seen over the past few days—may return to violence, as they may have done even if the process had continued and proved successful. There have always been those wishing the process to fail for political reasons. There have always been those wishing it to fail because they hide straightforward criminality under the guise of a political struggle.
    The third possible outcome is the one that I expect. There will be an uneasy time ahead—while political effort continues in London, Belfast and Dublin—as a way out of the box in which we find ourselves is sought. Today's decision by the House will offer time for that work to go ahead.
    The box is well understood by all right hon. and hon. Members. Arms are not being decommissioned. Why not? If it is because the paramilitaries—and on this occasion, I mean especially the IRA—have an undiminished appetite for a united Ireland at all costs and by any means, the future is a good deal more uncertain than anyone in the House would wish it to be. However, they must have realised—or this process would not have made the

    145
    progress that it has—that 25 years of violence have not delivered to them the objectives that they sought. There have been enough signs that there are those in the IRA and Sinn Fein who seek a political path for the future, not a violent path.
    The sensible democrat helps the embryonic democrat to find the way to democracy. That is what London, Dublin and Belfast have been doing for years, with the active involvement of the democratic political parties on both sides of the divide in Northern Ireland. I hope, at this moment of difficulty, that we do not underestimate the progress that has been made, or what exists still to build upon, even if our present ambitions fall apart in our hands. It is at least possible—and there were times when I thought that it was not possible but probable—that the leaders of Sinn Fein and the IRA are prepared to begin decommissioning, but do not know how, or do not have the courage, the confidence or the support of their movements at this moment to do so.
    Some time ago, when we heard from the Government talk of a seismic shift, I assumed that private commitments had been given. That was a reasonable assumption that I was not alone in making. Either that was careless talk, which I doubt, or the Government were misled. In either event, it is clear that, sadly, the seismic shift has not taken place. Let us consider why that might be. It is not an easy proposition, but I invite hon. Members to try to put themselves in the minds of the IRA to appreciate the dilemma as the IRA sees it. It may be instructive to do so. This House of democrats does not agree with the IRA, but it is instructive to try to understand its perspective, for it is always useful to see into the mind of the people with whom one is dealing. Understanding of that sort is never pointless.
    Decommissioning is not just the decision of one or two leaders of Sinn Fein or the IRA; it is a much more difficult decision to obtain. It requires the consent of the army council of the IRA and a full meeting of so-called volunteers—including those whom I mentioned a moment ago for whom criminality has been a way of life for the best part of the last quarter of a century. That is a difficult proposition to deliver, although it is absolutely necessary and we must continue to demand it.
    It is for that reason that, last week, I asked the Secretary of State if the leaders of Sinn Fein or the IRA had been invited by the Government or anyone else to place a proposal for decommissioning before the army council of the IRA, so that we could see the response. To be diplomatic, the Secretary of State was opaque in the answer that he declined to give me. That is a pity, although I do not press him again, as his silence was eloquent enough. It is a pity, because his answer would have been informative to those of us having to take a decision today in considering the correct policies to follow tomorrow.
    The great need, after today, is to stick the glue around what has been achieved and to make sure that it does not slip away even though the final hurdle at the moment has not been jumped. It may be that the leaders of the IRA never intended to disarm at all. If that is the case, in my judgment they misled the nationalist community as well as everybody else. Decommissioning does matter, because both traditions in Northern Ireland need the assurance of
    146
    peace in the long term that only decommissioning can bring. It is a tragedy that it is not at present being delivered.
    Now, of course, the leaders of Sinn Fein say that decommissioning was never offered as part of the Belfast agreement, and even have the temerity to be offensive to the Secretary of State when he speaks critically of their position. The right hon. Gentleman will have to bear the occasional criticism, because, as I can tell him, it goes with the job. He had better learn to like it, because it will continue to do so. When the leaders of Sinn Fein or the IRA speak in that fashion, we should bear in mind that they are addressing their hardliners as much as they are addressing everybody else. We should not fall into the trap of giving those hardliners the opportunity of making life even more difficult for the leaders and hence for the process.
    Mr. Robert McCartney: Does the right hon. Gentleman forget that the highest echelons of security information state that at least four high-ranking members of Sinn Fein are also members of the seven-man IRA military council?
    Mr. Major: I am well aware of the inter-relationship. I neither confirm nor deny security information, and the hon. and learned Gentleman must stand on his own comments. Suffice it to say that the interrelationship between Sinn Fein and the IRA is long-standing. We cannot, even the hon. and learned Gentleman cannot—I wish we could—see into the minds of those people and know truly what their objectives are and whether they are seeking to bring a movement towards peace or seeking to pull the wool over our eyes. I do not know the answer to that and neither does the hon. and learned Gentleman. He may have his suspicions—we all do—but we do not know. If there is no intention of disarming, we will have to continue to look for other ways to deal with the problem, and that will become apparent in the weeks and months ahead.
    Mr. Tony Benn: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider one other possibility? Whatever Semtex is handed in, those we are dealing with would want more. If they gave everything in, they could cancel the agreement and we would be back where we started. In looking into the minds of those we are dealing with, we have to consider the possibility of obstacle after obstacle being raised and none of them being satisfied. Therefore, there may be an element of suspicion apart from the desire to reunite Ireland, which nobody thinks is possible, because neither the north or south wants it.
    Mr. Major: I am familiar with the argument that people could go out and buy more Semtex, but one of the aspects of a wholesale decommissioning is that the IRA disarmed is not a sustainable organisation. The disarmament of the IRA amounts to its disbandment. Other fringe groups, such as Continuity IRA—the present IRA is, after all, a fringe group of an earlier body—may return to violence, but once there is wholesale disarmament we will be in a different position, including politically. In that case, no one could doubt that there was no sympathy in any part of any community—as in the past there has been—for the activities of the men of violence. It would be straightforward criminality in

    147
    everyone's mind, not just in the minds of democrats such as the right hon. Gentleman and other right hon. and hon. Members, and it could be dealt with in that fashion. Once there is a general level of decommissioning, there would be a complete sea change, even if some people then moved to fringe groups and rearmed themselves.
    The question we must face is where we go from the present situation. The Bill establishes the power to adopt direct rule which, sadly, is inevitable and will, barring some extraordinary turn of events, be adopted by the House today and brought into effect over the next few days. Many gloomy words have been said and written about the present impasse and I share the despair that the Bill is necessary and that the promises we thought were made have not been kept. However, even as we despair over that, I hope that we do not carry our despair too far. In our own interests and those of Northern Ireland, we should seek to preserve the gains of recent years, which are substantial.
    London and Dublin working together is a sharp change from what happened in the past. The end of the sterile debate of the past is another welcome change. The much greater political engagement across the board that has been brought about is, again, of immeasurable proportions in our understanding, especially when one considers how much distrust and fear have fuelled Northern Irish politics for so long. We need to ensure that the political process continues in some state—albeit, perhaps, abbreviated. Talks should certainly continue, to cement the improved relationship and prevent a return to the political barricades.
    Even if this process does, for the time being, falter, as it seems about to do, in parallel with moves to resurrect it the Government are not powerless in the measures that they can take to continue to give hope and optimism to Northern Ireland. Very serious pockets of economic difficulty exist on both sides of the divide, in Unionist and Catholic areas, and they should continue to be tackled vigorously. Often, the grievance that has sustained the paramilitaries has been an economic grievance of people who felt that they were outside the system and believed that they were being represented best by men who were actually representing only their own violent interests. Removing that grievance would deny them the oxygen of support.
    In the absence of an Executive, if that is to be a continuing position—which I profoundly hope it is not—the Government might wish to look at the devolution of more powers directly to local government. The concrete achievements of the past decade can certainly be built on.
    Mr. Douglas Hogg: My right hon. Friend has talked about things that we can do to give a positive sense of movement. Would he also consider the alternative approach of imposing sanctions? I refer to the release of prisoners. It seems hard to continue with that policy while the IRA refuses to disarm in any sense.
    Mr. Major: My right hon. and learned Friend approaches the point that I was about to make, albeit slightly differently. The Secretary of State spoke of confidence building and the role of prisoner release. He may also—I cannot remember—have mentioned the proposed reforms of the Royal Ulster Constabulary. As the
    148
    right hon. Gentleman said—and I agree with him on this point—confidence building is two-way; it is not one-way. Democracy cannot continue to offer incentives if there is no response to the incentives that are being offered. Without decommissioning, the concessions that have been made by democracy will have to be re-examined to see whether they are still appropriate in the changed circumstance of there being no decommissioning and no immediate sign that decommissioning will commence in the short term.
    We should pass the Bill today, without enthusiasm, but we should pass it none the less. As we do so, it is important in the language used here, which finds its echoes outside, that we do not return, and do not encourage other people to return, to the trenches of the past. The message that I hope will go out from the House today is that, notwithstanding the difficulties and disappointments that we are facing, we are still looking for a durable peace that will offer Northern Ireland the ease of mind and security that we on the mainland so easily take for granted. As the Secretary of State searches for that, he deserves our tolerance and support, and I hope that he will receive it.
    5.24 pm
    Mr. David Trimble: Like the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major), I had hoped that it would not be necessary to bring a Bill such as this before the House. Obviously, when we took the risks that we took at the end of November, we hoped that they would wholly succeed. I am disappointed that we are facing the consequences of the failure of the hopes with which we embarked just over two months ago.
    Since last March, there has been an effective stalemate in the development of the political process in Northern Ireland and the implementation of the Good Friday agreement on an issue that is not only about guns, but is, at heart, about whether people are genuinely committed to peaceful means and the democratic process. Last March, Mr. Adams, the person returned to serve as the Member for Belfast, West, but who has not done so, coined the phrase that we should "jump together". In subsequent months, we tried many times to explore with him precisely what he meant. In the event, we never achieved absolute clarity on that point.
    None the less, towards the end of the Mitchell review, and in light of the discussions and the understandings arrived at during that process, we decided to jump first. That was not an easy decision to make. One of the great, and soundly based, fears of members of my party and of people in Northern Ireland who have seen what has happened over the years was that they would be sucked into a process and strung along again and again. It became clear to me as we approached the decision taken by the Ulster Unionist council on 27 November that we should not achieve a positive decision unless we addressed that fear of being strung along. We would not achieve a positive decision unless some clear floor were placed beneath the process. That we did, in the letters written by me and my ministerial colleagues and in the council's decision to reconvene to take a final decision.
    Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Trimble: No.

    149
    That resolution to meet again in February did not set a precondition or a deadline. It was simply the decision of a democratic party to meet to consider the situation. We put no precise requirement in front of anyone, and we did not say, "You must do this or that." As a democratic party, we exercised our right to meet and consider the situation.
    February was chosen for the simple reason that a clear understanding existed following the Mitchell review that the sequence being put in train would run until January. The existence of that clear understanding was brought into the public domain when, on 12 December, General de Chastelain issued his second report, which, I am happy to say, the Government published within a matter of minutes of receiving it. In that report, General de Chastelain said that he would make a further report in January.
    That sequence could not have surprised anyone. It was basically the same as the sequence contained in the Prime Minister's proposals of last July—"The Way Forward". Those proposals were underpinned by exactly the same arrangements and expectations with regard to decommissioning as were contained in the Mitchell review.
    Mr. Hogg: The right hon. Gentleman is better able than most to answer the question that I wish to ask. The IRA has made it plain, in terms, that it has no present intent to decommission. Yet the right hon. Gentleman and many others believe that they were at some stage given undertakings to the contrary. What undertakings were given to him on decommissioning, and by whom?
    Mr. Trimble: I do not know that it would be helpful to explore that question in detail, but I shall do so in general terms. It was clearly said to us that, by jumping first, we would create the best possible circumstances in which to achieve decommissioning. That assurance was given in a statement issued by Sinn Fein, which said that it was committed to achieving it. The IRA issued a statement—in the public domain—accepting the leadership of Sinn Fein. No concrete guarantee was given. None the less, we were told that those were the best circumstances in which to achieve decommissioning.
    In turn, we responded by saying that, if we moved first—to create the optimum conditions—we could sustain that for only a limited period. The capacity of the parties to move and to sustain what they were doing was discussed at great length. There was no misunderstanding about that whatever; if we took the initiative, we could sustain it only for a limited period. There was a clear understanding by all the parties that that time would run out by the end of January. On that, there was, and can be, no misunderstanding at all.
    It was further expressly agreed—indeed, the proposition was first put by the republicans themselves—that, if we went forward in that way only to see things collapse a few months later, it would be a bad outcome. I took that to be a clear indication of their intent to proceed. In that situation, we knew that we were giving people an opportunity—in their own description, it was the best opportunity—but one that carried a challenge and a test.
    I am amazed that, when we reached the end of January, not only had no actual decommissioning occurred, but no concrete gesture had been made at all by the republican
    150
    movement. No one can be sure until we see the detail of the de Chastelain report, but, as far as I am aware, nothing of substance was put on the table; that continues to be the case. I was, and continue to be, amazed that, having encouraged us to create the situation, the republican movement made no positive response.
    Given the situation that existed at the end of November and the beginning of December, the republicans can have been in no doubt—nor could any reasonable person—that reciprocation formed part of the understandings; that it was expected; and that the failure to reciprocate would carry consequences. We proceeded "to jump first", but we did so on the basis of certain understandings. The failure of events to develop as we had hoped has falsified the basis on which we proceeded, and clearly makes it impossible for us to continue in the false position in which we now find ourselves. It is, therefore, necessary to reconsider and unwind the matter.
    The Secretary of State will remember the statements that he made in November, when he made it clear that, in the event of a failure by republicans to reciprocate, the Government would intervene. He knows the extent to which we relied on those assurances at that time. Similar assurances were forthcoming from the Irish Government; the right hon. Gentleman repeated them in his statement to the House last Thursday. The Irish Government know the extent to which we relied on their assurances when we took our decision.
    We have reached the end of January and seen no reciprocation, so it is necessary that the assurances given by the British and Irish Governments are put in train. That would have to be done irrespective of the meetings that will take place on Saturday. Indeed, one might argue that the assurances should have been put in train sooner than this; the reason that nothing was done sooner is that the Irish Government are hoping against hope that something will emerge.
    In case my comment sounds a little ungracious, I give the Irish Government credit for the massive efforts being made by Ministers and officials to persuade the republicans to do something—even at this last stage. However, I have to add some cautionary words. It is my understanding that the Irish Government are pressing the republican movement to give a commitment to decommission, and to say when it will do so. Those are the questions put by my colleague, the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon), in the House last Thursday. He asked the IRA to say whether it would decommission and when. The Irish Government are pressing for that commitment, but, as the Secretary of State said last Thursday, words are not enough; it is necessary to go beyond words.
    Some people in the press are saying that, in the past, the method used by the IRA in similar situations was to dump their arms. It has been suggested that that might be sufficient in the present circumstances. However, may I say to the Secretary of State—in case he is not fully aware of it—that some very misleading impressions have been given about the dumping of arms? The instruction issued by the leadership of the IRA in, I think, 1925 to its members to dump arms was not an instruction to disarm, and no disarmament occurred. Arms were put in dumps, but they were put in them for future use.
    I recommend that those who have any doubts about that read, or reread—I am sure that all hon. Members with an interest in such matters have already read it—

    151
    Mr. Sean O'Callaghan's book on the subject. It is not necessary to read beyond the first chapter in which he describes how, in the late 1960s at the outset of civil disorder in Northern Ireland, he and a number of friends and relatives gathered together in a barn, got out their spades and shovels and proceeded to dig up the weapons that had been dumped a few decades ago. They discovered that they had not rusted—weapons do not rust if they are carefully stored—and they proceeded to clean them and dispatch them for murderous use in Northern Ireland. Dumping arms is a chimera.
    Reality is the only thing that matters. We have legislation, we have schemes and we have a framework through the international commission. It was agreed in the Mitchell review that decommissioning should take place in and through the Independent International Commission on Decommissioning and that that was the only way that it should be done.
    There is excellent advice on the subject. Reference has been made to the fact that sources of the media, which in the past were favourable to republicanism, are now taking a different view. The Secretary of State referred to various editorials, and excellent advice appears in today's editorial in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. It asks why the IRA has not made a gesture and quotes one observer who said that, in the IRA's eyes,
    "such a gesture would be symbolic of their being the bad guys".
    The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette adds that the right of the people of Northern Ireland to live in peace
    "matters more than a fear by the IRA that disarmament might send the wrong signal. If these 'hard men' are worried about being perceived as the bad guys, they should live up to the spirit as well as the letter of the Good Friday Agreement and give up the guns."
    It is as simple as that.
    On the other hand, I was glad to see that, in the IRA's statement issued on Saturday, it says that it poses no threat to the peace at present. I hope that that continues to be the case. We are, of course, disturbed by the explosion in Fermanagh and the fact that Continuity IRA, which had been thought to be quiescent, was responsible for that. I had the impression that the main threat from dissident republicans came from the Real IRA elements around Dundalk, but we now see that the elements around Fermanagh are also a threat. That underlines—as my hon. Friend the Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) would have reminded the Secretary of State had my hon. Friend been able to be here today—the need to maintain vigilance in Fermanagh. I am glad to see from the Secretary of State's reaction that he understands precisely the point that I make.
    There is a serious threat not just from dissident republicans, but from other paramilitaries. May I commend to the Secretary of State the words on that point of the Irish Prime Minister, Mr. Ahern? In November last year in the Dail, he contemplated just this situation. If it became evident that people would not desist from their violence, he said that
    "the only way to counteract such activity is to enforce the legislation in the toughest possible manner."
    The legislation to which the Taoiseach referred was emergency legislation in the Irish Republic that was duplicated by the United Kingdom. Since then, it has simply not been utilised at all. It is quite remarkable that we passed emergency legislation that has remained dormant even though there has been a clear need for it in some circumstances.
    152
    For a few minutes, I should like to look to the future. We are now faced with restoring direct rule. In doing that, we are doing two things. First, we are ending devolution. Secondly, we are introducing direct rule. That is not the second-best option, but the third because, between the first decision and the second, another option has been missed out, which is simply, after the end of devolution, to treat Northern Ireland as it ought to be treated in the procedures of the House, which is in the same way as anywhere else.
    The status quo to which we should return is the status quo before devolution, which was one of normality. It is not desirable to reintroduce abnormal direct rule, which is not a healthy state of affairs for the operation of Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Tony Benn: Is the right hon. Gentleman recommending to the House that the preferred option of his party is to go back to the old Stormont rule, before the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath) suspended it and introduced direct rule?
    Mr. Trimble: The right hon. Gentleman makes a mistake: Stormont was also devolution. If we are to go back to before devolution, we must go back to pre-1920, when Northern Ireland was treated in the House in exactly the same way as England, Wales and Scotland, as of course it ought to be. As a democrat, he would support a situation in which all citizens of the United Kingdom are treated equally. That is the only democratic course.
    There are of course times when the exigencies of the situation mean that we have to agree on and operate procedures that are less than ideal, and we hope that this return to a less-than-ideal system will be limited. I referred to first-best, second-best and third-best options, and to avoid any doubt that the right hon. Gentleman might have, I make it clear that direct rule is the third-best option and treating Northern Ireland properly is the second best. The best of all is to see devolution succeed within the United Kingdom, and that is what we tried to do through the Belfast agreement and its implementation.
    Mr. William Thompson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the process of returning to direct rule, as set out in the Bill, will again make citizens of Northern Ireland second-class citizens within the United Kingdom? In addition, it actively encourages those who wish to take Nor thern Ireland out of the United Kingdom to believe that Britain is not terribly committed to the Union and that they should keep going because eventually they will succeed.
    Mr. Trimble: If my hon. Friend will allow me, I would prefer to describe the situation by saying that direct rule is inefficient and unresponsive to the interests and wishes of those who are being ruled. That has been clearly established by the way in which direct rule operated, and it is likely to be the case in future. We all hope that the interruption of devolution is temporary, but we must all be conscious of the fact that we are returning to the third-best option.
    I remind the Secretary of State of the remarks that he made in Victoria college in November, when he said that, during any period of suspension, he would like to see what he could do to keep alive the spirit of devolution

    153
    and to maintain some degree of political continuity between the devolution that we enjoy at present and that which we hope that we will enjoy again in the not-too-distant future.
    In the meantime, while we are suspending the operation of devolution, it is right, as other hon. Members have said, to suspend other aspects of the agreement. As the Secretary of State knows, the suspension must apply not only to the Assembly, but to the associated North-South Ministerial Council and British-Irish Council.
    The suspension ought also, however, to relate to matters such as prisoner release and the Patten report. The Secretary of State knows that confidence in Northern Ireland was tremendously damaged by the Patten commission's ill-judged report on certain matters. People in Northern Ireland, particularly those whom I represent, will find it incomprehensible if the default by the republicans is glossed over and radical, deeply wounding changes to appease them continue to be introduced as if nothing has happened. I say to the Secretary of State that people will find inaction on that front and failure to suspend incomprehensible. He needs to think seriously about that in the coming weeks and months.
    Hon. Members and others outside should make no mistake about our objective. While we consider it necessary to suspend the operation of the institutions and other aspects of the agreement, it is not our intention in any way to depart from the substance of that agreement. Indeed, we are acting in this way in order to preserve it, because failure so to act will lead to the entire agreement unravelling. The only way to ensure that the agreement is implemented in its entirety and its integrity is to take the present action.
    If we proceed now to a review, my objective, and that of the Ulster Unionist party, will be to work for the restoration of devolution and the Executive on a sound basis, and that means resolving the present difficulty. That will be the objective towards which we shall work. In determining whether we can restore devolution on a sound basis, I and my colleagues will exercise our own judgment.
    Just as we asked the Ulster Unionist council for approval before jumping first in November, we are asking the Ulster Unionist council to consider the situation and give its view on the matters on Saturday. Although I will not anticipate what the council may say and do on Saturday, it would be reasonable for it to say that, in the event of any move back to devolution, it will exercise its judgment on that as well.
    People should not regard the present situation as a crisis. It is a difficulty. They should regard it not as the end of the hopes that the agreement engendered, but just as a problem that we will work through. It is important that we retain confidence in our ability to work through the problem. We should retain confidence that the hopes contained in the agreement will be fully realised.
    I was heartened by words that I read in the Irish News this morning. I do not often refer to that paper with approval, but I do on this occasion. Beside the editorial, it had printed some words from Seamus Heaney, who wrote:
    "There is a cynical definition of peace which says it is merely the suspension of war.
    154
    One of the paradoxical blessings of the past two-and-a-half decades of Northern Ireland's history has been an emergent vision of peace as a creative condition in which cultural, political and doctrinal differences can be actively confessed and intelligently contested."
    It is the cynics who have used that distortion of peace and who are frustrating the development of the creative condition to which Mr. Heaney refers. It is our intention to try to develop that creative condition as well and as fast as we can.
    5.48 pm
    Mr. Seamus Mallon: I want to begin where the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) left off. In its definition of peace, that quotation from Seamus Heaney owes something to Spinoza, but I would go a little further. Peace is not just the absence of war. It is an attitude of mind—a disposition towards benevolence, confidence and justice. Those three factors are worth remembering when we are seeking a definition of peace.
    I am tempted to give my own definition of peace. It would be much less poetic and much less philosophical. It would be very basic: it would refer to the fact that we have been able to wake up each morning without having to listen to the bad news about who was killed the night before, how many were killed and where they were killed. That is my simple definition of peace.
    I was impressed when the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) asked us to do something that we seldom do: to try to get into the minds of other people. It is a worthwhile exercise, and I should like briefly to continue it. It is dangerous to ask rhetorical questions, but I want to pose one because I should like to gain an insight into people's minds. If there was not a Unionist party meeting scheduled for this weekend, and if resignation letters had not been written with that in mind, would the Bill be before the House now? I do not expect an answer, but I anticipate that most people who assess the question honestly will realise that, without those circumstances, we would not be considering the Bill, irrespective of the strong views in all parts of the House on decommissioning. That is the nub of the problem. I shall speak against suspension, despite the fact that I want decommissioning; indeed, I want it to happen as much as, and perhaps more than, other people.
    I have been an elected politician in South Armagh for 30 years. I know at first hand the effects of guns and bombs, and the difficulties that such problems cause. I also have experience, going back 30 years, of suspensions. I was a Member of the Northern Ireland Assembly that was "put on hold"—or, if one prefers not to use the euphemism, suspended. It was suspended on the understanding that it could be resumed. It was resumed; it took a quarter of a century to do it. We should all bear in mind the fact that suspension or putting on hold do not guarantee a speedy resolution of the problem.
    I oppose suspension because things are different now. The institutions are beginning to work. Let me give an anecdote to illustrate that. I stood at a window in Stormont last week and watched droves of farmers driving up to the building for a mass meeting to lobby the Executive about agriculture and the problems of agriculture. Twenty-six years ago, a similar mass lobby took place—with some of the same people and even some of the same tractors and

    155
    lorries: except that those people came then to topple the devolution that existed. The two lobbies encapsulate the change that has occurred.
    For good or ill, we are dicing with those changes. I do not want to pre-empt anything, but the mental image of those fanners, many of them the same people who participated in the last lobby, and of the change that has taken place, makes me wonder whether the arguments for suspension are sustainable.
    Mr. Thompson: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman remembers that there was a similar farmers' demonstration to Stormont 25 years ago. Different sections of the community spoke to them then.
    Mr. Mallon: It is ingrained on my memory. It happened during the pig crisis. As a result of it, I, with others, came to the Palace of Westminster to lobby the then Agriculture Minister on behalf of the pig industry. I made a quiet resolution that day that I would never return here to lobby an Agriculture Minister because we were treated so dismissively. We now have a Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development in Northern Ireland, and we are dicing with the potential that that creates.
    My second main reason for opposing suspension is that it seems abundantly clear that the chances of decommissioning will be greatly reduced if the institutions do not exist or function. I am not considering who will win the argument, who will lose or not lose face, but the achievement of decommissioning. If suspension occurs, and the institutions are not in place, will decommissioning not be immeasurably more difficult to obtain?
    The Secretary of State and other hon. Members referred to George Mitchell's review. On his last day in Northern Ireland after the review, Senator Mitchell said that we could guarantee one thing: without the political institutions, decommissioning would not occur. Those are George Mitchell's words, not those of anyone in the nationalist community. It is incumbent on people to answer the following question: if the institutions are removed, how will the process towards decommissioning take place? I shall return to that point later.
    The third reason for opposing suspension is that it plays into the hands of those who oppose the agreement. Many of them are present in the Chamber; some are members of the party led by the right hon. Member for Upper Bann. Those people will gain satisfaction from suspension. I would never suggest that they might gloat about it, but they would wear the sort of smile that I can already see. Will that help the Ulster Unionist party, the right hon. Member for Upper Bann or the process in which we are all involved?
    My fourth point about suspension is that there is no such thing as a soft landing. That is a fact of political life, and I have experienced enough hard landings to know it. However contrived, and whatever the machinations, when a governmental institution comes to an end, there is no such thing as a soft landing, and we should not assume that putting such an institution on hold will create one. Some people cling to and propagate the notion that suspension will not really be suspension, that the word is used only for parliamentary purposes, that the event will be feather-bedded in some way and that all sorts of contrivances will sustain the institution. The harsh reality
    156
    of life is that it cannot and it will not. People will find that out fairly quickly and I believe that we would all be well advised to realise that while we are making this decision.
    Mr. Hunter: I am following the hon. Gentleman's argument clearly, although I do not necessarily agree with it. However, if he wants the structures and institutions of devolution to be maintained, why is he not basing his case on section 23 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 whereby, with cross-community support, there could be exclusion rather than suspension?
    Mr. Mallon: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intrusion. I mean to use that word, because he is suggesting once again that we tear up the Good Friday or Belfast agreement—whichever people want to call it—and do away with inclusiveness.
    This goes to the heart of the hon. Gentleman's question: a reason why we are talking about suspension is that the right hon. Member for Upper Bann—or, to be impersonal, the First Minister—and the Deputy First Minister would not be returned on the basis of cross-community support in the Northern Ireland Assembly. The reason for that is that there are those in the Ulster Unionist party who would not vote for the First Minister. I can reasonably assume that if they would not vote for their own party leader they would not vote for a nationalist nominee for Deputy First Minister
    I may be wrong of course, but I would dearly like to put that to the test for this reason: the right hon. Gentleman and I have had a very difficult two years—especially on that issue, which I shall come to—but the only people outside extreme Unionism in all parties who did not vote for either of us when we were elected First Minister and Deputy First Minister were supporters of Sinn Fein. People keep forgetting that, but I would like to challenge Sinn Fein and those in the Ulster Unionist party and other parties who have taken that stance and go back into the Assembly on the strength of a mandate that could never again be challenged. That is what is at stake here; that is what we are doing.
    May I refer to last Sunday's bomb in Irvinestown? I am speaking at a public meeting there on Friday night. I am glad that the hotel is still there. This is not the first occasion; it has been bombed many times. I say to the House, with all the power of conviction that I have, that in a political vacuum those who carry out that type of activity thrive, and nihilism comes to the fore. I fully understand the profound disappointment and impatience of Members of the House. I share it. I share the views of the right hon. Gentleman, my colleague, and many in his party, but I ask them to understand that decommissioning is not a Unionist issue or a Conservative party issue. It is an issue for all who want a new future. I believe that we should all bear in mind the fact that that is being said not only by the Social Democratic and Labour party, but by every party in the Republic of Ireland—every one. Every party that I have been in touch with and know well shares that view. It is the position of the Government here, the Government in Dublin, the Government of the United States and the Government of every single country in Europe.
    In the run-up to the signing of the Good Friday agreement, we had a remarkably long debate about the right of self-determination of the Irish people. They have

    157
    self-determined that no group on the island of Ireland should hold illegal weapons. Who has the right to stand in the way of the voice of the Irish people when they have self-determined that issue? I repeat that I appreciate that members of the Ulster Unionist party and the wider Unionist community who have supported the agreement all along believe that they have been placed unfairly in a very difficult position. I believe that they have. I believe that they are right to think that. Most people in Northern Ireland with an ounce of common sense believe that, too, but I ask them again coolly to assess—even at this point of difficulty—where their deepest interests lie. Suspension by freezing the institutions will also, I am afraid, freeze our hope of ever resolving this issue.
    I want to sound a note of caution. To me, suspension means just that, and no feather-bedding. When we are all suspended, if we are, who will remain key players—the key players? Who will come to the doors of the Prime Minister, the Taoiseach and the President? Not the ex-Deputy First Minister and, after a short time, not the ex-First Minister nor any Member of the House. I offer one guess, and they will not be knocking—they will be invited. Whatever the context, this issue has to be resolved. Whether we like it or not, George Mitchell was right in his review and Patrick Mayhew was right when he said the same thing in the House: decommissioning is a voluntary act and will only be done voluntarily. That is the harsh reality that we all have to live with, but it is a fact. Ultimately, in a political vacuum, those who carry the guns carry with them the type of influence that politics and politicians do not have.
    Mr. Tony McWalter: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way because I want to extract some additional wisdom from him before he finishes his speech. Can the Government do anything to give additional impetus to the decommissioning process, bearing in mind that his constituency contains many of those who are most eloquent about their deficiencies in facilitating it, or is there nothing we can do to move it on?
    Mr. Mallon: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that pertinent question, which I admit is difficult to answer. Let me answer in these terms: the last thing I would do is let those who hold the arms off the hook. They are under pressure, but please do not overestimate the power of public opinion here, in Ireland or abroad. It swings like a pendulum. Why are they under pressure? Because there is a General de Chastelain, an international decommissioning body and pressure to have this issue dealt with. My answer to the hon. Gentleman is "Don't throw away that card."
    A second answer is that even the IRA thesis and the Sinn Fein thesis is that only in the full workings of the institutions will the voluntary act of decommissioning be made. If we take away the workings of those institutions, do we not substantially leave them with the main plank of their argument? I do not want to see those who hold arms having the freedom to move outside of either the political process or the requirement to deal with the Independent International Commission on Decommissioning.
    Mr. Tam Dalyell: The hon. Gentleman may recall that it is 30 years since a group of younger
    158
    Labour MPs went to see him in Northern Ireland, long before he became an MP. Is he speaking for most of his serious constituents in what he says?
    Mr. Mallon: I have no doubt that I am speaking on behalf of the vast majority of people who would be termed "nationalists" within the island of Ireland. I am not speaking on behalf of those within the republican movement who somehow or other see merit in holding illegal arms, nor do I wish to speak on their behalf. But I suggest I am speaking on behalf of some republicans, perhaps many, who want this issue resolved as much as we do, and have not the capacity to do it.
    I appreciate the extraordinary difficulties that we all face in the current situation. I know that the Secretary of State and all hon. Members are acting in good faith, confronted as we are with a terrible dilemma. I appreciate the work which has been done by the Secretary of State, the Prime Minister, the Taoiseach and the Minister for Foreign Affairs on this issue, and which will continue to be done. We should all think very carefully, and be very honest with ourselves, when we look at the issue of suspension. I would also urge the republican leadership to take the initiative, by allowing General de Chastelain to report meaningful progress to resolve this crisis. We all share a collective responsibility for doing so, but they hold the key.
    I should like to pose one or two questions to the Secretary of State so that I may be given information in his winding-up speech. The answers are not clear from the legislation itself—nor could I be clear about the discretionary powers of the Secretary of State that are not in the legislation.
    The first question concerns the north-south implementation bodies. Has a treaty been negotiated with the Irish Government regarding them? If so, may we be informed of the nature of that treaty? Could it be made available to Members of this House and Members of the Assembly?
    My second question is posed without any rancour, because I agree with the Secretary of State that publishing the de Chastelain report as of now would not be the most beneficial thing to do. Obviously, it is deficient. My question has three parts. Is default, in relation to decommissioning, default of the terms of the Good Friday agreement, default of an Ulster Unionist party deadline, or default of the terms of the Mitchell review? The answer might be the first, second or third, but if we had it, we would at least be clear where the default lies, if there is default definable—and I mean "definable".
    How will any review subsequent to suspension be structured? By whom will it be chaired? Will it be chaired by the two Governments? Will it be chaired by one Government? Its structure and how it is handled will be crucially important, because we cannot—and I will not on behalf of our party—have the same type of circumstances as we had in the last review. I have spoken to the Secretary of State privately about that, and will do so again.
    The remit of General de Chastelain's commission ends on 22 May this year. Will it be extended? Will he and the other commissioners agree to remain? That is a crucial question for all of us. Or does the Secretary of State envisage another agency—any agency other than the international commission—to carry out this work? Those questions go to the heart of the problem.

    159
    I finish with a salutary reminder to all of us. The document that I hold in my hand is the Good Friday agreement. Let nothing that we do in this House deviate from it or damage it. Let it not be played with—before a review, during a review or after a review—because playing with it would mean that we were playing not just with the present but with the welfare of the future.
    6.16 pm
    Mr. Lembit Öpik: The peace process was never going to be easy—we all knew that—so, although disappointing, it is not all that surprising that we are here again discussing the matter today. One thing that has defined the last two years in Northern Ireland's history is the regularity with which core issues have been brought forward and had to be faced, sometimes for the first time.
    The right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) said that optimism turns to despair. I have a slightly different view. I think that, in Northern Ireland, optimism turns to frustration, because if Northern Ireland has one quality in abundance it is passion, energy and enthusiasm. The challenge now is to make sure that what we are discussing today does not convert that passion into something that has a negative impact on the process as a whole. Both the challenge and the reward of the process are that it has forced us to focus on key problems that have been around for decades—or even centuries in some cases.
    Decommissioning is the issue on the agenda, but I ask the House to recall the context. We have had similar very heated debates about relations between the north and the south of the island of Ireland, relations between Dublin and Westminster, the status of Northern Ireland in the UK, prisoner releases and, indeed, the use of violence itself. It is not new for us to have these tremendously challenging impasses, nor is it new for us to find a way forward.
    In that context, we need to recognise that this does not need to be an insuperable barrier. Recent statements from those speaking for the IRA would indicate that the ceasefire is intact and robust, and is set to remain so, despite the horrendous actions of some dissident hardliners in recent days.
    The process of peace continues. This is a vital element in any assessment of where we must go from here. As we have seen many times before, it takes some pretty tough talking to make progress at times like this. If there is one thing that hon. Members and Ministers have learned, it is that one cannot bluff Northern Ireland politicians; one must say what one means and do what one says. Sometimes when there has been an element of brinkmanship, the House has come off worse. That is why we are debating the Bill today.
    The Liberal Democrats have consistently been enthusiastic and, I hope, constructive supporters of the Good Friday agreement. We have worked in a co-operative, cross-party way both here and in Northern Ireland to try to achieve its full implementation. As I told the House in November, I have considered it a great honour to be here at this time, as power has been devolved to the Province. It is also very saddening that, only 10 weeks later, we are in the Chamber again—this time to see the making of decisions that effectively suspend the devolved institution. This also shows that there can be no doubt of the importance of decommissioning and that,
    160
    as we approach the second anniversary of the Good Friday agreement referendum, the problem will have to be resolved. I agree with something that the Secretary of State said earlier: that this is an elegant solution to the political challenges facing Northern Ireland. The elegant solution, however, can work only if we get past a very inelegant and almost intractable problem.
    Throughout the peace process, the Liberal Democrats have never accepted that the process of decommissioning should be a precondition for anything else. I take issue with something said by the right hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay), who is not present now. He said that we would be much further down the track had we listened to his views on the link between prisoner releases and decommissioning. He is entitled to that opinion, as is his party, but I do not agree. I feel that linking releases with decommissioning constitutes a renegotiation of the Good Friday agreement.
    That point is debatable. It is not primarily a point of principle; it is a question of looking at the Good Friday agreement and establishing the facts. It would not be helpful to debate the point at this stage. We must move forward and establish that there is no link, and that we should view decommissioning in the context of the promises made in the Good Friday agreement and of the 22 May deadline.
    Let me turn to a much more important issue. The right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) described his own problem very lucidly. It seems to me that the strong perception of the Unionists is that they jump first and they jump far, and at this point they need something back. The right hon. Member for Upper Bann certainly feels that he needs something back. He has taken his party on an awesome strategic journey, way beyond what I thought possible a couple of years ago. However, as all Members know, one of the basic rules of politics is that it is possible to go only so far: one can build a bridge only so far across a river before the whole thing is in danger of collapsing into the water. That is one reason why it is important for the Unionists to see the bridge being extended further from the other side of the river.
    The hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) rightly said that huge steps had been taken by the republican movement. We now see a gap in the middle—a gap that I would call decommissioning. That, however, does not detract from the fact that the right hon. Member for Upper Bann has said, in effect, "I really cannot go any further until we see a profound and substantial breakthrough on decommissioning".
    The problem is that, at this stage, people are not confident that decommissioning will take place by 22 May. We need a guarantee that that is the game plan. I do not believe that the guns themselves are as important as the commitment that violence has gone for good. It could be said that the whole debate is less about the decommissioning of guns and bombs than about the decommissioning of an attitude. That is my interpretation, and all sides appear to agree with it. Indeed, all sides seem to agree that the guns and bombs are the vehicle for a resolution of the issue.
    On 16 November last year, Gerry Adams issued the following statement:
    "Sinn Fein accepts that decommissioning is an essential part of the peace process".
    There are many other examples of republican spokespeople reaffirming their commitment to the decommissioning process. Most importantly, however,

    161
    the people of Ireland, north and south, have expressed their desire for decommissioning in their vote and in subsequent statements.
    Given that nearly everyone agrees that peace is the way forward, and that the decommissioning of guns and bombs is symbolic of the acceptance of peaceful progress, the question must be "What are we waiting for?" What is the key objection? Notwithstanding all the claims that this or that paramilitary organisation did not personally sign the Good Friday agreement, we need to live in the real world. The connections exist: they have already been described in the House, and we are all well aware of them. We need to acknowledge that many speaking for the paramilitary organisations have accepted in spirit that, sooner or later, the guns must go. If that analysis is correct, we are arguing not about whether to decommission but about when, and about the process that is necessary to achieve that end.
    One or two speakers have pointed out that the Good Friday agreement featured no process for decommissioning, and that we should put one in place now. This debate must be about achieving decommissioning within the terms of the Good Friday agreement, which means full decommissioning by 22 May; to say more than that could fairly be called renegotiation. Again, the sticking point is attitude. Unless we see some movement now, people will continue not to feel confident about the achievement of the 22 May deadline.
    It has been claimed that there have been eight or 10 weeks for progress to be made. In this regard, however, there has been some movement. My view is slightly different from that of earlier speakers. During the review process, de Chastelain stressed that if decommissioning was to be completed by May, it would need to begin as soon as possible. The IRA appointed an official representative to liaise with the Independent International Commission on Decommissioning immediately after devolution, at the beginning of December. Two months later, we would expect that, if actual decommissioning had not occurred, the discussions would be at an advanced stage, but as far as I know they have not gone as far as many of us would like. If we are to pass the Bill, we must be satisfied that it will help not just in raising the issue of decommissioning, but in resolving the problem of decommissioning in the medium term.
    Let me return to some important points made by the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh, who clearly considers that passing the Bill would be detrimental. He spoke of his fears about the potential ending of devolution and the possibility that, if we suspend the Assembly, it will never return. The community that he represents may share his view. Those people probably genuinely feel that if the institutions stop, they will not start again. Not everyone will feel that, but a proportion will. They fear that the whole devolution process—the whole Good Friday agreement—will have succeeded in repealing articles 2 and 3 of the Irish constitution, but will have achieved nothing of substance for the nationalist and republican communities and their aspirations. They probably fear that it is all about to end.
    I remember seeing frightening political developments on the television in about 1974, when I was a kid. I was frightened, without fully understanding the dynamics, because I did not know where Northern Ireland was going,
    162
    and I lived there. I was scared for myself, and for my parents. Whether or not we agree with the analysis of the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh, we must respect the fact that people in Northern Ireland have genuine fears. Unless the Government handle those fears sensitively, there may be a political cost, as well as a social cost in the creation of stress and other negative emotions.
    We are probably doing the right thing by passing the Bill, but, to me, the crucial import of the speech of the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh was that the Government must not ride roughshod over the concerns expressed in those communities. I ask the Minister and the Government to consider seriously what confidence measures they can take if they decide to revoke the Bill. If they do not take such measures, there may well be a negative repercussion in terms of support for the whole process in some nationalist and republican communities.
    We embarked on an important and interesting thought experiment today. Both the right hon. Member for Huntingdon and the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh encouraged us to see the situation from the perspective of the republican paramilitaries. In a political sense, we have not done enough of that. We do not have to agree with someone to try to understand their point of view, but we have to understand someone's point of view before we can move to agreements with those people.
    Many of the people involved in paramilitary activity are individuals of strong character and tremendous spirit in terms of making hard decisions. Perhaps what we are really asking them to do today is to make a decision in a different way from in the past. It is only human for them to think about the risks of decommissioning and to feel uncomfortable about the symbolism that it involves, but I hope that they will recognise that there is a cost to their communities personally in not decommissioning.
    Those people will have worries. We all have worries when we make such decisions, but it is almost as if, at this point in the process, a set of master keys has been passed around the various bodies, organisations and leading politicians in Northern Ireland. Now the master key that must be used is in the hands of those very people—the former terrorists in Northern Ireland. The Unionists have had to unlock many gates and so have the nationalists. Now the key rests in the hands of those republicans. Most worrying, there is no other way to the next stage. We all wait at the gate, unable to move further until that key is turned.
    Therefore, my message to the paramilitaries, who no doubt assiduously read our debates in Hansard, is to think about whether they can muster the same courage that they have displayed in other areas of their activities and to do it in a different way. Yes, they will feel fear about what is being called for, but I ask them to do it anyway.
    The right hon. Member for Huntingdon and the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh made a very interesting point about where we might be heading in the next few weeks. It was about despair. We can avoid the despair and everything that goes with it if the people who have prompted us to have this debate decide to act courageously. I know that some of these terrorists have genuinely regarded themselves as freedom fighters, as defenders of their communities. I do not have to condone their actions to acknowledge that a number of those people also display those great strengths, but, if they can

    163
    see the sense of purpose that led them to those activities and if they can remember why they did it in the first place—I am talking not about the criminals, but about those who would genuinely claim that they were politically motivated—I ask them to have the courage to try a new way. They can make the Bill irrelevant and ensure that it is never enacted, if they act swiftly and provide the sort of guarantees that clearly are needed by members of the Northern Ireland community. In that sense, they can convert themselves from being cold war warriors—an echo of a distant way of doing things in Northern Ireland—to sentinels for a more peaceful future.
    I understand why we have got here, but I do not like the Bill and I hope that the Government never have to enact it. I hope that, if they do end up enacting it, they take seriously the sensitivities of the communities that I have described, which are extremely nervous about the measure. Above all, I hope that the Bill is made irrelevant by those cold war warriors finally deciding that it is worth their while to take the sort of risk that everyone has to take as well, and to finish the bridge from where we were to where we will be. I can promise that they will then be regarded as heroes by many people, both in the Chamber and in their communities.
    6.34 pm
    Mr. Tom King: I have a certain deep feeling as I stand here. As someone who, for four years, had responsibility for direct rule in Northern Ireland and had to suspend the previous Assembly, I take no pleasure whatever in contributing to the debate on the Bill. I am under no illusions that what we are being asked to approve tonight is a thoroughly unattractive alternative and that it would be infinitely preferable if, even in the last remaining hours or days, a way could be found in which to meet the legitimate concerns of those who are concerned about decommissioning and to keep the Assembly, which has been so painfully and carefully constructed over all these years—one cannot calculate how many years of work have contributed to where we have got to now. Clearly, it took a major shock to the system before the Government, who, like the previous Government, have worked hard to get an Assembly, introduced such a measure.
    We had a not entirely satisfactory exchange with the Secretary of State about the de Chastelain report. Initially, it was suggested that it was not just British property; it was Irish property as well. Subsequently, it emerged that it was jointly agreed not to publish it and that it would not have been helpful.
    I do not think there is any great secret in the House about the report. The Secretary of State made the position clear. He asked what the answers were to the three questions: whether, when and by what means there should be decommissioning. I think that his actual words were that there was no certainty, or there was uncertainty, on all those issues. The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik) was concerned about the matter.
    The only point that I disagreed with in the speech by the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) was his suggestion that the remarks of George Mitchell showed the way forward. The remarks of George Mitchell preceded General de Chastelain's second or third report. His third report is clearly the blockbuster because it has raised again all the fears as to whether there is any intention whatever to decommission.
    164
    It is not that we have reached 21 months and have been slow starting, but that, at the 21-month point, there is still not even any knowledge about whether there will be any decommissioning at all. That is the gravity of the present situation and the feeling. It comes as no surprise to me.
    Some Members may have been at the British-Irish Inter-Parliamentary Body on the day that the Downing street declaration was signed. The issue came up in the afternoon. In the general welcome that was given by British and Irish Members on that occasion, I raised the issue of decommissioning. I suppose it was four years ago. Every British Member thought that that was the most obvious and sensible point; every Irish Member thought that it was a thoroughly unhelpful contribution to the debate. One saw then that it was going to be the issue.
    Anyone who cares to read the interesting autobiography by my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) should read the chapter on Ireland—the exchanges with Albert Reynolds and how, at the last minute before the signing, there were issues about clarity on decommissioning, on which the Irish Government needed some persuasion, but were then persuaded. They should read those chapters and understand how difficult the issue is.
    That is the feeling when we listen to some of the exchanges. As I understand the Good Friday agreement, Sinn Fein has undertaken to be a persuader. It is committed to seeking to persuade the IRA on the merits of decommissioning. It is that uncertainty which comes out of quoted comments.
    I heard Mr. Gerry Adams, I think three days ago, say, "Who could expect an undefeated army to hand over its weapons?" He is supposed to be the persuader. He is supposed to be the person who has already accepted the argument for decommissioning, yet he appears at this moment to be repeating the arguments of those who do not want decommissioning.
    I think that all of us took encouragement when the interlocutor was appointed; the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire claimed that he felt there was progress. He is entitled to feel that. There were a number of meetings. With the greatest respect to General John de Chastelain, whom I know from my work with NATO and other experiences, and for whom I have great respect, one wonders what on earth he has been talking about to a number of people for a very long time because, at the moment, as I understand it, the last report is a nil return. Obviously, that adds to the concerns and uncertainty.
    A fairly telling cartoon in The Daily Telegraph today leaves one with a certain sense of understanding. It consists of a picture of the men in balaclavas, who, when there is a cry for clarity, say:
    "What part of No don't you understand?"
    Nevertheless, as we are now in that type of situation, it is essential to determine whether we can achieve some movement. If we cannot, absolutely no confidence will be felt by Ulster Unionist party members or by the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) that movement will come.
    We are therefore left with this desperate appeal, but also with a feeling that there has been so much progress. So much of the Good Friday agreement has run ahead of expectations. I do not think that many people in the republican movement expected the speed with which

    165
    prisoners have been released. In so many aspects of the process, there has been no suggestion of a breach of faith; if anything, there has been an improvement on what they might have expected. That is what makes the decommissioning issue so disappointing.
    I strongly and totally endorse the comments of the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh on decommissioning. No civilised, democratic country can accept arms dumps around its countryside. Decommissioning is therefore not simply a Unionist or a Conservative party issue. It is not even a solely British issue. I have spoken to Irish Ministers, and—in the fullness of time, away from the bright lights of the current problems—they will not tolerate arms dumps in their country, which is where I think the dumps are principally located. Irish Ministers will not leave the dumps there, to be pinched by the Continuity IRA and other dissident bodies who gain access to them. Recently, there was a report of Semtex being transported by the Continuity IRA, clearly out of a Provisional IRA dump. That is the threat—the warning on the packet—that arms dumps pose to democratic, legitimate government throughout the island of Ireland.
    I use the expression "throughout the island of Ireland" because the referendums were one of the constructs of the Good Friday agreement. If one wants to take the most republican, united Ireland position on the decommissioning issue, one could point out that the Irish people have spoken on it. By an overwhelming majority, the Irish people have said what they wish to happen. Therefore, whatever the ambitions and dreams of republicans may be, if they are loyal Irishmen and believe in the right of the Irish people to self-determination, they cannot insist on maintaining weapons and a programme of violence. The Irish people—the people on the island of Ireland—have spoken on the issue in the clearest possible terms.
    We are faced again with an Irish situation and with a Bill containing provisions that we hope never to have to implement. However, this is not the first time that that has happened in Northern Ireland affairs. Nevertheless, although we find ourselves here again, our prayer must be that the message of hope gets through. With good will, we wish for the Good Friday agreement to be implemented. We want devolution and real power progressively to be transferred.
    I tell those who have served in the Northern Ireland Executive and Assembly that, in their early days, devolution was being implemented very impressively. We want that process, and decommissioning, to continue.
    6.43 pm
    Mr. Tony Benn: I hope that the House will listen to me if I argue the case against supporting the Bill. I do not feel able to go into the Lobby to support it today, and I want to tell the House why.
    I begin by saying what I said to the Secretary of State when he made his statement last week: I think that the Government's handling of the situation in Northern Ireland has been absolutely brilliant. I have sat here a long time, and I have heard many statements—some of the former Secretaries of State for Northern Ireland are in the Chamber, but I do not blame them—and I recall all of the obstacles that have been put in the way of progress.
    166
    When there was a ceasefire, the reply was, "We can't talk to you because it isn't permanent." When it was permanent, there was a gag on the Sinn Fein leaders, and the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Adams) was not allowed to broadcast. There was also prevention of terrorism legislation, but it did not work.
    A new Government were elected—I pay a personal tribute to the Prime Minister, the previous Secretary of State, now the Minister for the Cabinet Office, the current Secretary of State and all the Ministers in his Department—and things began to move, partly because they used correct language. We have been fighting a war with the Irish Republican Army. People never use those words—they say "the IRA", although many people do not even know what that means. We have been fighting a war with the Irish Republican Army.
    When the former Secretary of State went to the Maze and spoke about prisoners of war, she was using real language. The release of the prisoners has been the release of prisoners of war that occurs at the end of a war. The result of it was a flowing in of confidence that brought some prospect of success.
    If, 10 or 20 years ago, I had been able to say, "I must tell the House that, on the future of Northern Ireland, everyone—the Prime Minister and the House of Commons; the Taoiseach and the Dail; two Nobel prize winners, the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) and the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume); the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon); two other Members, the hon. Members for Belfast, West and for Mid-Ulster (Mr. McGuinness) from Sinn Fein—is agreed: they all want the Good Friday agreement to work", people would not have believed it. That is the real guarantee of progress.
    The whole House agrees that we want decommissioning. There is not a single hon. Member who would have any doubt whatever of the need for decommissioning. The question is whether decommissioning is really the obstacle to progress under the Good Friday agreement. Is it or is it not? In the absence of killing, there is a type of peace. However, the matter goes further than the absence of killing, because the desire to use the weapons has gone. I think that that is the best guarantee for the future.
    There is a strange alliance between the opponents of the Good Friday agreement on both sides of the argument. Continuity IRA does not like the Good Friday agreement because it does not provide whatever its long-term objective is—the unity of Ireland by force. It does not like it, but neither do many Ulster Unionists like it—they think that it gave Sinn Fein far too much. Therefore, there is a type of coalescence of the rejectionists. They feed on each other.
    Mr. Thompson: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that there is a vast difference between paramilitaries who are against the Belfast agreement and those of us who are democrats and against the Belfast agreement? We are entitled to be against it, and we do not need to use arms to defeat it.
    Mr. Benn: Whatever the difference of method, the objective is identical: the hon. Gentleman and Continuity IRA want to see the Belfast agreement killed. I put it like that not to suggest that the hon. Gentleman has a gun in his pocket—of course not; he has something much more

    167
    difficult to deal with: a veto in his pocket to bring the whole Assembly and Executive to a halt. The fact is that those two sides feed on each other, and that the real contemporary political division in Northern Ireland is not between the Unionists and nationalists, but between those who are for peace and the Belfast agreement and those who are against peace.
    If Continuity IRA were to drop a bomb, the hon. Member for West Tyrone (Mr. Thompson) and his colleagues would say, "There you are—it proves that the Belfast agreement is a failure." If the Executive were to be suspended, Continuity IRA would say, "Yes—that proves it. They would never let us continue." The two feed on each other. My fear about the Bill is that it represents a victory for the rejectionists. I know that it would be a reluctant victory for them, but it would feed both.
    The Bill is being considered eight weeks after the new machinery was set up. One would have thought that, if the Government had thought that it might collapse, they would have included a provision in the original legislation, but they did not do so at all. I shall not go over the history of Bills that have been passed in one day, but I can think of quite a few Bills that have been passed in a day that have not exactly been legislative triumphs.
    What are we going back to? We have not given the new agreement a chance to succeed, but instead are going back to a system that everyone knows failed. I am not blaming anyone, but, my God, I remember the arguments on various provisions. Partition failed; Stormont failed; internment without trial failed; supergrass trials failed; and Diplock courts, plastic bullets, strip searching and broadcast bans all failed. I am not blaming anyone for trying them, but we have tried all the methods of dealing with terrorism trumpeted by the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley). I was in the Cabinet in 1969 when we sent the troops in. We were told that that would solve the problem. If my view is different now, it is because we have tried direct rule and it failed.
    The opponents of the Good Friday agreement like the old system. The hon. Member for West Tyrone says that he has a democratic mandate, but he does not have a mandate for opposing the Good Friday agreement because that was put to the people in a referendum. Those Unionists who used to say that they represented the majority of the people in Northern Ireland, which they did on many issues, do not represent the majority on the implementation of the Good Friday agreement. I have been in a minority before, so I am not blaming them for being in a minority, but even the reverend gentleman the hon. Member for North Antrim is not a representative of the majority of the people of the north for whom he speaks. In the past, the Unionists proclaimed their loyalty to London and to the British flag, but all that they wanted was British troops to help them when they had trouble in repressing the nationalist community. That settlement has led to years of violence.
    What alternatives were open to the Secretary of State and the Cabinet? What would have happened if we had not suspended the Executive when the First Minister, the right hon. Member for Upper Bann resigned? Would the Executive and Assembly necessarily have been brought down simply by his decision to go? People resign; it is not uncommon in politics. Usually, they are replaced. Sometimes deputies succeed their leaders. I am not saying that that would have happened in Northern Ireland, but it is not unknown. I do not believe that it is in the power of
    168
    the right hon. Member for Upper Bann to bring down the Belfast agreement by resigning to satisfy a difficult Unionist council, because the people of Northern Ireland want the agreement.
    Mr. Thompson indicated dissent.
    Mr. Benn: The hon. Gentleman shakes his head. He may represent a majority of the population on a religious or historical basis, but he does not represent the majority on the agreement. If the First Minister had resigned to keep in tune with his party—that still happens occasionally, although not very often these days—he would have lost touch with the people whom he represented. I do not think for a moment that we shall go back to the violence of the past, because so much has been achieved through the desire to make the agreement work, but there will be a damaging sullen atmosphere.
    One issue made up my mind on whether I could vote for the Bill. Having set up an elective mechanism to produce an Assembly, the Government are now saying that if one of the leaders of the Assembly resigns they will destroy the whole democracy. None of us has the automatic right to be in Parliament or the Assembly, but the people who elected us have the right to have somebody here. Usually, if people resign from an Assembly there is a by-election. If the whole Assembly resigned in a huff, there would be a general election. For the Government to threaten to take away the votes of Unionists because the IRA will not submit weapons is saying, "We banned your bullets and now we'll ban your ballots. If they won't give up their bullets, we'll take away your ballots." That is not a proposal that a democratic House can endorse.
    I find it hard enough that we do not let the hon. Members for Belfast, West and for Mid-Ulster sit here unless they swear an Oath of Allegiance to the Queen. We expect them to deny their political history and faith to sit on the green Benches and then we lecture them on democracy. Now we are saying that if they cannot get on with the Assembly, we will cancel the whole thing. The Government can suspend it, then bring it back, then suspend it again—and so on for ever. We are being asked to pass permanent suspensory legislation. My hon. Friend the Member for Newry and Armagh will admit that the suspension could be lifted and reimposed indefinitely.
    Democracy is being put in the hands of the Secretary of State. My right hon. Friend is a very good Secretary of State and I am not saying anything against him, but I do not believe that the House should accept legislation on that basis. It is an error of judgment that I cannot support—I wish that I could. Even if the Bill goes through—
    Mr. William Ross rose—
    Mr. Benn: I am on my last sentence, but if the hon. Gentleman wants to prolong my speech that is always welcome.
    Mr. Ross: I have in my hand a copy of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, which I believe the right hon. Gentleman supported in the House. Section 16(7) allows

    169
    for the possibility of the First Minister bringing down the whole structure. Why did the right hon. Gentleman vote for that if he does not agree with it?
    Mr. Benn: If that Act was effective, we would not need the Bill. I am not a lawyer and I would not dream of embarking on a dispute with one, because I would be out of my depth.
    A nation that pretends to teach the Irish about democracy will not be believed if its first action is to take away the new democracy. It would be better if we gave matters a little longer to develop. Perhaps the right hon. Member for Upper Bann, who got a Nobel prize for his work for peace, would not then be so ready to resign his position while we are still within the time scale allowed for decommissioning, even though it has not occurred yet. The real hope lies in the desire of the people of Northern Ireland to build a better future.
    6.56 pm
    Sir Brian Mawhinney: I hope that the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) will not misunderstand me if I find myself in the invidious position of having to defend his Front Bench against some of the allegations that he has just made. It is not a job that comes naturally to me. To talk about banning bullets and banning ballots is to misrepresent the Bill. To accuse the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) of trying to destroy the democratic process is not remotely connected with the serious issues that we have been considering since 3.30 pm. Like everyone else who has spoken, I regret the need for the debate. I share the Secretary of State's analysis of the urgency of introducing the Bill. I do not want to rehearse history and old tit-for-tat arguments. We have had a little of that, but not much.
    Bearing it in mind that we are going to have a review, it is worth reflecting for a moment on the agreement to inform the future. The House knows that I have always supported the Belfast agreement from the day that it was signed. That has also been the view of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay), representing the Opposition officially, although it has not always been the view of all my hon. Friends. I share the importance that the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) attaches to the agreement.
    The agreement was hugely welcomed when it was signed, but it always had a potential defect at its heart. That defect has best been summed up by those commentators who have referred to its creative ambiguity. That was never more evident than on decommissioning. There were those who said that creative ambiguity was brilliant because it allowed each party to interpret the difficult parts of the agreement in a way that permitted them to move the argument forward. In that sense it created momentum. Others said that that creative ambiguity was potentially lethal, because it formed the basis for criticism. For the second time in my speech, I am not going to criticise the Government.
    The Government were in an extremely difficult position, as were the other parties to the agreement. They had only two choices. They could try in advance, in a political vacuum, to agree every nut and bolt. The reality
    170
    is they would never have succeeded and there would have been no agreement. The other choice was an element of creative ambiguity, to allow matters to move forward to create a degree of political momentum—hoping that would be sufficient to get the various parties over the really big hurdles that everyone understood had to be jumped. If the clock could be turned back and we were sitting on the Government Benches, we would probably have taken the same view as this Government. The downside is that the momentum might deal with the easier issues but not be sufficient to deal with the really hard issue and leave it isolated. That is the position in which we find ourselves.
    We have dealt, in some anguish, with a number of issues, yet 10 years ago that might have been thought inconceivable—the right hon. Member for Chesterfield was right on that point—but we are still left with decommissioning. It has been made more difficult by the creative ambiguity of the relationship between the paramilitaries and the political parties that purport to speak for them. It was in everyone's interest to create the impression, and be willing to believe, that the politicians were speaking authoritatively for the paramilitaries. We are discovering that is not entirely true.
    Only two judgments can be passed. One is that a genuine debate is going on that has not been concluded; the other is that certain politicians deliberately and maliciously pull the wool over the eyes of everyone else. I have never had the opportunity to discuss those matters with the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Adams), so I have not had the opportunity to form a personal judgment. I surprise myself slightly by saying that I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. I believe that he does want change in a peaceful, democratic direction. I do not believe that is true of all his associates and I do not believe that that is true of all the IRA—if it were, we would not need this debate.
    I can understand another problem for the leadership of Sinn Fein and the IRA. The history of Ireland is replete with examples of republican movements that have split to the enormous detriment—as they would see it—of the republican cause and have consequently resulted in a good deal of bloodshed to boot. The hon. Member for Belfast, West and others do not have to look further back than 1969 and the traumas of their taking over from the Official IRA. When they look back and then to the future, I can understand the importance they attach to not splitting the movement.
    Perhaps the most important message of the referendums on the self-determination of the Irish people of which the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh spoke, is not that they represented a great agreement, but that the broad mass of sensible people in the island of Ireland were willing to contemplate splits in both the Unionist and nationalist republican movements to build a better future.
    There have been splits in the Unionist community; there have not been any overtly evident splits thus far in the nationalist republican movements. It may be that the greatest leadership that can be provided is to contemplate the need to split on both sides, to allow the mass of the people to move forward. That challenge has already been faced by the right hon. Member for Upper Bann. The House can legitimately ask the hon. Member for Belfast, West when he will face up to a similar challenge.

    171
    The bomb on Sunday was an evil act. I choose to believe that it was more—that those in the republican movement were saying to the hon. Gentleman, "Careful. If you split the movement, you will get more of this." It will take great political courage to put the interests of the people of the island of Ireland ahead of that threat. This House is saying that he and his colleagues must do so.
    I pay tribute to the Taoiseach and his Ministers for their continuing hard work. Mr. Ahern said at the weekend that clarity is really needed. That is not what I think. We have clarity but we have no decommissioning. We need product. That will be difficult to deliver because it is hard for people not to feel let down by the new revelations in the de Chastelain report. It is hard for the Unionists not to feel that they have given, but have not received, commensurately in return. It is already hard to avoid recrimination and the instinct of people on all sides to use the coming review to start a new shopping list of demands.
    Recrimination will make a difficult review process even harder. For that reason if no other, the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh and I part company on that issue. The sooner we are into that review, choke off recrimination and engage again in the constructive dialogue necessary to get devolution and decommissioning running in parallel—as George Mitchell said they should—the better. The fact that the guns are silent is not an adequate substitute for decommissioning. In the absence of any constructive alternative from Sinn Fein or the IRA or both—if such an alternative exists—I support the Bill. Not as an end in itself but as a necessary means to a better end.
    7.9 pm
    Dr. Norman A. Godman: This has been a bleak and dismal debate. That is not surprising because, in a few days, we may see the dismantling or suspension of political devolution in Northern Ireland. I am saddened but not surprised by the powerful but pessimistic speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon). I can well understand his sadness and anger over the bleak prospect of the suspension of the remarkable institutions created by the agreement—the Executive, the Assembly, the north-south bodies and the British-Irish Council. The last was debated the other day in the Scottish Parliament and every speaker supported it, with some arguing that it should have a Parliamentary Assembly.
    At the weekend, I was asked by a group of young constituents whether the Northern Ireland Assembly was anything like our Scottish Parliament. Was it akin to the Scottish Executive? I ought to be careful here, because I recently criticised Scottish National party Members for being day-trippers here. However, I told my constituents that I had a day trip to Stormont last week. I saw the farmers' lobby, with 2,000 to 3,000 farmers being addressed by Members of the Legislative Assembly. I think I am right in saying that the motion seeking help for the farming industry was moved by an MLA by the name of Paisley, and the motion was supported by every party in the Assembly.
    I met a number of Ministers and talked to them about their work—Mark Durkan, Michael McGimpsey and Mr. McGuinness. I spoke to many Back Benchers, and I had the good fortune—some might say the misfortune—to bump into the hon. Member for North Antrim
    172
    (Rev. Ian Paisley). In a comradely way, with his arm draped over my shoulder, he gave me an impromptu lecture on the architecture of Stormont. He has two vocations—preaching and politics. He will never pursue a career as a lecturer in 20th century architecture. It was for me—someone familiar with the Scottish Parliament—a remarkable day out.
    Later, there was a debate on disruption in schools. There was an absence of good will among Democratic Unionist party Members and the Minister of Education. I know also that the Health Minister, Barbara de Brun, has not won friends in some quarters as a result of her decision concerning a certain maternity facility. I genuinely believe that we must give every encouragement to that Assembly, the Executive and the other bodies.
    I have sympathy with those who believe that the Bill is not helpful to the decommissioning process. As the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh asked, what will happen when suspension takes place? It would be a tragedy if the suspension were to last for a year or more, but there is a danger of that. When are Ministers to meet their counterparts in the Irish Government?
    My question to the Secretary of State was voiced by the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh also—who will conduct the review? It is worth thinking that the review be conducted jointly by the Secretary of State and his counterpart in Dublin. I have argued for a definitive timetable for the decommissioning of paramilitary weapons, and I have been supported by the right hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) in that. I am concerned that there might be a danger of a readjustment of the 22 May deadline. Is that a possibility, or a probability? That is worrying, but I suspect that it will come about.
    The two Governments must work closely together on the review. If the period of suspension is inflicted on the institutions and the people of Northern Ireland, it should be as short as humanly possible, and the review must be urgent. I have serious concerns about the Bill, and I share some of the reservations voiced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn). However, I have sympathy for the Government, and for the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) concerning the difficulties that he faces. It is wrong to offer a simplistic analysis of his difficulties.
    I took note of today's editions of the Irish Times and the Irish Independent. The latter said:
    "Suspension is a bleak prospect, but the alternative is worse."
    I have some sympathy with the approach adopted by those newspapers.
    As a Scottish Member of Parliament long committed to a federal structure for this country and to genuine political devolution, I—unlike some hon. Members—regularly visit Northern Ireland, although I have never lived there. I agree with the right hon. Member for Upper Bann that devolution is far better for all concerned than direct rule.
    Mr. Thompson indicated dissent.
    Dr. Godman: The hon. Gentleman and I are in profound disagreement on the subject of devolution. It is better that we have genuine subsidiarity than direct rule. My sincere hope is that if we are faced with a period of suspension, it is of a short duration and that the review

    173
    is conducted realistically, sensibly and compassionately, taking the interests of the smaller parties—as well as the larger parties—into consideration.
    7.17 pm
    Rev. Ian Paisley: I regret that the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) is not in the House, but I still have to say that he should get his facts right. I happen to speak for 192,000 people. I fought my election on this very issue and I topped the poll, so I speak with a certain amount of authority. I, at least, am a democrat. I tell the people what I believe in, and I go to the people on the issues.
    I and the people of Northern Ireland get frustrated when we are told that the people of Northern Ireland are overwhelmingly for the agreement. The Secretary of State let the cat out of the bag today when he said what would happen if there were an election in five weeks' time. What about all the talk about the referendum, in which everyone was for the agreement? He said that, in five weeks' time, it would all disappear down a black hole. How can he say that all the people from all sections of the community want the agreement, and then say that we must keep them from having an election? Any structure of government that cannot stand up to the results of an election cannot be a proper democratic structure.
    The hon. Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman) should consider this, too. Would he like to belong to a House that could be swept away because of a change in the voting pattern of the people? We need a solid building, and we do not have one. I am surprised that the right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Sir B. Mawhinney) is appealing to Mr. McGuinness to split his party. If he splits his party, would that help? The right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) did not want to split his party—he wanted to hold it together—but he departed from his election pledges.
    People in Northern Ireland may be different from those in other parts of the United Kingdom, but they expect election pledges to be kept. If they are not kept, the people deal with that at the next election. The right hon. Gentleman often said that he would not join an Executive without decommissioning, and that he would not sit down with the IRA and Sinn Fein until there was decommissioning. Eventually, he did the very things he said he would not do. Have not the people a right to take him to task in those circumstances? His own party are doing so, and they are democrats. They are entitled to do so.
    We heard the Secretary of State today praise the glories of the agreement. Some of his claims that everyone is enjoying the current situation are far-fetched. Where does he live? He should go and ask the victims of terrorists whether they are enjoying the so-called agreement, when they see the person who murdered their nearest and dearest walking in the street, or past their house, or when they are doing their shopping. Is there any joy for them? There is no joy for the victims of terrorism and those who mourn their loved ones. Little has been said about the Royal Ulster Constabulary by Front Benchers tonight, but the guillotine hangs over the RUC.
    We talk about the arguments over decommissioning, but what Mr. Adams thinks about decommissioning and what the majority of right hon. and hon. Members think
    174
    about it are not the same. IRA/Sinn Fein believes that the guns should be taken from every soldier, every policeman and all the individuals who have personal weapons because the police think that they are in danger of being shot. IRA/Sinn Fein is not talking only about the decommissioning of illegal arms but about the prevention of the holding of all arms.
    The Secretary of State then tells us that it would not be justified to demand that the terrorists hand in their weapons, because they must do so mutually. They must come to a voluntary arrangement. Well, the House and the Prime Minister did not say that after the killing of the children at the school in Scotland. They did not tell people who had held arms for many years and only used them for sport that they could voluntarily hand in their arms. They were commanded to hand them in and they were faced with imprisonment and heavy fines if they did not do so. Why should they be treated in that way while terrorists, whose hands are dripping with the blood of the innocent victims of their crimes, are not dealt with similarly? It is said that that is not possible, but it has never been tried.
    All the programmes that have failed were thought up by Governments without any consideration for the people of Northern Ireland. How many times have I said that the House will reap what it sows? That is what is happening tonight, because of a flawed agreement that could not work. The hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) resigned. His resignation was indicated from the Dispatch Box by the Secretary of State, but then it was discovered that if the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh came back he would not get cross-community support. It was then discovered that he had not resigned.
    We are having this debate tonight because the Secretary of State said that, in his opinion, there was no way for the First Minister and his deputy to be re-elected in a new Assembly. Why should they be re-elected? If the Assembly had lost confidence in them, it should have the right to say no to them.
    Mr. Mallon: I wish to make it clear for the umpteenth time, first, that I did resign; secondly, that I never said that I did otherwise; and thirdly, that I stand by everything I did, because I did it for a reason and I am pleased to say it was successful.
    Rev. Ian Paisley: I never said that the hon. Gentleman did not resign, and he knows that. It was a resignation, but the point is that people cannot say, "This is the agreement", and then, when it no longer suits them, say, "This is not the agreement." The agreement has not been abided by: it has been departed from.
    The matter before the House is serious, because upon it depends the peace and quiet of the minds and hearts of the people of Northern Ireland. They know that the IRA have the best weapons of any terrorists in the western world. The House knows what the IRA did at Canary Wharf. The records in the Library show how much compensation was paid after that bomb. It is nearly as much as the total compensation paid out in the whole of Northern Ireland in all the years of violence. Some people in Northern Ireland say that the trouble is that the Government are afraid of the IRA starting up again in this part of the United Kingdom. The Government are being bullied and blackmailed by that threat.

    175
    All I can say is that there is no way forward in the agreement as it stands, but if we are to have a review I want to know what sort of a review it will be. Will we have a narrow review or a proper review? Who will participate in the review—the Members of the Assembly or the members of parties who have representatives in this House or in the Assembly? Who will sit at the table? Who will advise as to what should happen as a result of the review? Who will preside at the meetings?
    I have been at every conference but one that the British Government have ever convened on the issue, and we have discovered that the two Governments seem to think that they are there to push elected representatives in the direction they want them to go. We have all to go back to the electorate, and if the Governments want to carry the country, they must carry the representatives who have their people behind them. People cannot be pushed down an undemocratic path.
    I saw the writing on the wall written by the Prime Minister, who told us that there would be no men in the Executive who belonged to lawless organisations. He told us that decommissioning would start and that no one would be let out of prison until it did. That is what people voted for in the referendum, but it did not happen. The people voted on promises, and they now say no. I have met hundreds of people who have told me that they voted yes, but that they would vote no today.
    There are not many yes voters to be found who say that they want to maintain the agreement. We need only look at the demonstrations on the issue to know how the land lies. I tell the House: if we pull the Assembly down and have a review, let it be a real review and let us face up to the issues realistically and practically, and not be like Mr. Mitchell, sweeping them under the table so that they rise another day to haunt us.
    7.30 pm
    Mr. John M. Taylor: Not for the first time, I find myself at the Dispatch Box when little more needs to be said and, frankly, there is little time in which to say it. Equally, not for the first time, I find myself particularly impressed with the remarks of the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon).
    The question has been put to me: what does it matter if they have guns, ammunition and explosives if they do not use them? That is a seductive, but shallow, question. It could be rephrased, "Is it okay if one half of the political process agrees to observe the law and the other half does not?" Adopting the idiom of the geometers of classical times—that is, reductio ad absurdum, or taking an argument to the limits of absurdity—how would it be if we acquiesced in the proposition that Conservative Members could be armed with guns, ammunition and explosives but the Labour Government could not, and the Government said, "That's okay; they haven't used them much recently." We would not fail to recognise that absurdity.
    It is the same question in Northern Ireland. Antrim, Armagh, Down, Derry, Fermanagh and Tyrone are as much part of the United Kingdom as Warwickshire, Yorkshire, Aberdeenshire, Powys or Devon. Although Northern Ireland is historically and culturally different, the fact is that we do not allow armed people to participate in the running of our affairs in this kingdom, nor should we.
    176
    The Secretary of State said earlier in the debate that not merely was he taking power to resume direct rule in the absence of decommissioning, but that he felt that less damage would be done if he moved promptly than if he did not. We agree.
    7.32 pm
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. George Howarth): I should like to respond to one of the points made by the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) in response to my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn). The hon. Gentleman accurately pointed out that, in the previous European elections in Northern Ireland, he topped the poll. He went on, rather modestly, to equate his position in the poll on that occasion with the position that he takes on the Good Friday agreement. It was a big vote, but it was a big vote for a big character, and did not necessarily reflect overall agreement for the hon. Gentleman's position. Events will prove me right or they will prove him right, but I think that he was unduly modest about his position in the poll.
    My right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield approaches many issues from the position of a democrat. I appreciate that he has a long record as a parliamentarian of viewing issues through the eyes of a democrat. That is perfectly reasonable; in fact, it is a very principled position. He went on to talk about how the Good Friday agreement, the elections to the Assembly and so on, were sacrosanct because of democratic considerations, and that, if anything was to be changed it should, de facto, be done by an election. However, my right hon. Friend overlooked the fact that all the arrangements—the Executive, the north-south bodies, the Assembly itself as well as decommissioning and many of the other issues that form part of the Good Friday agreement—are interlocking. They are interdependent. It is in some respects like a house of cards, although rather more robust. Take away one and the rest no longer make any sense and collapse. There are those who would like to see it collapse, but I do not think that my right hon. Friend is one. However, he needs to understand that the issues are interlocking and interdependent. Therefore, it is not enough to view the Assembly as a body that can be sustained only by further democratic endorsement. That is an over-simplification of the arrangements.
    Mr. John McDonnell: If we are relying on the Belfast agreement as part of the process of interlocking authority, what authority is in the Belfast agreement for the suspension of the Assembly? There is none.
    Mr. Howarth: I will cover that point in my due course, and no doubt my hon. Friend will listen with care.
    The right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major), in a speech that was full of wisdom and insight, was right to say that this was a Bill that most of us in the House, whether Government or Opposition Members, and the majority of people in Ireland, both north and south, hoped would never be needed. It is, however, the only way of sustaining the potential of devolution. The situation has, in the past few weeks, started to blossom into a real and meaningful political project, one that is uniquely suited to the conditions and history of events in Northern Ireland.

    177
    It serves no purpose to debate the actual decommissioning obligations under the Good Friday agreement or, for that matter, any comments that may have come out of Senator Mitchell's review. The truth is, as the right hon. Members for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay) and for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble), among others, have rightly said, decommissioning, trust and devolution go hand in hand. For one section of the community, trust is inevitably linked not only to the silence of the guns but to their absence.
    Given the continuing difficulties in achieving progress on decommissioning, there are three options, as we see it. First, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield suggested, we could have stood to one side and allowed the Assembly and Executive to collapse. For, as sure as night follows day, we would have reached that position sooner rather than later. The second option would have been, by some means, to enable the exclusion of those parties which were considered to be in breach of, or in default of, the obligations to decommission. I do not think that that would have worked either. My hon. Friend the Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) explained eloquently why many delicate relationships exist in the Good Friday agreement and the arrangements that followed it.
    That leaves us with the final option—to suspend. We hope that that will lead eventually—sooner rather than later—to progress on decommissioning. By extension, it will enable the political process that is under way to start again. This last option, as my right hon. Friend said, leaves all the parties in a position in which the issues can be debated. There will be a review process and, once the two Governments decide what form that should take, we can then get on with it.
    Given that we, our close colleagues in the Irish Government, the pro-agreement parties and most of the Members of this House, remain of the view that the Good Friday agreement is the best way of making progress, any option other than suspension—we all hope that it will be a temporary suspension—would have been counter to the spirit of the agreement. No one is arguing that it was pre-figured in some way in the agreement. That is not the case. This is the best way that we can find to preserve the spirit of the Good Friday agreement. We did not want the Bill, but it represents the best available option.
    I hope that the House will send a clear signal tonight that the Good Friday agreement is still in place. Overwhelmingly, we want it to work. On the Government's behalf, I thank both the official Opposition and the Liberal Democrats for making it clear that they support us, and I praise all those parties in Northern Ireland who have taken their courage in their hands to move forward on implementing the agreement.
    The agreement remains in place, and we all—nearly all—want it to work. Giving discretion—indeed, power—to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State demonstrates our support for the agreement. The most important thing that the House can do tonight is to show, by giving my right hon. Friend that power, that we still believe that the Good Friday agreement can be made to work. During the period of suspension, if it happens—we hope that it will not—there will be an opportunity for those who must take action to take that action. Only then can we achieve agreement and get the institutions back on track. That is what the people of Northern Ireland want.
    178
    I attended an event recently with the right hon. Member for Upper Bann and others—
    It being four hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Bill, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER, pursuant to Order [this day], put forthwith the Question, That the Bill be read a Second time—
    The House divided: Ayes 352, Noes 11.

    Division No. 65]

    [7.42 pm

    AYES

    Abbott, Ms Diane

    Chaytor, David

    Ainger, Nick

    Clapham, Michael

    Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

    Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

    Alexander, Douglas

    Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

    Allan, Richard

    Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

    Allen, Graham

    Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

    Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

    Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

    Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

    Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

    Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

    Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

    Clelland, David

    Ashton, Joe

    Clwyd, Ann

    Atherton, Ms Candy

    Coaker, Vernon

    Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

    Coffey, Ms Ann

    Austin, John

    Coleman, Iain

    Ballard, Jackie

    Colman, Tony

    Banks, Tony

    Cooper, Yvette

    Barnes, Harry

    Corbett, Robin

    Battle, John

    Cotter, Brian

    Bayley, Hugh

    Cousins, Jim

    Beard, Nigel

    Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

    Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

    Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

    Beggs, Roy

    Cummings, John

    Beith, Rt Hon A J

    Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)

    Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

    Benton, Joe

    Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

    Bercow, John

    Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

    Berry, Roger

    Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

    Best, Harold

    Darvill, Keith

    Betts, Clive

    Davey, Edward (Kingston)

    Blackman, Liz

    Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

    Blears, Ms Hazel

    Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

    Blizzard, Bob

    Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

    Blunt, Crispin

    Davis, Rt Hon Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

    Boswell, Tim

    Bradley, Keith (Withington)

    Dawson, Hilton

    Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

    Dean, Mrs Janet

    Bradshaw, Ben

    Denham, John

    Brake, Tom

    Dobbin, Jim

    Brinton, Mrs Helen

    Doran, Frank

    Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

    Dowd, Jim

    Brown, Rt Hon Gordon (Dunfermline E)

    Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

    Edwards, Huw

    Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

    Efford, Clive

    Browne, Desmond

    Ellman, Mrs Louise

    Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

    Ennis, Jeff

    Burden, Richard

    Fabricant, Michael

    Burgon, Colin

    Feam, Ronnie

    Burns, Simon

    Field, Rt Hon Frank

    Burstow, Paul

    Fisher, Mark

    Butler, Mrs Christine

    Fitzpatrick, Jim

    Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

    Fitzsimons, Loma

    Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

    Flight, Howard

    Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

    Flint, Caroline

    Foster, Rt Hon Derek

    Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

    Foster, Don (Bath)

    Cann, Jamie

    Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

    Caplin, Ivor

    Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

    Casale, Roger

    Fraser, Christopher

    Caton, Martin

    Fyfe, Maria

    Cawsey, Ian

    Galbraith, Sam

    Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

    Gardiner, Barry

    Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

    Gerrard, Neil

    Gilroy, Mrs Linda

    179

    Godman, Dr Norman A

    Livsey, Richard

    Godsiff, Roger

    Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

    Goggins, Paul

    Loughton, Tim

    Golding, Mrs Llin

    Love, Andrew

    Gordon, Mrs Eileen

    McAvoy, Thomas

    Greenway, John

    McCabe, Steve

    Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

    McCafferty, Ms Chris

    Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

    McCartney, Robert (N Down)

    Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

    McDonagh, Siobhain

    Grocott, Bruce

    McFall, John

    Grogan, John

    McGuire, Mrs Anne

    Hain, Peter

    McIntosh, Miss Anne

    Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

    McIsaac, Shona

    Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

    MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

    Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

    Mackinlay, Andrew

    Hancock, Mike

    Maclean, Rt Hon David

    Hanson, David

    McWalter, Tony

    Harvey, Nick

    McWilliam, John

    Hawkins, Nick

    Madel, Sir David

    Hayes, John

    Mahon, Mrs Alice

    Heal, Mrs Sylvia

    Mallaber, Judy

    Healey, John

    Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

    Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

    Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

    Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

    Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

    Heppell, John

    Marshall, David (Shettleston)

    Hesford, Stephen

    Martlew, Eric

    Hill, Keith

    Maude, Rt Hon Francis

    Hinchliffe, David

    Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

    Hoey, Kate

    Maxton, John

    Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

    Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

    Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

    Meale, Alan

    Hope, Phil

    Merron, Gillian

    Howard, Rt Hon Michael

    Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

    Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

    Miller, Andrew

    Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

    Moonie, Dr Lewis

    Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

    Moore, Michael

    Howells, Dr Kim

    Moran, Ms Margaret

    Hoyle, Lindsay

    Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

    Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

    Morley, Elliot

    Humble, Mrs Joan

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

    Hunter, Andrew

    Hurst, Alan

    Mountford, Kali

    Hutton, John

    Mudie, George

    Iddon, Dr Brian

    Mullin, Chris

    Illsley, Eric

    Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

    Ingram, Rt Hon Adam

    Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

    Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

    Naysmith, Dr Doug

    Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

    Norris, Dan

    Jamieson, David

    Oaten, Mark

    Jenkin, Bernard

    O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

    Jenkins, Brian

    O'Neill, Martin

    Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

    Öpik, Lembit

    Organ, Mrs Diana

    Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

    Ottaway, Richard

    Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

    Paisley, Rev Ian

    Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

    Paterson, Owen

    Pearson, Ian

    Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

    Pendry, Tom

    Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

    Perham, Ms Linda

    Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

    Pickthall, Colin

    Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

    Pike, Peter L

    Khabra, Piara S

    Plaskitt, James

    Kidney, David

    Pollard, Kerry

    King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

    Pond, Chris

    Kirkwood, Archy

    Pound, Stephen

    Lait, Mrs Jacqui

    Powell, Sir Raymond

    Lansley, Andrew

    Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

    Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

    Prescott, Rt Hon John

    Laxton, Bob

    Primarolo, Dawn

    Lepper, David

    Prosser, Gwyn

    Leslie, Christopher

    Purchase, Ken

    Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

    Quinn, Lawrie

    Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

    Radice, Rt Hon Giles

    Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

    Rammell, Bill

    Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

    Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

    Linton, Martin

    Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

    180

    Rendel, David

    Stuart, Ms Gisela

    Robathan, Andrew

    Stunell, Andrew

    Robertson, Laurence

    Sutcliffe, Gerry

    Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

    Syms, Robert

    Roche, Mrs Barbara

    Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

    Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff

    Rooney, Terry

    Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

    Ross, Emie (Dundee W)

    Taylor, David (NW Leics)

    Ross, William (E Lond'y)

    Taylor, John M (Solihull)

    Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)

    Temple-Morris, Peter

    Rowlands, Ted

    Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

    Roy, Frank

    Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

    Ruane, Chris

    Thompson, William

    Ruddock, Joan

    Timms, Stephen

    Russell, Bob (Colchester)

    Tipping, Paddy

    Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

    Touhig, Don

    St Aubyn, Nick

    Trickett, Jon

    Salter Martin

    Trimble' Rt Hon David

    Sanders, Adrian

    Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

    Sarwar, Mohammad

    Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

    Savidge, Malcolm

    Turner, Dr .George (NW Norfolk)

    Sawford, Phil

    Turner, Neil (Wigan)

    Sawford Jonathan

    Twigg, Derek (Halton)

    Sedgemore, Brian

    Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

    Shaw, Jonathan

    Tyler, Paul

    Sheerman, Barry

    Tyler, Andrew

    Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

    Walker, Cecil

    Shipley, Ms Debra

    Walley, Ms Joan

    Singh, Marsha

    Waterson, Nigel

    Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

    Webb, Steve

    Smith, Miss Geraldine> (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

    White, Brian

    Whitehead, Dr Alan

    Whittingdale, John

    Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

    Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

    Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

    Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

    Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

    Willis, Phil

    Snape, Peter

    Winnick, David

    Soley, Clive

    Wise, Audrey

    Southworth, Ms Helen

    Woodward, Shaun

    Squire, Ms Rachel

    Woolas, Phil

    Stewart, David (Inverness E)

    Worthington, Tony

    Stinchcombe, Paul

    Stoate, Dr Howard

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

    Mr. Greg Pope and

    Straw, Rt Hon Jack

    Mr. Tony McNulty.

    NOES

    Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)

    Mallon, Seamus

    Corbyn, Jeremy

    Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

    Dalyell, Tam

    Skinner, Dennis

    Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

    Etherington, Bill

    Galloway, George

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Llwyd, Elfyn

    Mr. Michael Connarty and

    McGrady, Eddie

    Mr. John McDonnell.

    Question accordingly agreed to.
    Bill read a Second time, and committed to a Committee of the whole House, pursuant to Order [this day].
    Further proceedings stood postponed, pursuant to Order [this day].

  NORTHERN IRELAND BILL [MONEY]
  Queen's recommendation having been signified—
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 52(1)(a),
  That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Northern Ireland Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of—
  (1) any expenditure incurred by the Secretary of State attributable to the Act;
  (2) any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable out of money so provided under any other Act.—[Mr. McNulty.]
  Question agreed to.

  NORTHERN IRELAND BILL
  Postponed proceedings resumed.
  Bill immediately considered in Committee, pursuant to Order [this day].
  7.56 pm
  The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Michael Lord): Before we begin, may I make it clear to hon. Members that we are using two separate amendment papers. Amendments tabled yesterday were printed on pages 949 to 951 of the Vote bundle. Amendments tabled today are on a separate paper, which is available in the Vote Office. We are using the version of that paper which includes amendments tabled as at 4.30 pm today.
  In addition, copies of a further, later amendment, tabled by the hon. Members for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) and for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson), are also available in the Vote Office. The relevant selection list is the one headed "as at 4.30 pm" and is available in the No Lobby.

  Clause 1

    SUSPENSION OF DEVOLVED GOVERNMENT IN NORTHERN IRELAND.
    Mr. McDonnell: I beg to move amendment No. 2, in page 1, line 13, leave out subsection (5).
    The Second Deputy Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 3, in page 1, line 16, leave out subsection (6).
    Mr. McDonnell: As we covered much ground on Second Reading, I shall be brief; I hope that we shall be able to speak more generally on Third Reading.
    The amendments are simple; they would delete subsections (5) and (6) of the clause. They follow on from the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) on Second Reading: a concern that, in suspending the Assembly, we would also suspend the other institutions established under the Good Friday agreement. We are concerned because those institutions form part of the mechanisms for creating greater understanding between the different traditions on the island of Ireland and between the Six Counties and the Irish Republic.
    The dialogue that was developing as a result of those institutions means that there is a continued commitment to the ceasefire and to the peace process. It is beyond understanding that we should penalise those existing, successful institutions through the measure. We are concerned that in doing so, there is a risk of longevity not only for the suspension of the Assembly but for the suspension of that dialogue.
    That is the basis on which I introduce the amendments. The process would not be jeopardised if those existing institutions remained. We have been told of the necessity for the scrapping or suspension of the institutions, because of some interlocking authority that derives from the Good Friday agreement. However, the Bill has no authority
    182
    under the agreement; there is no power given to the British Government to suspend those institutions. As that organisational structure has operated effectively, the institutions should be maintained. On that basis, I ask the Committee to accept the amendments.
    Mr. Öpik: I want to make a brief contribution to seek clarification. It seems that clause 1 will allow some Committee Chairmen to carry out their functions without their Committees. Clause 1(3) states that no Committee of the Assembly can hold any meetings or conduct any business during suspension, but clause 1(4) suggests that that only the Chairmen and Deputy Chairmen of the Statutory Committees will not continue to hold office. That seems to be a little illogical, so I would be grateful if the Minister could clarify the position and tell us whether the Government need to introduce anything to sort the matter out.
    8 pm
    Dr. Godman: I shall also be brief, as I, too, seek clarification. Have discussions about the British-Irish Council taken place with the Scottish Executive, the Welsh Executive and others involved in the council, which held its inaugural meeting a few weeks ago? I think that another meeting is planned for June of this year. Although I realise that discussions continue all the time with the Irish Government, when were the Scottish Executive and the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Executive and the Welsh Assembly informed of the probability of the suspension of the British-Irish Council?
    Mr. George Howarth: I wish to challenge slightly the terminology that my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. McDonnell) used when moving the amendment. I am sure that he will appreciate that the term "suspension" is entirely different from the term "scrapped". I do not want to labour that point, but I think my hon. Friend will recognise that it is important to make that distinction.
    A fundamental principle of the Good Friday agreement is that all the institutional arrangements are interlocking and interdependent. My hon. Friend acknowledged that, but he took issue with the context in which we have used that argument in the Bill. However, he will know that the concept is set out in the declaration of support at the beginning of the agreement.
    If suspension is called, it will inevitably impact on all the institutions. In particular, the agreement recognises that the Assembly and the North-South Ministerial Council are so closely interrelated that the success of each depends on that of the other. When we talk about interdependence and interlocking, that is precisely what we mean.
    During any suspension, the Assembly and the Executive will be suspended. All Northern Ireland Ministers will cease to hold office. In practice, that will mean that the North-South Ministerial Council simply will not be able to function in the absence of representation from the Northern Ireland devolved Administration.
    As my hon. Friend suggested, clause 1(5) and (6) provide that, during a suspension, the functions conferred on the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister by the Northern Ireland Act 1998 cannot be exercised. That means that the Secretary of State cannot nominate people

    183
    to take the place of Northern Ireland Ministers on those bodies. It would be frankly inappropriate for him to do so given that the institutions are interdependent.
    I realise that my hon. Friend's amendment is designed to preserve some of the good developments that have taken place in the recent past—and we should acknowledge that huge strides have been taken. We have recognised where there is common purpose between Northern Ireland, the Government in southern Ireland and ourselves. As my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman) made clear, some institutions also involve Scotland, Wales and other parts of the British isles. Clearly, therefore, consultation will be necessary on the implications, and they will rightly take place in the coming period.
    However, it would be inappropriate to carry on as if all the institutions were still in place and as if nothing had happened during the period of suspension. I repeat what I said earlier: we hope that the Bill becomes unnecessary, that the institutions carry on and that the Executive and the Assembly will be able to continue. However, if, over the next few days, it becomes clear that that is impossible without everything collapsing under its own momentum, it will sadly be inappropriate for us to carry on as though nothing had happened.
    I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington that the close working relationship that we have with the Irish Government will continue. On matters on which we clearly have a continuing interest—not least the continued implementation and, if suspension takes place, re-implementation of the Good Friday agreement—that relationship will continue at Government level. I hope that we shall be able to work our way through the problems.
    Rev. Martin Smyth: The Secretary of State was opaque on occasions this afternoon. I can understand why the two Governments must have relationships with one another, but will the Minister clarify whether the suspension of ministerial bodies will also include the suspension of implementation bodies, or was I misled when I heard that they will come under Ministers in the Northern Ireland Office?
    Mr. Howarth: The powers of the implementation bodies transfer to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. It is for him to decide where it is appropriate for those powers to be used. I emphasise that we consider it inappropriate to carry on as if nothing had happened; that would simply be flying in the face of reality if a suspension were to take place.
    Mr. Winnick: I am not aware that the Irish Government in any way dispute what my hon. Friend the Minister has said. The institutions can hardly continue to survive if a suspension of the Executive and Assembly occurs. Will my hon. Friend reaffirm what he has just touched on? If, unfortunately, there is a period of suspension, will he confirm that close ministerial contacts will continue between the two Governments? In view of the circumstances, the contacts in some areas will be even closer than they were before the Good Friday agreement. Everyone on the Opposition Benches should understand that.
    Mr. Howarth: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that point, which enables me to make the position
    184
    absolutely clear. We simply would not have got as far as we have without the close co-operation and understanding of Ministers in the Irish Government, the Taoiseach and of Irish politicians, from various parties and holding various principles. It would be inconceivable that we could continue our work if that relationship did not still exist.
    My hon. Friend is right. Contacts will continue to take place at an official level and, over the next few days, they will intensify. They will involve Ministers and they might involve the Prime Minister and the Taoiseach. When things are difficult, it is important that relationships are maintained. We can make progress only through those contacts and if we have an understanding of the difficulties that the parties in Northern Ireland face. If we ignore such factors, we will find ourselves running out of road. It is important that we maintain all those relationships.
    Mr. Corbyn: I am pleased to hear that the Minister intends to continue to have the closest possible contact with the Irish Government, but I do not understand why he finds it necessary to suspend the workings of the North-South Ministerial Council, when it ought to be possible to continue them by ministerial contact, despite the suspension of other activities.
    Mr. Howarth: I have used well-chosen terms to explain why that situation should pertain and, without being disrespectful to my hon. Friend, I think it would be tedious to the Committee if I were to repeat that explanation. This is a delicate situation, and I have made what I thought were sensible remarks about it. If I were to enter into negotiation across the Chamber, that might undermine discussions taking place elsewhere, and I know that my hon. Friend would not want me to do that.
    I hope that my hon. Friends the Members for Hayes and Harlington and for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn), will appreciate that although I realise that they tabled the amendment in a constructive spirit, hoping to maintain a close working relationship between the two Governments, it would in the current circumstances be inappropriate for the amendment to be carried. I hope that they will recognise also that we shall use all other available means to try to work as closely as possible with our Irish counterparts, and that on that basis they will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
    Rev. Ian Paisley: Is the Minister saying that the bodies will also be put on hold?
    Mr. Howarth: I think that the hon. Gentleman was in his seat when I made my speech, and it would be unnecessary and difficult for me to become involved in a detailed discussion about the matter. There are issues that have still to be discussed. No one has yet agreed to suspend any of the institutions, and we hope that suspension can be avoided. In the Bill we are taking a power, which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will exercise if things go wrong over the next few days, to suspend devolved government, and everything that depends on devolution will necessarily cease if devolution does not continue. I hope that the hon. Gentleman finds that a suitable explanation. I repeat my hope that my hon. Friends will feel that it is appropriate to withdraw their amendment.
    Mr. McDonnell: Our hopes are that if suspension takes place, it will continue for a short period. We have been

    185
    given an assurance that if it continues for a long time, there will be a continuing dialogue between the Governments, and structures to enable the co-operative working relationship that has been established to be maintained. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

    Clause 1
    Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
    Mr. Michael Howard: I begin my contribution by returning to a matter that was raised earlier. I deplore the fact that we have had to consider the Bill without having available to us the de Chastelain report. The Secretary of State has come to Parliament to ask us to approve this legislation on an emergency basis. The only reason that he has done so is the de Chastelain report. Astonishingly, when one of my hon. Friends made that point earlier, the Secretary of State rebuked him and told him that he ought to be talking about something more significant than the de Chastelain report. In this context there could hardly be anything more significant than the report.
    We in the House are not to be shown the report. That is an outrage. The Government proclaim themselves devoted to open government. One could hardly have a more eloquent example of their failure in that respect and of their arrogant contempt for Parliament than their failure to allow us to see the report.
    8.15 pm
    Having looked at "Erskine May", I find that the attitude of the Secretary of State and the Government appears to be clearly in breach of the statement on page 387, which says:
    "A Minister of the Crown may not read or quote from a despatch or other State paper not before the House, unless he is prepared to lay it upon the Table."
    I ask you, Mr. Lord, for a considered ruling on whether the Secretary of State has complied with his obligations.
    The Second Deputy Chairman: As far as I am aware, the Secretary of State has neither read nor quoted directly from the report in question, but I understand that the right hon. and learned Gentleman's point is very important and I will undertake to ensure that it is given further consideration.
    Mr. Howard: I am most grateful to you, Mr. Lord. I asked for a considered ruling, rather than an immediate one, because you and Madam Speaker will have carefully to read Hansard from today and last Thursday to find out to what extent the Secretary of State quoted from the report. My impression is that a careful reading of what he said today and on Thursday will disclose that he quoted from the report.
    The Secretary of State did not improve matters with the explanation that he gave when we raised the matter earlier today. He appeared to rely on the fact that the report was made to the Irish Government as well as to the UK Government as a reason for not disclosing it. The clear implication was that pressure from the Irish Government
    186
    was the reason why the report was not to be made available to the House. I do not know whether the Secretary of State had thought through that justification and its implications, but it seems to me that it has most unfortunate consequences.
    There are many areas in which it would be desirable for the UK Government to co-operate closely with the Government of the Irish Republic, and such co-operation would have the enthusiastic support of the House, but if the consequence of that co-operation is that the Irish Government will be able to exercise a veto on the disclosure of information to the House, that will inevitably give hon. Members pause before they support such co-operation in future.
    I have no doubt that, when the House was originally told that the de Chastelain report would be submitted jointly to the Irish Government and the UK Government, no one thought that it was a matter of concern. That would have been regarded as an entirely appropriate step, and so far as I am aware, no one in the House registered an objection to that course. Had we known, however, that it meant that the Irish Government would have a veto on whether or not the content of the report could be disclosed to the House, even when the House is being asked to approve emergency legislation on the basis of the report, the attitude of many hon. Members would have been different. That would have been unfortunate.
    The explanation that was, in the end, dragged out of the Secretary of State earlier today has unfortunate, far-reaching implications. I hope that he will reflect on those implications when he considers the course that he has taken and the way in which he has kept from the House the contents of that report.
    Mr. Hunter: I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend. His argument is strengthened if he shares my understanding that the decommissioning commission was established by legislation from this place and is accountable to this place. There was no corresponding legislation in the Parliament of the Republic of Ireland.
    Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend makes a valuable point, which reinforces mine. It is a serious argument, on which I hope the Secretary of State will reflect.
    I proceed to a more general point on clause 1 stand part. Clause 1 sets out the effects of the suspension of devolution, if and when the Bill comes into force. I support the Bill and share the regret which has been widely expressed that it has become necessary.
    When we debated affairs in the Province in July, I posed two questions. If the IRA and other terrorist organisations have indeed given up violence for good—the basic assumption on which the entire peace process rests—why should they need to keep their guns and their bombs? If at some point they will be prepared to give up their guns and their bombs, why not now? I do not believe that there is any answer to those questions, which is why I find it difficult to be optimistic about the process, much though I should like it to succeed.
    I shall refer to one aspect of that process, which the Bill directly calls into question. It was touched on earlier, during Second Reading—the release of terrorist prisoners. Many of us found that the most difficult and painful provision in the Belfast agreement. It raises and, indeed, breaches principles that are very dear to us. The provision

    187
    impinges directly on my constituents, who would have been victims of the seaside bombing plot in 1984—a plot prevented only by effective action by the police. The release of those responsible for that plot and for terrible deeds of violence which they did commit was a bitter pill to swallow.
    We were, however reluctantly, prepared to go along with the provision. In my case at least, the decisive argument was that the prisoners would be the most powerful promoters of the peace. They, we were told, would be the most persuasive advocates within their movements for the abandonment of violence, for the end of terrorism and—an essential part of the process and the agreement—for giving up the guns and the bombs with which such enormous suffering had been inflicted. We were in part persuaded to take that step because the legislation that put the agreement into effect identified with some precision the factors that the Secretary of State must take into account in deciding whether prisoners should be released. Under the existing legislation, one of those factors is the extent to which the organisation to which the prisoners belong is prepared to co-operate in decommissioning.
    It is, alas, now clear that our expectations have not been fulfilled, and that calls into question in the most direct way the continuing release of prisoners under the existing legislation.
    Dr. Godman: I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for showing his characteristic courtesy to me. Can he confirm that more than 200 prisoners were released under 1995 legislation when he was a member of that Administration?
    Mr. Howard: The prisoners were released, but the circumstances were entirely different. What happened on that occasion was not some arbitrary shortening of the sentence, as is provided for under the current legislation. I take it that the hon. Gentleman is referring to what happened in Northern Ireland. Is that right?
    Dr. Godman indicated assent.
    Mr. Howard: What happened then was that the provisions that existed at that time in Northern Ireland were brought into line with the provisions that existed in England and Wales. There had been a difference between the provisions for remission in Northern Ireland and those that existed in England and Wales, and on that occasion they were made consistent with each other. That was a set of circumstances far removed from those that exist under the current legislation.
    Rev. Martin Smyth: I appreciate the right hon. and learned Gentleman giving way. There are those who will find his argument hard to follow, but is it not summed up by what happened in the courts last week, when two people were convicted of murdering a Roman Catholic and a Protestant, and they showed contempt for the judgment, because they know that they will walk out in July?
    Mr. Howard: Yes, the hon. Gentleman is right. I am sorry to hear that he thinks that my argument will be hard to follow. I thought that the argument that I was putting was simple, clear and easy to follow, but we must all be disabused of our pretensions. However, I agree that the example that he cited illustrates my point.
    188
    If, as we were told, the prisoners are the most powerful promoters of the peace, an announcement by the Secretary of State under the existing legislation that the release of those who remain in custody will cease until progress is made on decommissioning would put clear pressure on them to do what we were told they would do—to promote the peace. If they cannot or choose not to influence the process, the original justification for their release will not exist.
    Either way, prisoner releases should not continue, and I hope that we will have a clear statement from the Minister this evening to that effect.
    Dr. Godman: I shall be brief. My contribution to the clause stand part debate centres on my concern for those who are employed in any of the institutions that may face suspension. When my hon. Friend the Minister responds to the debate, can he confirm that the interests of those employees—I have no idea how many people there are in the employment of the Assembly or the Executive, for example—will be protected in accordance with their terms and conditions of employment?
    Mr. Hunter: As we know, clause 1 lies at the heart of the Bill and provides for the suspension of devolved government in Northern Ireland. My approach to the Bill is generally supportive, but I have one point of genuine concern, which I hope the Minister can address when he replies.
    The House spent tens of hours scrutinising and deliberating on the Northern Ireland Act 1998, and a not inappreciable amount of time considering what became section 30. I do not understand why the Government are introducing the Bill at all. Section 30 of the 1998 Act allows for the exclusion from ministerial office of members of a political party that
    "is not committed to non-violence and exclusively peaceful and democratic means".
    Many hon. Members opposite understandably said that they wanted the structures and institutions of devolved Government to continue. The 1998 Act provides for that. I do not understand why the Government are introducing the Bill when they can exclude under existing legislation those who are deemed not to be committed to non-violence and exclusively peaceful and democratic methods.
    8.30 pm
    Mr. Opik: I reiterate the point that I made in the previous short debate on the amendments. Perhaps it was a bit naughty of me to raise the matter then, because I should have waited until the stand part debate.
    Clause 1(4) states:
    "No person is to continue to hold office or be elected, nominated or appointed as a Minister or junior Minister, or as a chairman or deputy chairman of a statutory committee."
    The provision should read, "statutory or standing committee". Will the Minister clarify whether, technically, the Chairs for the Standing Committees on Standards and Privileges, on Procedure, on Audit, on Public Accounts and the Committee of the Centre can continue to carry out their functions when those Committee cannot meet? If the Bill is used, the Minister must be absolutely clear about whether it affects Standing Committees. If it does not, does he intend to include a provision to correct that as the Bill proceeds?
    Mr. Eddie McGrady: On Second Reading, my hon. Friend the Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) expressed our party's opposition to the Bill and to dismantling a delicate edifice of political institutions, which will be extremely difficult to restore.
    I apologise to earlier speakers for my absence, but I have just left what, sadly, may be the last meeting of the Northern Ireland Assembly. I want to stress to the House, and especially to the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter), that this morning's Order Paper in the Assembly included a motion to exclude Sinn Fein and that it did not receive the necessary number of votes—which is only 30 out of 108—to support it. The Assembly is a cross-party body, and Unionist parties, extreme and moderate, and nationalist parties, extreme and moderate, do not support the exclusion of Sinn Fein at the moment.
    That is a lesson to the House about how carefully we handle our delicate political institutions. That is why my party opposes the whole concept of the Bill, the contents of which are mainly embodied in clause 1. We cannot enforce decommissioning by such a measure, which is a slap on the wrists of Northern Ireland politicians. It penalises elected Members of the Northern Ireland Assembly, the vast majority of whom are not culpable through failing to decommission. It is therefore important to put on record that the Assembly, no later than a few hours ago, did not believe it proper to exclude representatives of the IRA from their number. In that case, why should this House do it?
    Mr. Peter Robinson: Before we consider clause 1 stand part, I express our sympathy to the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady). All of us have known him for a long time, and we respect his courage in being here today following the recent tragic murder of his niece. I am sure that he has the sympathy of all hon. Members.
    I suppose that I am required to declare an interest when considering clause 1. Several hon. Members who have spoken also have an interest. I am a Member of the Northern Ireland Assembly, and a Minister with responsibility for a Department in that Government. I want to speak against what might be perceived as my interest. I have been a convinced devolutionist for a long time. For the past 21 years in the House, I have frequently argued, from both sides of the House, for devolution in Northern Ireland and for decentralisation of powers. I believe without qualification that no matter how well intentioned Ministers who went from Great Britain to Northern Ireland may have been, in the time that they were there they could not have had the same feel for the needs of people in Northern Ireland. Given their number, it was asking a lot of each Minister, or of any human being, to take charge of what would be four Departments under the present system.
    I am not against devolution in principle—I support it—but when I read the Belfast agreement I realised that the price that the people of Northern Ireland were being asked to pay for it was too high. The four principal features of the agreement were the release of terrorist prisoners before their due dates, the destruction of the Royal Ulster Constabulary, the setting up of apparatus that leaned towards a united Ireland—including unaccountable all-Ireland bodies with executive powers—and placing in government those who were still unrepentant and have clear terrorist connections and relationships. To me, that corrupted the democratic process. One might have
    190
    expected, in a fair and reasonable world, that somebody holding those views might not have been thought unreasonable, but holding them when the Government hold a contrary view can become very unreasonable.
    We have been accused of many things over the past months and years, but we made it clear at the beginning that corrupting the democratic process in such a way had sown the seeds of the agreement's destruction. Day by day, it becomes more apparent that having terrorists in a democratic Government is a contradiction in terms. Sooner or later, the leaders of political parties had to recognise that conflict. The right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) has attempted over and over and over again to put off the evil day, hoping beyond hope that Sinn Fein-IRA would perhaps be prepared to decommission. There were many to advise him that everything they knew about that organisation's behaviour was such that that would not happen. He has learned the hard way in his party and in his constituency, where he can barely walk the streets. That is the reality of life in Northern Ireland.
    If the price of devolution was too high, the Government's suspension of the institutions is hardly the appropriate response, which is the proper exclusion of those who are not committed to
    "exclusively peaceful and democratic means".
    The hon. Member for South Down responded in some measure to my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter). The answer is yes: section 30 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 contains a power allowing the exclusion of political parties if, for one reason or another, they do not measure up to the standards laid down in the Act, but it can be triggered only by a cross-community vote. Indeed, such a proposal can be put before the Assembly only if 30 people are prepared to stand in their places or sign a motion support it. In the Assembly this morning, 29 people were prepared to support that motion, but in the absence of the 30th it was not even debated. Even if it had been, it is abundantly clear from the comments of members of the Social Democratic and Labour party that it would not have received the cross-community support necessary to exclude Sinn Fein-IRA. In those circumstances, it was a weapon that could not be used.
    When the 1998 Act was going through Parliament, many of us on this side of the House argued that it was an ineffective weapon that would not be appropriate when the circumstances required it to be so. It would be far better and more honest if the Government said, "If people are not prepared to play by the rules of democracy, out they go until they are prepared to pay the membership fees of this club." Instead, their answer is to suspend everything and democrats will be punished alongside the terrorists. Indeed, it must be said that the central feature of the failure of the agreement to work has been the issue of decommissioning.
    The hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) referred to the silence of the guns. I suspect that if I had pranced across the Floor, put a Smith and Wesson to his ear and asked him to sit down, he would not have been saying to himself "At least the gun is silent. I needn't worry too much about it." I think he would have sat down, and he would have done it very quickly, because the reality is that if one puts a gun to somebody's head it does not matter whether it is silent. It is always silent before it goes off.

    191
    The threat is there, and it is that threat which Sinn Fein-IRA rely on to give them their negotiating strength. It is that threat which they rely on to give them a status well beyond that of political parties in Northern Ireland which have greater electoral strength than they have. It is that strength which ultimately Sinn Fein-IRA recognise is their ace card in any negotiations about the future of Northern Ireland.
    Many people talk about Sinn Fein and the IRA being inextricably linked. So they are, but it does not quite indicate the nature of their relationship. Sinn Fein is subservient in that relationship; it does what the IRA tells it to do. The IRA does not follow the leadership or instruction of Sinn Fein, which is the junior partner in that relationship.
    Mr. Robathan: The hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) said something that I do not think I have heard said before in the House. He referred to the representatives of Sinn Fein in the Assembly in Northern Ireland as the representatives of the IRA, which we all know is so, but I do not think I have heard it said before.
    Mr. Robinson: I often look across the Assembly Chamber at the ranks of Sinn Fein. I see among its membership members of the army council of the IRA—present-day members of the army council of the IRA. With the exception of two Members, every one of them has served in the ranks of the IRA. Most of them have gone through the educational process of the prison system. It is very clear that all of them are supporters of the IRA. All of them come under the whip of the IRA, and when it is cracked they jump. No one should get away with the idea that Sinn Fein can lead the IRA by the nose and require it to do one thing or the other. As my friend the hon. and learned Member for North Down (Mr. McCartney) indicated, the fact that four of the seven members of the IRA army council are also leading Sinn Fein members indicates a close relationship and the fact that there is no division between the views of Sinn Fein and the IRA.
    Rev. Martin Smyth: Is not that a significant difference from what happened in the past, when at Sinn Fein conferences a messenger came from the army council? There no longer needs to be a messenger from the army council, because it is at the head of the Sinn Fein movement.
    Mr. Robinson: Yes, and I do not need to go into the names. We all know the leading members of Sinn Fein who are members of the IRA army council.
    The injustice of the clause is that it does not contain the freezing of certain other elements of the Belfast agreement. The Government's argument is that they have suspended a number of the operations under the clause because they believe that institutions should be frozen because they cannot proceed as a result of the IRA's failure to decommission.
    The reality is that if there was ever a linkage in the agreement, the clearest was between prison release and the decommissioning of illegal weaponry. Both were intended to be within a two-year time scale. Neither had an absolute starting date set down, but it was very clear that as soon as the Government proceeded helter-skelter to release prisoners it took the pressure off the IRA to
    192
    meet its bargain on decommissioning. If the Government simply continue releasing prisoners, it is a win-win situation for the IRA. It will be doing away with Stormont and at the same time continuing to get its prisoners out of jail. It can be disobedient, but be rewarded with the freeing of its prisoners.
    8.45 pm
    Was it a betrayal to which the Secretary of State referred last week? What kind of situation is this, in which those whom the Government believe to be responsible for a betrayal will be rewarded with the release of prisoners, while the democrats will be punished with the removal of institutions? It strikes me as a topsy-turvy, Alice in Wonderland situation. Moreover, the Government have not indicated so far that they are prepared to suspend any action that they may take to implement the Patten recommendations for the destruction of the Royal Ulster Constabulary. That is another plus for the IRA—another reward for not doing what the community would have it do and decommission its weapons.
    The Secretary of State should think long and hard about this. Under the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998, he has powers to stop the release of prisoners; he should exercise those powers.
    Mr. William Ross: Does the hon. Gentleman recall what was said on Thursday during questions to the Secretary of State on his statement? The right hon. Gentleman said:
    "We will not be suspending the Good Friday agreement; therefore, we are not going to put into reverse all those gains and all those changes that have flowed from its implementation."—[Official Report, 3 February 2000; Vol. 343, c. 1325.].
    In other words, the Secretary of State was telling the IRA, at the very moment that he was announcing the possibility of suspension, that he would continue to reward it.
    Mr. Robinson: The hon. Gentleman has drawn attention to an unfortunate message which, no doubt, was picked up by the Provisional IRA.
    As the Secretary of State will see, the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act expressly states that he has the power to stop the release of prisoners if there is not a clear continuation of the commitment of an organisation to exclusively peaceful and democratic means. The Act specifies four areas for the Secretary of State to take into account when judging whether that continuation is taking place, one of which relates to decommissioning. I wonder whether one of the reasons for our not having the report from the decommissioning body is that if the report says that the Provisional IRA has not been complying with the conditions, the 1998 Act requires the Secretary of State to stop any release of terrorist prisoners. It will be interesting to see what happens when the information eventually surfaces—and the Secretary of State will discover that, in Northern Ireland, these things do eventually surface, in one way or another.
    I believe that the Secretary of State should have taken the alternative course of excluding those who were not committed to exclusively peaceful and democratic means. I believe that he should also have suspended the implementation of the Patten recommendations and acted differently in regard to prison releases. However,

    193
    given the limited nature of the Bill, I have no choice but to go for the second-best option that the Government are offering: the suspension of the institutions.
    Mr. George Howarth: Along with, I am sure, the rest of the Committee, I join the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) in expressing our condolences to the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady). I have already expressed my condolences privately, but I think it would benefit the hon. Gentleman's family to know that we have expressed ours across the board.
    Let me say to the hon. Member for Belfast, East that I suppose my right hon. Friend the Minister of State and I should declare an interest: if the suspension goes ahead, one or other of us will be doing his job next week, although we do not expect to receive any extra pay.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman) talked about the people who are employed in the institutions. As the Secretary of State and I have said repeatedly, our hope is that the institutions will not need to be suspended, but if they are, as my hon. Friend rightly points out, many of the detailed arrangements will need careful consideration. I assure the Committee that proper regard will be given to the circumstances of people who are employed in any of the bodies. Obviously, we are not at the point where we can give precise details of that, but if suspension goes ahead we will quickly have to turn our attention to my hon. Friend's point.
    In an exchange with the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter) raised a question about the status—in terms of agreements between ourselves and the Irish Government—of the decommissioning commission. As he will be aware, the Independent International Commission on Decommissioning was established by an international agreement between the British and Irish Governments. That agreement was followed by parallel legislation in both jurisdictions, so it is from that that the relationship in respect of the commission derives. Therefore, when the Secretary of State refers to the report being the joint property of both Governments, it is because of the parallel legislation in both jurisdictions which led to the establishment of the commission.
    The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik) raised a point on which I think I can give some reassurance. Subsection (3) makes it clear that no Committee of the Assembly can meet or conduct any business during a suspension. That includes statutory and all other Committees. All Committees will cease to function for the duration of suspension.
    Subsection (4) deals with those individuals who hold statutory office under the Northern Ireland Act 1998, just as clause 3 deals with their reappointment in line with the provisions in that Act. The Bill does not address the various non-statutory appointments, such as chairmen of Standing Committees. Nevertheless, they too will cease to exercise any of their functions during a suspension. Their committee cannot meet or conduct any business. The Secretary of State, who, under the Bill, takes responsibility for salaries and allowances, will ensure that they are treated on a par with the chairmen of statutory committees.
    194
    The right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe took issue with the Secretary of State's explanation of why he did not feel it was appropriate at this time to publish the General de Chastelain commission's report of a week ago Monday. He went on to discuss precisely what terms the Secretary of State might have used this afternoon. In his observations on the content of General de Chastelain's report, the Secretary of State made it clear that he was summarising what was said.
    As regards publication, the right hon. and learned Gentleman has held high office; he was Home Secretary. He knows that, on some occasions, certain issues are highly sensitive and delicately balanced in terms of the relationships between different bodies—in this case, the relationships between ourselves and the Irish Government. I hope that he will accept that it is because of the delicacy of the situation that, at this time, the Secretary of State does not think it appropriate to publish that report. I hope that he will also accept that the Secretary of State has made it clear that, if and when a further report is published, he will undertake to ensure that both are published at the same time.
    Mr. Howard: The form of words that the Minister has just used—it was not an explanation; it was simply a form of words—is no more convincing than the very similar form of words used earlier today by the Secretary of State. Will the Minister not recognise that we are here today because of the de Chastelain report? How in those circumstances can he justify not making that report available to the House? When General de Chastelain came forth with a report that contained some relatively good news, the Government were quick to publish it. Surely the Minister should recognise that the Government should be equally quick to publish a report that, most regrettably, contains bad news.
    Mr. Howarth: Forgive me, but I think that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is engaging in a little bit of sophistry—he knows the precise situation. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has made no secret of the fact that we are considering the Bill today because the progress on decommissioning that everyone rightly expected to be made has not been made—[Interruption.] I repeat that insufficient progress has been made.
    My right hon. Friend also made it clear that progress is ultimately a matter for General de Chastelain, who will subsequently report on it. However, as I said, at this stage it does no good for us to pore over the entrails of precisely what has happened.
    We want decommissioning to occur, so that suspension will never have to be imposed. However, if it is imposed, we want to ensure that we all have confidence—this is about confidence-building—that, at that time, the suspension could be lifted.
    Several hon. Members rose
    Dr. Godman: Will my hon. Friend give way?
    Mr. Howarth: I shall give way to my hon. Friend, and then I must make some progress, as we are running short of time.
    Dr. Godman: A moment ago, I sought assurances for those who are employed in the institutions. However, what

    195
    will happen to the Bills that were presented to the Assembly at the beginning of last week? One was a fisheries Bill, and another was on social work administration. Presumably those will be taken on board by Ministers?
    Mr. Howarth: During a suspension, the Assembly would have no powers to pass any legislation. Progress on legislation during a suspension would have to be made by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State or me. If we decided that passage of the legislation was not appropriate at that time, we would not make progress on it. It is one of the unfortunate consequences of the situation that we are in.
    Mr. Nick St. Aubyn: Will the Minister give the House an assurance?
    Mr. Howarth: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman, but then really must move towards a conclusion. He must realise that time is limited.
    Mr. St. Aubyn: Given that the Secretary of State has told us that he will release both the de Chastelain report and the successor to it, will the Minister assure the House that such release would not at any point depend on the agreement of the Government of southern Ireland, and that they do not effectively hold a veto over the release of such a report—which we are now told will precede re-establishment of the Northern Ireland Assembly?
    Mr. Howarth: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has made the position as clear as he can. I stand by what he said, and he will stand by what he said.
    Mr. St. Aubyn: Will the Minister give way?
    Mr. Howarth: I shall not give way. I allowed the hon. Gentleman to intervene—for which he did not have the courtesy to thank me—and he will forgive me if I reply to that intervention in my own way. The situation is precisely as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has described it, and the hon. Gentleman should not try playing games to get me to say something different from what my right hon. Friend has said. If he is trying to do that, he will not succeed. We are in a difficult situation. What my right hon. Friend said stands and it is neither useful nor necessary for me to add anything.
    9 pm
    Clause 1 suspends the operation of the Northern Ireland Assembly for as long as the clause is in force. While it is in force there can be no meetings of the Assembly or any of its committees, nor can any legislation be passed by the Assembly. All Ministers and junior Ministers of the Northern Ireland Executive, including the hon. Member for Belfast, East, will cease to hold office, as will the chairmen and deputy chairmen of statutory committees.
    The clause also provides that the powers under section 52 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 to nominate Ministers to attend the North-South Ministerial Council and the British-Irish Council cannot be exercised during the suspension. Our intention is to suspend those institutions by means of an international agreement with the Irish Government.
    Mr. Robathan: I was not going to speak in this debate, but I was moved to do so by the Minister's tortuous and very unconvincing arguments.
    196
    The issues covered by the Bill, particularly clause 1, hang on the de Chastelain report. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) has made that point particularly well. The Minister failed to explain how it was possible to publish the first de Chastelain report, and why it is not possible to publish the second report if it is possible to publish a subsequent report, should one be produced.
    The Minister talks about confidence-building and trust. I agree that we need confidence and trust. He and the Government—and the Government of the Irish Republic if they have anything to do with the publication of the report, although I do not see why they should—ought to take the House into their confidence and trust the British people by publishing the de Chastelain report so that we know all the gruesome details. I fear that the reason for the Government's unwillingness to publish the report is that some of its comments about the attitude of the IRA and Sinn Fein are unpalatable to the Government.
    The Secretary of State has the right to stop prisoner releases if parties to the Good Friday agreement are not complying with it. If the de Chastelain report were published, the Minister might have to decide that the IRA—or Sinn Fein; whatever they like to be called—were not complying with the agreement and that prisoner releases should therefore be suspended.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

  Clause 2

    ENDING SUSPENSION
    Mr. William Ross: I beg to move amendment No. 15, in page 1, line 22, leave out subsection (1).
    The Chairman of Ways and Means (Sir Alan Haselhurst): With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 16, in page 2, line 3, leave out subsection (3).
    No. 20, in page 2, line 4, at end insert—
    (3A) The Secretary of State shall publish the complete text of a review under the Validation, Implementation and Review section of the Belfast Agreement.
    (3B) The Secretary of State shall publish the complete text of any report from the Commission on Decommissioning that may be made in connection with the review conducted under subsection (1).'.
    Mr. Ross: I promise not to go on quite as long this evening as I did a week or two ago, because, unfortunately, we have tighter time restrictions.
    Amendment No. 15 would delete the lines printed in italics at the bottom of page 1 of the Bill. I do not understand why they are printed in italics, but they say:
    "As soon as is reasonably practicable after section 1 comes into force, the Secretary of State must take steps to initiate a review under the Validation, Implementation and Review section of the Belfast Agreement."
    Amendment No. 16 would remove from subsection (3) the words:
    "Before making a restoration order, the Secretary of State must take into account the result of the review conducted as a result of subsection (1)."

    197
    Several issues cause me concern. At no time during the Secretary of State's statement to the House last week or his answers to the subsequent questions did he refer to a review. The review came out of the blue. It has already been pointed out that the Secretary of State has other powers that he could use, but he has chosen to go for a review.
    May we be told why we were not informed last week? Was it because the Bill had to be drawn up at the very last minute? I doubt it. I have been here long enough to know that Governments tend to have all sorts of contingency plans on the shelf, to pull out of a pigeonhole when needed and polished up. If the right hon. Gentleman knew before his statement that he was going to have a review, why did he not tell the House and the people of Northern Ireland? That straightforward question should receive a straightforward answer.
    Did the right hon. Gentleman think that the weapons problem could be dealt with some other way—that he could go down another path, which turned out to be blocked? He made it perfectly plain in his answers on 3 February that weapons had to be dealt with or there would not be devolution because the agreement had not been fully implemented. We hear about full implementation when it concerns something of which the terrorist organisations approve but not when it is something of which the law-abiding population might approve. Stopping the release of prisoners and other things to put on pressure are not done.
    The Government's one real lever against the IRA was prisoners. They and their families were exerting pressure on the IRA, on the ground. None of those people should have been let out the gate until such time as weapons were given up. That is the view of everyone in Northern Ireland who understands the mentality of those folk. The Government refused to understand. They threw away their strongest card and let out prisoners, so their leverage against the IRA disappeared. I have no doubt, as the release of prisoners is to continue, that it will be played out right up to July, until the very last of those fellows is out through the gate—including the two chaps that my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) mentioned, who were sentenced for a double murder only last week.
    There could be no doubt where the Unionist population stand. To them, weapons always have been, and are, the litmus test of whether or not the IRA-Sinn Fein system of terror, murder and intimidation will move to democracy. Weapons are the key. The distance that my hon. Friend has travelled is not a distance that I would have travelled. My experience of those people, given that I live among a fair number of them, is perhaps greater than some of my right hon. and hon. Friends. I know how they think and react. If one wanted to put pressure on those people, it had to be done in a different way than giving in to them.
    Mr. Roy Beggs: Does my hon. Friend agree that the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) also recognised that point? He said that there should be no guns on the table, under the table or outside the door.
    Mr. Ross: Perfectly correct, but that view seems to have vanished into the past. The SDLP, it seems, wants to forget about that. All it wants now is an ounce of Semtex left at the door—token decommissioning. We were told that at the weekend. It is not sufficient for the people of Northern Ireland and certainly not sufficient for the Unionist party. Its position is perfectly clear. After this time, there must be a massive giving up of weapons and explosives—the means of violence and war.
    During the speech of the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson), who has just left his place, I referred to the Secretary of State's words on 3 February, when he was very precise about his intentions. He said that he would not be suspending the agreement—that it would remain intact, as would the consequences of its creation and all its actions.
    I am not clear how the Secretary of State intends to proceed with the review. The Belfast agreement contains three conditions under which a review can take place. [Interruption.] I understand that the two Ministers on the Front Bench know all about this and do not have to listen. I would like to know which of those three conditions applies in this instance. The agreement states, first:
    "Each institution may, at any time, review any problems that may arise in its operation and, where no other institution is affected, take remedial action in consultation as necessary with the relevant Government or Governments. It will be for each institution to determine its own procedures for review."
    Under that procedure, the Assembly can take its own decisions and talk only to the Governments as necessary. I assume that the institutions mentioned refer to the two Governments and the Assembly, rather than to the various bodies which flow from the operation of the Assembly.
    The second set of circumstances is:
    "If there are difficulties in the operation of a particular institution, which have implications for another institution, they may review their operations separately and jointly and agree on remedial action to be taken under their respective authorities."
    That would seem to involve a combination of institutions, all having to take separate reviews—followed by a joint review—and then agreeing. That is rather complicated, and I cannot see it meeting with much success if what the Secretary of State said about the frailty of the process and the structure is accurate. A structure that cannot stand another election and still survive has a mighty poor chance of surviving into adulthood.
    The third set of circumstances is:
    "If difficulties arise which require remedial action across the range of institutions, or otherwise require amendment of the British-Irish Agreement or relevant legislation, the process of review will fall to the two Governments in consultation with the parties in the Assembly. Each Government will be responsible for action in its own jurisdiction."
    In this case, the two Governments have to take the lead and then consult with the parties in the Assembly. They do not have to get the parties in the Assembly to agree with them—they can go ahead in any case.
    Which of those courses of action—or which combination of them—applies in this case? It might be difficult to have a combination, and it may have to be

    199
    one. What criteria will the Secretary of State use to make up his mind? When he does make up his mind, will he tell the House which set of criteria he is taking into account and applying? When the review is set up, can we be told what items it will look at? How are the decisions within the review to be reached? Who will make the decisions? What evidence or reasons will be published so people understand what is going on?
    Clause 3(2)—which refers to the restoration, as it were—gives the impression that the Secretary of State should not be involved in the review because, if he were, he would have to be not only the investigator and the chairman, but the jury and the judge in regard to whether or not he would restore the Assembly to operation. In those circumstances, we need to know the evidence. We need to know who will chair the review. We need to know the criteria, and the task that the review is being given.
    The only reason for this debate is the refusal of the terrorist organisations to hand over their weapons—their firearms and their other means of murdering, blackmailing and intimidating the law-abiding citizens of Northern Ireland, and of this wider nation. If we are to go beyond the weaponry, we must be told why, what steps are to be taken into account and what is to be reviewed in the next few weeks.
    9.15 pm
    It has already been said that we are here tonight because of the failure of the IRA to decommission and to surrender its weapons to lawful authority in Northern Ireland or in the Irish Republic, and for that reason we should have sight of the de Chastelain reports—both the one that has been completed and any future reports. That is the key. If people could see the report, the debate today would be far more sensible. People would know exactly where they stood and we would not have had all the spin doctoring and the smoke and mirrors of the past week. The lack of precision, the double meaning, the ambiguity, and the nods and winks giving the impression that something is happening when nothing is happening, have been the root cause of the suspicion and anger that we have had in Northern Ireland for so long.
    I tell Ministers—not that I expect them to take it on board, but I tell them anyway—that the mere fact that they refuse to publish the de Chastelain report only adds to the anger and suspicion, and makes any settlement far more difficult. It may be that, because Ministers live in the rarefied world of spin doctoring that so many in the House now inhabit, they are incapable of understanding the effect of the refusal to release the report on ordinary men and women in Northern Ireland, but the effect is real and the report should be published.
    Mr. Hunter: I tabled amendment No. 20 in the spirit of the words of my hon. Friend the Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross) to avoid the ambiguity and obtain the clarification that is lacking. As clause 2 (3) stands, before making a restoration order,
    "the Secretary of State must take into account the result of the review conducted".
    I submit that a requirement to take into account is wholly inadequate and what is needed is the requirement contained in amendment No. 20. First, the Secretary of State should be required to publish the complete text of the review that has been undertaken and, secondly—and
    200
    more importantly, in the light of the general thrust of our debate this evening—he should be required to publish the complete text of any report from the commission on decommissioning.
    At this stage, with little time left, I shall not rehearse the arguments again, because they have been forcefully presented by many of my right hon. and hon. Friends. The Government have totally failed to convince us as to why the de Chastelain report should not have been made available to the House and amendment No. 20 would ensure that that would never happen again.
    Mr. Robathan: I shall not detain the House long, because I merely wish to speak briefly in support of amendment No. 20. I notice Ministers muttering on the Treasury Bench, but perhaps they should consider more fully the implications of what they are doing. The issue of the de Chastelain report is a question of confidence and trust. There can be no trust if we are not allowed to see the report. Perhaps the Minister can tell us whether it refers to the intention of the IRA and Sinn Fein to decommission. We are being asked to legislate without knowing what on earth the report says, but that is leaping hopefully in the dark.
    The Secretary of State said on Second Reading that there is no body of opinion in the nationalist community that is opposed to decommissioning. So can the Minister tell us what was in the report? Was there anything to suggest that a body of opinion in the nationalist community—that must include everybody in the nationalist community—is opposed to decommissioning?
    If Sinn Fein is inextricably linked to the IRA, we must know about Real Sinn Fein, Continuity Sinn Fein and all the other splinter groups. They were in the IRA about two and a half years ago. Are they really so different? Does the Minister have any information—is there any in the de Chastelain report—about such groups as Real Sinn Fein and their links with the rest of the Provisional IRA? It is as certain as it could be that the leadership of the IRA and of Sinn Fein know who is in Real IRA because they used to have an organisation that included them. That relates also to the prosecution of the Omagh bombers, of whom only one has so far been arrested. Does the report say anything about that? It has been alleged that two Members of this House, Mr. Adams and Mr. McGuinness—not yet hon. Members, because they have not taken the oath—may know who these people are. Have they helped in any way in the prosecution of the Omagh bombers?
    We need to see that report so that we can make a judgment on behalf of the people of the United Kingdom. We do not trust Ministers to make it for us.
    Mr. St. Aubyn: I, too, do not want to detain the House. However, I was most disappointed at the Minister's earlier suggestion that we were playing some sort of game over this issue, which goes to the heart of the matter. If the report is not published and made known to us, and if we are not given a chance to debate it, how will it be possible to convince Sinn Fein-IRA that this House and our Government are serious about the need for decommissioning? If we are not to have the opportunity to question Ministers on how much movement they require before considering invoking clause 2, how will we know—and how will they know—whether or not the whole process is nothing more than a charade in the eyes of Ministers?

    201
    Will the Minister clarify again whether the Government have a right to publish the report independent of any permission or agreement from the other Government, who claim that it is their property as well? In the absence of a clear reply, we do not know whether Ministers can activate clause 2 when they believe it appropriate to do so without the prior agreement of the other Government. Neither do we know what change there must be in circumstances, and what criteria the Minister will objectively apply before invoking clause 2.
    Mr. Thompson: Clause 2 provides that, after the Assembly is suspended and the Executive members lose their posts, a review has to take place. The review seems to be very limited, as it centres mainly on decommissioning—when it will take place, if it will take place, when weapons will start to be given up and when it will be completed. These matters have been debated on numerous occasions. As a result of understandings reached in the last review, it was assumed that they had been resolved. However, as we have come to see, they have not been resolved. It is unlikely that they will be resolved in any review—certainly not to the satisfaction of the Unionist community in Northern Ireland.
    The review should be much wider, taking into account the changes that have taken place in the people of Northern Ireland and their views, especially in the Unionist community. For it is absolutely clear that the majority of people in the Unionist community no longer support the agreement.
    We have always been told that any future Government of Northern Ireland and any future Assembly must have the support of the majority of both sides of the community. Support is obviously lacking on the Unionist side of the community. If support were lacking on the nationalist side, we would be told that a wide-ranging review would be needed. However, it seems not to matter when support no longer exists in the Unionist part of the community—it seems that we shall plod on anyway.
    I implore Ministers to undertake a wide-ranging review that considers all the issues, rather than just decommissioning. We need a thorough review so that we may achieve proper administration for Northern Ireland that is democratic, accountable and supported by all the people.
    Mr. Owen Paterson: The Secretary of State's explanation of the Government's reasons for not publishing the de Chastelain report are totally unsatisfactory. We have not got to the bottom of the question whether the Irish Government have a veto. We had the bizarre statement that if General de Chastelain produces a third report, it will, even if entirely unpalatable and full of unwelcome news, be published along with the second.
    By not publishing the report, the Government have let fly a flurry of speculation. First, there is speculation about what the report contains—and that may be damaging, because rumour builds on rumour, and speculation on speculation. Secondly, there is speculation about why the Government are not publishing it. Their refusal does them no credit, and it does the House no credit given that our whole debate has been triggered by the report and the IRA's refusal to disarm. Hon. Members are grown-ups,
    202
    and the general public watching our proceedings must find it bizarre that we have not been made party to the critical information that has triggered the debate. I appeal to the Minister to give us a serious and sensible reason why the report has not been published.
    Mr. George Howarth: The hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross) seeks to remove the requirement for a review. Amendments Nos. 15 and 16 contradict the main purpose of suspension, which will come about only if it becomes clear that the political institutions no longer carry cross-community support and confidence. If that happens, it will be essential to bring the process back on track through discussion and negotiation. In other words, we will need a review.
    That fact was recognised during the negotiations that resulted in the Good Friday agreement, which is why the agreement includes a section titled "Validation, implementation and review". If suspension occurred without a subsequent review, we might find ourselves in a dangerous political vacuum, and that could lead to the destruction of everything for which we have worked for so long. Almost certainly, the Good Friday agreement would end, because suspension without a follow-on would end the story.
    A desire to see that state of affairs come about may well lie behind the hon. Gentleman's amendments. The Bill is intended not to suspend the agreement, but to save it. Although I know that the hon. Gentleman—he posed a series of questions, but he appears to have left the Chamber—would disagree with me, I hope he would accept that we are being consistent. I am convinced that the twin proposal of suspension followed by review will bring us to a positive outcome. We cannot do that by suspension alone. I cannot in all conscience recommend that we accept amendments Nos. 15 and 16.
    9.30 pm
    I understand the rationale behind amendment No. 20, tabled by the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter)—that the review be carried out as openly as possible. The hon. Member for West Tyrone (Mr. Thompson) made a similar point. Given the nature of the discussions that are likely to take place, complete public openness will not always be possible if we are to reach a satisfactory conclusion. Right hon. and hon. Members can envisage circumstances in which some talks would need to take place away from the public gaze. In the past, some talks between parties have taken place in a way that protected the participants and allowed them the space to decide in which direction to move.
    However, it is our intention to be as open as possible and to make as much information as possible available to the public, to the House and to anybody else. At present, it is not entirely clear how the review will operate; we do not know who will chair it, or how, when, where or between whom the meetings will take place. Those details will need to be worked out, if and when the institutions are suspended.
    The hon. Member for East Londonderry speculated that more detailed arrangements might be in hand, and were ready to be executed. However, in reality, we shall have to cross the bridge, and then my right hon. Friend and others will have to make the arrangements. We cannot give detailed answers at present, because we have not yet crossed that bridge—of deciding on suspension.

    203
    Until the shape of the review and its terms of reference are finalised, it is not possible to say whether there will be a report. However, the provision is not one of such import that it should be included in the Bill. It is a marginal issue when compared with provisions elsewhere in the Bill.
    The second part of the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Basingstoke concerns the publication of a decommissioning report during any suspension period. At present, I cannot say whether a further decommissioning commission report will be issued soon. General de Chastelain may have something new to report at any time, but it is within the commission's discretion to decide whether and when to issue such a report. If the general issues another report, I assure the hon. Gentleman that it will be brought to the attention of the House and that its primary findings will be made public. Consequently, I ask the Committee to reject the amendment.
    Mr. William Ross: I have been a Member of this place for a fair number of years, Sir Alan. It is rare that a Minister stands at the Dispatch Box and asks hon. Members to accept legislation such that we know not what it will do, nor how, nor why, and we know not who is in charge of it. In the light of the Minister's inadequate response, we must press the matter to a Division.
    Question put, That the amendment be made:—
    The Committee divided: Ayes 10, Noes 301.

    Division No. 66]

    [9.34 pm

    AYES

    Beggs, Roy

    Ross, William (E Lond'y)

    Flight, Howard

    Swayne, Desmond

    Hunter, Andrew

    Thompson, William

    Maclean, Rt Hon David

    Paisley, Rev Ian

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Robertson, Laurence

    Rev. Martin Smyth and

    Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

    Mr. Andrew Robathan.

    NOES

    Abbott, Ms Diane

    Bradshaw, Ben

    Ainger, Nick

    Brinton, Mrs Helen

    Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

    Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

    Alexander, Douglas

    Browne, Desmond

    Allen, Graham

    Buck, Ms Karen

    Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

    Burden, Richard

    Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

    Burgon, Colin

    Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

    Burstow, Paul

    Atherton, Ms Candy

    Butler, Mrs Christine

    Atkins, Charlotte

    Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

    Austin, John

    Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

    Ballard, Jackie

    Barnes, Harry

    Campbell-Savours, Dale

    Battle, John

    Cann, Jamie

    Bayley, Hugh

    Casale, Roger

    Beard, Nigel

    Caton, Martin

    Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

    Cawsey, Ian

    Beith, Rt Hon A J

    Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

    Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

    Chaytor, David

    Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)

    Chidgey, David

    Benton, Joe

    Clapham, Michael

    Berry, Roger

    Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

    Best, Harold

    Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

    Betts, Clive

    Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

    Blackman, Liz

    Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

    Blears, Ms Hazel

    Clelland, David

    Blizzard, Bob

    Clwyd, Ann

    Borrow, David

    Coffey, Ms Ann

    Bradley, Keith (Withington)

    Coleman, Iain

    Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

    Colman, Tony

    204

    Connarty, Michael

    Howells, Dr Kim

    Cooper, Yvette

    Hoyle, Lindsay

    Corbett, Robin

    Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

    Corbyn, Jeremy

    Humble, Mrs Joan

    Cotter, Brian

    Hurst, Alan

    Cousins, Jim

    Iddon, Dr Brian

    Cox, Tom

    Illsley, Eric

    Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

    Ingram, Rt Hon Adam

    Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

    Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

    Cummings, John

    Jamieson, David

    Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

    Jenkins, Brian

    Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

    Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

    Dalyell, Tam

    Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

    Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

    Darvill, Keith

    Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

    Davey, Edward (Kingston)

    Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

    Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

    Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

    Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

    Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

    Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

    Davis, Rt Hon Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

    Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

    Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

    Dawson, Hilton

    Khabra, Piara S

    Dean, Mrs Janet

    Kidney, David

    Denham, John

    Kilfoyle, Peter

    Dobbin, Jim

    King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

    Doran, Frank

    Kirkwood, Archy

    Dowd, Jim

    Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

    Drew, David

    Laxton, Bob

    Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

    Lepper, David

    Edwards, Huw

    Leslie, Christopher

    Efford, Clive

    Levitt, Tom

    Ellman, Mrs Louise

    Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

    Etherington, Bill

    Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

    Field, Rt Hon Frank

    Linton, Martin

    Fisher, Mark

    Livsey, Richard

    Fitzsimons, Loma

    Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

    Flint, Caroline

    Love, Andrew

    Flynn, Paul

    McAvoy, Thomas

    Follett, Barbara

    McCabe, Steve

    Foster, Rt Hon Derek

    McCafferty, Ms Chris

    Foster, Don (Bath)

    McDonagh, Siobhain

    Fyfe, Maria

    Macdonald, Calum

    Galbraith, Sam

    McDonnell, John

    Galloway, George

    McFall, John

    Gardiner, Barry

    McGrady, Eddie

    George, Andrew (St Ives)

    McIsaac, Shona

    Gerrard, Neil

    McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

    Gilroy, Mrs Linda

    Mackinlay, Andrew

    Godman, Dr Norman A

    McNamara, Kevin

    Goggins, Paul

    McWalter, Tony

    Golding, Mrs Llin

    McWilliam, John

    Gordon, Mrs Eileen

    Mahon, Mrs Alice

    Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

    Mallaber, Judy

    Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

    Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

    Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

    Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

    Grocott, Bruce

    Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

    Grogan, John

    Marshall, David (Shettteston)

    Hain, Peter

    Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

    Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

    Martlew, Eric

    Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

    Maxton, John

    Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

    Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

    Hanson, David

    Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

    Harris, Dr Evan

    Miller, Andrew

    Harvey, Nick

    Moonie, Dr Lewis

    Heal, Mrs Sylvia

    Moore, Michael

    Healey, John

    Moran, Ms Margaret

    Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

    Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

    Heppell, John

    Moriey, Elliot

    Hesford, Stephen

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

    Hill, Keith

    Hinchliffe, David

    Mountford, Kali

    Hoey, Kate

    Mudie, George

    Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

    Mullin, Chris

    Hope, Phil

    Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

    Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

    Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

    Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

    Naysmith, Dr Doug

    205

    Norris, Dan

    Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

    O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

    O'Hara, Eddie

    Smith, Jacqui (Redditeh)

    O'Neill, Martin

    Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

    Öpik, Lembit

    Snape, Peter

    Organ, Mrs Diana

    Soley, Clive

    Pearson, Ian

    Southworth, Ms Helen

    Perham, Ms Linda

    Squire, Ms Rachel

    Pickthall, Colin

    Stewart, David (Inverness E)

    Pike, Peter L

    Stinchcombe, Paul

    Plaskitt, James

    Stoate, Dr Howard

    Pollard, Kerry

    Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

    Pond, Chris

    Stringer, Graham

    Pope, Greg

    Stuart, Ms Gisela

    Pound, Stephen

    Stunell, Andrew

    Powell, Sir Raymond

    Sutcliffe, Gerry

    Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

    Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

    Prescott, Rt Hon John

    Primarolo, Dawn

    Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

    Prosser, Gwyn

    Taylor, David (NW Leics)

    Purchase, Ken

    Temple-Morris, Peter

    Quinn, Lawrie

    Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

    Radice, Rt Hon Giles

    Timms, Stephen

    Rammell, Bill

    Tipping, Paddy

    Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

    Todd, Mark

    Rendel, David

    Touhig, Don

    Roche, Mrs Barbara

    Trickett, Jon

    Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff

    Truswell, Paul

    Rooney, Terry

    Turner, Dennis (Wdverh'ton SE)

    Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

    Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

    Rowlands, Ted

    Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

    Roy, Frank

    Turner, Neil (Wigan)

    Ruane, Chris

    Twigg, Derek (Halton)

    Ruddock, Joan

    Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

    Russell, Bob (Colchester)

    Tyler, Paul

    Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

    Vis, Dr Rudi

    Sanders, Adrian

    Webb, Steve

    Sarwar, Mohammad

    White, Brian

    Savidge, Malcolm

    Whitehead, Dr Alan

    Sawford, Phil

    Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

    Sedgemore, Brian

    Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

    Shaw, Jonathan

    Winnfck, David

    Sheerman, Barry

    Wise, Audrey

    Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

    Wood, Mike

    Shipley, Ms Debra

    Woolas, Phil

    Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

    Worthington, Tony

    Singh, Marsha

    Skinner, Dennis

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

    Mrs. Anne McGuire and

    Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

    Mr. Tony McNulty.

    Question accordingly negatived.
    THE CHAIRMAN then proceeded to put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of business to be concluded at that hour.
    Clauses 2 to 9 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Schedule agreed to.
    Bill reported, without amendment.
    Order for Third Reading read.
    9.46 pm
    Mr. Mandelson: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
    Having listened to the debate, I have no doubt how most hon. Members would sum up the views of the House. There are those in the House who reject the entire notion of inclusive government. They would rather not have self-government than share it with those whom they consider beneath contempt.
    Those who reject self-government because they cannot bear the idea of sharing it with others do not speak for the majority of people in Northern Ireland, who have
    206
    demonstrated beyond doubt that they like devolution, they like having their own Executive, and they like having locally elected people who are democratically accountable—local voices taking decisions on local issues, and people with local accents in charge of local affairs.
    What unites most of us is not a rejectionist mentality. Most of us, of whatever party or leaning, want the Good Friday agreement to succeed. There are aspects of it that some do not like, but they realise that the agreement stands or falls as a whole. It must be taken as a job lot. It cannot be cherry-picked. It must go forward together or not at all.
    Most of us in the House commend the Unionists for letting devolution happen, and we share their disappointment that decommissioning has not followed. I do not believe that any hon. Member would honestly or realistically deny that the original deal following Mitchell was that if the Unionists went first, others would follow, and that following devolution, a start on decommissioning would be made not long afterwards.
    What also joins most of us in the House is that we are not obsessed with attaching blame to anyone. We are not interested in spreading recrimination for our current difficulties. We would prefer people to make the agreement work, rather than stand accused of acting in bad faith. Accusing people of bad faith and of letting others down gets us nowhere. I am struck and I feel encouraged by the marked absence of recrimination.
    Mr. Thompson rose—
    Mr. Mandelson: No, I am sorry, I shall make my speech. The hon. Gentleman has had his time.
    It is striking that right hon. and hon. Members who contributed to the debate were overwhelmingly positive. They wanted the agreement to succeed. They were not interested in playing some ridiculous, destructive blame game. We can agree thus far. However, we must consider what we should do now that decommissioning has not begun, and what the Ulster Unionists should do in its absence. Most Ulster Unionists are running on empty because of the disappointing lack of progress. Consequently, the Executive is close to collapse, in a matter not of weeks but, tragically, of days. What is the right course of action?
    There are no easy options for anyone. Some are marginally less disagreeable than others. Several hon. Members who contributed to today's debate suggested that the Government are motivated simply by a desire to head off a Unionist veto or to deal with Unionist blackmail, and that our actions are determined by a metaphorical Unionist gun, which is pointing at our heads. That is not true. We face a complicated, real-life political predicament, and we must deal with it. People have genuine attitudes and prejudices; they have become genuinely exhausted and despair of the situation. We must face that reality and work out a response to it that preserves our achievements, saves what has been created and ensures the endurance of the possibility that the institutions and the very important Executive will flourish permanently. I am firmly set on that course, not on some short-term manoeuvre or tactics that will simply tide us over the next day or two.
    We are not considering any individual. We are not trying to save the skin of the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble), although his skin is pretty valuable,

    207
    and worth saving if we can. I believe that because he has shown admirable leadership of his party; because we would never have formed the Executive and set up the institutions without him; because he has a great deal of leadership left in him; and because, if he relinquished the leadership of the Ulster Unionist party, I would fear for the consequences for Northern Ireland, given his likely replacement.
    We are not considering going back to the bad old days of Stormont, and government by one side of the community. We shall not do that now, later or at any time. Under no circumstances or terms will we entertain for one moment a reversion to that form of government in Northern Ireland.
    I appeal to some of my right hon. and hon. Friends, to whatever extent they found the attitudes of some Ulster Unionist Members who contributed to the debate lacking, not to take a similarly one-sided view in their analysis of the situation in Northern Ireland. The new institutions in Northern Ireland cannot function with the support and confidence of one tradition alone. The new Executive needs two legs to walk on. At the moment, one leg is badly disabled and out of action. I do not think that the Unionist leg is out of action permanently, but it is dragging its foot slightly lamely as a result of a collapse in confidence following Unionist disappointment over the lack of decommissioning since the Executive was set up. I regret that and wish things were different. If I were a doctor with a miracle remedy at my disposal, I would apply it to that Unionist leg and hope for an immediate or overnight cure, but I am afraid that one is not available to me.
    There is still a chance that we can repair what has gone wrong before the weekend, which I entirely accept is the next watershed that we face. I appeal to the right hon. Member for Upper Bann not to despair and not to turn off, but to remain open to new ideas and new proposals that might yet be canvassed in the coming days and to keep the channels open. We will need all his strength and energy during the review if we are to succeed in resurrecting the Executive and the institutions, should it prove painfully necessary to implement the Bill before the weekend.
    I say to my hon. Friends from the Social Democratic and Labour party that I understand only too well why they feel that the option of suspension—putting the Executive and the other institutions on hold—is so very painful. The nationalist people whom they represent in Northern Ireland have been shut out of government for so long through no fault of their own, so it is deeply disappointing—almost too much to bear—to have staked their claim in the ground of the new Executive only to have it so cruelly removed after only eight weeks. I fully understand and deeply sympathise. If I could do anything to avoid that, I would do it. If there is anything that the Government, together with the Irish Government, can do before the end of the week to avoid that, we shall do it.
    I understand why the prospect of returning to direct rule is so unattractive and so disagreeable, but, although this may be unfair, perhaps it is all right for the SDLP to indulge itself somewhat by not facing up to the harsh and unpalatable reality of what we have to do. For others, I am afraid that there is no alternative to the heavy lifting that we have to undertake and no alternative to putting
    208
    the institutions on hold to create a pause to give us time—a breathing space—so that we can work hard with it and with others to resurrect that which we hold so dear.
    Mr. Tony Benn: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for that positive statement. May I make a suggestion, which might be helpful? The Bill gives him the right to suspend the Executive and the Assembly. It is an undated cheque. He can suspend them at the end of the week if there is no news—or in a year or two years—without coming back to Parliament, but Parliament has to pass an order for them to be restored. Can he give the assurance, which would be very welcome, that he would come back to the House to make a statement in the light of the contemporary circumstances, which might be quite different, if at any time and for any reason it was necessary to bring the Bill into force, even though there is no legislative provision for that? That would give us an opportunity to consider and endorse his proposals.
    Mr. Mandelson: That is a tempting offer by my right hon. Friend, and I fully understand the spirit in which it was made. I am afraid that I may not have that scope; there may not be that flexibility, between now and when I have to act, to come back to the House to make a statement and to give the House a further opportunity to debate the matter. If it were possible, if I had that latitude, I would certainly use it, because I regard it as very important on an issue as important as this, on which there are such strongly held feelings, to give people any and every opportunity to debate it properly in the only place in which democracy—live, open democracy—has been able to operate in relation to Northern Ireland for so long.
    I am grateful to everyone who has contributed to this debate. I very much hope that, in the weeks and months ahead, if we have to take this painful decision before the weekend, it will not be too long before I can return to the House with better, more positive and constructive news. I hope that I can show how the parties together, as a result of the review that we intend to make, have been able to chart a new way through these very difficult waters, and how we are able ultimately to get the progress we want, not only in creating proper, democratic, devolved institutions in Northern Ireland, but in having the decommissioning that is an essential part of this peace process, without which the politics in Northern Ireland will not work.
    I am confident; I am optimistic. I will certainly use all my energy to make sure that we get out of the dip—the trough—that we have now slipped into. I hope that it will not be too long before I can return to the House and give it better news.
    10.2 pm
    Mr. Öpik: In view of the Secretary of State's response to his right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), I imagine that this is the last time that we shall have a chance to debate this matter before the Bill can be used. That is regrettable because, at the very least, a short debate would have been helpful. I am sorry that he did not feel able to give that guarantee.
    Nevertheless, decommissioning has been widely debated tonight, and it is obvious that we are close to a watershed on the whole issue. I have just three short comments to make. First, I re-emphasise how important

    209
    it is to take seriously the points made by the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon), because he represents a legitimate and considerable body of people in the community in Northern Ireland who will regard the enactment of this Bill—the suspension of the Assembly—as a very negative statement with regard to devolution as a whole. I plead with the Minister to be extremely sensitive to the need to ensure that there are confidence-building measures in place for those communities, a willingness to explain exactly what is going on and an assurance that this is not a one-way walk from the Assembly to a dark place from which we had all sincerely hoped we had moved forward.
    Secondly, it is important for us to recognise the potential for division and recrimination, the noise created by this between the communities as all sides blame each other for the potential suspension of the Assembly. The Government must play a part in ensuring that we do not end up with own goals as a result of the implementation of a suspension.
    Thirdly, we need to remember that this is an emergency only if we make it so. The Bill is probably right. It is not a matter of principle; it is a matter of political probabilities that we are discussing it at all. However, it is right only so long as we make sure that the political temperature is kept down as it is moved forward. I see the Bill as an attempt to avert an emergency on 22 May, by which time, as we all know, full decommissioning is meant to have taken place. I think that the Government should play it by ear, and listen carefully as the public in Northern Ireland inevitably respond to any suspension.
    Let me conclude with an emotional response. I feel very sad about what we have done today. In comparison with where we were, say, five years ago, we have made tremendous and unexpected progress, but it now seems that we are going to take a couple of steps back. In fact, that is not surprising: a characteristic element of the Northern Ireland peace process has been the taking of two steps forward and one step back. I hope that this really is just one step back, and that we shall not allow the process to begin to atrophy or stall just because the difficult decision to suspend the Assembly has been made.
    I say to the Government, "Please, please be sensitive to the dangers of the Bill. Please be sensitive to the likely reaction in nationalist and republican communities, who will be very disappointed about the fact that things have gone backwards." I say to the whole House that, given that we have supported the Bill by and large—and we do need to be sombre about what it will do—I sincerely hope that, if implemented, it will be seen as a staging post. Nevertheless, I feel that, having seen sunlight on the Province, we are now walking back into a valley.
    10.6 pm
    Mr. McDonnell: This has been a sombre debate. I contrast it with the time, nearly two years ago, when we had a sense of hope and a sense of the future. It was then that we realised that the Belfast agreement might give us the opportunity of ensuring that the future of the island of Ireland would be determined not by the gun or the bomb or by British mandate, but by the Irish people themselves.
    The agreement gave the Unionists the possibility that their future would be decided neither by some form of brute force nor by a British sell-out. They would be a
    210
    party to decisions: that is why they would regain the structures of a statelet. For republicans and nationalists, there was the acceptance of the sovereignty of the Irish people as a whole, and the prospect of a mechanism to create a united Ireland. The agreement gave all of us—both traditions—peace and an opportunity to involve ourselves in policy making and governmental structures that would have an impact on the day-to-day lives of the citizens of the Six Counties of Northern Ireland. It offered the chance of a normalisation of politics—of the politics that we have taken for granted on this island: politics that are determined by electoral mandates and policy discussion in a civilised framework.
    The agreement gave us the chance of a radical reform programme, the achievement of equality, respect for human rights and, in every area of policy and everyday life, a debate about what the quality of life should be. I am sorry that some quarters have appealed tonight for a retreat from that programme of reform, for it is important that we press on.
    For some of us, the agreement provided the hope of a united island of Ireland at some time in the future, on the basis of agreement and mutual respect for different traditions. It provided the hope of an Ireland strengthened by the process of agreement. We accepted that peace was never to be a single act and that there were never to be any armistices. It was a process that would be achieved in stages. There must be incremental steps: lessening violence, removing violence, engaging in dialogue, achieving the appreciation of different perspectives and the understanding of different views, and securing agreement for a way forward.
    That is why the Bill is such a step backwards—and it is a major step backwards. It removes the structures of the government of Northern Ireland that would make possible the debate, the process of reform and the dialogue. I am confident that we shall eventually restore those structures and achieve peace, but, as we have heard today, there is a history of structures being abolished or suspended that goes back about a quarter of a century.
    I believe that the Bill poses a risk. Some people are trying to use the decommissioning issue to undermine elements in the Good Friday agreement, and some are trying to undermine the agreement overall. Decommissioning has become a weapon in the hands of anti-agreement elements—of rejectionists. It was used first as an excuse to delay the setting up of the Executive; now it is used to put the whole peace process in jeopardy. But what does decommissioning mean? The IRA has not fired weapons or exploded bombs since the restoration of the ceasefire on 20 July 1997. Before that, the ceasefire had lasted from 13 October 1994 to 9 February 1996. With the exception of the tragedy at Canary wharf, the IRA had held a disciplined ceasefire, with weapons out of commission for more than five years.
    No one in the 1960s, 1970s or 1980s would have ever been optimistic enough to hope that that could be achieved within that time scale. The weapons are out of commission. We are urged today to suspend the arrangements and structures that have consolidated that ceasefire, that form of decommissioning. Why? Because some want to press some extraordinary process of surrender—and surrender is what it will be viewed as.
    Mr. Harry Barnes: All the hon. Members who have spoken in the debate so far,

    211
    including those who voted against Second Reading, have pointed out that they are in favour of decommissioning. Is that a position that my hon. Friend adopts? As he is closer to contacts with Sinn Fein than I will ever be, will he press decommissioning upon them, because it is the friends, or the people who have links with Sinn Fein, who might be able to shift its position?
    Mr. McDonnell: Decommissioning has been recognised as a responsibility. That is why the agreement was signed, but decommissioning itself is a process and the achievement for most of us was peace, the lack of bombs and the lack of the use of the gun. That has been achieved. That is an argument of good faith, which has been demonstrated, but the ramifications of pressing the process to its nth degree have already been explained: the risks of splits and jeopardy for all. This week's bomb is a reminder of the problems and of how it is difficult to hold organisations and traditions together.
    Mr. Winnick: Most of us were against the IRA campaign of terror, as we were against the so-called loyalists on the other side during those long 30 years. We made our position clear. Will my hon. Friend take into account the article in The Irish Times today—which I have already quoted in an intervention—by my friend the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume), who pleaded with the IRA for some form of decommissioning? We should bear it in mind that it was he who set the peace process in motion in the first place.
    Mr. McDonnell: I understand the point that my hon. Friend makes. Of course, we are all pleading with all sides to move forward together on a path to peace and to decommissioning in the end, but let us make it clear that the agreement contains no provision for the suspension of power and did not set a deadline—the deadline has been set as a result of an external intervention by the Unionists. It is the exercise of a Unionist veto on the agreement, a veto that is dangerous.
    The Unionist veto was dangerously used in 1975 and 1985. There have been periods when it has undermined the democratic institutions that British Governments have tried to establish in the Six Counties. We are seeing it again now. Why should we allow a timetable to be imposed by one of the parties to the agreement which is not in the agreement?
    A lasting peace can be founded only on trust. It is clear that sufficient trust has not been established between the parties to the conflict. The irony of the Bill is that it suspends the operation of the key body that is engendering trust—the Assembly. The Assembly is the key forum, in which representatives from all the constituencies and all the parties are able to meet, mix, discuss and work together on common problems in the interests of their community. That process is a key foundation stone of building trust to secure decommissioning. After only eight weeks' operation, we are asked to suspend that key body of trust and confidence building.
    The Bill's wide-ranging powers are shocking. The Secretary of State is able by order not just on this occasion through the Bill, but on future occasions, to suspend the Assembly and all the mechanisms associated with the agreement without full and adequate debate. Orders are never adequately debated in the Chamber. That wide-ranging power does not even contain a review element;
    212
    there is no review element on revocation or restoration. It is government by order. There is no power in the legislation for consultation with the Irish Government, although I accept Ministers' assurances on that point.
    I oppose the Bill. It will not help the peace process; it is dangerous; it is undemocratic; and it cannot be supported. The Belfast agreement was founded on an agreement to secure by consent peace and a future for the island of Ireland. The Bill rides roughshod over the concept of consent, without even consulting the Northern Ireland Assembly or going back to the people of Ireland.
    If we are not careful, the Bill will undermine the peace process. I therefore urge care on the Secretary of State. I urge him not to enact the Bill immediately, but to allow more time for discussion and, if necessary, to bring together again the parties that founded the Belfast agreement. This short-term measure could have long-term ramifications, and I urge other hon. Members to vote against it.
    10.15 pm
    Mr. William Ross: I have occasionally listened to the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. McDonnell) speak on Northern Ireland and Irish affairs, but I rarely find myself in agreement with him. However, I agree with all those who complain about rushed legislation. In the years that I have been in this place, I have seen that every time a new piece of legislation is rushed through, we have lived to regret it in one form or another.
    In this case, I believe that the Bill is the inevitable consequence of the IRA failing to live up to the commitments that it appeared to give. IRA spin doctoring did good service. In Northern Ireland, however, people like clarity, and one cannot get away with trying to conceal reality in ambiguous language. Eventually, reality breaks through.
    I regret that we have not managed to examine the rest of the Bill's clauses and amendments, few though they are. Various issues were raised in the amendments that should have been debated. I do not believe that this is a happy day for anyone. To some extent, I also regret it. However, my reasons for regretting it are different from those that have been expressed hitherto.
    My regrets stem from the fact that we are in this position today because we did not at the very outset address the hard issues of weaponry and IRA objectives. If those issues had been settled initially—three, four or five years ago—we would not be debating this Bill. We would have come up with a totally different agreement and a totally different Northern Ireland Act 1998.
    Although we probably would have had something at a much lower level, it would at least have been workable and provided us with a sound foundation for the future in Northern Ireland—with that part of the United Kingdom remaining firmly within this Kingdom. That, of course, is the crux of the matter. Republicans of all stripes seek to destroy the constitutional position of Northern Ireland within this Kingdom. It is around that political and constitutional issue that all the battles have been fought and all the violence has taken place, and from which all the horrors that we have suffered have flowed.
    Unless and until certainty is introduced, and unless and until doubt is removed about the long-term political and constitutional future of Northern Ireland, we can expect

    213
    violence to come back in one form or another. That old, old sermon has been preached in the House for many years by me and by many other hon. Members, but I fear that it has not yet been absorbed. I think that, in any Parliament, we get to the stage when people start to absorb the lesson, learn from it, understand it and accept it. Then, we have a general election and a new group of hon. Members have to be taught all over again. It is a learning process, perhaps, for many right hon. and hon. Members, but it is a learning process that the people of Ulster have paid for in blood.
    10.19 pm
    Mr. McGrady: When the Bill is passed today, as I am sure it will be, it will be a very traumatic experience for the political process in Northern Ireland. In 1974, I participated in the formation of the Executive. In the intervening 26 years, we have struggled to re-establish that which we had then. It is true that, at that point, the Executive—that partnership—was brought down by the violence of the loyalist paramilitaries and the extreme loyalist political parties. Times change over a quarter of a century and I thought that we had built an edifice that would withstand the test of the coming weekend.
    My party is opposed to the Bill, as we showed by voting against Second Reading. We do not see any merit in it, or even understand the strategy involved. Because the leader of one party gave a pawn ticket to his party that certain things would happen by a certain date, we are condemned to be the unserving elected representatives of Northern Ireland for an indefinite time. As many people have said, in Northern Ireland it is much easier to destroy than to build.
    I understand the difficulties and the gamble that the Government are taking, but we think that the gamble is wrong. We do not understand the purpose of the Bill other than to protect the leadership of one of the eight parties in the Assembly. If the Bill, with all that could flow from it, is directed to that one end, as I fear that it is, it does not say much for the Government's understanding of the circumstances of Northern Ireland and our capability—it takes time but it has been well illustrated over the past 24 months—to muddle through our differences somehow and come out again at the other end.
    I have experienced 30 years of killing and maiming. I say clearly that weapons should have been decommissioned—indeed, they should never have existed. As my hon. Friend the Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) said many months ago, the process is for the slow learners who failed to understand what Sunningdale was about. I would not like to contemplate the aftermath of the failure of 1974 being repeated.
    If the Secretary of State's intention is to achieve decommissioning, I assure him that he is going about it in the wrong way. I sincerely want decommissioning. I have opposed violence all my life. I know that promises and understandings given during the Mitchell review in the last weeks of November have not been fulfilled by Sinn Fein. The question was who was to jump first—would it be devolution or decommissioning? The right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) and his party took the courageous step of jumping first. My understanding was that decommissioning would be the second phase and
    214
    would happen before Christmas. If that had happened, the de Chastelain report of 31 January would have been positive. I understand that it is not, although I have not seen it.
    We have been let down yet again by the paramilitaries, but let us pause with this thought: are the IRA and the loyalist paramilitaries—let us not forget that they have not decommissioned either—working together to ensure that the democratic process fails? Do they see the development and success of the Assembly—I assume that its last meeting was held today—as a danger to their programme of violence? Do they see no future for themselves? Is that why they are trying to break the process?
    Getting eight different parties to work together has not been easy. Even the members of the Democratic Unionist party, who are opposed to the agreement, are working in all the Committees and other paraphernalia of the Assembly, even if they are in separate rooms from the rest of us. That is an evolutionary process. We have a lot to tolerate in one another and the only way is participation in the Assembly. I fear—virtually dread—that the effects of the Bill will come into force prematurely, without giving us the chance to create our solution to our problem. The Bill is a bad idea.
    I understand the sincerity and integrity of the Secretary of State and his ministerial colleagues in presenting the Bill to the House. We must beg to differ on interpretations of what will happen. I hope sincerely that the Goverment are right and I am wrong.
    10.25 pm
    Mr. Hunter: Unusually, I find myself supporting the Government. I had no hesitation in voting for the Bill on Second Reading, and in the prevailing circumstances, the Government are taking the right action.
    I deeply regret, however, the tone and tenor of the Secretary of State's early comments. As long as he equates opposition to the Belfast agreement with opposition to peace, the right hon. Gentleman will alienate himself increasingly from a significant body of thinking. I have never concealed my personal opposition to the agreement and have incurred much unpopularity for so doing. I do not believe that that agreement will generate or create political stability—without which there can be no lasting peace in Northern Ireland.
    Civilised society has core values that include the absolute rule of law, a system of justice free from political intervention and genuinely accountable democratic structures—so the Belfast agreement and the political arrangements that flow from it are ultimately doomed to failure. I demand the right to express that view without being accused of being opposed to peace. Every time the Secretary of State makes such an allegation, he is alienating himself from an important body of thinking in the province of Northern Ireland and Great Britain.
    I regret that tonight's debate has been accelerated, although I appreciate the reasons. Only two clauses in this Bill of nine clauses were debated in Committee. It is most unfortunate that so much of the Bill is being passed without detailed consideration by this House. I hope that will be put right in the other place and that there will be amendments, so that our debate can be prolonged.
    I particularly regret the fact that we did not debate one of the Bill's deficiencies, in clause 9. The Secretary of State said that the Good Friday agreement stands or

    215
    falls together. I only wish that were so. The agreement contains a number of independent strands that are not related. If we had reached clause 9, I had hoped to debate the desirability of linking suspension of the structures and institutions of direct rule with the accelerated release of prisoners. I hope that point will be raised in another place.
    I support the Bill but regret that it did not receive more consideration. I regret that the Secretary of State continues to equate those who oppose the Belfast agreement with those who oppose peace.
    10.29 pm
    Mr. Barnes: Two speeches have expressed fully the view of those who are opposed to the Bill, and they should be responded to—one was from the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon), and the other was from my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn). I know and respect both Members, and they speak well and from the heart. However, their arguments were flawed and I wish to try to counter them.
    The hon. Member for Newry and Armagh said that things are different now, and he wishes that state of affairs to continue. Everyone can agree with that, and there has been a fantastic change in the nature of Northern Ireland politics. However, we have to ask how that came about. It came about because of all the work done to establish the Belfast agreement, which is still in place.
    The Assembly and the Executive extended the arrangements and started to bring people together. As the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) said, the policy was one of jumping first and attempting to take others along afterwards. As that has not occurred, we have a problem. If suspension did not take place and if there were no decommissioning, the Assembly and Executive would go forward on a false prospectus. We must seek to tackle and correct that by the suspension method if decommissioning does not take place.
    The second argument of the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh was that the chances of achieving decommissioning were lessened with the suspension. I do not know whether they are lessened or improved, and I doubt whether the hon. Gentleman knows, either. If suspension occurs, we will at least avoid the collapse of the Executive, which would have been much more damaging in terms of decommissioning.
    We know that Sinn Fein has many interests in keeping the process on board. Its future in democratic politics is open. It can become a major party within Northern Ireland, and a major party within the Republic of Ireland, holding the balance of power. We should expect Sinn Fein to be involved in decommissioning, to achieve those hopes.
    The third argument from the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh was that the suspension played into the hands of those who are against the Belfast agreement. That is entirely wrong. Without the suspension, we would play into the hands of those—especially in the Unionist camp—who wish to see a majority of "no" voters and who wish to stop the developments.
    The hon. Member for Newry and Armagh's fourth argument was that there was no such thing as a soft landing. I do not think that anybody is arguing that there is an easy or soft landing; there are many difficulties. The right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) argued
    216
    that neither decommissioning nor going back to the bombings was on the cards, and that we would need to work carefully in continuing our efforts.
    My right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield said that the desire to use weapons had gone. If that desire has gone, it seems to me that the circumstances are then much easier for weapons to be handed in. Those two things should go together, and the record of exilings, beatings and other incidents suggests that the desire has not yet gone.
    My right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield argued that suspension was a victory for the rejectionists—a similar argument to the one used by the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh. My right hon. Friend's major argument, however, was that democracy was taken away from Northern Ireland by the Bill. That is not quite true. Democracy, in some senses, is certainly weakened by having the institutions taken away. There are alternative democratic institutions that will operate—but what is democracy, especially in a context in which people live in fear of guns?
    I have just finished reading once more Nye Bevan's book "In Place of Fear", which he wrote in 1952 and in which he talked about the need for democracy. He recognised that democracy was weakened in circumstances in which people were exploited and placed in fear, and he said that democracy could not function properly unless the conditions of exploitation were removed. He directed his remarks mostly at class power and wealth in society, but we can apply the principles in his book to the situation in Northern Ireland. Democracy will be distorted if the gun poses a threat to its operation.
    Mr. Kevin McNamara: I have followed my hon. Friend's speech with care. However, how are we likely to be able to persuade Unionism to come back into the Assembly and the Executive, given that the Anglo-Irish agreement has now gone and that articles 2 and 3 are changed—which were the two main points that Unionism wanted to achieve in the negotiations? They have been achieved but there has been no quid pro quo. How will the situation be restored and, in particular, how will we maintain the Irish dimension, which has also now gone?
    Mr. Barnes: I believe that the Unionist population will ensure that the politicians respond to those concerns. A change has taken place, as the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh said, and it is a fantastic alteration in Northern Ireland politics that no one wants to let go. The commitment that has been made by the leadership of the Ulster Unionist party means that it is possible to maintain the change. What has to happen is that the rest of the Unionist camp, who are trying to realign and reorganise, have to be outmatched. If we put a little faith in Sinn Fein being able to advance towards decommissioning, we may also put some faith in the Ulster Unionist party and other forces in Northern Ireland—such as the Women's Coalition and other people—in the hope that they will bring about that change.
    10.37 pm
    Mr. Thompson: Having lived in Northern Ireland all my life, I have listened in amazement to some of the speeches that have been made today. Many of those who have made speeches may have been well meaning, but they have shown that they do not know very much about Northern Ireland.

    217
    We have tried to press the Secretary of State on why he has not produced the de Chastelain document. I suggest that he is embarrassed to do so, because there is nothing in the document. The former Secretary of State and the Prime Minister assured us that there was a tremendous change happening in the IRA and that it would decommission. Indeed, we have heard this evening from the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) that he expected to see decommissioning. Many reporters also expected to see decommissioning. The fact is that they have all—including the Government—been fooled by the IRA because it does not intend to give up any of its arms. It is an embarrassment to the Government to have to acknowledge that, especially to the Prime Minister.
    We have listened to many speeches in praise of the wonderful Assembly and all the good things that are supposed to be happening in Northern Ireland. The Secretary of State waxed so eloquent on the subject that he was carried away by his own enthusiasm, oratory and spin doctoring. Then he had to tell us that the situation was on the brink of disaster and that it no longer had the support of the Unionist community, which it does not. He also told us that a crisis would develop at the weekend unless he took action. He told us that if the leader of the Ulster Unionist party resigned, the whole thing would collapse. He said that there could be another election, but that would be a disaster because a majority would not be returned supporting the agreement, so the only alternative was to suspend the agreement.
    Thirdly, as the Secretary of State spoke from the Dispatch Box this evening, I noticed the change of tone from last week, when he told us that Sinn Fein had betrayed the Ulster Unionist people and the people of Ulster by not decommissioning. [Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman talked about all the people of Ireland, in fact.
    Mr. Mandelson: Will the hon. Gentleman way?
    Mr. Thompson: No, I will not give way.
    Mr. Mandelson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way and allow me to correct what he said?
    Hon. Members: Give way.
    Mr. Thompson: I will not give way.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. The hon. Gentleman clearly is not going to give way.
    Mr. Thompson: A tremendous change was signalled by the right hon. Gentleman's statement this evening, when he said that we must not blame anybody. He has said very little about the IRA this evening, but he has been very patronising to the members of the Ulster Unionist party. Let me say this to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland: he should not ignore the views or the decisions of the Ulster Unionist people because, ultimately, nothing can work in Northern Ireland without their consent.
    218
    This has to come—there has to be suspension. But in any review, let the Secretary of State recognise that he must satisfy the views of the majority of the people of Northern Ireland if there is to be eventual peace in Northern Ireland.
    Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—
    The House divided: Ayes 326, Noes 7.

    Division No. 67]

    [10.42 pm

    AYES

    Abbott, Ms Diane

    Coffey, Ms Ann

    Ainger, Nick

    Coleman, Iain

    Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

    Colman, Tony

    Alexander, Douglas

    Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)

    Allen, Graham

    Cooper, Yvette

    Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

    Corbett, Robin

    Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

    Cotter, Brian

    Ashton, Joe

    Cousins, Jim

    Atherton, Ms Candy

    Cox, Tom

    Atkins, Charlotte

    Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

    Austin, John

    Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

    Banks, Tony

    Cummings, John

    Barnes, Harry

    Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

    Battle, John

    Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

    Bayley, Hugh

    Darvill, Keith

    Beard, Nigel

    Davey, Edward (Kingston)

    Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

    Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

    Beggs, Roy

    Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

    Berth, Rt Hon A J

    Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

    Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

    Davis, Rt Hon Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

    Benton, Joe

    Berry, Roger

    Dawson, Hilton

    Best, Harold

    Dean, Mrs Janet

    Betts, Clive

    Denham, John

    Blackman, Liz

    Dobbin, Jim

    Blears, Ms Hazel

    Doran, Frank

    Blizzard, Bob

    Dowd, Jim

    Borrow, David

    Drew, David

    Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

    Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

    Bradley, Keith (Withington)

    Edwards, Huw

    Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

    Efford, Clive

    Bradshaw, Ben

    Ellman, Mrs Louise

    Brinton, Mrs Helen

    Ennis, Jeff

    Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

    Etherington, Bill

    Browne, Desmond

    Evans, Nigel

    Browning, Mrs Angela

    Field, Rt Hon Frank

    Buck, Ms Karen

    Fisher, Mark

    Burden, Richard

    Fitzpatrick, Jim

    Burgon, Colin

    Fitzsimons, Loma

    Burns, Simon

    Rint, Caroline

    Butler, Mrs Christine

    Flynn, Paul

    Caborn, Rt Hon Richard

    Follett, Barbara

    Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

    Foster, Rt Hon Derek

    Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

    Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

    Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

    Campbell-Savours, Dale

    Fyfe, Maria

    Cann, Jamie

    Galbraith, Sam

    Caplin, Ivor

    Gardiner, Barry

    Casale, Roger

    Gerrard, Neil

    Caton, Martin

    Gilroy, Mrs Linda

    Cawsey, Ian

    Godman, Dr Norman A

    Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

    Goggins, Paul

    Chaytor, David

    Golding, Mrs Llin

    Clapham, Michael

    Gordon, Mrs Eileen

    Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

    Grieve, Dominic

    Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

    Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

    Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

    Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

    Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

    Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

    Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

    Grogan, John

    Clelland, David

    Hain, Peter

    Clwyd, Ann

    Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

    Coaker, Vernon

    Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

    219

    Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

    McCabe, Steve

    Hanson, David

    McCafferty, Ms Chris

    Harris, Dr Evan

    McDonagh, Siobhain

    Harvey, Nick

    Macdonald, Calum

    Heal, Mrs Sylvia

    McFall, John

    Healey, John

    McIsaac, Shona

    Heath, David (Somerton & Frame)

    MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

    Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

    McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

    Heppell, John

    Mackinlay, Andrew

    Hesford, Stephen

    McNulty, Tony

    Hill, Keith

    McWalter, Tony

    Hinchliffe, David

    McWilliam, John

    Hoey, Kate

    Mahon, Mrs Alice

    Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

    Mallaber, Judy

    Hope, Phil

    Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

    Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

    Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

    Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

    Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

    Howells, Dr Kim

    Marshall, David (Shetteston)

    Hoyle, Lindsay

    Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

    Hughes, Ms Beveriey (Stretford)

    Martlew, Eric

    Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

    Maxton, John

    Humble, Mrs Joan

    Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

    Hunter, Andrew

    Meale, Alan

    Hurst, Alan

    Merron, Gillian

    Hutton, John

    Michie, Bill (Shefld Heeley)

    Iddon, Dr Brian

    Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

    Illsley, Eric

    Miller, Andrew

    Ingram, Rt Hon Adam

    Moonie, Dr Lewis

    Jackson, Heten (Hillsborough)

    Moore, Michael

    Jenkins, Brian

    Moran, Ms Margaret

    Johnson, Miss Melanie (Wewyn Hatfield)

    Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

    Moriey, Elliot

    Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

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

    Jones, Helen (Wanington N)

    Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

    Mountford, Kali

    Mudie, George

    Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

    Mullin, Chris

    Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

    Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

    Jones, Martyn (Ctwyd S)

    Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

    Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa

    Naysmith, Dr Doug

    Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

    Morris, Dan

    Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

    O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

    Khabra, Piara S

    O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

    Kidney, David

    O'Hara, Eddie

    Kilfoyle, Peter

    O'Neill, Martin

    King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

    Öpik, Lembit

    Kirkbride, Miss Julie

    Paisley, Rev Ian

    Kirkwood, Archy

    Paterson, Owen

    Lansley, Andrew

    Pearson, Ian

    Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

    Perham, Ms Linda

    Laxton, Bob

    Pickthall, Colin

    Lepper, David

    Pike, Peter L

    Leslie, Christopher

    Plaskitt, James

    Levitt, Tom

    Pollard, Kerry

    Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

    Pond, Chris

    Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

    Pope, Greg

    Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

    Pound, Stephen

    Lidington, David

    Powell, Sir Raymond

    Linton, Martin

    Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

    Livsey, Richard

    Prescott, Rt Hon John

    Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

    Primarolo, Dawn

    Loughton, Tim

    Prosser, Gwyn

    Love, Andrew

    Purchase, Ken

    McAvoy, Thomas

    Quinn, Lawrie

    220

    Radice, Rt Hon Giles

    Stringer, Graham

    Rammell, Bill

    Stuart, Ms Gisela

    Raynsford, Nick

    Stunell, Andrew

    Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

    Sutcliffe, Gerry

    Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

    Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

    Rendel, David

    Robertson, Laurence

    Taylor, Ms Dan (Stockton S)

    Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

    Taylor, David (NW Leics)

    Roche, Mrs Barbara

    Taylor, John M (Solihull)

    Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff

    Temple-Morris, Peter

    Rooney, Terry

    Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

    Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

    Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

    Ross, William (E Lond'y)

    Thompson, William

    Rowlands, Ted

    Timms, Stephen

    Roy, Frank

    Tipping, Paddy

    Ruane, Chris

    Todd, Mark

    Ruddock, Joan

    Touhig, Don

    Russell, Bob (Colchester)

    Trickett, Jon

    Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

    Truswell, Paul

    St Aubyn, Nick

    Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

    Sanders, Adrian

    Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

    Savidge, Malcolm

    Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

    Sawford, Phil

    Turner, Neil (Wigan)

    Sedgemore, Brian

    Twigg, Derek (Hatton)

    Shaw, Jonathan

    Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

    Shipley, Ms Debra

    Tyler, Paul

    Singh, Marsha

    Vis, Dr Rudi

    Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

    Walley, Ms Joan

    Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

    Webb, Steve

    Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

    White, Brian

    Whitehead, Dr Alan

    Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

    Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

    Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

    Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

    Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

    Winntok, David

    Snape, Peter

    Wise, Audrey

    Soley, Clive

    Woodward, Shaun

    Southworth, Ms Helen

    Woolas, Phil

    Squire, Ms Rachel

    Worthington, Tony

    Steen, Anthony

    Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

    Stewart, David (Inverness E)

    Stinchcombe, Paul

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Stoate, Dr Howard

    Mrs. Anne McGuire and

    Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

    Mr. David Jamieson.

    NOES

    Connarty, Michael

    McNamara, Kevin

    Skinner, Dennis

    Corbyn, Jeremy

    Dalyell, Tam

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Galloway, George

    Mr. John McDonnell and

    McGrady, Eddie

    Mr. Tony Benn.

    Question accordingly agreed to.
    Bill read the Third time, and passed.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  Ordered,
  That, at the sitting on 10th February, the House shall not adjourn until the Speaker shall have reported the Royal Assent to any Act agreed upon by both Houses.—[Mr. Dowd.]

  Flood Defences (South-west)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Dowd.]
  10.54 pm
  Mr. Anthony Steen: It is suitable that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is in the Chamber, because he has responsibility for fish. As we are talking about water, storms and rain, one would expect to see a bit of fish, so the Minister's presence is appropriate. However, I am not quite sure why he will respond to the debate, unless he also has responsibility for flood defences.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Elliot Morley) indicated assent.The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Elliot Morley) indicated assent.
  Mr. Steen: It is nice to know that the hon. Gentleman has that responsibility. I am glad to see him at such a reasonable hour.
  During the days of the previous Labour Government, the south-west was hit by a series of droughts and water shortages. As a result, the Avon dam, on Dartmoor, in my constituency, almost dried up. Standpipes became commonplace on street corners, car washes were forbidden and the then Minister for water, Denis Howell, was deployed from Whitehall to the west country like an old 19th century rainmaker in the American west to pray for rain. That was very successful.
  Paradoxically, it seems that, under the current Labour Government, the long dry sunny days of the 1970s have been eclipsed by unpredictable weather patterns resulting in torrential downpours of such intensity that rivers have burst their banks, tributaries have become raging torrents and roads have become streams of water as the result of run-off from the steep fields of the west country. Where once we had regular amounts of rainfall over a month, some parts of the west country now receive the same amount over a few days. Not surprisingly, the water table has risen and floods have become commonplace. Instead of a Minister for water, we perhaps now need a Minister for sunshine. That would fit into new Labour's raison d'etre—clear blue skies and a few white clouds, which is just how they would like us to picture its brave new world.
  Devon has not before seen the scale nor the scope of the flash floods that have occurred in the past few months. Over Christmas—on 18, 23 and 24 December—the west country suffered some of the worst floods that it has had for decades. Hundreds of houses were flooded and miles of roads were awash, with rivers reaching danger points and others flooding everything around them.
  Tragically, the floods resulted in the death of my constituent, Mr. Winchester from the hamlet of Galmpton near Brixharn, who was drowned after a seven-foot wave swept into his home. Because he suffered from Parkinson's disease and was in a wheelchair, he was unable to swim and, sadly, he died in his home.
  Residents in Churston village, who were also flooded, believe that the massive earthworks at Brokenbury quarry were responsible and there is evidence that the house-building programme of 90,000 new homes for Devon in the next 11 years could contribute to further flooding if they are built on flood plains. As the Minister
  222
  will know, much of the building in Devon is on flood plains, which in the past have not erupted. However, because of the high water tables, the area has become much easier to flood. Weather patterns suggest a climatic change, particularly as the south-west peninsula juts out into the Atlantic and faces the brunt of nature's onslaught.
  At Harbertonford, the River Harburn not only burst its banks, but reached its highest level for 70 years, which caused widespread flooding with 50 homes affected. Harbertonford was flooded several times over Christmas and, in spite of 30 tonnes of sandbags supplied by South Hams district council, several feet of water swept into the public bar of the local pub and gumboots were provided.
  The serious conditions in Harbertonford coincided with the arrival of the parliamentary spokesperson, as she calls herself, of the Liberal Democrats. She has made as much party political capital as she can over these natural disasters. I deeply regret that, and there is a level of arrogance for someone to call herself a parliamentary spokesperson when she has not even been elected by the electorate to that role. Unfortunately, she has her facts all wrong—and that is not a good start for a parliamentary spokesperson. She has misunderstood the district council's responsibilities, which is not surprising because it is a Conservative district council. It provided well in excess of its duties with the chief executive visiting the village twice just before Christmas to ensure that what could be done was being done by the labour force.
  The parliamentary spokesperson would have done better to talk to the Liberal Democrat county councillors in Exeter who have responsibility for flood defence. They have failed again to provide minimum funding for the Environment Agency and the south-west regional flood defence committee. The message is clear: if the burghers of Harbertonford want to avoid further flooding, they should ensure that the parliamentary spokesperson is moved to higher ground.
  The question now is what the response should be. There are those who believe that we should be ultra-cautious and that public money should not be gambled on flood defences since the weather is unpredictable and it may turn out to be a waste of time and effort. The dry, sunny weather with white clouds may come back. At the other extreme are those who shout for more money to be spent, no matter what the cost or the risk of future flooding. Both views gamble with lives and public finances, and those gambles are wrong and unnecessary.
  A balanced approach to flood defence is needed. A review is under way on the structure of flood defence provisions in England and Wales, and I hope that the Minister will talk about that and tell us when the review will be complete. Flood defences in the south-west have been weakened by a number of financial setbacks in recent years. The south-west regional flood defence committee is underfunded, and I pay particular tribute to the work of its chairman, Deborah Clark, who faces a difficult task and has done very well.
  The problem is that the county council and unitary authorities in the south-west have responsibility for flood defence, but are failing to discharge that responsibility effectively. The regional flood defence committee would have done much more if the county and unitary authorities had used a £6 million match fund waiting in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.
  Mrs. Angela Browning: My hon. Friend will be aware that one of the communities

  223
  suffering from the failure to implement that urgently needed flood defence scheme is Ottery St. Mary in my constituency. The town has been flooded out four times in three years to such an extent that many of the shopkeepers cannot get insurance for their premises.
  Mr. Steen: I hope that the Minister will deal with Ottery St. Mary because, beyond the three areas that I have mentioned, the flood defence committee is particularly concerned about the capital sum that it will need to raise to deal with Ottery St. Mary. We certainly do not want my hon. Friend to be flooded or washed away.
  There seems to be a failure by certain county and unitary authorities to discharge their responsibilities.
  Mr. Adrian Sanders: I gave notice to the hon. Gentleman that I wanted to intervene. Will he join me in paying tribute to the emergency services who waded through the flood waters in Galmpton and assisted in that operation? That needs to be put on the record.
  The unitary authority of Torbay pays into the Environment Agency, contrary to comments that have been made in the press, but the difficulty is that there is not a statutory responsibility to match fund the agency's expenditure, as there is with social services and education. The money has to come from the council this year, when it does not have it, and it must claim it back later. The Government need to consider that matter.
  Mr. Steen: I welcome the hon. Gentleman's interventions because he always sticks up for his own party, even when it has got it wrong. In this case, I pay tribute to the services that came to Galmpton and dealt with an unpleasant, difficult situation.
  I understand the hon. Gentleman's point, even though I do not agree with it. I am sure that the Minister will pick up his point that, although Torbay's unitary authority could spend more money to trigger the MAFF money, it does not have the money and it is not allowed to borrow it, even though it would get it back the following year. I know that the Minister will want to deal with that, and I am glad that it was raised by the hon. Member for Torbay (Mr. Sanders). His constituency has two thirds of the bay, and my constituency has the other third.
  Mr. Sanders: We have three quarters.
  Mr. Steen: I do not think that we have measured it properly.
  The regional flood defence committee would have done much more if the county and unitary authorities had utilised the £6 million match fund waiting in MAFF. That would have been triggered year after year if the county and unitary authorities had put in what was needed. Although the authorities may say that social services, education or highways are more important, they could have done something about flooding but they did not. They chose not to. I understand that, since 1995, the south-west regional flood defence committee has been allowed to increase its levy on the local authorities by only 5 per cent. In effect, it has withheld money given by the Government for flood defence.
  Neighbouring Wessex regional flood defence committee has, by comparison, increased its levy not by 5 per cent., but by between 32 and 50 per cent. over the same period.
  224
  In real terms, the levy for the south-west by the county and unitary authorities is now worth only 89 per cent. of the 1995 value. One can understand why. There have not been many floods before, and the county and unitary authorities thought that it would not matter. They have, in effect, been caught with their trousers down. I am sure the Minister will amplify the point.
  The south-west has been facing a funding crisis in flood defence. That must not and need not continue. The problem is not the money. The Minister announced in April last year that funding for flood defence for the next year would total £230 million. The blame lies with the south-west county councils and the unitary authorities—both Plymouth and Torbay must take some of the blame—which failed to put up the money needed. They are putting at risk more property and more lives.
  As the south-west regional flood defence committee struggles under the strain of limited resources and greater demand, I urge the Minister to remind the county and unitary authorities in the south-west that they have a duty to provide adequate flood defence now.
  Will the Minister also examine the priority score scheme? That is not something to do with cricket. It has to do with flood defence and was introduced by his Ministry. Under the scheme, regional flood defence committees can apply for grants in aid on capital expenditure.
  Not surprisingly, the scheme discriminates against the south-west. The criteria on which the grants are based favour urban flood defence, on the grounds that it is more cost compliant, and probably also because there are more Labour voters in urban areas. In evidence before the Select Committee on Agriculture, the National Farmers Union stated that it was
  "extremely difficult for a rural scheme to qualify for grant funding".
  That view was endorsed by the Environment Agency and the Local Government Association.
  The Agriculture Committee recommended in its report that the Ministry introduce priority score criteria to reflect the social and economic disparities within regions, to redress the inequalities in grants in aid. What progress have the Minister and his Department made towards implementing that recommendation? Considering that Devon and Cornwall both suffer from structural economic, geographic and social problems, as highlighted by the granting of objective 1 and objective 2 aid to the region by the European Union, I suggest that that should be reflected in the priority score.
  Unless the score criteria are changed, the shortfall in flood protection which has emerged as a result of county and unitary authority intransigence in the south-west will become worse. As matters stand, the Government could understandably be accused of favouring the cities and neglecting the countryside.
  The Environment Agency and the south-west regional flood defence committee perform an excellent job in circumstances that are undoubtedly difficult. They deserve our thanks. However, the south-west is not receiving its fair share for flood defence.
  The immediate fault may lie with the county and unitary authorities. They would get back money spent now on flood defence through next year's standard spending assessment. Their approach is short-termist, intolerable and shows a wanton disregard for the needs of

  225
  the region as a whole. They would prefer to protect their own coffers to providing adequate flood defence in the south-west.
  The county and unitary authorities well understand that the public—and some Members of Parliament—are unaware where responsibility for flood defence lies. That has led to confusion in the South Hams case and ill-judged campaigns orchestrated by Liberal Democrats in the district council chambers, where responsibility for flood defence does not lie. The four Liberal Democrats out of 40 council members in South Hams mounted a debate that was wholly based on false facts which they had been fed.
  The Minister should stress to county and unitary authorities the need for flood defence. He should publish his review of flood defence so that the relevant organisations, the public—and the Liberal Democrats—know where responsibility lies. The priority score should reflect the structural deficiencies of Devon and Cornwall so that capital long-term works can be undertaken in the south-west to alleviate the problem of the number of flashpoints in the region—I am told that it runs into hundreds. That would shift the focus of flood defence from large to small-scale projects. Given the frequency of flash floods in the south-west, that is vital for unprotected villages and hamlets the length and breadth of the west country.
  I have crammed a lot of information into the short space of 16 minutes. I hope that the Minister, whom I hold in high regard with reference to fish, can keep my attention, and hold us in high regard with reference to flood defence.
  11.10 pm
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Elliot Morley): I congratulate the hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Steen) on raising an important and topical issue in a well-informed manner. He is right about the division of responsibility for flooding and expenditure.
  I understand the point that the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) made about Ottery St. Mary, and I know about its problems. I have read reports about it, and I know that the regional flood defence committee is considering ways in which to tackle the problems. After the debate, I shall find out what progress has been made.
  The hon. Member for Totnes is right about weather patterns. In recent years, they have shown shorter, more violent downpours. We do not know whether that trend will continue, but the amount of rainfall has been extreme, and we witnessed its results in the south-west over the Christmas period. I express my sympathy for his constituent's loss of life.
  I understand the hon. Gentleman's point about the priority score. However, I believe that it is the right method. As he will appreciate, there are many demands for flood defence projects, and it is right that money should relate to priority. The priority score reflects that in the number of properties, the number of lives at risk, the infrastructure, and the cost-benefit analysis. Urban areas do better because they contain more houses, have greater needs and are at greater risk. That is the nature of the priority score. However, the Government have, for the first time, included environmental issues in the priority
  226
  score. That helps rural areas. In North Norfolk, some rural areas already receive grant aid for flood defence. They would not have received it without the environmental criteria in the priority score.
  I take the hon. Gentleman's points about social disparities. We will review the points system and the priority system. That is right and proper. I shall take his comments into account, and we shall consider them in the review.
  Between 17 and 28 December, the south-west of England experienced the most extensive and prolonged flooding for 20 years. It resulted from unusually high rainfall—more than double the average—which fell on catchments that were already saturated by preceding rainfall. Conditions in low-lying areas were aggravated by high tides, especially on 24 and 25 December. Across the south-west peninsula, including the Somerset levels and moors, approximately 300 properties were affected to varying extents, and considerable, persistent flooding of farm land also occurred.
  I pay tribute to everyone who was involved in tackling the flooding over the Christmas and new year holidays. They include the Environment Agency, local authorities, which the hon. Gentleman mentioned, and the emergency services. Those people did a sterling job of protecting others, and we owe them a debt of gratitude. I wrote to the new chairman of the Environment Agency to ask him to pass on our appreciation to the staff who worked during that period to tackle the emergency.
  No Government can prevent floods, even a Government with such an impressive records as ours. We have our limitations. [Interruption.] I shall not go into that. However, we can limit the risks and improve warnings.
  The Ministry provides grant aid for capital flood defence and coast protection schemes which are technically sound, economically worth while and environmentally acceptable and which achieve the appropriate priority score. We recognise the importance of sustaining flood defences and coast protection and the outcome of the 1998 comprehensive spending review was an additional £23 million for Ministry funding over this and the next two years, bringing the total available in those three years to £230 million. That is a considerable sum, although it is certainly not enough to meet all the demand.
  We recognise that we need to do more, and I was pleased to announce that the allocations for this year involved a reduced priority score threshold for Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food funding, which means that 30 extra schemes have been included. We are dealing with some of the problems and the south-west regional flood defence committee's capital programme has been given grant aid of £1.3 million. The Ministry provides agency regions and districts with varying grants for flood and coastal defence with the intention of providing higher grant support where needs are high and local resources low. Schemes in the south-west may be in that category. The general principle is that the grant rate may be increased if the capital programme increases, and vice versa.
  That brings me to the point about the south-west that the hon. Member for Totnes made. The area's capital programme has been reduced because of the spending problems of the flood defence committee, which means that the grant available has been reduced by 10 per cent.

  227
  for 2000–01 to 25 per cent. with a supplement of 20 per cent. payable for tidal and sea defence works. I have set out the position on MAFF support for flood and coastal defence. Put simply, the more money regional flood defence committees raise and the more programmes they suggest, the more money they attract from MAFF in relation to capital grants.
  There has been a problem with levies in the south-west. In the current year, the English local authorities will pay £206 million in levies to the agency. Those levies and local authorities' other expenditure on flood and coastal defences are recognised in their standard spending assessments and reflected in the distribution of revenue support grant. In recent years, increases in flood defence SSAs have been above the rate of inflation: 6 per cent. in 1997; 5.1 per cent. in 1998; 6.3 per cent. in 1999–2000—which is way above inflation—and 3.2 per cent. for 2000–01.
  The hon. Gentleman is right about the problem of flood defence in the south-west. The difficulty is that the south-west councils have not always provided adequate funding. In particular, they have not always passed on the increases that the Government have made in SSAs. The Environment Agency reports that levies in the south-west region in 2001 will be only 5 per cent. higher than those paid in 1994–95. That compares to a 28 per cent. increase in the SSA over that period, so he is right to point out that shortfall. I was so concerned about the situation in the south-west two years ago that I wrote to all the chief executives of the unitary authorities that make up the south-west regional flood defence committee to express my anxiety about the inadequate funding being passed on to that committee. I have not written to any other council in this country.
  I am pleased that in the past couple of years the local authorities have agreed levy increases in line with the increase in SSA. That is welcome, but the problem is the shortfall that has accumulated as a result of the years of underfunding. The authorities are still paying the price for that. Although they have been passing on the full SSA, which is a great improvement, they need to allow for that shortfall if they are to make up the years of underfunding. The Environment Agency calculates that the increase in the south-west for this year should have been 6.9 per cent., not the 3.2 per cent. that was levied.
  The hon. Gentleman is right about the problems of underfunding, which, in all fairness, were chronic before the unitary authorities were established. Devon and Cornwall county councils were mainly responsible for the underfunding at that time.
  Mr. Steen: I thank the Minister for all that he is saying. It is music to my ears. I hope that it is also music to the local authorities' ears and that they do something about it. Am I right in thinking that district councils have very little role in flood defences, other than sandbags and a few other things?
  Mr. Morley: The hon. Gentleman is right. The main responsibility for the levies and deciding the levies lies with the county and unitary authorities, which send representatives who sit on the regional flood defence committee. It is those representatives who are responsible for deciding the levy that the committee raises each year.
  Mr. Sanders: Will the Minister confirm that in the lifetime of the unitary authority it has paid over the money it should have paid over, and that the problem lies with the county councils, not the unitary authorities, in the last two years?
  Mr. Morley: It is all the councils involved in the area of the south-west regional flood defence committee. I confirm that since there has been a division with the new unitaries they have paid over the full SSA allowance. The problem is that there is chronic underfunding, and there is a black hole in the budget of the regional flood defence committee. Unfortunately, to deal with some of the problems we have been hearing about, it needs to raise some extra money to make up for the years of the underfunding.
  As the hon. Member for Totnes rightly says, following on from the 1998 Agriculture Committee report on flood and coastal defences—a very good report—the Government are reviewing those funding mechanisms. The consultation exercise has been completed, and the options arising are being considered with the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions. I do not have a date for an announcement. I will make inquiries, and if there is an indication of when it will report I shall write and let him know.
  Mr. Nigel Evans: Will any regard be given to properties—whether residential or business—that find it difficult to insure because of constant flooding?
  Mr. Morley: At present there is no facility for that, because generally speaking floods are an insurable risk. Where there is chronic flooding there could well be insurance problems, but chronic flooding needs to be addressed by the regional flood defence committee. We will look at that sympathetically, in the light of the priority scoring system and the other details that have to be applied.
  The matter is being considered very carefully. Another issue that is being considered is whether levies raised by flood defence committees should remain ring-fenced for use only in that committee's area, or whether, as the Select Committee suggested, they should be more flexible and used in the context of national rather than local priorities. I hope that it will be possible to announce preliminary conclusions on that funding review as soon as possible.
  Mrs. Browning: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Morley: I am afraid that I have only one minute left.
  I join in the welcome that has been given for the work of the regional flood defence committee. Deborah Clark is doing an excellent job. She is working very hard. I have met her, and members of the committee, on a number of occasions to express my support for the work that they are doing, and to try to work with them to deal with some of the problems that the hon. Gentleman mentioned. In some areas there may well be alternative sources of funding, such

  229
  as EU funds, or discussions about whether partnerships with others or imaginative approaches to projects with multiple functions can yield better value for money. I understand that Deborah Clark has convened a meeting tomorrow, 9 February, to look at ways of raising alternative funds, and I look forward to hearing the outcome.
  In conclusion, I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his knowledge of this issue. I can confirm some of his fears. There are issues to address, and we are prepared to
  230
  address them, both in relation to reviews of the funding mechanisms and in relation to the priority scoring system and how that applies. I am pleased that more money has been passed on in the last two years in relation to the flood defence committee. That means—
  The motion having been made after Ten o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned at twenty-four minutes past Eleven o'clock.

Preamble
[MR. MICHAEL LORD in the Chair]

Students (Financial Support)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned—[Mr. Clelland.]
10 am
Mr. Philip Hammond: I have been moved to secure this debate not as someone who has a particular interest in or detailed knowledge of higher education support, but as a citizen of the United Kingdom who is alarmed by the disparity of treatment of my fellow citizens—a disparity that is based on place of residence in the UK. I am concerned by the threat that such disparities—and such unjustified discrimination—pose to the consensus that underpins the survival of the United Kingdom in the face of challenges posed by devolved government.
From the enactment of the Education Act 1962 until 1997, students in higher education throughout the United Kingdom were treated broadly equally in the matter of financial support. One uninstructed in the ways of the new Labour Government could be forgiven for expecting that to continue. Indeed, only three weeks before the general election, the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair), then the Leader of the Opposition, told the electorate that
"Labour has no plans to introduce tuition fees for higher education",
and the right hon. Member for Livingstone (Mr. Cook) said:
"We are quite clear that tuition fees must be met by the state."
The rules of parliamentary language make it difficult for me accurately to characterise such statements, because, three months later, those who made them were respectively the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary in a Government who had announced the introduction of tuition fees for students in higher education. Mountains of material are available to any hon. Member who wishes to hold an Adjournment debate on that U-turn.
Mr. Tim Boswell: Would it not be simpler and more tactful, especially as there are overtones of the auld alliance, to describe such statements in the words of our late colleague, Alan Clark, as being economical with the actualité?
Mr. Hammond: My hon. Friend puts it very nicely; he has considerably more experience than I of skating across the thin ice of parliamentary language barriers.
It is not my purpose in this debate to revisit the rights and wrongs of the Government's butchery of the Dearing report recommendations, despite the fact that the Government claimed that they were implementing them. That was one of the earliest examples of the Government saying one thing while doing quite another. My purpose is to consider discrimination and
2WH
inequality in the educational context and in the wider setting of our constitutional settlement. The Government have used the language of one nation and social inclusion, but have introduced a series of policies that are divisive and exclusive. Those policies are driven by short-term political considerations, without regard for the long-term damage that they will do to our United Kingdom.
As soon as the tuition fee proposals were scrutinised, it was apparent that fees for the fourth year of four-year Scottish degree courses would be a problem. The legitimate question was not about Scottish students, but about Scottish universities and the cherished four-year degree course. The Unionist response to that would have been clear and simple: to implement a fee structure that imposed an equal burden on all students, regardless of the length of their courses or where in the United Kingdom they undertook them, thus maintaining equality of treatment and access throughout the United Kingdom.
Tellingly, instead of such a simple and pragmatic response, the Labour Government chose to play to a narrow Scottish audience by exempting Scottish students—but not English, Welsh and Northern Irish students—from fourth-year tuition fees when attending Scottish universities. That was a radical departure from the 1962 settlement, which had effectively created a single market in higher education throughout the United Kingdom, and resulted in English, Welsh and Northern Irish students comprising as much as 45 per cent. of the student body in leading Scottish universities.
Such a decision in itself was shockingly divisive from a Government who claimed to be committed to preserving the Union, but insult was added to injury when they were forced to admit that, because of the rigours of European Union law, foreign students from EU countries would have to be accorded the privileged treatment that the Scots enjoyed if attending Scottish universities. We therefore faced the absurdity of relegating English, Welsh and Northern Irish students to second-class citizens in their own homeland—forced to pay fourth-year fees while studying alongside not only non-paying Scottish students, but non-paying EU students, whose parents had not contributed to the United Kingdom tax base over the years and who, in the great majority of cases, would not be likely so to contribute after their graduation. Such EU students are treated better than those whose families have worked and contributed all their lives in the United Kingdom.
It would have cost the Government a mere £2 million to remedy this shameful discimination, but such was—and is—their arrogance that they refused to acknowledge that they had made a mistake, and created circumstances that, for the sake of a tiny amount of money, were bound to engender bitterness and resentment among non-Scottish UK students and their families.
The matter does not end with that grotesque act of discimination by the United Kingdom Government. With the help of its fellow travellers, the Liberal Democrats, the Labour party determined to make matters worse through the medium of Scottish legislation. It was clearly inconvenient for the Government in London and the Labour party in

3WH
Scotland that all parties except Labour fought the Scottish election principally on the abolition of tuition fees.
Dr. Evan Harris: Before the hon. Gentleman moves on to discuss Scotland, I should like to ask him about his use of the term "fellow travellers". Does he accept that the Liberal Democrats stood four square against the Labour Government's introduction of tuition fees in 1997, even in our manifesto, while his party prevaricated over whether to support tuition fees and did not rule them out in its manifesto?
Mr. Hammond: My party made it absolutely clear that it supported the Dearing proposal to maintain the maintenance support system for students, which had served generations of students and, indeed, many hon. Members, extremely well. I am surprised by the hon. Gentleman's intervention, because, as I shall show, his party's record on the matter north of the border has been rather less than honourable.
Mr. Bill Rammell: If the hon. Gentleman's support for the student maintenance grant was so emphatic, why was he happy for the Government whom he supported to cut it by 50 per cent. before the last election?
Mr. Hammond: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the previous Government introduced arrangements for student maintenance that depended on a mix of loans and grants. We have never supported the proposals that this Government have implemented to abolish the maintenance grant. As I shall discuss later, it is clear from the recent panicked actions of the Secretary of State for Education and Employment that the Government have realised that, exactly as we suggested in 1997, the total abolition of the maintenance grant would work greatly to the disadvantage of the poorest students in England and Wales.
Mr. Boswell: Before my hon. Friend moves from that subject, will he recall that the number of students virtually trebled under the mix of loans and maintenance grants implemented by the previous Administration? That suggests some success of the policy.
Mr. Hammond: My hon. Friend is right. We were rightly proud of the great flourishing of higher education in this country under the previous Administration. However, I should like to make some progress in dealing with the situation that has developed north of the border since the Scottish elections.
Labour's failure to achieve control in the Edinburgh Parliament forced it to treat with the Liberal Democrats, who had campaigned unambiguously on the abolition of tuition fees as the "non-negotiable" centrepiece of their manifesto. Both parties faced a dilemma: Scottish Labour was anxious not to embarrass the Government in Westminster by conceding outright abolition of tuition fees, while the Liberal Democrats were greedy for the spoils of office for the first time in
4WH
many decades but were hampered by the inconvenience of their non-negotiable policy on tuition fees. The response of putting the issue into deep freeze for a few months by ordering an inquiry is a tried and tested fallback for this new Labour Administration. For the Liberal Democrats, the abandonment of "non-negotiable" pledges is simply another twist in the wind.
The publication of the Cubie report and the Scottish Executive's response to it has been the immediate stimulus for my seeking the debate. Far from dealing with the issue, the proposed solution would deepen the discrimination against English, Welsh and Northern Irish students and institutions.
The proposed ending of up-front tuition fees for Scottish and foreign European Union students in Scottish universities—but not for English, Welsh and Northern Irish EU students alongside them, or for Scottish students who have the temerity to want to broaden their horizons by studying south of the border—represents blatant discrimination against institutions and individuals in the UK and the EU. Not only do some EU citizens seem more equal than others in Labour's new order, but the EU seems able to intervene to protect some of its citizens from discrimination yet cannot protect those who happen to be citizens of both the EU and of England, Wales or Northern Ireland.
Apparently, the UK Government have an unfettered right to discriminate against their own citizens, notwithstanding their seeming embrace of the nondiscriminatory principles of the European convention on human rights. However, they cannot prevent the EU from intervening to demand privileged treatment for everyone else in the EU who wants to take advantage of the UK's generous system.
Let us be clear. A student from Birmingham or London whose parents have worked in the UK and paid taxes to the UK Treasury all their lives would pay fees if he sought to study at Edinburgh university. A Scot studying alongside that student would pay no up-front fees, and nor would a Belgian, a Spaniard, an Italian or a Finn. A student from Newry in Northern Ireland could expect to pay £4,100 in tuition fees during a four-year Scottish degree, but his neighbour a couple of miles across the border in Dundalk would pay nothing. Surely even this Government, with their arrogant disdain for our traditions and rights, must see that such a situation is not sustainable.
If it were not for the intervention of the European Union, Scottish students would have been studying alongside English and Welsh students at English and Welsh universities but, unlike their fellow students, paying no fees. As it is, Scottish students are effectively to be frozen out of United Kingdom universities, with serious implications for the diversity of those institutions and the potential insularity of future generations of Scots, who are now much more likely to be educated in Scotland.
Valerie Davey: Is the hon. Gentleman not missing the fundamental concern of the Government and, to some degree, to give them their due, of the Liberal Democrats in Scotland, that those who come from less well-off homes are given priority? In the examples that he has given, those from lower-income

5WH
homes and 37 per cent. of Scottish students studying in English, Welsh and Northern Irish universities will not pay fees.
Mr. Hammond: That is right, as far as it goes. I am happy to concede the wisdom of a system that is biased in favour of the poorest students, whom we know need to be encouraged to access our higher education system. The discrimination that I am addressing is one based on the country of origin within the United Kingdom—a discrimination that works against the interests of English, Welsh and Northern Irish citizens in a way that, as I shall detail, may have serious consequences.
It is proposed that a Scottish student studying in Scotland will pay no tuition fees but will be expected to pay a contingent £2,000 tuition tax at some point. A Scottish student studying in England on a three-year course can, at current rates, expect to pay £3,075 in tuition fees, while a student from England, Wales or Ulster studying in Scotland will pay £4,100 in tuition fees. Inevitably, decisions on place of study will be made partly on financial, not academic, grounds. That cannot be good for our higher education system, on either side of the border, or for the free exchange of ideas and the development of a sense of unity in the United Kingdom. It will surely foster insularity among the Scots and among other UK citizens, at a most important and formative time of their lives.
Most importantly, having different financing systems is extremely bad for the United Kingdom. It is perhaps the first test of the devolution settlement—and it has failed. Labour said that devolution would strengthen, not weaken, the Union, but this sort of farce will, beyond any doubt, weaken the United Kingdom.
Dr. Harris: Surely the hon. Gentleman's point is that, if electors in a devolved Scotland cannot vote for something that they deem an improvement on the prevailing system in the rest of the UK—which may act as an incentive for people to invest, study, get hospital treatment or be tried in Scotland, since our criminal justice system has always been different—then nothing, even at county council level, can be done on a devolved basis because it will seem to create insularity.
Mr. Hammond: The hon. Gentleman raises an interesting point. He and I have debated such issues in the context of health matters, where there seems to be a tension between the Government's expressed desire for local determination of issues and for uniform national standards. If he will be patient for a moment, I will come to the issue of diversity, as opposed to discrimination.
The package of changes in maintenance arrangements for Scottish students were announced in the Executive's response to the Cubie report. The Department for Education and Employment subsequently made a panic response in announcing a range of initiatives in England and Wales, including the reinvention of the maintenance grant that the Government had just killed off, having realised what we told them at the time: the demise of the maintenance grant would have a damaging effect on the poorest students. Those changes created a raft of variations in the treatment of students north and south of the border. The unfairness of the evolving system will not be lost on the people of England, Wales and Northern Ireland.
6WH
I say to the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) that, of course, there is room for diversity. That is part of the point of devolving government, whether to local institutions in England and Wales or to a devolved Parliament in Scotland. However, let us consider what happens when diversity becomes code for blatant discrimination against groups of United Kingdom citizens who have paid the same taxes and met the same obligations to their country, and when it becomes code for the relegation of some United Kingdom citizens to second-class status, while other European Union citizens, who have made no contribution to this country, are given privileged treatment. The hon. Gentleman must accept that, when diversity becomes code for such a raw deal, it is dangerous for the consensus that underpins the survival and strength of the Union. When the favoured treatment of Scottish citizens over English citizens is supported by a system that levies taxes throughout the United Kingdom, but distributes them unevenly between the countries of the United Kingdom, such consensus becomes more delicate.
Although we pay into the United Kingdom tax pot together, it has been a matter of consensus for years that public spending per capita is higher in Scotland. However, if English taxpayers are to have their noses rubbed into the difference between public funding north and south of the border by such blatant and unjustifiable discrimination in higher education funding support for students, that consensus may not prove to be durable.
Dr. Harris: I am conscious that the hon. Gentleman wants to make progress, but how does he justify the discrimination of one beleaguered species, the English Conservative, against an even more beleaguered species, the Scottish Conservative, given that the Tories in England support Dearing, who wants flat-rate tuition fees for everyone, but the Tory manifesto in Scotland called for an end to tuition fees? That is diversity. I do not condemn it; he seems to be condemning a split in his own party.
Mr. Hammond: There is not a split in our party. The hon. Gentleman knows very well that the Conservatives in Scotland campaigned on a package of measures, which would have kept a mixed model of maintenance support for students in Scotland. As for endangered species, the hon. Gentleman might look to his own party north of the border following its blatant volte face.
Mr. Boswell: Does my hon. Friend concede that one of the most unacceptable parts of this shambles is the discrimination between Scottish students studying in Scotland and Scottish students studying in England, where the fees regime is different? We are talking not about unity of treatment in the constituent parts of the United Kingdom, but about clear disparities and anomalies—even within the Administration.
Mr. Hammond: My hon. Friend is right. Discrimination against English universities will result in far fewer Scottish students attending them for financial reasons. That will be damaging not only to English institutions, but to the Scottish young people who may have attended them.

7WH
Last week, on the Floor of the House, I apparently upset the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond), who took issue with what I said about health funding in Scotland, England and Wales. He considered that my comments were unhelpful in drawing attention to the difference between national health service funding of £900 per capita in Scotland and of £746 per capita in England and Wales. That difference translates into a significantly larger number of consultants, GPs and nurses per 100,000 population in Scotland.
Despite the hon. Gentleman's interpretation of my comments, I was not attacking Scottish health care; my comments were an attempt to draw attention to the problems of health care in England. This debate is not an attack on Scottish higher education or Scottish students; it is an attempt to draw attention to the disparities between and unfairness in the treatment of English, Welsh and Northern Irish students. It is an attack on an unprincipled Government who say one thing and do another—a Government who say that they will strengthen the United Kingdom but who, by their actions and those of their client Government in Edinburgh, weaken it. The Government claim to be inclusive, but set out policies that drive wedges between different parts of the country and between different groups of its citizens.
We are trying to defend the principle of equality for all citizens of the United Kingdom in the United Kingdom. Whatever gloss the Government try to put on it, the blatant—almost farcical—discrimination between citizens of the United Kingdom and outsiders from other European Union countries, whose rights are protected by law, will only highlight for the average Englishman, Welshman and Ulsterman the damage that the Government's ill-thought-through devolution policies threatens to inflict on the integrity of the United Kingdom. It is a grotesque and absurd affront to common sense that those who work and pay taxes here should find themselves reduced to the status of second-class citizens, less well supported by the state than visitors from foreign lands whose families have never paid a penny in income tax to support this country's public spending.
We said that devolution would undermine the United Kingdom; the Labour party said that it would strengthen it. This is perhaps the first practical test on that question, and it is clear that the Government have failed it. We said that a changed electoral system would lead to weak coalitions and shabby deals, and that is what we are seeing in Edinburgh—unprincipled short-termism that will create rifts between the constituent parts of the United Kingdom, and back-room deals between Labour and its Liberal Democrat fellow-travellers, who are busily negotiating away the fundamentals of their "non-negotiable" election pledge in an attempt to cling on to the spoils of office on the coat-tails of their Labour masters. Back-room deals, broken Labour promises on tuition fees, broken Liberal Democrat pledges on tuition fees, empty Government pledges on strengthening the Union through devolution, nine tenths of the population of the United Kingdom reduced to the status of second-class citizens in their
8WH
own land—such is the legacy of three years of the Government's policies on support for students in higher education.
Devolution is the Government's creature, but they cannot control it. Events in Cardiff and Edinburgh are overtaking the Government and threatening to undermine their policies in England—the creature has bitten its creator. The Government have no choice but to admit what is obvious to everyone else: the Scottish electorate has called their bluff on tuition fees. The price that the Government will pay for this shabby compromise to save the coalition in Edinburgh will be either a wholesale retreat on student support in England and Wales or a long-term and fundamental undermining of the Union, as the Government abandon the principle of equality of access to public services and support throughout the United Kingdom.
10.28 am
Mr. Bill Rammell: I shall respond briefly to the comments of the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond). There have always been differences in public services and access between Scotland on one hand and England and Wales on the other. If we want to talk about discrimination, why not point out the discrimination for many years under Conservative Governments, whereby students in Scotland had access to four-year degree courses, but those in the rest of the United Kingdom had access only to three-year degree courses? I do not recall a single example of a Conservative Member challenging or criticising that differential.
Mr. Hammond: The hon. Gentleman is surely not suggesting that only Scottish students had access to the four-year degree courses at Scottish universities. Indeed—if my memory serves me correctly—20,000 English students are currently enrolled at universities in Scotland.
Mr. Rammell: Yes, but by dint of the cap on access, only a proportion of students had access to those courses in Scotland. There was a differential in the university system, the health service and the legal system between the provisions in Scotland and those in the rest of the United Kingdom. I am interested in all the arguments put forward by the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge, but I am still not clear whether he prefers the system chosen by the Scottish Parliament or the system that applies in the rest of the United Kingdom. That leads me to think that his concerns are not universities, students and student finance; rather, he is attempting to use the issue to revisit an argument that the Conservative party lost at the general election and during the referendum on Scottish devolution.
Mr. Hammond: I was completely clear and open when I said initially that the focus of my interest was the disparity between different parts of the United Kingdom and the threat that they pose to the future of the Union. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) will speak in more detail about the education aspects of the issue later.
Mr. Rammell: The hon. Gentleman still has not answered the question from the hon. Member for

9WH
Oxford, West and Abingdon, who speaks for the Liberal Democrats: if his concern is about different provisions in Scotland and Wales, why did the Conservatives in Scotland campaign on a manifesto and a set of commitments on university provision and student financial support different from those that they used in the rest of the United Kingdom? If we still had a Conservative Government, or if the election result for the Scottish Parliament had been different, the same differential and discrimination would still exist. It is nothing new. The differences are perfectly logical and permissible in a system of devolved Government. The Conservative party lost that argument at the general election and in the referendum on Scottish devolution. If it now wants to revisit the issue, it will not make substantive progress.
Part of the reason why the Conservative party—including the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge—is raising the issue is not because of the merits of the argument, but to try to create an impression among the public, especially students, that the Conservative party is on the side of students, when nothing could be further from the truth.
Mr. Hammond: Will the hon. Gentleman concede that the Labour party fought the general election and the subsequent referendum on the argument that devolution would strengthen the United Kingdom? That argument remains to be proven. The point of my speech was that a policy that was so divisive between different parts of the United Kingdom would weaken, not strengthen, the institutions of the United Kingdom.
Mr. Rammell: Of course the argument remains to be proven in the long run, as it will be a long time before that judgment is reached. However, I am confident on one issue: had the Conservative party been re-elected at the last general election, when it emphatically refused to consider any change in the overall constitutional settlement, that would have led to a split in the Union much sooner. There would have been no Scottish Parliament, and people would have felt that their views could not be heard through the national Parliament.
The hon. Gentleman and the Conservative party have not addressed in any way the fact that we had no alternative but to introduce a new system of student finance and student funding after the general election. To put right all the problems in the system, such as the cap on student access, student poverty and the reduction in per capita student finance that had taken place over a 10 to 15-year period, would have cost the equivalent of 3p on the standard rate of income tax. The idea that any Government would levy such a charge and then use all the proceeds on universities and students simply does not reflect the politics of government in the real world. I hope that the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon will face the fact in the debate. The Government are dealing with such issues. They are removing the cap on access and beginning to restore university funding.
My final point is threefold. First, the argument that the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge advanced is partly driven by the usual Conservative party obsession with all matters European. It is clear that his real animus is against the fact that European students will have access to a new system in Scotland,
10WH
whereas those in England and Wales will not. We take the view that students in this country will have access to European systems. If Conservative Members have a problem with the fact that the law as it applies throughout the European Union necessitates the kind of access arrangements that are being put into place in Scotland, they should argue for a change in those arrangements instead of using the debate, as usual, to make a case against the European Union in support of eventual withdrawal—which is what more honest members of the Conservative party have in mind.
Secondly, the hon. Gentleman's argument reflected the repugnance on the part of many Conservative Members for any form of partnership politics. I wholly reject that view. Where political parties agree with each other and can reach a sensible accommodation, they should do so. The British public are fed up with the kind of yah-boo sucks politics in this country, which takes the view that "Everything you do is wrong, and everything we do is right." That issue is now being resolved in the Scottish Parliament.
Mr. Hammond: Would the hon. Gentleman's views extend to parties that fight elections with a manifesto centrepiece that is described as "non-negotiable", and then negotiate it away in the immediate aftermath of the election?
Mr. Rammell: Negotiations and compromises occur in politics under all electoral systems. Under the first-past-the-post system, they are made before the election. Under a devolved system of government, with a different electoral system, positions are taken and, if one party does not achieve an overall majority, a sensible and open discussion then takes place about how a compromise, and a way forward, can be achieved. That is how people operate in the real world in other walks of life. It is a pity that for too long our system of government and politics in this country has not done so.
Thirdly, the Conservative party's real problem is its failure to come to terms with the new system and style of politics that is represented by the devolved settlement. It has repeatedly lost the argument on that, and has failed to come to terms with the fact that partnership and government by consent is not only possible, but desirable. Although it sometimes results in what may appear to be messy compromises, that is far preferable to the non-compromising certainty of years gone by. For example, the poll tax was a clear manifesto commitment, on which there was no fudging or compromise, but ultimately the British people lost out.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Nicholas Winterton): I will now call Valerie Davey.
Valerie Davey indicated dissent.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: In that case, I call Dr. Evan Harris.
10.38 am
Dr. Evan Harris: I come to this debate in the good position of not needing to defend the proposals of the Scottish Executive,

11WH
because Liberal Democrat Members have a settled view that Liberal Democrats in Scotland, in using their devolved powers in the Scottish Parliament, can have different opinions from those of Liberal Democrats in the rest of the United Kingdom, in Westminster or the Welsh Assembly. Conservative Members have clearly taken that view on board, because they have different policies north and south of the border. Their position at the general election was different from their current position south of the border, and very different from their position north of the border at the time of the Scottish Parliament elections.
I do not need to defend the proposals of the Scottish Executive, but, having read them and considered their effect, I am happy to do so—although, in the context of the debate so far, that does not seem to be necessary. In his speech, the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) did not attack the proposals and their effects, but concentrated purely on artificial arguments about disparities between students from Scotland and those from the rest of the United Kingdom studying at Scottish universities.
The core of the hon. Gentleman's argument is that those disparities are unfair and constitute unjustified discrimination. However, the only unfairness and discrimination is that students and others in this country with a vested interest in good higher education do not benefit from Liberal Democrats in government. In Scotland, Liberal Democrats have provided a package for students that is fair, promotes access and delivers on offers made at the general and Scottish Parliament elections.
The hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge must understand that it is the electoral system that is not fair. A party can get elected on a minority vote and implement a policy that was not included in its manifesto, which is what the Labour Government did in 1997. Students must rely on policies promulgated by that minority Government, and suffer the imposition of tuition fees, which have curtailed access and damaged student welfare.
Mr. Hammond: Does it not trouble the hon. Gentleman even a little that a student from Northern Ireland who attends a Scottish university will pay full tuition fees, but his close relative, who lives a couple of miles across the border in the Republic of Ireland, will pay none?
Dr. Harris: No, that is the nature of diversity in the European Union. The hon. Gentleman should be troubled that students from England do not benefit from the enlightened policy that the Scottish Executive coalition has agreed. Under the policy that the Westminster Labour Government have introduced, students from England, Wales and Northern Ireland who study at Scottish universities will pay exactly the same fees as before.
The hon. Gentleman is arguing that those disparities are unfair. However, the root cause of that unfairness was not the democratic decision of the majority of Scottish people to vote for parties that supported the proposed abolition of fees by the Scottish Executive, but
12WH
the electoral system in the rest of the United Kingdom that cannot deliver changes to policies that are rightly anathema to the majority of people. Labour Members will remember that the poll tax, with which we had to put up for far too long, was imposed by another minority Government who did not command majority support even within their own party. Tuition fees, which the Labour party imposed through a tightly whipped vote, were opposed by its own members in the House of Commons and the House of Lords.
The hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge made a fair point about the anomaly of fourth-year tuition fees for UK students of Scottish universities who are not resident in Scotland. That decision, which was taken by Parliament before devolution, discriminates against some of our own constituents, and the hon. Gentleman will know that Liberal Democrats led the rebellion in the House of Lords against it. Now that devolution has given Scottih people their say, we must recognise that circumstances are very different.
Mr. Boswell: To some extent, the hon. Gentleman may have just anticipated my question, but will he explain the difference between discrimination in respect of fourth-year fees for English students in Scotland and discrimination in respect of recent Scottish Parliament proposals on the repayment of fees and charging tuition fees? As a lay person, both would seem to me to constitute discrimination, yet the hon. Gentleman finds one form acceptable.
Dr. Harris: What the hon. Gentleman calls discrimination is a diversity of policies that have been voted for not only by an outright majority of voters in Scotland, but by a majority of Members of the Scottish Parliament, who were democratically, fairly and proportionately elected, when they voted for the Scottish Executive's proposals following the Cubie report. That is different from the situation in Westminster. The intervention of democracy in political decisions may be of little or no consequence to the hon. Gentleman, but I assure him that, according to my postbag, and, indeed, the postbags of my colleagues north of the border, the electorate applaud the way in which democracy can—sometimes inconveniently for the Conservatives—intervene in decision making.
Mr. Hammond: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that it would be right for the electorate at the next general election to regard any non-negotiable manifesto pledges that the Liberal Democrats make as negotiable in the event of their seeking to form a coalition with the Labour party?
Dr. Harris: Our position was clear: at the Scottish parliamentary election, we stood on a platform of abolishing tuition fees. Labour party policy in Scotland and in the UK was to maintain such fees. Tuition fees are to be abolished in Scotland; even Labour members of the Scottish Executive say that tuition fees have been abolished. Andrew Cubie says clearly in his report—most of which, particularly on the abolition of up-front tuition fees, has been accepted by the Scottish Executive—that tuition fees are seen to be discredited. The Executive's proposals will abolish them. Therefore,

13WH
it is a figment of the hon. Gentleman's imagination to suggest that our pledge to abolish tuition fees has not been carried out in Scotland.
Mr. Hammond: It is not only my imagination. The hon. Gentleman may have seen the article in The Independent on 25 January, which quoted a Liberal Democrat Back Bencher in the Scottish Parliament as saying:
"We have not got everything we were looking for but it is enough to prevent us losing face in front of the people who voted us in."
Is that not a cynical approach to democratic politics?
Dr. Harris: Absolutely not. If we had had everything that we wanted, we would have expected to be a majority in the coalition. That is how coalitions work. The hon. Gentleman is experienced enough to know that in local politics Conservative parties are engaged in joint administration with the Labour party—and with the Liberal Democrats, where we can bear it. He will find that, under a negotiated settlement, not every Conservative policy for those areas is, thank goodness, implemented. The same applies in any coalition agreement.
If the hon. Gentleman is against coalitions at all costs, even though a first-past-the-post election can deliver no party a majority—as happened for much of the time under previous Conservative Governments—that is a major new policy statement from the Conservative party. It implies that it will always want instability and minority rule in an attempt to get every part of its policy through.
We realised that we would not be able to achieve all our proposals unless we were elected in a majority, but in Scotland we said that the abolition of tuition fees was our No. 1 aim in this area.
Mr. Hammond: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way one more time. Does he recognise that to set out in a manifesto certain areas of policy as non-negotiable would precisely define for the electorate the areas that would not be vulnerable to compromise in the event of coalition negotiations?
Dr. Harris: The hon. Gentleman is providing me with no problems. If he looks at the manifesto, he will see a list of significant proposals for education, many of which have been carried out, including the doubling of hardship grants and more help for mature students and those in further education. We said clearly in the election campaign that our fundamental objective was to get rid of tuition fees. We have achieved that even by the admission of the independent chairman of the Cubie inquiry and the Labour Members of the Scottish Executive who have courageously performed a U-turn on their policy.
Valerie Davey: Although I accept the hon. Gentleman's tortuous argument, does he agree that the endowment fee is a fee by any other name?
Dr. Harris: I do not believe that the graduation contribution is such a fee: it is not up front and many students are exempt from it. I am happy to defend it,
14WH
even though I do not have to do so, because it is not Liberal Democrat policy in this Parliament. The hon. Lady must understand that the funds raised by the graduate contribution will be payable only on graduation rather than up front.
Students who drop out—sadly, many do—will not be worse off. The total debt will be less than currently, and the repayment will be at the same level as current loans, and, in most cases, at a lower level. Those funds will be used to provide much needed maintenance bursaries for less advantaged students entering higher education. On that basis, it is a sensible and ingenious approach, which the Liberal Democrats in Scotland have little problem defending.
The hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge cannot have it both ways. He cannot claim, as he did, that the Labour party in Scotland has made a U-turn on keeping tuition fees, while claiming that the Liberal Democrats in Scotland have made a U-turn on abolishing tuition fees. That is not worthy of the hon. Gentleman's ability. I know, from previous encounters, that he has a precise mind, and he will recognise the inconsistency of his argument.
The Labour party recognised correctly that it was important to increase access in the UK, especially for the least well-off students. However, its proposals to do so were crazy. Those policies included introducing fees, abolishing the grant, continuing to deny poor students access to benefits, introducing means testing and continuing parental contributions, which resulted in many students assessing that they would have to drop out. That has had an impact on access, as shown by the figures, especially for the first year after the introduction of tuition fees for mature students. That was especially sad because the Government commissioned research on whether mature students would be deterred by the imposition of tuition fees. That research found that they would be deterred, although the Government's objective was to improve access for less well-off people and encourage lifelong learning. The Government initially refused to publish the research, and it took many months before it was dragged out of them and placed in the Library.
The Government's policies have damaged access and increased student poverty—as shown by high drop-out-rates, whether because of parental contributions not being received or higher and higher debt. Students who cannot access sufficient, or any, hardship funds, are forced to drop out. Indeed, some students have to work to support themselves through university, and may fail their exams as a result.
Despite policies designed to raise money for higher education, even at the expense of damaging access, increasing student poverty and promulgating student drop-out, the unit of funding in higher education has dropped under this Government. It is projected to continue to drop, even with the continuation of tuition fees. For all those reasons, voters in Scotland decided that they wanted no more of such a policy. On mature reflection, Labour Members of the Scottish Executive recognised that that policy could not continue.
Mr. Rammell: The hon. Gentleman is delivering a critique with which I do not agree. He called for substantial public funding increases to abolish tuition

15WH
fees and restore the student grant. Unless he says where that money would come from, his argument is less than coherent, and less than credible. Given that the extra penny for education has already been spent many times over in other areas of Liberal Democrat manifesto policies, will he explain clearly where that money will come from?
Dr. Harris: The hon. Gentleman knows that that is not our policy. He creates a false scenario and challenges me to fund it. Our policy at the previous election was clear and costed—we did not propose the reintroduction of grants. Our policy was to treat those aged 18 as independent. We argued that it was wrong for students to be means-tested on parental income. Failure of parents to make contributions is one of the leading causes of student drop-out and the high drop-out rate.
Our manifesto did not have to say how we would fund the introduction of grants, because that was not a commitment. I recommended that the hon. Gentleman read that manifesto and our costing supplement—we were the only political party to provide one—which explains how we would use the income that would be raised from an extra penny in the pound on education. We estimated that about £2 billion would be raised, and our policy did not involve the introduction of tuition fees. The Government's introduction of tuition fees meant that the money that we would have raised by adding an extra penny on income tax—we called for that in Budget debates—could have been used to offset tuition fee costs. The hon. Gentleman should study our costings, which are available in the Library, and which show how we would fund the abolition of tuition fees.
The hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge, who initiated this debate, is a Conservative Member, and I want to discuss the Conservative party's record. Its policy at the previous election was to wait for the Dearing report. In his charming but rather disingenuous way, the hon. Gentleman said that his party's policy at the previous election was back to Dearing—but Dearing had not reported at that date. There was a conspiracy between the then Government and Opposition to ensure that the Dearing report appeared only after the general election. That allowed the then Government to avoid having to explain how they proposed to introduce tuition fees, which was Conservative party policy.
We learned what Conservative party policy was only when the Dearing report came out. However, Hansard makes it clear that Conservative policy was all over the place. The line that was adopted from the Back Benches by the right hon. Member for Charnwood (Mr. Dorrell), who is a former Minister, was completely different from that adopted by his colleagues on the Front Bench. The Conservative party's national policy was to retain tuition fees, but the Scottish Tories proposed their abolition, at a cost of £37 million. To be fair, the Scottish Tories explained how they would raise the money: they would use not a fair means of taxation, by which people would contribute according to their ability to pay, but an approach that involved recouping the money from poorer students by doubling the interest rate on loans to commercial levels. That may be the most regressive policy that has ever been dreamed up. It takes
16WH
a particular species of beleaguered creature—the Scottish Tory—to come up with such a regressive approach.
Mr. Boswell: To make the point in the round, the hon. Gentleman should mention that my Scottish colleagues also proposed making Saltire scholarships available to meet the needs of students in Scotland.
Dr. Harris: The proposals of Scottish Conservatives have become lost in the mists of time. The hon. Gentleman, who I hope will speak presently, should explain the confusion. Is he happy for Scottish Conservatives to campaign for a policy that would introduce diversity—the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge may call it discrimination—into the United Kingdom and for Conservatives in the rest of the country to campaign for a different policy? The hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge has not established that democratically approved diversity is undesirable.
Thanks to the intervention of Liberal Democrats, the Scottish Executive proposed a scheme that will have huge benefits, as the Scottish people recognise. A speech by a Member of the Scottish Parliament, George Lyon, made it clear that mature students will no longer have to pay tuition fees. They will benefit from additional free support worth £10 million, which will be worth an average of £2,000 or more to many students. Those students will be exempted from the graduate contribution—I hope that that reassures the hon. Member for Bristol, West (Valerie Davey)—and they will retain their entitlement to full loan support. That means that students will receive extra cash to the value of £2,000 and that they will not incur a penny extra in debt.
Students with a family income of less than £10,000, whom we need to encourage to enter into higher education both north and south of the border, will not have to pay tuition fees. They will benefit from £8,000 in free maintenance grants and they will receive in cash £2,000 more to live on than they would have received under the current loan scheme. Their debts when they graduate will be £4,000 lower.
I could continue to preach the virtues of the proposals—
Mr. Hammond: As the hon. Gentleman is preaching the virtues of those proposals, is he urging his friends in the Labour party to implement such proposals not only in Scotland but in England, Wales and Northern Ireland?
Dr. Harris: That is a reasonable point. The Liberal Democrats will look at that policy at a federal level. We have a democratic way of making policy, and it is not for me to change our party's democratically agreed policy on the strength of a seductive intervention.
There are clearly enormous benefits to be gained from the Scottish Executive's proposals. At the next election, we may well change our policy from the good one that we now espouse to the one proposed in Scotland. The Conservatives will have to address that issue. Indeed, the Labour Government will also have to decide whether they can go into the next election continuing to

17WH
propose an unfair tuition fee system that damages access, creates student poverty and does not provide the expansion of funding on a per-student basis that is much needed in this country.
11 am
Mr. Tim Boswell: This has been an interesting debate and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) on introducing it with characteristic clarity, elegance and moderation.
It is right to draw attention to the disparities in student support throughout the United Kingdom. I found the two intervening contributions highly revealing—and I have a soft spot for both contributors. The hon. Member for Harlow (Mr. Rammell) resembles a stock medium-pace bowler who flings a few balls down the wicket in the hope that, somehow, an incautious batsman will get an edge. The hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) reminds me of an extremely slow left-arm bowler, who, by guile and confusion, seeks to winkle the batsmen out.
To stay with the metaphor of the game, both hon. Gentlemen are batting on a sticky wicket in trying to defend the indefensible—as, I suspect, will be the Minister, when he replies to the debate. Although one might promulgate a degree of partnership, or even consensus, in politics—towards which purpose this Chamber is to some extent directed—it is unacceptable to defend the indefensible under these slogans. The hon. Gentlemen have sought to do so today.
The simple approach to these matters is the biblical one. Despite all the tergiversations and excuses, the system is unsatisfactory. By their fruits ye shall know them. This is not right. In raising these matters, we should not stray beyond our narrow remit into debating the principle—or refighting the battle—of devolution, let alone, according to the wilder assertions of the hon. Member for Harlow, the principle of our membership of the European Union, to which I, and, more significantly, the Leader of the Opposition, are firmly committed.
We are concerned here with the little local difficulties experienced by Labour and the Liberal Democrats in Scotland, where both parties have had to reinterpret election pledges in a way that no reasonable voter could have anticipated from their manifestos. Also at issue is the interaction with European law that has created and added to those anomalies. In practice, the result is a shambles across the United Kingdom. That shambles was defended by Scotland's First Minister, the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Anniesland (Mr. Dewar), on the "Today" programme on 4 February. He described the proposals as
"An imaginative, a brave and a very Scottish solution."
I accept one of those observations. It is a Scottish solution for a Scottish problem.
I also note that—in a parody of the self-restraint that we have sometimes wished on Scottish Members, post-devolution—no Scottish member of either the Labour party or the Liberal Democrats has attended this short debate to justify or explain the decisions of the Scottish Parliament. That has been left to English Members. It is a Scottish solution, but is it imaginative and brave, as the First Minister said? If so, I should like to see what he
18WH
would consider a cynical and timid compromise, which is what I believe it to be. Let us not be mealy-mouthed about it. When discussing whether tuition fees and graduate contributions are the same thing, I am reminded of nothing more than the children's joke, which asks, "When is a door not a door?" The answer, of course, is, "When it is ajar." The answer to the question, "When is a graduate contribution not a tuition fee?" is "When it is deferred for long enough to provide a tissue of excuses for not so describing it." A graduate contribution is effectively a tuition fee, even if it is deferred—assuming that it is practical to collect it.
Our criticism of this hotch-potch is threefold. Unusually—and, remembering how the French tend to put their arguments, in the spirit of the auld alliance—I shall move from the general, and the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge on education, to my particular worries. I start with what I believe to be the greatest real-world problem, which is the threat that those ramshackle arrangements pose to the integrity of the British higher education system.
I shall not be precise about dates, but when the Minister for School Standards and I graduated, there was a simple, integrated system with a common support mechanism, although it was delivered in rather different administrative ways. For example, the Scots centralised the payment of student maintenance, perhaps sensibly so, long before the English considered doing so. When I graduated, universities throughout the United Kingdom were expanding. Friends of mine became lecturers in various universities in the UK, irrespective of the nation; one went to Coleraine in Northern Ireland and is still there, and others went to Scotland. Until his recent retirement, a cousin of mine, who is a Scot, worked for the whole of that time at Glasgow university, but he has always considered it to be part of a United Kingdom system.
Valerie Davey: The hon. Gentleman waxes eloquent about the past perfect, but before he continues, he should recognise the vast discrepancies that existed when he and I and other hon. Members were at university, which depended on whether one went to Oxbridge or Keele, or took a four-year course in Scotland. Few of us had any concept of being part of a European system of higher education. However, we are now part of Europe, and there is a mix and match of youngsters going between European and UK universities.
Unfortunately, in the earlier part of the debate, we did not develop the analogy of the inadequacies of provision for post-16 students with the better provision that is now being made in Scotland and England for 16-year-olds. The concept of being part of further and higher education—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. This is a very long intervention. I had sought to call the hon. Lady to speak, but it appears that she is making a speech and not seeking to intervene. Would the hon. Lady bring her intervention quickly to an end?
Valerie Davey: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I simply challenge the hon. Gentleman's concept that we do not have a better, more integrated system in Europe than we had then.
Mr. Boswell: I have some sympathy with the hon. Lady's comments. It was a Conservative Government

19WH
who dramatically expanded student numbers. It was also a Conservative Minister—myself—who negotiated the last Erasmus programme, which hugely expanded British participation in European higher education. I was about to make that point, but first, to avoid doubt and to save time after that intervention, I may refer, as if in shorthand, to English students. It may be assumed that I include Welsh students—my wife is Welsh—and Northern Ireland students, to whom my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge has referred. The anomalies lie between England, Wales and Northern Ireland on one hand and Scotland on the other.
Although I would not claim that the situation in the 1960s was ideal—we have evolved since then—the integrity of the system is now under real threat. Moving into a European structure under the umbrella of European law—the Gravier judgment bears particularly on those issues—we find, as a matter of course, that our student children now want to go to Europe. It is odd that they find themselves discriminated against not when they move from England to Belgium, for example, but when they move from England to Scotland. That is a retrograde step and it has wider implications, because if we create barriers to the natural movement across the border into Scotland, there will be repercussions for academics, courses and the integrity of the British higher education system.
There are concerns, on which I shall not expand now, about research selectivity, which has a different principle and rigour in Scotland. That may damage the Scottish research universities. All that is gradually prising apart what has always been an integrated system. There is nothing wrong with an English student wishing to study Gaelic, for example; he or she would have to go to Inverness or to Glasgow to do that. I looked at the UCAS website the other day and saw what subjects were available, from A to Z: there is authoring, or communication, authoring and design, at Coventry university and, under "zone", coastal zone and marine environment studies at the university of Glamorgan. A Scottish student wishing to study those subjects has to face a new hurdle. There is differentiation between English and Scottish students in Scotland and a whole raft of subordinate discriminations. However it may be justified, such discrimination is sheer injustice. Such discimination is not all one way: some of the rules under the modified version of Cubie that has been adoped in Scotland require repayment at £10,000 a year of income, which is more rigorous than the British system. The Minister's announcement on hardship funds in England, which has not yet been fully analysed, may well mean that some individual English students do better than their Scottish equivalents. However, there is substantive discrimination against English students going to Scotland. There is also discrimination against Scottish students moving to England, paid for out of their block grant. European students are discriminated against according to whether they go to England or Scotland and European students in Scotland may well benefit from the fact that the tuition fees—now renamed graduate contribution—cannot be collected from them if they move outside the jurisdiction.
20WH
There is therefore an overall threat to the British higher education system, which has successfully functioned as a whole for many years. The anomalies, which cannot be justified under any terms, are a threat to the decisions and the welfare of individual students.
Finally, there is the threat of legal challenge. The Mininster and his officials will know that the Department for Education and Employment has in certain respects taken the lead in the matter of judicial review. A senior legal adviser there, who has now moved elsewhere, wrote an admirable book, "The Judge Over Your Shoulder", to which all senior officials and Ministers should have regular recourse. I am not a lawyer but, partly fired by that document, I take an interest in those matters. So, clearly, do the Government because the original intention of the Scottish Executive was to rebate the fees for all Scots, wherever they were studying, including the 6,000 Scots studying at English, Welsh or Northern Irish universities. However, the Commission's legal services put a spanner in the works by pointing out that that would discriminate against European students studying in England, of whom there are perhaps 90,000, and that the privilege would have to be extended, under the best treatment or the no-detriment rule, to all those students. So the Government backed down and produced their compromise, which is more favourable to Scottish students in Scotland than in England, even if they cannot find in Scotland the courses that they want to study. Having tacked in that direction, perhaps the Government will succeed in avoiding European Union law, although my colleague from the east midlands, Mr. Chris Heaton-Harris, a Member of the European Parliament, is in active communication with Commissioner Reding as to whether the discrimination is acceptable.
The only way in which EU law can be avoided is by a solution that the European Commission's legal spokesman described as being
"discrimination internal to a member state".
That would concede the point that such a solution would be discriminatory. If it is, I suggest that Ministers ought to consider the fact that they have signed up to the European convention on human rights. It already has force in Scotland and will shortly do so throughout the rest of the United Kingdom, so Ministers should consider long and hard whether their obligations under it are being adequately discharged through such ramshackle arrangements.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge said, the plain fact is that the solution is wrong and will be seen as wrong by students and universities throughout the United Kingdom. I predict that the matter will end in tears.
11.16 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. Malcolm Wicks): We have had a useful debate, and I thank the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) for choosing the subject. I also thank the hon. Members for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) and for Daventry (Mr. Boswell), who made use contributions, as did my hon. Friends the Members for Harlow (Mr. Rammell) and for Bristol, West (Valerie Davey).
The hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge used an extravagant vocabulary in his introduction. I make no complaint about that. It is early in the

21WH
parliamentary day, but his speech included the words "grotesque", "fellow travellers", "arrogance", "panicked" and "back-room deals", and made much mention of second-class citizens. I hope that he will excuse me if I approach the issue in a calmer manner. In part, the debate has been about the public policy implications, as illustrated by the important case of higher education, that result from our United Kingdom's devolution and changing nature.
While listening to the hon. Gentleman, I could not quite remember whether his party had done a U-turn on the issue of the Scottish Parliament and Scottish devolution. I think that I am right in saying that the Conservative party now accepts the logic of a Scottish Parliament. If it does, it must recognise that, on some important matters, devolution can lead to diversity and differentiation. To judge from the hon. Gentleman's contribution, the Conservative party is clearly having problems with that.
I have checked my sources to confirm that the U-turn on devolution took place. The hon. Gentleman might find it useful if I quote from the Scottish Conservative party's schools pack, which seeks to explain the party's position on devolution. It states:
"The Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party has had to travel a difficult constitutional road in the course of the last year. We have had to evolve our policy of staunch opposition to the creation of a devolved Scottish Parliament in both last year's General Election and the devolution referendum, to being one of persuaders for the Union through the medium of the Scottish Parliament.
We now wish to see the Scottish Parliament succeed and we shall be working constructively in a wide range of ways to ensure that it does."
Rather tellingly, it concludes:
"To an uninformed observer, these standpoints may seem to be logically inconsistent and incompatible. That is an entirely understandable reaction."
In travelling the road, the hon. Gentleman is taking only his first steps. He clearly does not accept the logic of devolution and the Scottish Parliament: from time to time, it will lead to differences between our two systems, which we must accept.
Mr. Hammond: The key phrase that the Minister quoted was "persuaders for the Union" in the new settlement. We accept the new settlement, but does he accept that there is tension in the Government between the desire for matters to be settled locally, for reasons of democratic accountability, and the desire to impose national standards? In England, the Government have increasingly tried to tackle the problem by ring-fencing grants to local authorities and controlling what local authorities can do. They do not have that power over Scotland simply because they do not control the Scottish Executive.
Mr. Wicks: The balance to be struck between national policies and strategies and local diversities is a feature of democratic politics, which we are now witnessing on a grander constitutional scale in the United Kingdom. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow pointed out, there have always been evident differences between the Scottish university system and the English and Welsh system. Indeed, even before higher education, England and Wales have
22WH
A-levels, while Scotland has highers. The four-year degree is more a feature of the Scottish system than of the English and Welsh system. We must accept diversity.
Mr. Boswell: Does the Minister agree that the record of their evolution shows that the British education system and student support were designed to minimise such differences for the student and to enable students easily to move around the system, rather than creating barriers to such movement, which is the substance of our anxiety?
Mr. Wicks: The hon. Gentleman, like his party, is in difficulty: he cannot say that he supports a Scottish Parliament but he always become angry when it proposes a different system from that of England and Wales. If no differences were involved, a Scottish Parliament would not have been necessary. As one of my hon. Friends pointed out, the system also gives British students the right to study in universities elsewhere in Europe and to benefit from national arrangements in other countries. Students' rights in Europe consitute one of the exciting aspects of education in the 21st century.
We had to tackle the system that we inherited. The hon. Member for Daventry did not mention the fact that, between 1989 and 1997, unit—or per student—funding for higher education decreased significantly, by 36 per cent. In expanding higher education, we shall not take the cheap option of allowing standards to decline. We want quantity and quality to march hand in hand. Under the previous Administration, quality declined.
We had to tackle the student funding system because, inevitably, at the moment, it tends to be people from higher socio-economic groups who benefit from higher education. Under the old system, which did not involve tuition fees, we essentially asked most of the population, who had not benefited from university education—including some rather poor employees—to pay for the tuition fees of the minority. It was time to introduce some fairness into the system, and that is what we are doing.
As we all know, people who gain a degree are, on average, financially far better off than those who do not. By their early thirties, graduates earn about 20 per cent. more than people with A-levels, and far more than people with even fewer qualifications. It is not unreasonable to ask that group to make a contribution—only a small proportion—to the cost of their teaching at university. We introduced the loans system to enable people to maintain themselves. It is a fair system, given the funding implications for students, parents and universities.
I should emphasise that, because of the nature of the income test, those from low-income backgrounds do not have to pay tuition fees. By 2001–02, about 50 per cent. of students will not have to pay fees and only 30 per cent. will pay the full contributions. It is important to highlight that repayments will start only when salaries reach about £10,000 a year. Below that threshold, no repayments are required. For example, someone on an income of £12,000 will pay back £180 in one year. That is fair, and it will become a major way in which to fund the university sector. Indeed, income from student contributions to tuition fees alone will reach £460 million a year in 2001–02.
Mr. Hammond: The Minister's argument is interesting, but does he believe that it is right that, with all the new opportunities to which he refers, a student from England, Wales or Northern Ireland can go to any other country in the European Union, except Scotland, and he treated in the same way as a resident of that country, but if he goes to Scotland, he will be discriminated against?
Mr. Wicks: The hon. Gentleman is struggling to understand the logic of devolution and of enabling the people of Scotland to elect their own Parliament and have their own Scottish Government. In Scotland, such choices are made and, inevitably, there will be differences and diversities. If he has not understood the logic of his own party's U-turn on devolution, he should discuss it with the Leader of the Opposition.
There is evidence that student numbers are holding up well; they are increasing. Concern has been expresed about the decline in the number of mature students entering the system. That may have something to do with the buoyant labour market, but we are encouraged by the fact that the number of part-time students is increasing.
We have a new student support package, designed mainly to help mature students, many of whom, we recognised, were in difficulty. We have listened to them. Some are lone parents and have particular problems with child care. That is one of the reasons why we are introducing at some cost a new bursary of £1,000 a year for mature students, dependent on income. We are also
24WH
doing more to help with child care costs and to assist mature students who have children with the costs of school meals. We are also trying to ease access.
We asked Sir George Quigley to look into four-year fees for students, in accordance with the Teaching and Higher Education Act 1998. Sir George has delayed his report to take account of the Scottish Executive's response to Cubic, but his findings will be with us by April. The system that we have arrived at for England and Wales is right. Where it needs modification, we will listen—hence our package for mature students and for students from poorer areas. If we are to expand the university system, it must be fair to students, taxpayers and parents, as it is to universities.
Hundreds of millions of pounds are now coming in under the system. By 2001–02, income from tuition fees and loan payments will total £710 million. Are Opposition Members really saying that we should find from other resources the hundreds of millions of pounds that it will cost to move towards the Scottish system? Would it be raised by cutting nursery education or funding for the national health service or primary schools? I am not sure whether the Conservatives are making a pledge. If we are serious about the quality of higher education, we must be rigorous about the funding element. We believe that the student support system is fair and efficient: student numbers are increasing, the number of our young people going to university is increasing and quality standards are being maintained. Opposition Members must understand the logic of devolution.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We must now move to the next debate.

Iraq
11.30 am
Mr. Tam Dalyell: In December 1998, when I went to Baghdad with the former Taoiseach, Albert Reynolds, who is really the father of the peace process in Northern Ireland and a deeply serious man, we were invited by Tariq Aziz to his house for supper. I think that we were the first people to be invited to his home since the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath) all those years ago. One of the things he said to us was, "You may think that Saddam Hussein, the revolutionary council and I are extremists. This is a general view in the west. If sanctions go on and there is continued military action, we will be succeeded by people who are far more extreme than us." I have to say that I believed him. There is a real crisis.
I know that there are those in the Foreign Office who suspect that I am sympathetic to the Iraqi regime, but on the contrary, it is a very brutal regime. So are others. The middle east is a very brutal place and others are now beginning to take the same view. Toby Dodge, writing with the authority of Chatham house, said:
"The rapid and externally driven decline in living standards and social structures since 1991 could produce an alternative scenario—the rise of militant nationalism. The widespread state inspired credo of Arab nationalism has historically found support amongst a population convinced that their country is unjustly treated by the West and wider international society."
One has to go to Iraq to understand the intense feeling. They ask why this is being done to those who were the west's shields during the Iran-Iraq war. Dodge goes on:
"The present situation heightens such perceptions. There has also been a dangerous polarisation of society between those reduced to poverty and those elevated to the ranks of the super rich. Sanctions, whilst impoverishing the majority, have helped create a small group of nouveau riche profiteers associated with the inner circle of the ruling elite. Their wealth is a conspicuous target for resentment."
From observation, I do not believe that that applies to all the ruling elite. Dodge continues:
"These two factors may coalesce in demands for a militant, active nationalism focused on re-establishing Iraq as a regional power. The potency of such a movement—comparable in some ways to post Soviet Russia or Weimar Germany—would be enhanced by fondly re-imagined memories of when Iraq was strong and could take care of its population."
Incidentally, in the 1970s Baghdad got a prize for being the cleanest city in the middle east. Dodge goes on:
"If this took hold, a populous government in Baghdad would find it relatively easy to mobilise a population already angry and alienated from the international community. The widespread dislike of the post Gulf War border settlement with Kuwait could serve as a potent rallying call with which to reassert power within the region."
The Chatham house paper goes on:
"Just what will emerge from a post Saddam or post sanctions era is a crucial issue of geostrategic significance that goes far beyond the Gulf and the wider Middle East. Since 1991, United States and British policy has been focused on the more immediate goal of removing, or at least containing, Saddam Hussein. But after ten years of coercive diplomacy, the regime in Baghdad appears to be as strong or indeed stronger than at any time.
Pre-occupied with more pressing issues, policy makers in the five permanent United Nations Security Council member states appear to have paid scant attention to the very problem of what type of Iraqi state and society will emerge in the medium to long term. The post 1991 stalemate has enforced dramatic and
26WH
widespread suffering on the population through no fault of its own. Inside Iraq, if not elsewhere, the blame for this has been placed on the governments of the United States and Britain.
The danger that seems to have escaped serious consideration among western policymakers is that of an angry population, mobilised by ten years of suffering, venting its ire either on the institutions of the Iraqi state itself and attempting to destroy it, or turning its frustration onto the external forces the regime has blamed for their dire situation. Either way, on the anniversary of the beginning of the Gulf war, surely it is time to think about the possible future of Iraq, for the sake of the Iraqi population, the stability of the wider Gulf and the West's relations with the Middle East."
That is exactly the situation that Albert Reynolds and I saw in 1998, even more clearly than when I went in 1994 with John Smith's retrospective approval.
I talked over the weekend by phone, when preparing this debate, to the former UN co-ordinator, Dennis Halliday, in Ireland. He talks now about "intellectual genocide".
Halliday is a heavyweight. He was not even seen by Foreign Office Ministers when he was here, though he went to the Prime Minister, President and Foreign Minister of France. I gather that it is also the considered view of Hans von Sponeck, who is being rubbished. I was very impressed by von Sponeck. His evidence to the Select Committee has still not been published, heaven knows why. These are very serious people, who have the gravest of doubts.
Perhaps the most recent visitor was the journalist Felicity Arbuthnot, who I know is not popular in the Foreign Office. She was in Edinburgh on Saturday at the Quakers. She talks about the devastation that she sees, of the pre-industrial age, of women too malnourished to breast feed—chronically malnourished. The calorific value in whole areas of Iraq is now lower than in Mali. One third of the children are suffering. When asked whether it was worth the death of 500,000 children—those are the UN figures—to get rid of Saddam Hussein, Madeleine Albright replied yes. If I may say so without being personal, those are simply not the values that my hon. Friend the Minister of State had for so many years of his active political life.
The radiation in Basra is 10 times higher than it should be. We went to the presentation by Doug Rokke, whose views are known to the Foreign Office. He was a medic in Vietnam, and is a patriotic American from the southern states. However, one can see in his person the effects of depleted uranium. He is a leading expert on the matter. His reaction in Basra was simply, "Oh my God."
Felicity Arbuthnot, who recently returned, describes a society that is breaking down. People are selling all their possessions—even their marriage presents. There is no work for all the talented engineers. The trauma caused by the bombing is felt every single day. Iraqi children are the most traumatised on earth. Those should not be the effects of a Labour Government's policy. What is the point of bombing flocks of sheep? All we succeeded in doing was letting loose rockets and killing a few shepherd boys. What is the long-term object of it all?
The article by Robert Corzine in yesterday's Financial Times states:
"UN officials say Iraq has received less than $300m (£180m) in oilfield equipment out of a theoretical $1.5bn".

27WH
How can they achieve anything without the supply of what is necessary for the oilfields?
Finally, I want to touch on what is possibly the most serious question of all—the water in the dam. I received two separate briefings: one from Balfour Beatty—a firm with which I have had good relations in the past in constituency matters—and the other from those who predict up to a 45 per cent. reduction in the flow of the Tigris over three years. When I was in Baghdad, I was told that the Tigris was lower than it had ever been in recorded history, and in 1994 I saw that the Euphrates had become little more than a trickle. Balfour Beatty argues that the dams are just for hydro-electricity, and that the flow will be unaffected, but I am not sure. I do know, however, that a proposal exists for another dam at Cizre, in the south. That could take off a great deal of water, which, apparently, is to be used for irrigation.
There are real problems, and many people will be extremely interested in the Government's comments.
11.43 am
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Peter Hain): I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) for the opportunity to debate the important subject of Iraq. He has taken an expert and informed interest in Iraq over a number of years, and I have never questioned the integrity of his views or his genuine humanitarian concerns about the plight of the Iraqi people. I share those concerns.
First, we should remind ourselves why the United Nations Security Council imposed sanctions on Iraq in the first place. They were imposed following Iraq's brutal and unprovoked invasion of Kuwait in 1990. At the end of the Gulf war, in 1991, Iraq accepted the terms of United Nations Security Council resolution 687—the so-called ceasefire resolution. That resolution, and others implementing it, imposed a series of obligations on Iraq, including accepting the destruction of its weapons of mass destruction under international supervision, submitting full details of locations, amounts and types of weaponry, undertaking not to use, develop, construct or acquire weapons of mass destruction in the future, and co-operating with UNSCOM in carrying out those obligations.
Resolution 687 also set out the circumstances in which the Security Council would lift the sanctions imposed on Iraq. The resolution provides that sanctions will be lifted following compliance by Iraq with its weapons of mass destruction obligations, and following a review by the Security Council of Iraq's policies and practices, including its implementation of all relevant resolutions. By persistently avoiding compliance with its undertakings under resolution 687, Iraq, not the international community, has prolonged the sanctions regime—which was originally envisaged as lasting for only a period of months—for over nine years. Iraq is responsible for the fact that the sanctions are still in place.
I shall give some examples of Iraq's poor record on compliance. More than 600 Kuwaitis detained by Iraq during the Gulf war are still completely unaccounted for. That represents about 0.1 per cent. of the Kuwaiti
28WH
population, which would be the equivalent of 50,000 British citizens. Eighty-seven per cent. of the Kuwaiti missing are civilians, some of whom are elderly. To date, Iraq has provided sufficient information to close just three of those 600-plus cases. Meanwhile, the families of those who remain unaccounted for continue to live under a cloud of uncertainty over the fate of their loved ones.
On weapons of mass destruction, because of Iraq's persistent evasion, obstruction and mendacity, the obligations under resolution 687—which could have been completed within just a few months if Iraq had cooperated fully with the weapons inspectors—have still not been met. That is not just our judgment; it is the judgment of an independent United Nations panel which met last year. Until those obligations are met, Iraq will remain a threat to regional peace and stability.
Let us not forget that Saddam Hussein has used his weapons of mass destruction before, with devastating results. We remember in particular the Kurdish town of Halabja, where Saddam ordered the use of chemical weapons, including nerve agents, killing 4,000 to 5,000 civilians and injuring perhaps 10,000 more. Saddam also used chemical weapons against Iran during the Iran-Iraq war. We are not prepared to run the risk again that he will use those weapons.
Mr. Dalyell: This is part of the difficulty. When I went to Iran on holiday, I saw the war memorials, which are like our first world war memorials. Although the Iranian people suffered terribly during that war, the Iranian Government's official view—as expressed by the Foreign Affairs Minister when he visited this country—was that sanctions should be lifted, because they strengthen, rather than weaken, Saddam Hussein's regime. That is the view of people who have suffered from it.
Mr. Hain: What I find interesting about the deployment of that argument is that nobody—including my hon. Friend—has suggested an alternative policy to the lifting of sanctions.
Mr. Dalyell rose—
Mr. Hain: Perhaps I could just finish this point. We all share the concern about the humanitarian situation in Iraq. However, it is not right to blame sanctions for that suffering; nor would the situation necessarily improve if sanctions were lifted.
Mr. Dalyell: I suggest that as a first step the Foreign Office should talk to some of the former distinguished ambassadors, such as Sir Stephen Egerton, Sir John Moberly and Sir Harold Walker. There is a good case for starting to talk to the Iraqis.
Mr. Hain: I am happy to talk to former ambassadors; indeed, we talk to them and to others. The suffering of the Iraqi people is caused by the policies of Saddam Hussein's regime. The evidence is there for all to see, and I am surprised that my hon. Friend does not take account of that. The latest report by the Secretary-General on the implementation of the oil for food programme notes that a quarter of all medical goods delivered to Iraq since the programme began have not

29WH
been distributed. In the meantime, basic items such as antibiotics remain in short supply. That is the Iraqi regime's responsibility.
Iraq claims that the problem is caused by lack of vehicles, but thousands of vehicles have been authorised by the sanctions committee since the start of the oil for food programme. The real problem is the Iraqi regime's lack of commitment.
In February 1998, the United Nations Secretary-General recommended a daily food ration of 2,463 calories. Iraq responded not by accepting that, but by setting a lower ration of 2,200 calories and failing to order sufficient food to make up even that reduced level. The Secretary-General's latest report on the oil for food programme notes that Iraq is ordering insufficient quantities of pulses and dairy products and not including sufficient protein. At present, the average daily food ration is just 1,993 calories, which is significantly less than the ration that was set.
The Secretary-General also recommended targeted feeding programmes aimed at a population of just under 2 million. After considerable arm-twisting on the UN's part, Iraq allocated only $9 million—a fraction of the sum available—to those programmes. The Secretary-General called on Iraq to increase funding for targeted nutrition, so that children's nutritional status could be expeditiously improved.
Iraq's distribution plan for the oil for food programme allocates insufficient funds to key areas such as food and medicine, but allocates $10 million for the purchase of bank note counting machines. How will that assist humanitarian relief? The Secretary-General has refused to approve that allocation.
Iraq is also exporting humanitarian goods. We know that it has sold food to Syria and tried to sell food to Jordan. If it had any concern for the humanitarian plight of its people, it would not do so. Several vessels exporting goods from Iraq have been intercepted in the Gulf.
During the past few days, evidence has come to light that Iraq is exporting oil outside the oil for food programme. That oil could, and should, be exported within the programme, thereby attracting humanitarian relief. By exporting oil illegally, the regime is depriving the programme of revenue and the Iraqi people of humanitarian relief. The revenue goes straight into the pockets of Saddam Hussein and his cronies, and the Iraqi people see none of it.
Some argue that the oil for food programme is inadequate. It may not be perfect, but we firmly believe that, while sanctions remain in place, it is the best way in which to address the humanitarian needs of the people of Iraq. According to the Secretary-General's most recent report, the implemention of the oil for food programme is making a difference to the humanitarian situation in Iraq. It has delivered 12 million tonnes of food, and medical supplies worth more than $700 million, but, as Kofi Annan himself has noted the programme's potential impact is far greater. Unfortunately for the Iraqi people, it is not being realised because the regime appears indifferent to their suffering. It is no coincidence that the oil for food programme has had a substantially greater impact on the humanitarian situation in northern Iraq, where the regime is not involved in implementing the programme, than in Baghdad-controlled Iraq.
30WH
While, for its own propaganda purposes, the Iraqi regime allows the people of Iraq to suffer, the international community has sought to protect them from the effects of the embargo and the regime's cynical policies. Britain has consistently taken a lead in those efforts. Our most recent initiative was resolution 1284, a comprehensive resolution which was adopted after months of painstaking and intense negotiation. That was an excellent result and a remarkable achievement for British diplomacy. The resolution provides a new platform for the Security Council's dealings with Iraq on matters such as weapons of mass destruction, and humanitarian and Kuwaiti issues. The creation of UNMOVIC, a new disarmament body, represents a real opportunity for Iraq to make rapid progress on the remaining disarmament issues. That, in turn, would trigger the suspension of sanctions, for which my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow has consistently argued. If Iraq implements the resolution, the opportunity will exist for sanctions to be suspended.
The resolution also implements a range of humanitarian measures that provide for a bigger and better humanitarian programme—including the immediate abolition of the ceiling on the amount of oil that Iraq is permitted to export under the oil for food arrangements—and the speeding up of UN sanctions committee procedures.
Our priority is implementation. We welcome the appointment of Dr. Hans Blix as executive chairman of UNMOVIC. Work is well under way on the implementation of humanitarian provisions. We are very encouraged that all members of the council, including those who abstained in the vote on the resolution, voiced their commitment to its implementation. Meanwhile, Iraq's refusal to accept and implement the resolution yet again cynically denies the Iraqi people the prospect of relief from sanctions for which my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow so eloquently argues.
My hon. Friend also raised the question of the no-fly zones over Iraq. I would first like to record our gratitude for the invaluable role played by the RAF air crews who have risked their lives for eight years to protect Iraqi civilians from repression. The no-fly zones were established to protect innocent Iraqi civilians from persecution at the hands of the Iraqi air force. Although 1991 may seem a long time ago, it is still vivid in the minds of those Iraqi Kurds, Assyrians and Turkmen who fled their homes in fear as Iraqi helicopter gunships attacked their villages. That was not the first time that those villages had suffered. In the 1970s and 1980s, Iraqi forces destroyed more than 3,000 Kurdish villages. That is never referred to by the critics of our policy in the debate on sanctions.
On the question of the chemical weapons attack on Halabja, I recently met Professor Christine Gosden of Liverpool university. She has expert knowledge of the awful medical conditions suffered by the people of that town: infertility, miscarriages, congenital abnormalities, and cancers. They also suffer from respiratory problems caused by the inhalation of mustard gas. These dreadful illnesses continue to afflict people born in those areas even today.
Anyone who has seen the effects of such attacks on innocent civilians will want to ensure that such atrocities can never happen again. That is what our pilots do in the

31WH
no-fly zones over Iraq. They patrol the zones every week, as they have for the past nine years, to deter Iraqi air attacks on Iraqi civilians. That happens not only in the north. RAF aircraft have also patrolled in the south since the establishment of the southern no-fly zone in 1992, to limit the repression of the Shi'a Muslims.
My hon. Friend mentioned water issues. He will recall the devastation wreaked by Iraqi forces in the southern marshlands. They burned houses and fields, demolished homes with bulldozers and deliberately drained the marshes, destroying a vast regional wetland for ever.
Mr. Dalyell: I have made an unannounced visit to the marshlands at Querna, and I do not believe that having seen the area with my own eyes.
Mr. Hain: I am surprised by the hon. Gentleman's statement. As well as causing grave environmental damage by diverting water flows and burning large areas of reeds—[Interruption.]
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Nicholas Winterton): Order. If the hon. Member for Linlithgow wishes to intervene, he must do so in the proper way and not from a sedentary position.
Mr. Hain: As well as carrying out the damage that I have just mentioned, Iraqi forces did much to destroy the way of life of the marsh Arabs. The persecution continues today. In March last year, Iraqi firing squads summarily executed a number of alleged demonstrators from Basra, who had already been tortured while in detention. Afterwards, they were buried in a mass grave. Why is no attention focused on that?
We must not forget what happened in the years leading up to the creation of the no-fly zones, nor should we ignore the repression that continues on the ground.
32WH
Security Council resolution 688 called on Iraq to end its repression. The zones were set up in support of that resolution. Since December 1998, Iraqi forces have maintained a sustained campaign to try to shoot down our aircraft, which are defending the rights of Iraqi citizens. Iraqi forces have shot at, or otherwise threatened, UK and US aircraft more than 630 times. Those threats are real, and our forces have responded in a proportionate manner, in self defence. That is their right under international law, and their safety must be paramount.
I must make it clear that we do not target civilian infrastructure. All defensive action is strictly limited to responses against Iraqi weapons and facilities that pose a threat to our forces. Our forces make every effort to minimise the risk to civilians when responding to threats. I urge hon. Members to treat Iraqi reports of civilian casualties with great caution. As my hon. Friend is aware, the Iraqis have, in the past accused us of killing civilians on days when we have not even been flying, and of damaging buildings later shown to be intact.
My hon. Friend also raised the question of the Ilisu dam. We have received representations from the Iraqi and Syrian Governments about that project. That is reflected in the four key concerns that were listed by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry in his statement on 21 December. One such concern involves the need to ensure adequate downstream flows to neighbouring states. It is worth nothing in this regard that the construction in the 1980s of the Anatolian gap project on the Euphrates by Turkey has had no demonstrable effect on Syria's water supply. The Ilisu dam is a hydro-electric project, not an irrigation project, and there should therefore be no disruption to downstream flows along the Tigris. No decision has yet been taken about cover from the Export Credits Guarantee Department—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We must move on to the next debate.

Moluccan Islands
12 noon
Rev. Martin Smyth: I appreciate this opportunity to raise this issue. You will be aware, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I have sought for some time to raise it in the House of Commons. It is opportune to raise it today—it comes in the midst of a visit by the President of Indonesia and by journalists and politicians from Indonesia. It is a privilege that the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office will respond to the debate—I am aware of his interests and commitments in this regard.
Perhaps I should explain my interest in this matter. Why should an hon. Member who represents Belfast, South be interested in developments in Indonesia? Some might wonder whether I do not have enough problems at home. I am a minister of the Presbyterian Church in Northern Ireland, which for years has enjoyed fellowship with the Indonesian Church, especially in Halmahera. When I became a Member of Parliament, I discovered that one of my constituents, who is currently the moderator of the Continuing Church in Australia, was a theological professor in a college in Halmahera. He has been in touch with us about this debate. The moderator of the Indonesian Church had to flee from Ambon by boat to get to Jakarta to try to represent his people and to deal with the tremendously serious situation in which the Indonesian Government are involved. Our eyes have always been on East Timor, but problems were developing in other parts of Indonesia, which is the largest country in the world with a significant Muslim community. It is a vast country with a vast population, and it is made up of a huge network of islands.
Tragically, the situation has escalated since the election. Throughout 1999, incidents led to the deaths of at least 1,500 people. I say "at least" because I am aware that different people exaggerate casualties. I am also aware that those from the Islamic community claim that many more than 2,000 Muslims have been slaughtered by Christians, although there is no evidence to support that. Tragically, those from the Christian community have retaliated—some have sought vengeance, and some, who were defending their local situation, were involved in the deaths of their fellow citizens. I seek not to defend all the actions of Christians but to deal with the tragedy in the Moluccan Islands, which some may know better as the Spice Islands. Historically, there is a strong trade connection between our country and those islands.
The situation in eastern Indonesia is grave. Recent violence in the region—it is the one province of Indonesia's six provinces that contains a non-Muslim majority or only a slight Muslim majority—has been perpetrated largely by Muslim extremists against a Christian community in the province, in which Christians slightly outnumber Muslims. Since the violence began in January 1999, more than 1,500 people have died and thousands have been made homeless. Various figures have been presented. They show that 100,000 have been displaced in Maluku and about 50,000 in Sulawesi. Figures supplied by the Department for International Development show that more than 200,000 people have been displaced. That gives us an idea of the extent of the crisis and the needs.
34WH
Not only have people been made homeless, but many churches have been destroyed. Five mosques have also been burnt and Christian-owned property destroyed. We are aware of the report of the Jubilee Campaign United Kingdom, which has been involved over the years with British parliamentarians and raises human rights issues throughout the world. Its report confirms the situation outlined in numerous media reports.
I have recently noticed a more balanced presentation in the United Kingdom media, but I was concerned, in early January, to see some of our press reporting as if the Christians were attacking the Muslims. When we tried to find out what lay behind that, we discovered that the head of the Indonesian news agency is an extreme Muslim, appointed by the former President, Mr. Habibie. We must remember that even countries such as ours with a free press must balance reports, because most papers have their own emphasis. We should treat with caution some of the reports that come from the Indonesian news agency. It seems clear that widespread human rights abuses are being perpetrated by Muslim extremists, aided and abetted by army elements. As hon. Members will be aware, I have already tabled early-day motion 294 on this subject.
I find it somewhat ironic that over the past week the Government and the European Union have sought to isolate Austria on the ground that its democratically elected Government have formed a coalition with a party whose policies they find repugnant—as a child of the 1930s, I can understand some of the reasoning behind that—yet they appear unwilling to use influence to compel the Indonesian authorities to end the violence in the region and ensure the protection of life, property and freedom of religion. I recognise that it is looked on as an internal conflict, but that was the case in Austria, too. If people in a democracy vote in a certain way, they have a right to be represented in that way. That is not the case in Indonesia, where the election went against the extreme Islamic people. The national ideals of Indonesia, over the years, until Suharto came in, allowed tolerance.
We have seen the tradition of "pila", which allowed communities to co-exist with one another, set aside. One of the messages that I get from Muslims and Christians in Indonesia is that they long to go back to that tradition. In the struggle in Ternate, the sultan and the moderator of the Presbyterian Church, representing their communities, appealed for peace, restraint and co-existence.
The nature of the violence is such that it appears to be organised and directed by those in positions of authority. It is open to question how far it is an Islamist plot, led by former President Habibie, Islamic elements in the Indonesian army and Islamic militants, to establish an Islamic nation and to control the major international trade routes in that part of the world.
In a report in the Jakarta Post of 3 February, President Wahid mentioned attempts by hard-line generals and Muslim militants to destabilise the country. I can refer to no higher authority than the President, who lends support to my reading of the situation. It is certain that elements of the army, particularly Muslim units from the island of Java, have been guilty of siding with Islamic extremists. Indeed, one army group so involved is the Kostra unit, which has clearly taken an offensive position against the

35WH
Christian community rather than fulfilling a peacekeeping role and trying to restore law and order in the community.
We must press home that question. Have the Government made representations to the Indonesian authorities about accepting a team of human rights observers to evaluate and balance reports of what is happening there, so that the world at large might have an objective view of it?
I can understand those who say that I am not speaking objectively but, speaking as a Presbyterian minister who has sympathy for the Christian population in Indonesia and the Moluccan Islands. I speak also as one who over the years has had Muslim friends in my home and elsewhere, so it is wrong to suggest that I speak only on behalf of the Christian community. However, it is true that it is the Christian community that is suffering most.
Will the Government urge the Indonesians to implement measures to prevent inflammatory statements and material being distributed? I know how difficult that can be. I know that the underground press works differently in different countries. I know that slogans are posted'and that mobs get carried away, but we should restrict the media from publishing such slogans, as they can give the appearance of credibility and reliability, and, if necessary, measures should be taken to punish those found guilty of incitement to violence.
Have the Government made any attempt to encourage and facilitate reconciliation betwen the Muslim and Christian leaders in the Moluccan Islands, to allocate funds for reconciliation efforts and to offer British Government expertise in policing sectarian conflict? I realise that that can be done only by invitation, but our people are always standing by to provide such help if it is requested. We are part of a global village, and we cannot stand apart from issues that cause others to suffer.
It is important to ask the authorities in Indonesia to act swiftly and impartially to provide humanitarian aid and assistance to those displaced and in need, and to investigate, identify and prosecute those responsible for provocation.
I shall come to a close so that the Minister has time to respond. I remind him that it took the world 25 years to come to the aid of the people of East Timor. I understand that that was a separatist conflict, and that East Timor was never recognised as part of Indonesia. However, the law-abiding Christians and Muslims of the Moluccan Islands cannot wait for 25 years.
12.15 pm
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. John Battle): It is many years since the House of Commons debated Indonesian matters, so all hon. Members will be grateful to the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) for raising the subject. It is a great tribute to him as the representative of Belfast, South that, even in the circumstances that he has had to deal with, he has called our attention to suffering communities in Indonesia and has made them a priority of his work in the House. We are grateful that
36WH
he has retained his personal contacts and been able to share his detailed experience with us. His speech in this Chamber is an important part of the formal records of the House of Commons. The speech and my reply will be read by others and by other Governments, including that of Indonesia.
The Government have watched the spread of violence through the Moluccan Islands with great concern, and all hon. Members will join me in deploring the violence that has brought pain and suffering to the communities there. We deeply regret the loss of life and the inter-communal violence that has taken place since the troubles began early last year. Communities that have lived in peace for many years, despite that long tradition of peaceful co-existence, are now sadly shattered with tension, conflict and fear.
We must exercise caution in rushing to a quick-fix solution. We know from conflicts much closer to home that rebuilding trust and peace is usually a long and painstaking process. Before we begin that process, we must understand the situation's roots and causes. The Moluccan Islands lie 1,700 or more miles from the Indonesian capital, Jakarta, and there are more than 1,000 of them in an area some three and a half times the size of the United Kingdom. When we look at the globe, I sometimes fear that we underestimate the size, scope and space taken up by the islands that compose Indonesia. The population of 2.1 million speaks about 150 different dialects.
In October 1999, the then Maluku province was divided into North Maluku and Maluku, the capitals of which are Ternate and Ambon respectively. Taken together, about 59 per cent. of the inhabitants of those regions are Muslim and 41 per cent. are Christian, although the proportions vary according to province and island. For example, Christians are in the majority in Ambon. That approximate balance is rare in Indonesia but has existed in the Moluccan Islands since the 16th century. The two communities lived in close proximity. Traditionally, inter-faith relations were protected by a twinning system that linked Christian and Muslim villages.
The balance between Muslims and Christians has shifted, over recent decades. President Suharto implemented a transmigration policy forcing many to move from one part of Indonesia to another. The Church in Maluku has stated that the transmigration policy favoured Muslim rather than Christian migration to Maluku.
The two communities had lived peacefully side by side for many years before the outbreak of hostilities in and around Ambon in January 1999. Since then, sporadic outbreaks of violence have occurred in different parts of the territory, most recently in the northern province.
Although the violence between the two communities has been described in religious terms, the origins are more complex, as I know the hon. Gentleman recognises. Nobody can say with certainty why the violence broke out when and where it did. To a large extent, it should be seen as the product of the economic crisis of 1998–99 and an adjustment to the end of 30 years of authoritarian rule.
A combination of political changes at the national level in Indonesia, migration issues, local rivalries, land disputes, as well as religious differences, have all

37WH
contributed. There are also rumours of provocateurs from outside the region. All those factors provided the tinder that ignited the violence.
The official death toll, as of 16 January 2000, since the break-out of violence, is 1,902. However, since mid-December 1999, more than 1,000 people are thought to have been killed in fighting in North Maluku which began between two opposing Muslim communities. The immediate trigger appears to have been an incident on Boxing day when a Christian bus driver ran over a Muslim, but there was sporadic violence throughout December involving both Muslim and Christian communities. Although it is difficult to obtain clear and reliable information—which the hon. Gentleman emphasised—about the situation in the islands, it is apparent that both Christian and Muslim communities have suffered many deaths and casualties. Both sides have been accused of committing attacks and of committing atrocities against the other, and property and places of worship on both sides have been targeted and destroyed in two waves of violence, the first in January and February 1999, the second beginning last August. In addition to the large number of deaths, many tens of thousands of inhabitants from different villages across the Moluccas have fled their homes. Official Indonesian figures suggest there may now be as many as 205,000 internally displaced people who have fled as a direct result of the violence, while the joint assessment report issued on 6 February suggests a total of 370,000, including 123,000 who have escaped to Sulawesi.
The most recent violence took place on Halmahera and Haruku islands up to the weekend of 5 and 6 February. Ambon, which has seen some of the worst incidents, has been relatively calm since the deployment of large numbers of fresh troops in January. Although there have been reports of over-reaction and partisanship from a few police and military units, generally speaking, the reports suggest that the police and military have played a positive role in trying to calm the situation. The death toll would now be far higher if police and troops had not been deployed or had been withdrawn from the province. However, we will take account of the hon. Gentleman's well-made points about partisanship.
We welcome the positive steps that have been taken recently to address some of the key problems. The policy of sending troops who have no personal connection with the region, as well as a more careful religious balance among the troops, has helped the situation. The regional military commander is a Christian and the chief of police is a Hindu from Bali. They have succeeded in stemming the violence in Ambon and are taking steps to stop the shipment of arms into the Moluccas and to prevent troublemakers travelling from island to island to stir up trouble. The security forces are reported to have sheltered thousands of displaced people. Restoring some security to the troubled islands is an essential first step that only the military can take.
Rev. Martin Smyth: I am interested in the points made by the Minister. Will he confirm that those who say that it is separatist battle are wrong? Will he also confirm
38WH
that, although it is true that the situation has tightened up recently, some 1,000 white-clad jihad warriors have arrived in the area by boat?
Mr. Battle: I do not know the details of those allegations, but they should be registered. I do not mean "allegations" pejoratively, because the hon. Gentleman's comments and the reports have to be taken seriously. The reform of the military is a key theme for the new Indonesian Government.
The role of the Indonesian Government will be crucial in finding a just and long lasting solution to the troubles in the Moluccan Islands. My right hon. Friends the Prime Minister, and the Foreign Secretary and I discussed the situation in the Moluccas with President Wahid when he was in London last week, following the delegation to me, led by the hon. Gentleman. President Wahid reaffirmed his commitment to secure lasting peace between the two communities. We have no reason to doubt his sincerity to find a solution, and will support him vigorously in his efforts. However, we should be under no illusion about the enormity of the challenges facing the new president. He has inherited a country of huge diversity and huge problems, as the hon. Gentleman acknowledged. Separatism in Aceh, Irian Jaya and Riau, serious inter-community violence in the Moluccas, and extensive poverty in other territories present a host of regional problems. The Indonesian economy, which has been hit extremely hard by the Asian economic crisis and corruption, has yet to begin a sustained recovery. President Wahid took over a country with a poor human rights record, the legacy of authoritarian rule with which he is now trying to deal.
We are just catching up with the changes. A quiet, peaceful, democratic revolution has taken place in Indonesia. President Wahid is the first democratically elected president. In his short time in power since October he has released all political prisoners, appointed a civilian Minister of Defence, the first for more than 40 years, a Human Rights Minister, who is Acehnese, and an Attorney-General who is a committed human rights campaigner and an activist himself. Indonesia has renounced its claim to East Timor and withdrawn its troops from the territory.
The biggest challenge remains taking the military out of politics and establishing full civilian control over the military and the police. President Wahid has made important moves in doing that, such as signing a decree to retire Cabinet Ministers who are serving military officers from their military positions, which will take effect from 31 March, and appointing an admiral as head of the armed forces, an appointment that used to be held by the army.
We welcome those moves and the publication last week of the United Nations commission of inquiry report and of the Indonesians' own national inquiry into the appalling human rights violations in East Timor. The perpetrators of those crimes must be brought to justice, and we are pleased that President Wahid has shown such a strong determination to establish a credible domestic judicial process. We believe that President Wahid's democratic Government are fully committed to finding a fair and lasting solution to the regional troubles in the Moluccas and elsewhere in Indonesia, and we want to help that process in any way possible.

39WH
Like Indonesia, in Britain, we understand the tragedy of sectarian violence, and we have had to learn the painful lessons of fostering reconciliation between deeply divided communities. During the President's visit to London, the Prime Minister offered to share with Indonesia our experience of that process and of inter-communal relations in some of our major cities and urban areas. We can work together to share inter-faith dialogue, for example.
The hon. Member for Belfast, South has suggested previously that the answer to the violence in the Moluccas may lie in the establishment of a UN peace-keeping force to separate the two communities. As he acknowledged, however, no clear parallel can be drawn with East Timor, because the international community never accepted that East Timor was part of Indonesia, whereas the Moluccas clearly are part of Indonesia. Therefore no legal basis exists for international intervention in the Moluccas. As the hon. Gentleman said, intervention would have to be invited. Nor should a request necessarily be expected. In investigating lasting solutions to help the democratic Indonesian Government tackle the problem, we can work as friends of Indonesia, offering help when it might be useful to support the process, especially of community reconciliation. To that end, we fully support the efforts of the UN development programme, which recently conducted an initial mission to Maluku and North Maluku with the Indonesian Government, and this week presented a full needs assessment to the international donors.
Our ambassador in Jakarta, Sir Robin Christopher, accompanied the UN mission. The report was released only yesterday, and we shall now work with the Indonesian Government to assess what we can do to carry it forward. By agreement with the Indonesians, we shall build on earlier work done by the British Council in training community leaders in the Moluccas in reconciliation and conflict resolution techniques and in training the local and national Indonesian media, to which the hon. Member for Belfast, South referred, in reporting the conflict truthfully, fairly, and responsibly and without fanning the flames.
A group of Indonesian parliamentarians and journalists are in Britain this week as guests of the Government. The journalists attended a British Council seminar in Cardiff, and they and the parliamentarians are spending a week studying in detail the operation of the House, if not the Chamber. I spent some time with them yesterday, discussing the role of the media, the need for fair and truthful reporting and the relationship between the media and a modern democracy.
A key element in formulating a solution to the problems will be encouraging reconciliation between the two deeply divided communities through an inter-faith dialogue. We have been encouraged by President Wahid's determination to promote that. His own experience as leader of the world's largest Muslim organisation will be invaluable. He is widely respected as an Islamic scholar, as is his Foreign Minister. When they visited London last week, the need to raise an inter-faith dialogue internationally is something to which we could all contribute, not least because of our experience of British inner cities.

Council Housing (Negative Subsidy)
12.30 pm
Mr. Bill Rammell: I welcome the opportunity to introduce a short debate on councils in negative subsidy and, in particular, the impact that the move to resource accounting for housing revenue accounts will have on those councils. Unless the current proposals are amended, they will have a dramatic and disproportionate effect on several councils whose stability will be threatened, as will their ability to cope with the programme of change and modernisation that the Government and local communities want to take place in local government. I am not having a general whinge that central Government are not doing enough for local government, but as someone who was a local councillor for 12 years until 1 May 1997, I can see the difference in what is happening now.
My local authority in Harlow has, for the first time, a local government settlement that has not led to central Government-directed cuts. It has seen the phased release of capital receipts and the replacement of compulsory competitive tendering by best value. All such measures have been welcomed; all of them were campaigned for by local government for a long time and all of them have been delivered by this Labour Government. Yet now, with the proposed move towards resource accounting, all those changes could be undone. It could, I fear, lead to cuts on a cataclysmic scale, and it is no exaggeration to use such terminology.
I shall describe the impact of the proposals on my local authority. If they were implemented unamended, there would be a cut of £3.1 million from Harlow's annual general fund budget of £12.4 million—a 25 per cent. reduction, leading to a slashing of services or a 55 per cent. increase in the council tax. I could not justify such a reduction or such an increase in the council tax. It is not as though my local authority and others in a similar position have had it easy over the past 10 to 15 years and have much fat and inefficiency to trim from the system.
Before the capping regime was introduced to small district councils when the de minimis provisions were abolished in 1992–93, Harlow had a budget of £24 million. Today, that budget is £12.4 million. I know of no other local authority in the country that has seen such a proportionate reduction in its budget. Having gone through the pain of that experience, difficult decision making, the impact of such action on the community because of the loss of services and the impact on the staff with significant numbers of redundancies and, finally, having felt that with a new Government we are on an even keel and we can go forward, now to be faced with the prospect of a further 25 per cent. cut in council services would be intolerable and unachievable.
I am not making a case for every council in negative subsidy, but I am making a case for Harlow and similar new towns, which, because of the nature of such communities, are in such a position. It is worth examining why such areas will be affected so dramatically by the proposed changes. I understand that the major part of the reason why Harlow is in negative subsidy derives from what the council did with some of its housing capital receipts in the 1980s. Some were used to reinvest in the ageing infrastructure of the new town in non-housing projects.

41WH
Why did Harlow and other new town authorities undertake such action? First, they had the money available from the sale of council houses. Secondly, there was no guidance from Ministers or civil servants that there was anything wrong in using the money for that purpose. In fact, the reverse was the case. The use of the money for that purpose was actively encouraged. Thirdly, new towns that have to consider that kind of approach face a particular problem. Unlike other communities, such towns are not masters of their own fate in terms of disposing of land and reinvesting the proceeds in regeneration. Major elements of our local communities are owned not by local councils but by the Commission for the New Towns—now CNT and English Partnerships—which has a specific mandate and direction from the Treasury to maximise the financial return on disposable assets. That generates £150 million for the Treasury per annum, largely without the community gaining. For those three reasons, councils did not have an alternative to what they did in the 1980s. It is therefore hardly surprising that that is how they spent those resources.
The nub of the problem is that that expenditure, and the on-going transfer of the interest from the notional use of capital receipts from the general fund to the housing revenue account, is a major part of Harlow's negative subsidy. That constitutes £1.4 million of the £3.1 million that I mentioned earlier. Without that statutory transfer, the problem would not be of the scale that we face today.
Mr. Philip Hammond: I assure the hon. Gentleman that that problem does not affect only new towns. I thank him for raising the issue on behalf of many other authorities, including my own in Runnymede, which are affected by the problem.
Mr. Rammell: I am aware that it it not only a problem for new towns. New towns, however, have a special problem.
The problem was also created by the commuting of CNT debt in 1996. My local authority, and others, were not engaged in an activity of which the Government were not aware. The Minister wrote to the chair of Harlow's housing committee as recently as December 1998 on the issue of the transfer of the surplus created through negative subsidy from the housing revenue account to the general fund. He stated:
"the transfer from the HRA to the General Fund is intended to benefit the authority by recognising that its overall ability to spend in a particular year should increase by the amount of the surplus."
It is clear that, as recently as a year ago, Ministers and civil servants were aware of the practice, and, on the basis of that letter, endorsed it. The sudden removal of that ability, under resource accounting, would contradict what Ministers have said and done under this and the previous Government. I acknowledge that the Government understand that there is a problem. They have already talked about transitional protection, which is welcome. Given the scale of the problem that we are facing, however, that does not go far enough.
It is also worth while arguing the case in terms of the Government's objectives in moving to resource accounting. Their motives are contradicted by the way in which capital receipts in the 1980s would be treated
42WH
under the proposed system. As I read the Government's intentions, they want subsidy for local authority housing to be regarded as a national programme. Assumed surpluses in subsidy calculation would be pooled and redistributed to authorities in assumed deficit. That would involve transferring resources from councils with less relative need to those with greater relative need.
The fact that negative subsidy exists is not an accurate indicator of lack of need. It is obscured and masked by the previous use of housing capital receipts for non-housing capital purposes in the 1980s. If Harlow had not used the money for that purpose in the 1980s, its negative subsidy would be reduced by more than £1 million. Under the proposed new system, therefore, the redistribution from Harlow to other local authorities would be reduced by more than £1 million. That distortion means that the system does not accurately reflect housing or other need.
It is easy to criticise a set of proposals. However, I am arguing that there should be more than transitional protection for those local authorities that have been affected substantially. A distinction should be made between local authorities that are affected substantially and those that are not. The Government's consultation paper identified a cumulative total of about £100 million in respect of councils with negative subsidy, but I have analysed the way in which that figure breaks down, and for local authorities that are substantially affected, the amount is much less than £100 million. For example, if the system were so amended that any local authority could not lose more than 10 or 15 per cent. of its general fund standard spending assessment, the cost to the Government would be much less than £100 million.
I would argue for a maximum percentage loss as a percentage of local authority standard spending assessment, and the Government should respond favourably to that. Clearly, it would have to be provided on an on-going basis through a permanent compensatory grant.
On the specific problem of the treatment of capital receipts in the 1980s, I urge the Government not to maintain the current statutory requirement of an item 8 statutory credit transfer for councils with negative subsidy. The Government should allow the notional interest gained from the use of those capital receipts to go to the general fund, rather than the housing revenue account. In my local authority, that measure alone would resolve £1.4 million of £3.1 million, and other new town local authorities would derive a similar benefit.
Substantial transitional protection must be provided for a number of years. The changes, which will occur in just one or two years, will have a huge impact on local councils and cause major problems. This might seem a rather arcane issue, but to judge by the number of hon. Members in attendance it has given rise to considerable concern. I hope that, in the long term, the Government's response will be positive, but I am saying on my constituents' behalf that we need help on this issue. The local authority in Harlow and authorities elsewhere are not to blame. They were simply doing something that the system had enabled them to do for many years. Ministers knew that they were doing it, and they were actively encouraged to do it in the light of circumstances. I see

43WH
no reason why those local authorities—and, more importantly, their communities—should be penalised in such a dramatic way.
Good government is about pursuing sensible reform, and this Government are demonstrating that in a number of different areas. Sometimes, Mr. Winterton, sensible reform—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Nicholas Winterton): Order. In this Chamber, there are four hon. Members to whom reference should be made not by their names but by the titles, Madam Deputy Speaker or Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have hestitated to draw that to hon. Members' attention but, whether or not we merit those titles, that is the decision of the House.
Mr. Rammell: I ask for forgiveness, Mr. Deputy Speaker. That goes to show that I should not listen to the radio programme "Yesterday in Parliament". According to last week's report on proceedings in Westminster Hall, an acting Deputy Speaker said that Deputy Speakers should be referred to by name. I apologise for my confusion.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Perhaps I can help hon. Members. On certain occasions, in addition to the four hon. Members who have been appointed as additional Deputy Speakers, senior members of Madam Speaker's Chairmen's Panel may also chair sittings in Westminster Hall. They are addressed as "Chairman" or by their surnames.
Mr. Rammell: I thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for that information. I am duly put in my place.
I was saying that good government is about pursuing sensible reform. Some kinds of sensible reform, which are otherwise perfectly desirable, may have unintended, adverse and dramatic consequences. The move towards resource accounting, and the impact on councils in terms of negative subsidy, is an example of that.
Mr. Tony McWalter: Is my hon. Friend aware that the council that stands to lose most in this respect is Dacorum borough council? Because of its huge overhang of commitments, almost every worthwhile project in my area is on hold, possibly for ever.
Mr. Rammell: I am aware of that, and my hon. Friend makes a telling point. The change is like a sword of Damocles hanging over local authorities that are affected. It puts a stop to the kind of long-term planning and modernisation that I know that the Government want to see in local councils. How can we begin to undertake such modernisation processes if such large cuts, or increases in council tax, are to be borne as a result of the proposals?
I understand much of the rationale behind the Government's move towards resource accounting, but I hope that they recognise the unintended consequences that may result in terms of the scale of cuts that would affect my local authority and many others. I strongly urge the Minister to reconsider the matter and amend the proposals.
12.46 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Ms Beverley Hughes): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Mr. Rammell) on his success in securing the debate, and his courage in raising the subject of housing finance, which is highly complex, as hon. Members who have been involved in it will be aware. He expressed those complex issues well, and it is right and timely that matters of concern to his constituency and elsewhere should be aired.
As my hon. Friend knows, I cannot give a complete or final answer to all his questions today, because we are currently consulting on the proposals, and it would be wrong for us to come to any decision before all those who feel that they will be most affected—such as his constituents—have had an opportunity to comment, and we have been able to consider their responses. However, I hope that I can respond to some of his concerns about the impact of our proposals on Harlow and other authorities in terms of so-called negative subsidy.
One of the problems with the present system of local authority finance is that it no longer meets the demands that are placed on it. We recognise that, and are committed to reforming it. Last year, my right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and the Regions announced proposals to improve the system. We propose to introduce resource accounting into the housing revenue account, and to change it to a purely landlord account. As always when such a change is being considered, it is the details, and how the details will affect people, that have to be worked through. We accept that. Concern about the effects of those details has been well expressed by my hon. Friend.
The purpose of the housing element part of the housing revenue account subsidy is to bridge any shortfall between notional income and notional expenditure in each authority. It covers expenditure on maintenance, management and debt charges, and other miscellaneous expenditure. The housing element also takes account of rental income and interest received by an authority on mortgages and investments. When we do the calculation, we find that some authorities have a notional surplus on their housing element, while others have a notional deficit. That means that there are more resources in some parts of the country than would be needed to provide a standard level of service, and too few resources in other parts of the country. In other words, there is an inequity in the distribution of resources.
We need a mechanism to allow us to transfer those resources to where the housing need is greatest. The mechanism that we currently use reduces another subsidy stream—the rent rebate subsidy—by the amount of any surplus, so there is an offset. That does not entirely work in the case of Harlow and about 60 other local authorities, because their notional surpluses are so large that they still have a surplus even when the whole of their rent rebate subsidy has been taken into account.
Authorities go into negative subsidy when they have very low debt or significant assumed investment income. Some authorities, for example, have a small number of properties in their HRA and there is perhaps significant

45WH
income, often from the assumed investment of the set-aside resources generated by the transfer. Other authorities have a large and active HRA, but very little debt, and a below-average proportion of tenants available for rent rebate subsidy. As my hon. Friend said, authorities such as Harlow took responsibility for property from the Commission for the New Towns when it was wound up, but the debt that was transferred was commuted in 1996, so such authorities have relatively little debt. That is what creates the equation for them.
There is a legislative requirement for authorities in negative subsidy to transfer the amount of their remaining actual surplus into the general fund. The sums involved, as we have heard today, can be quite substantial for some of the 60 authorities. Nationally, we expect that about £100 million will be transferred from housing revenue accounts into authorities' general funds.
Those transfers can make a major contribution in individual cases to the amount of money that is available in an authority's general fund, which will either allow the authority to spend more than it could otherwise afford or allow the level of council tax to be held down. We expect some £3.3 million to be transferred in the case of Harlow in 1999–2000.
Our proposals for the changes to the housing finance system will also do away with that system. We believe that it is wrong that local authority tenants, who are for the most part among the poorest in the community, should subsidise the generality of council taxpayers in an authority. Such a cross-subsidy cannot in principle be right. I take my hon. Friend's point about the way in which that situation has developed over many years in constituencies such as Harlow, but that is not a justification for not doing anything about a cross subsidy.
Mr. Rammell: In principle I accept my hon. Friend's argument, but will she bear in mind the fact that the 50-plus legislative change introduced during the last Conservative Government created a stack of cards? The problem that the Government face is that councils responded by pulling out one card. That has many dramatic knock-on consequences.
Ms Hughes: I accept that the situation of some authorities, such as Harlow, has arisen because of the actions of the previous Government, and that the authorities acted in good faith. Nevertheless, it is not right that a cross-subsidy should effectively be paid for by some of the poorest members of the community. My hon. Friend's arguments cannot be used as a reason for doing nothing. That is our starting point.
We intend to make two changes to the housing finance system that will first reduce and later end this cross-subsidy. The first step will be introduced in April 2001. From that date we intend to pay authorities an additional subsidy as part of their housing element, which will be called the major repairs allowance, the MRA. It will help to focus scarce resources on local authority housing repairs to maintain the value of those assets, and we hope that it will provide a more stable framework for housing authorities. We do not yet know how much money will be available for MRA—that
46WH
depends on the outcome of the spending review—but it will substantially reduce the assumed surpluses on authorities' housing element. In particular, it will reduce, and possibly in some cases extinguish completely, the transfers that authorities in negative subsidy would otherwise continue to make to their general funds. We are consulting separately on the MRA.
Even when the MRA is paid, some authorities will continue to cross-subsidise council tax payers. That problem will be solved by the more effective mechanism that we plan to introduce to capture and recycle all housing element surpluses. We are consulting on that mechanism now. To introduce it would require primary legislation. Our objective is to pool the assumed surpluses on the housing element across all authorities, so that they can be distributed according to need. The change will mean that authorities in negative subsidy will no longer be able to transfer resources to their general fund; instead, they will transfer the resources to the pool for redistribution to other housing authorities.
Criticism may be made that those pooling mechanisms are not in principle correct and that surpluses are local resources that should remain with the authority. That may be at the root of some of my hon. Friend's points. We take the broader view that local authority housing is not a purely local service, although it is managed locally. It is a national resource and needs to be considered as such, not least because it is funded extensively by the taxpayer centrally. The financial structures must reflect that.
Mr. Hammond: Does the Minister envisage that councils that are forced to transfer to the pool will keep their rents static and gradually allow the surplus to be eroded over time?
Ms Hughes: No. The equation that will produce the notional surplus or deficit for any authority will take into account not only rents, as it does now, but the proposed changes, including the major repairs allowance. It will be a different way of calculating whether an authority is in surplus or deficit. We need a system that can ensure that the best use is made of national resources that can be devoted to the housing sector. That means finding a way of allocating those resources to take account of relative need.
We realise that the introduction of the major repairs allowance and, in the longer term, the pooling mechanism, will have a significant effect on the finances of some authorities, such as Harlow and Dacorum, which will remain in negative subsidy even after the introduction of MRA. My hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. McWalter) has explained some of the difficulties. To end the cross-subsidy from housing to council tax as soon as we introduced the new measures would cause difficulties for the authorities concerned. We want to address those difficulties.
As I have said, we are consulting on our detailed proposals for the changes to the housing finance system. As part of that consultation, we asked whether transitional arrangements should be introduced for

47WH
negative subsidy authorities. I cannot pre-empt the results of the consultation, but my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow has made some important points and suggestions for that process. I know that a number of authorities have expressed concern that transitional measures would not be available from April 2001, but only at the second stage when pooling is introduced. I assure my hon. Friend that we have not ruled out the introduction of transitional measures from April 2001, when the MRA is paid for the first time. We need to consider both the form that such measures might take and the authorities to which they might apply, a point that my hon. Friend made clearly. We would consult on our detailed proposals for the transitional measures in due course.
48WH
I assure my hon. Friends that the Government are aware of the difficulties that they have raised. We have not ruled out transitional measures in the first phase of the introduction of MRA, but want the transitional arrangements to soften the impact as far as possible. Because of our longer-term objectives to produce a fairer housing finance system that relates national support to the areas of greatest need, this is a process on which we must embark. However, I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow for providing me with the opportunity to make the position as clear as I can. I assure him that we shall listen to the points that he and others have made and shall consult on them particularly on the arrangements for transition.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at one minute to One o'clock.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Police Authority
  Sir Brian Mawhinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the official visits made by executive and non-executive members of the Northern Ireland Police Authority outside Northern Ireland in the past three years, indicating in each case(a) who authorised the visit, (b) the cost of the visit to public funds and (c) if non-members' costs were borne by the taxpayer. [103566]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 20 December 1999]: During the three years referred to in the question, the number of executive members of the Police Authority have averaged around 3,300, many of whom will have subsequently retired, resigned or been transferred to other Government Departments. Information on official visits made by executive members outside Northern Ireland is not readily available and could be obtained only at a disproportionate cost.

  Official visits made by non-executive members of the Police Authority in the past three years are summarised in the table. All visits were authorised by the Police Authority and the associated costs met from public funds.

  Location

  Number of individual visits

  Total cost (£)

  England

  44

  15,647

  Scotland

  1

  540

  Republic of Ireland

  1

  116

  Europe

  3

  4,298

  USA

  5

  20,994

  Canada

  2

  6,300

  Australia

  2

  6,835

  Terrorism Legislation
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what assessment he has made of the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission's response to the White Paper, "Legislation Against Terrorism". [108530]

  Mr. Ingram
  A consultation paper "Legislation Against Terrorism" (Cm 4178) was published by the Government in December 1998 and was followed by a period of consultation. The Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission responded in April 1999. In all, the Government received a total of 80 responses from interested groups, practitioners and members of the public.

  The Human Rights Commission's response was considered closely as were all the responses to the White paper and an analysis of the responses was set out in a
  84W
  brief summary compiled by the Home Office, excluding 29 respondees whose representations were to remain confidential. The previous Secretary of State also met Professor Dickson, Chief Commissioner, in July 1999 to discuss their response and particularly their proposed approach to counter-terrorist legislation.

  The Government published the Terrorism Bill on 2 December 1999. In preparing this it drew on the advice Lord Lloyd of Berwick gave in his report on the future of Counter-Terrorism Legislation published in December 1996, and took into account the views expressed by those who responded to the consultation paper. My officials and legal advisers have also met with the Human Rights Commission following introduction of the Bill to discuss the new legislation in detail and address any ECHR compatibility issues they have raised.

  In parallel with the passage of the Terrorism Bill, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has commissioned a review of the Diplock Court system. This was announced during the Bill's Second Reading on 14 December 1999. The Diplock Review Group has invited comment from legal and human rights bodies and I have written to Northern Ireland political parties for their views. Any responses will be considered by the Group in preparing its report for the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

  Oath of Allegiance
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many letters he has received since 1 May 1997 on (a) constituency matters and (b) other matters of Government policy from each of those Members of the House who have not taken the oath of allegiance. [108406]

  Mr. Mandelson
  [holding answer 3 February 2000]: I am unable to provide this information on the basis that correspondence, including the number of letters sent, between Members of the House and Government Departments is a confidential matter.

  Police Association
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland on how many occasions in each of the past five years he has received written representations from each of the three sections of the Police Association. [108488]

  Mr. Ingram
  This information is not readily available and could be provided only at a disproportionate cost.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Disability Rights Commission
  Mr. Darvill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what guidance he has given the Disability Rights Commission on discharging its functions. [109354]

  Ms Hodge
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has written to Bert Massie, the Chair of the Disability Rights Commission, to offer broad guidance on how we see the body discharging its functions and priorities and the tasks to which the Government attaches particular importance in its first year of operation. We will look to the Commission to ensure that its first set of strategic
  85W
  priorities, and subsequently, its first corporate plan, reflect the guidance in the letter. A copy of the letter has been placed in the Library.

  Pensions Mis-selling
  Mr. Terry Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what is the time currently taken, in the context of pensions mis-selling, for the Teachers Pensions Agency to complete the reinstatement process once the Agency has been notified; and if he will make a statement. [109223]

  Mr. Wicks
  The average time taken to complete a re-instatement case is 14 weeks, measured from the time Teachers' Pensions are notified that mis-selling has taken place. Cases which take longer than the average are frequently the result of the personal pensions provider failing to act on the re-instatement quotation within the three month period for which the quotation is guaranteed. Some 25 per cent. of restoration quotations have to be re-calculated for this reason.

  Mr. Terry Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what steps are being taken to reduce the time taken to rectify pensions mis-selling to teachers in England and Wales. [109222]

  Mr. Wicks
  A number of initiatives have been introduced by Teachers' Pensions to streamline the reinstatement processes. These include improvements to their computer systems; the introduction of a dedicated e-mail address; regular contact between Teachers' Pensions staff and personal pension providers; and monthly productivity targets.

  Mr. Terry Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many staff have been allocated by(a) the Teachers Pensions Agency and (b) the Government Actuary's Department solely to rectify the mis-selling of pensions to teachers. [109224]

  Mr. Wicks
  The administration of the teachers' pension scheme is undertaken under contract by Teachers' Pensions, part of Capita Business Services Ltd. Sixteen staff within Teachers' Pensions work exclusively on the restoration of pension benefits of those teachers who have been mis-sold a personal pension. The Government Actuary's Department does not have any staff dedicated solely to this work. Advice on mis-selling cases is provided by staff who carry out a range of functions on behalf of this Department.

  Quality Assurance Agency
  Mr. Keith Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what is the annual cost of the Quality Assurance Agency Subject Review for Universities. [109207]

  Mr. Wicks
  The Higher Education Funding Council for England has a statutory duty to make provision for assessing the quality of education provided in institutions for whose activities it provides financial support. It currently contracts with the Quality Assurance Agency to carry out subject reviews on its behalf. In 1998–99 QAA carried out 233 subject reviews in England at a cost of £4.2 million. For 1999–2000 QAA is contracted to carry out 375 subject reviews in England at a cost of £5.6 million.
  86W
  Mr. Keith Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) what is the total number of person hours that the Quality Assurance Agency Subject Review assessors spent away from their own universities and colleges on work for the review in the last 12 months for which figures are available; [109204]

  (2) what was the total number of person hours spent by Quality Assurance Agency Subject Review assessors on work for the Review in the last 12 months for which figures are available. [109205]

  Mr. Wicks
  The information is not held in the form requested.

  Mr. Keith Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list the(a) names, (b) departments and (c) educational establishments of the assessors employed by the Quality Assurance Agency for its subject review for universities. [109206]

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

  At the end of each cycle of reviews a subject overview report is published which includes the names of all assessors involved in that cycle. Copies of overview reports have been placed in the House of Commons Library.

  Education Service (Islington)
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will publish an annual report on the performance, costs and profit of the contractor appointed to run Islington's education service. [108875]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  Islington Council have signed, and are therefore responsible for, the education services contract with Cambridge Education Associates (CEA at Islington). Their council papers have made known the fact that the cost of the seven year contract is fixed at £86.6 million and that CEA agreed to cap their target related management fee at £600,000 net per annum. CEA are working to clear specifications and if they do not deliver they will not be rewarded. 50 per cent. of their profit is linked directly to standards. All changes in standards will be reflected in the published performance tables.

  The London Borough of Islington is overseeing the tight contract monitoring arrangements with the assistance of DfEE officials. It is therefore up to Islington Council to decide whether they wish to publish an annual report regarding the monitoring of the contract.

  New Deal
  Laura Moffatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what arrangements are offered to young people on disability benefits who wish to join the New Deal and who are recovering from drug and alcohol misuse. [108606]

  Ms Hodge
  Young people on incapacity benefits are not eligible for New Deal for 18 to 24-year-olds which is designed for jobseekers actively looking for work. However, we are developing initiatives to ensure that all disabled people who want to work are given the help they need. For example, the New Deal for Disabled People offers personal adviser support in 12 pilot areas to people
  87W
  of all ages on incapacity benefits. The personal adviser offers an individually designed programme to tackle the specific needs of each client, including any who may need to overcome drug or alcohol misuse. We hope to make an early announcement about the next stage of the New Deal for Disabled People taking account of emerging findings from the pilots.

  Class Sizes
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what is his estimate of the cost of introducing a maximum class size of(a) 30 pupils, (b) 28 pupils and (c) 25 pupils for (i) Key Stage 1, (ii) Key Stage 2, (iii) Key Stage 3 and (iv) Key Stage 4. [108866]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  We have made available £620 million to reduce Key Stage 1 class sizes to 30 by September 2001.

  We have estimated that the cost of reducing class sizes to 25 for all primary school children would be around £3 billion.

  We have not made any other estimates of the costs which the hon. Member asks about.

  School Meals
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has to enforce minimum nutritional standards in school meals. [108442]

  Jacqui Smith
  The Government believe it is very important that children should be able to have healthy and enjoyable school meals. We have consulted widely on the introduction of minimum nutritional standards for school lunches, and we are currently considering representations on our draft Regulations and guidance. Schools and local education authorities will be under a duty to comply with the Regulations, to be laid this year, which will set out the new standards. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will investigate any complaints that the standards are not being met and could issue a direction to ensure compliance with the statutory duties.

  Students (Argyll and Bute)
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will estimate how many students from Argyll and Bute are currently attending universities in(a) England, (b) Wales and (c) Northern Ireland. [108578]

  Mr. Wicks
  The information is given in the table.

  Students1 from Argyll and Bute local authority area studying in higher education institutions 1998–99

  Country of study

  Number of students

  England

  246

  Wales

  12

  Northern Ireland

  2

  1 Full-time and part-time students, excluding students on sabbatical or writing up theses.

  Homophobic Bullying
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what recent reports he has received of homophobic bullying in schools; and if he will make a statement. [108313]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 3 February 2000]: In March 1998 we received from Stonewall a copy of the report "Playing it Safe", which they commissioned with the Terrence Higgins Trust. This contains, among other things, evidence and recommendations on homophobic-related bullying. And in October 1998 the noble Lord Tope's unstarred question in the Other Place about bullying in secondary schools focused to a large extent on the problem of homophobic bullying.

  We attach a high priority to helping schools prevent and combat bullying in whatever form—be it racial, or as a result of a child's appearance, behaviour or special needs, or related to sexual orientation.

  Teachers' Pay (West Sussex)
  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what assessment he has made of the cost of the teachers' pay rise to West Sussex Education Authority. [109059]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  In his written answer on 1 February 2000,Official Report, column 498W, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment made clear his assessment that the pay settlement would be affordable within the resources available to local authorities in 2000–01. The cost from 1 April 2000 will be 3.3 per cent., with assimilation costs of around 0.1 per cent. West Sussex will receive an increase in its Education Standard Spending Assessment of 6.11 per cent., which takes account of changes in local authority function. Its share of the £50 million special grant to support school budgets will add the equivalent of a further 0.2 per cent. to this. The rescheduling of increased employers' contributions to teachers' pensions will save the authority 0.7 per cent. of the cost of its teachers' pay bill.

  Playing Fields
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what data he has collated on the extent of access by schools to sports playing fields since May 1997; and if he will make a statement. [108118]

  Jacqui Smith
  The Education (School Premises) Regulations 1999 (SPRs) prescribe minimum areas, as well as quality standards, for team game playing fields for which schools must have access. No data have been gathered on the extent of access which schools have to sports playing fields since May 1997, or before.

  Data being obtained through Asset Management Plans will eventually provide a comprehensive picture of the number and condition of school playing fields throughout England.

  School Sports
  Mr. Reed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what estimate he has made of the total cost of sport played in schools in the most recent year for which figures are available; what organisations other than his Department provide funds for sport in schools; and if he will estimate the amount of such other funding in the most recent year for which information is available. [108297]

  Jacqui Smith
  Schools and Local Education Authorities (LEAs) decide how much to spend on sport in schools. We do not collect centrally information on this support. However there are a number of organisations which support sport in schools nationally, and many others which give support at a local level. Sport England, the Sports Lottery distributor, spent £14.4 million in schools and colleges in 1998–99. The National Sports Governing Bodies also contribute a great deal at national and local level through coaching and talent development schemes and competitions involving schools. We are working closely with DCMS, OFSTED, QCA and national PE and sport bodies to further develop and expand the range and quality of opportunities available to all young people.

  Ethnic Minority Achievement Grant
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has to develop the Ethnic Minority Achievement Grant. [108517]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 7 February 2000]: As part of the drive to raise the achievement of ethnic minority pupils, we are making available more money than ever before through the Ethnic Minority and Traveller Achievement Grant. For 2000–01, £162.5 million will be available to LEAs to improve the attainment of ethnic minority, Traveller and refugee pupils, an increase of 7 per cent on the amount available for these purposes in 1999–2000. From April 2000, we are phasing in a needs-based formula for allocating the Grant for raising ethnic minority achievement. Increasingly, as we build up for the first time a national picture of achievement levels, we will target the Grant at those who need it most. In further developing the Grant we will seek to embed in local strategies the knowledge we are acquiring about good practice in raising achievement levels.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Departmental Secondments
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how many staff were seconded from the private sector to her Department from(a) May 1997 to April 1998, (b) May 1998 to April 1999 and (c) May 1999 to the latest date for which figures are available, stating in each case the companies from which staff have been seconded. [109069]

  Clare Short
  Secondments and attachments are part of the Interchange Initiative which promotes the exchange of people and good practice between the Civil Service and other organisations. All sectors of the economy are 90W
  involved: Voluntary, Education, Health, Public and Private. Interchange is a key component of the reform agenda. The Modernising Government White Paper committed us to increasing interchange, in particular by bringing in more people on secondment and sending more of our people out.

  During the respective periods, the numbers of staff seconded to my Department from the private sector, all from NRI/University of Greenwich, were:

  (a) 3

  (b) 4

  (c) 1.

  Child Care
  Caroline Flint
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what child care provision was made available in the financial year 1998–99 for use by(a) departmental staff and (b) employees of executive agencies under the control of her Department; what was the cost to parents of this child care; and how many parents used the facilities. [108859]

  Clare Short
  We provide holiday playschemes at both our Headquarter sites.

  The site in East Kilbride operates under partnership between DFID and the Inland Revenue. The site in London is part of the Whitehall Holiday Playscheme, run by the Cabinet Office at three sites in Central London and open to a large proportion of Government Departments. The figures requested are as follows:

  East Kilbride

  Cost to parents:

  £10 annual registration fee per family

  £7.50 per child per day

  Parents using the facilities in the financial year 1998–99:

  Number—10

  London

  Cost to parents:

  Total cost per child per day £17.03

  Of which: £8.51 is paid by the parent and £8.52 by DFID

  Parents using the facilities in the financial year 1998–99

  Number—16.

  Providing access to the holiday playscheme is one of a range of family friendly policies that are available to staff. Other benefits include paid maternity leave at full pay, paternity leave, parental leave, extended career breaks (up to a maximum of five years) and special leave for domestic emergencies. To help staff balance work and family life, they are also able to apply to work part-time or flexible hours, to job-share or to work from home.

  The Department for International Development has no executive agencies.

  Sudan (Oil Fields)
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment her Department has made concerning the use of the oil revenue from the Sudanese oil fields being used for development projects. [108799]
  91W
  Clare Short
  Oil was first exported from Sudan in August 1999 and the Government of Sudan has a 5 per cent. stake. We have pressed for revenues to be used for development projects and for transparency in the oil account. The Government of Sudan has made public assurances that this will happen. We look to them to honour them. But the key issue for Sudan's development is the ongoing civil war. We are encouraging all sides to play a constructive part in current peace talks.

  Land Mines Clearance
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what recent representations she has received concerning the Dervish anti-personnel land mines clearance project. [108617]

  Clare Short
  In December 1999, we invited proposals for UK based institutions and individuals for consideration under the Humanitarian Mine Action Knowledge Generation and Research Programme. The University of Edinburgh's Department of Mechanical Engineering submitted an application entitled 'Extending Dervish Mine Detonating Vehicle Capability'. All bidders will be assessed later this month.

  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what research her Department has(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated on the effectiveness of methods currently in use for anti-personnel land mines clearance. [108619]

  Clare Short
  (a) My Department is funding, at the request of the United Nations, a study which will examine the effectiveness and suitability of existing capabilities in current mine action programmes. We are also funding a review and revision of international mine clearance standards.

  (b) We participate in international fora which aim to improve the effectiveness of international mine action. Projects funded bilaterally by DFID are assessed and monitored for effectiveness and safety of methodology and for community benefit.

  Know-how Fund (Estonia)
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what steps she is taking to increase the application of the Know-how Fund to Estonia. [108581]

  Clare Short
  1. Our plans for technical assistance to Estonia are set out in the published Baltic States Country Strategy Paper (CSP), which covers Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. A copy of the CSP has been placed in the Library of the House.

  2. The strategy focuses on:
  i. Strengthening capacity in strategic planning and project design in environment, enabling effective take-up of both domestic and donor funding.
  ii. Strengthening capacity in strategic participatory planning for regional and rural development.
  iii. Effective public administration, underpinning sound policy development and service delivery to all sections of the population.

  3. We are working closely with other donors, notably the EC Phare programme in all three of the above priority areas.

  Aid Targets
  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what progress has been made in meeting the target of(a) 75 per cent. of bilateral country programme resources being allocated to low income countries by 2002, (b) reducing under-6 mortality rates to no higher than 70 per 1,000 live births by 2002 and (c) reducing maternal mortality rates to no higher than 240 per 100,000 live births by 2002. [109192]

  Clare Short
  Substantial progress has been made towards achieving these targets. By 1998–99 our expenditure in low income countries had increased to 71 per cent., and is expected to rise to 75 per cent. in 1999–2000. The average under-5 mortality rate across the top 30 recipients of DFID assistance has fallen to 69 per 1,000 births, and the average maternal mortality rate across the same countries has declined to 316 per 100,000 live births.

  Project Targets
  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on the progress made towards meeting the target of 75 per cent. of projects assessed as likely to fully or largely achieve their objectives by 2002. [109200]

  Clare Short
  We are well on track towards achieving this target. Of all the projects assessed in 1997 and 1998, over 74 per cent. had fully or largely achieved their objectives. Information is not yet available on results for 1999.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  Home Buying
  Ms Christine Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on his proposals to streamline the home buying and selling process. [107323]

  Mr. Mullin
  On 11 October last year we announced our intention to take forward a package of complementary measures aimed at making the home buying and selling process in England and Wales faster, more transparent and consumer-friendly. The package is based on extensive research and consultation, and requires action by everyone involved in home buying and selling.

  Local Councils
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what representations he has had from local councils which wish to retain the committee system. [107324]

  Ms Armstrong
  We receive many representations from councils about all aspects of the modernisation agenda.

  Rural Transport
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans
  93W
  he has to address the concerns of people living in rural areas about the impact of his Department's transport policies. [107325]

  Mr. Mullin
  My Department's transport policies are tackling the impact of decades of underinvestment and neglect for transport in both rural and urban areas. Most of the proposals in the Integrated Transport White Paper apply to rural areas just as much as other areas of the country. But we recognise that people living in rural areas have particular needs. That is why we have made available an additional £170 million for rural transport measures over the three years to March 2001.

  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what steps he is taking to improve rural transport. [107332]

  Mr. Mullin
  Most of the proposals in the Integrated Transport White Paper apply to rural areas just as much as other areas of the country. But we recognise that people living in rural areas have particular needs. That is why we have made available an additional £170 million pounds for rural transport measures over the three years to March 2001.

  London Underground
  Mr. John Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on negotiations towards a public private partnership for the London Underground. [107326]

  Mr. Hill
  Excellent progress has been made. Bids for the two deep-Tube PPP contracts are due back by the end of next month. There has been strong interest in the Sub-surface lines and property PPP competitions as well. Submissions to pre-qualify for those contracts are due back later this month.

  Regional Development Agencies
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the regional economic strategy prepared by the Eastern regional development agency. [107327]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The East of England Development Agency (EEDA) submitted its strategy for the East of England, "Moving Forward," to Ministers on 26 October. The Government responded to EEDA and the other RDAs on 12 January. Copies of the responses have been placed in the Library of the House.

  Mr. McCabe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement about the rates of pay offered to the chairmen of regional development agencies. [109434]

  Ms Armstrong
  I refer to the reply given by the Minister for Trade, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Central (Mr. Caborn) on 23 July 1998,Official Report, columns 668–69W, on the rates of pay offered to board members of Regional Development Agencies. When appointed in December 1998 the Chairmen were contracted for two days per week with an annual remuneration of £44,000.
  94W
  I have now agreed that the Chairmen of the RDAs in the East Midlands, West Midlands and North East will be contracted to work on RDA business for three days a week from 1 October 1999 until 31 March 2000. Their rate of pay will be increased pro rata to £66,000. The Chairman of the North West Development Agency will be contracted on these revised terms from 1 November 1999 until 31 March 2000.

  Regeneration
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what steps the Government are taking to regenerate the north-west. [107328]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  One of the main steps that the Government have taken is in establishing the North West Development Agency on 1 April 1999. With a total budget of over £176 million for 1999–2000, it has developed and is starting to implement a strategy for regenerating the north-west.

  Mr. Hopkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what steps the Government are taking to promote the regeneration of disadvantaged areas in the eastern region. [107310]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The Government are supporting regeneration of the disadvantaged areas of the east of England through a number of area-based and other initiatives including the Single Regeneration Budget, Land and Property and Rural programmes, and Skills and Competitiveness Development Funds, all managed by the East of England Development Agency; the New Deal for Communities and Sure Start programmes; and European funding via the current Objective 5b programme and the new Objective 2.

  West Coast Main Line
  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he last met representatives of Virgin Trains to discuss the west coast main line service. [107329]

  Mr. Hill
  The Secretary of State has not met representatives of Virgin Trains to discuss the West Coast Main Line service. The Franchising Director and his staff have regular meetings with Virgin Trains as part of their monitoring of the franchise agreement.

  Rail Investment
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on future investment plans for the rail system. [107330]

  Mr. Hill
  We have made it clear that we want to see much higher levels of rail investment. We are confident that the next ten years will see the largest investment in the railways for 100 years.

  Mr. Love
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to encourage train operating companies to make the necessary long-term investment in their rail services; and if he will make a statement. [107953]
  95W
  Mr. Hill
  We have made it clear that there must be more investment in the railways. Train operators have been told that we are willing to consider longer franchises in return for better services for passengers in terms of greater investment and improved performance, and value for money for the taxpayer. We have asked the Franchising Director, when considering requests for franchise replacements, to give due weight to commitments to new or earlier investment.

  Shipping
  Dr. Naysmith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the Government's plans for the shipping industry. [107331]

  Mr. Hill
  The Government set out its plans for the shipping industry in its policy paper "Charting a new course". It sets out 33 inter-related actions designed to secure the future of UK shipping.

  Parish Councils
  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement about the future of parish councils. [107333]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  Parish councils will continue to play a key role in many of our towns and villages.

  In our forthcoming rural White Paper, we intend to address further how we see parish councils playing their part in rural governance.

  Strategic Rail Authority
  Mr. Savidge
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what steps are being taken to establish the Strategic Rail Authority; and what its impact will be in Scotland. [107334]

  Mr. Hill
  The Transport Bill makes provision for the establishment of the Strategic Rail Authority. In Scotland it will administer all passenger rail franchises including the making of franchise payments to the relevant train operating companies. The Authority will also receive directions and guidance for Scottish passenger rail services from the Scottish Ministers together with financial provision from the Scottish Consolidated fund to help meet the costs of these services.

  Disadvantaged Communities
  Mr. Fitzpatrick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what projects his Department has recently evaluated relating to schemes to improve the quality of life for people in disadvantaged communities in east London. [107335]

  Ms Armstrong
  My Department places great importance on the thorough evaluation of its regeneration programmes and over the past two years we have received independent evaluations of the Stratford and Bethnal Green City Challenge Schemes, as well as an interim evaluation of the South Leytonstone Single Regeneration Budget Scheme. A mid-point review of Housing Action Trusts will be published in the spring, including those in Tower Hamlets and Waltham Forest. In addition, last 96W
  year, an interim evaluation of the impact made by the East London and Lee Valley Objective 2 European programme on deprived communities was undertaken.

  Town Centres
  Mr. Sawford
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the support his Department makes available for increasing and improving shopping facilities in existing town centres. [107336]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Planning policy guidance for town centres and retail developments (PPG6) strongly promotes town centre management and makes particular reference to improving access to and within town centres, improving the pedestrian environment and addressing the needs of people with mobility difficulties. Through our funding of the Association of Town Centre Management and the Civic Trust, we have been assisting local authorities to promote town centre management by preparing and disseminating good practice.

  Greenfield Developments
  Mrs. Laing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to deal with extra traffic flows in areas of new greenfield developments. [107337]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Planning Policy Guidance note 13, a draft of which was issued for consultation in October last year, requires a transport assessment to be submitted with every major development which will include an assessment of traffic flows.

  In addition, local authorities are now required to address traffic flows in their local transport plans and set targets for reducing traffic growth, where they consider it appropriate, and the strategies for achieving these targets.

  Brownfield Developments
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what recent representations he has received concerning brownfield housing developments in the north-west. [107338]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The Secretary of State has received a number of representations in the course of his statutory planning functions and the review of the Regional Planning Guidance for the north-west.

  Homelessness
  Fiona Mactaggart
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on actions taken by his Department to tackle homelessness among young people. [107341]

  Ms Armstrong
  Since coming to office, we have taken a number of positive steps to tackle youth homelessness and ensure better housing outcomes for young people. These include work on the promotion of local homelessness strategies and preventative initiatives; setting up the Youth Homelessness Action Partnership to look at the particular problems young homeless people face; and committing an integrated budget of £145 million until 2002 to tackle all aspects of rough sleeping.
  97W
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what progress has been made in implementing the recommendation of the Social Exclusion Unit to allow housing authorities to accept as being vulnerable under the provisions of homelessness legislation 16 and 17 year olds who have no family support. [108520]

  Mr. Mullin
  Local authorities already have the power to accommodate young people whom they consider to be vulnerable and therefore in priority need, under the provisions of the Housing Act 1996. We recognise that young people who are leaving care may face particular difficulties in making the transition to independent living, as a consequence of institutionalisation and perhaps having limited back up support. The Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions' revised draft Code of Guidance on the Allocation of Accommodation and Homelessness, due to be published in the Spring, will therefore recommend that local authorities treat young care leavers, and 16–17 year olds with little or no back up support, as being vulnerable under the homelessness legislation.

  In the revised Code of Guidance we will be recommending strategies for co-ordinated working between agencies, including the value of exploring joint assessments for those with multiple needs at an early stage. The Guidance will also explicitly refer to the need for this approach when assessing homelessness applications from vulnerable people and when dealing with the needs of young people between the ages of 16–18. The forthcoming Housing Green Paper is likely to include proposals for reform of the homelessness legislation to provide further protection for vulnerable people in priority need.

  Kyoto Summit
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what follow-up action he has undertaken with developing countries on the proposals adopted at the Kyoto summit. [107343]

  Mr. Meacher
  Climate change is a global problem which requires a global response. The Government are working with developing countries to promote ways of reducing greenhouse gas emissions without compromising economic growth. This was a key theme during my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister's visits to India and China.

  Rail Development (Nottingham)
  Mr. Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the Greater Nottingham area rail development strategy. [107344]

  Mr. Hill
  Funding for the capital cost of heavy rail schemes is now generally a matter for the Shadow Strategic Rail Authority (SSRA). The SSRA is currently in discussion with Nottinghamshire County Council about the Strategy. I understand that the County Council will shortly be submitting a pre-qualification bid for funding to the SSRA under the Rail Passenger Partnership scheme for a new station at Ilkeston. The Strategy was however, also included as part of the proposals for local heavy rail 98W
  network development within the Greater Nottingham Local Transport Plan, submitted in July 1999. It is open to the authorities to use their block allocations to support rail improvements associated with the Strategy.

  Local Authority Spending
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what steps he is taking to review the method of calculating the spending needs of local authorities. [107339]

  Ms Armstrong
  Assessment of the relative spending pressures faced by local authorities is an important step in the distribution of revenue grants from central to local government. The method of distributing grants is being reviewed, and discussions are well underway between central and local government officials on a range of options for improving the system. Decisions about the merits of the various options for reform will not be taken until we have consulted widely this summer.

  Road Travel (Risks)
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the risk incurred in travelling as (i) a driver of a car, (ii) an adult passenger in a car, (iii) a child passenger in a car, (iv) a driver of a motorcycle, (v) an adult pillion passenger on a motorcycle and (vi) a child pillion passenger on a motorcycle; and if he will make a statement. [107131]

  Mr. Hill
  The risks incurred travelling are normally compared in terms of kilometres travelled by different users (passenger kilometres). The information requested is shown in the following table.

  Adult/child car and TWMV casualty data: GB 1997

  Casualty rate per 100 million passenger kilometers

  Adult

  Severity

  Driver

  Passenger

  Child Passenger

  Car

  Fatal

  0.3

  0.4

  0.1

  KSI1

  4.0

  4.6

  2.0

  All

  36

  40

  27

  TWMV2

  Fatal

  12

  3—

  3—

  KSI1

  145

  3—

  3—

  All

  554

  3—

  3—

  1 Killed and seriously injured

  2 Two Wheeled Motor Vehicles; includes mopeds, scooters and motorcycle combinations

  3 Kilometres travelled by pillion passengers are not available

  Building Regulations
  Mr. Hilary Benn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to improve energy conservation standards required by the building regulations; and if he will make a statement. [108018]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  Amendment proposals are being prepared with the aim of maximising the Building Regulations' contribution towards achieving our commitments under the Kyoto Protocol and our UK domestic target for reducing carbon dioxide emissions,
  99W
  while also meeting requirements for better regulation. I intend that a consultation paper setting out our proposals should be issued shortly.

  Abandoned Vehicles
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will take measures to enable local authorities to remove more promptly motor vehicles which have been abandoned on(a) public and (b) private land; and if he will make a statement. [108115]

  Mr. Mullin
  We have no plans to shorten the period of notice a local authority must give before removing from public or private land any vehicle which it considers has been abandoned. The existing regulations are intended to provide owners with safeguards against a local authority prematurely assuming a vehicle is abandoned and having it towed away for scrap. They also ensure that local authorities do not have to go to the unnecessary expense of removing and storing vehicles that may not, in the event, have been abandoned.

  We believe that the current legislation provides a good balance between the powers of the police and local authorities to deal with abandoned vehicles and the rights of vehicle owners.

  Crowd Control
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what powers are available to local authorities to impose crowd control and safety measures on the organisers of popular events which are held on private land; and what plans he has to strengthen them. [108114]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974 requires the organisers of popular events held on public land to control risks to workers or the public arising from work activities. These provisions are enforced by local authorities. There are no plans to strengthen these powers.

  Driver Test Centres
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the driver test centres in the Greater London area. [108171]

  Mr. Hill
  In the Greater London area, driving theory tests are conducted from six centres:Croydon, Ilford, Kingston upon Thames, Palmers Green, Southwark and Uxbridge.

  Practical tests for learner car drivers are conducted from 30 centres (moped and motorcycle tests are also conducted at those centres shown in italics):
  Barking, Barnet, Bexleyheath, Chingford, Greenford (Horsenden Lane and Ruislip Road), Hayes, Hendon, Hither Green, Hornchurch, Ilford, Isleworth, Loughton, Mill Hill, Morden, New Southgate, Pinner, Sidcup, South Norwood, Southall, Southfields, Surbiton, Sutton, Teddington, Wallington (Mint House and Old Town Hall), Wanstead, West Wickham, Winchmore Hill and Wood Green.

  Practical tests for learner lorry and bus drivers are conducted from four centres:
  Croydon, Enfield, Purfleet and Yeading.

  Research Contracts
  Dr. Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 20 December 1999,Official Report, column 338W, what restrictions were placed on contractors carrying out research projects funded by his Department in 1999 in respect of them discussing their findings with journalists (a) before and (b) after publication. [108193]

  Mr. Mullin
  I refer to the answer that I gave on 1 February 2000,Official Report, column 521W, on Departmental Research Contracts, when a copy of the standard research contract conditions in use by the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, was placed in the Library of the House of Commons. Standard condition 13.6 requires that the contractor shall not communicate with representatives of the general or technical press, radio, television or other communications media unless specifically granted permission to do so in writing by the Department. This would apply to disclosure to journalists both before and after publication.

  Public-private Partnership
  Mr. Hilary Benn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will lis the public-private partnership schemes currently in progress in Leeds. [108608]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  There are currently three public-private partnership schemes in progress in Leeds:1. Refurbishment and renovation of Swarcliffe Estate—Leeds City Council
  2. Provision of replacement buildings for Cardinal Heenan Secondary School
  Provision of a new primary school and refurbishment of four other primary and two secondary schools.

  Zoos
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many zoos in England and Wales are situated next to(a) funfairs and (b) amusement or video arcades. [108629]

  Mr. Mullin
  Information on the proximity of zoos in England and Wales to funfairs and amusement and video arcades is not held centrally.

  Dacorum Borough Council
  Mr. McWalter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the effect on Dacorum Borough Council of the changes in negative housing subsidy which he has proposed. [108582]

  Mr. Mullin
  My Department is currently consulting on the detail of the proposals for changes in the Housing Revenue Account subsidy regime. Consideration of the outcome of that exercise will be required before any decisions are taken. It is too early to say what the financial impact of any changes will be. The financial implications for any authority will depend upon both the results of the consultation exercise and conditions pertaining nearer the time that any changes are made.

  Planning Guidance
  Mr. Norman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when his Department will publish its finalised guidance on land use planning and electro-magnetic fields. [108495]

  Mr. Raynsford
  My Department issued for consultation the draft of a joint circular with the Department of Health on land use planning and electro-magnetic fields. The guidance will be finalised as soon as practicable after the Independent Expert Group on Mobile Phones, set up at the instigation of the Government and chaired by Sir William Stewart FRS, FRSE, has reported in the spring.

  Telecommunications (Planning)
  Mr. Norman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he plans to update the Code of Best Practice for Telecommunications Prior Approval Procedures; and what representations his Department has received on the code in the last 12 months. [108494]

  Mr. Raynsford
  My Department has reconvened the working group responsible for the preparation of the Code to update it to reflect the changes in planning policy and procedures set out in Circular 4/99 'Planning for Telecommunications'. The working group comprises representatives of local government and the main mobile operators.

  My Department has not received representations relating specifically to the Code in the last 12 months.

  GM Cosmetics
  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what progress has been made by the EU on plans to develop harmonised guidelines for GMO risk assessment for cosmetic products; and if he will make a statement. [108622]

  Mr. Meacher
  Proposals for the development of such guidelines are still under consideration by the European Commission Scientific Steering Committee.

  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what recent advice he has received about the use of antibiotic marker genes in genetically modified plants which provide raw materials for the production of cosmetics and perfumes. [108621]

  Mr. Meacher
  I have received no additional advice further to that given in my answer of 17 June 1999,Official Report, column 200W.

  European Parliament
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what arrangements he has in place to monitor the activities of the European Parliament's Environment Committee in respect of its(a) work on legislative oversight and amendment and (b) reports prepared by the committee, on matters relevant to United Kingdom environment and transport policy.[108692]
  102W
  Mr. Meacher
  The Department receives regular information on the agenda and activities of the European Parliament and its Committees through the UK Representation to the European Union, and through contact between Ministers and Members of the European Parliament. The European Parliament and the European Commission's websites are a further source of information.

  Departmental Press Releases
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many press releases his Department has issued in each year since 1995. [108599]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 4 February 2000]: The information is as follows:

  Number of press releases

  Department of the Environment

  1995

  655

  1996

  579

  19971

  171

  Department of Transport

  1995

  440

  1996

  410

  19971

  96

  Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions

  19972

  586

  1998

  1,121

  1999

  1,248

  1 1 January 1997 to 30 April 1997

  2 1 May 1997 to 31 December 1997

  Landlord Registration
  Miss Geraldine Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many local authorities operate landlord registration schemes following applications to his Department for the special control scheme. [109188]

  Mr. Mullin
  Nine authorities in England, mainly in coastal areas, have had registration schemes for houses in multiple occupation confirmed containing the special control provisions in Part II of the Housing Act 1996. One further scheme has been agreed in principle.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Lilley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assumption about the number of asylum seekers staying in the United Kingdom is incorporated in the forecast of housing demand up to 2021 used by his Department. [109027]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Information on net levels of international migration assumed in the latest household projections can be found in Annexe C of the Department's publication "Projections of Households in England to 2021", a copy of which is in the Library of the House. This Annexe summarises the assumptions contained in the 1996-based national population projections which are published in "National Population projections: 1996-based" Office for National Statistics series PP2 No. 21.

  Oil Slicks
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans his Department has in place to protect coasts from oil slicks. [107317]

  Mr. Hill
  My Department's Maritime and Coastguard Agency (MCA) will shortly be publishing a revised National Contingency Plan for Marine Pollution from Shipping and Offshore Installations. The plan provides a framework for the UK's response to marine pollution from ships and offshore installations. The MCA implements the plan when marine pollution incidents involving ships and offshore installations occur in UK waters. The plan remains under constant review in the light of the experience gained from incidents and exercises.

  The MCA also inspects at least one quarter of ships calling at UK ports to ensure that they comply with international safety rules and standards and operates surveillance aircraft to patrol UK waters.

  In addition, my Department will shortly begin a consultative process that could lead to the setting up of Marine Environmental High Risk Areas (MEHRAs) to help protect sensitive marine and coastal environments at particular risk from pollution from shipping.

  Housing Waiting Lists
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list for each London borough the number of(a) families on the housing waiting list, (b) families on the transfer list and (c) his estimates of the number of single people who need housing but are not accepted on to waiting lists. [108874]]

  Mr. Mullin
  The latest information on the number of households on the housing registers of London boroughs was included in my reply to my hon. Friend on 1 December 1999,Official Report, columns 205-06W. Information on transfer lists, and estimates of single persons in housing need but not accepted on to housing registers, is not held centrally.

  Global Warming
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what research his Department is funding into the potential severity of 100 year climatic events due to global warming; and if the Environment Agency will take this into account in commenting on planning applications. [109012]

  Mr. Meacher
  My Department supports a £7.8 million programme on climate prediction at the Hadley Centre, which is based at the Met Office. Part of this research programme considers how sea level is projected to rise as a result of climate change. Extreme climate events are characterised by their "return period", i.e. the 100-year water level is the water level which occurs once in every 100 years. The Hadley Centre projections have been used by the Proudman Oceanographic Laboratory to calculate how the return period for the current 100-year water level might change by the 2050s at a number of UK ports. The projections are currently very uncertain because of 104W
  incomplete understanding of the climate system, and do not allow for any changes in storminess which may result from climate change.

  The projections indicate that in England and Wales, a current high tide which would be expected to occur once in every 100 years will occur more frequently. This would be exacerbated if storminess were also to increase as a result of climate change.

  The Environment Agency considers new research (some of which it is actively involved in) as it emerges and uses it to inform procedures for responding to planning applications.

  Air Safety
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) what plans he has to develop the safety management system operated by National Air Traffic Control Ltd; [108525]

  (2) what plans he has to maintain safe levels in the volume of air traffic. [108527]

  Mr. Mullin
  My right hon. and noble Friend the Minister of State for Transport and I had two meetings with the Institute of Professional and Managerial Staff and the Public and Commercial Services Union in December at which we made clear that the Government have the highest regard for the Safety Management System operated by NATS. We have indicated that the system will remain in place, subject only to such changes and improvements as are agreed with the Safety Regulation Group (SRG) of the Civil Aviation Authority.

  The new arrangements, proposed in the current Transport Bill, will lead to the separation of SRG as the regulator, from NATS as operator, as recommended by the Select Committee on the Environment, Transport and the Regions. Under these arrangements, SRG will continue to have robust oversight of all NATS operations. This oversight will include the approval of processes and procedures through the NATS Safety Management System to ensure that traffic flows are regulated and managed at safe levels, irrespective of increasing demand, and that staff are rostered in compliance with the Scheme for the Regulation of Air Traffic Controllers' Hours (SRATCOH), so as to deal safely with the resulting volume of traffic.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what recent representations he has had from representatives of the British Association of Air Line Pilots and the Institute of Professional and Managerial Staffs on proposed changes in the status and organisation of air traffic controllers; and if he will make a statement. [107552]

  Mr. Mullin
  Since September, my right hon. and noble Friend the Minister of State for Transport and I have had four meetings with the Institute of Professional and Managerial Staffs and the Public and Commercial Services Union. The Deputy Prime Minister and the British Association of Air Line Pilots were present at one of these meetings. We propose to hold a further meeting with the unions shortly. Subjects discussed include the future of National Air Traffic Services Ltd. under the public-private partnership which the Government
  105W
  proposes to establish, and the vital importance of maintaining in full existing safety standards in the air traffic control industry.

  Hackney Carriage Zones
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he intends to issue a licence allowing the de-zoning of the existing hackney carriage zones to form a single zone in Herefordshire; and if he will make a statement. [109075]

  Mr. Hill
  A request from Herefordshire Council to approve its resolution to amalgamate existing hackney carriage zones is being carefully considered and a decision will be made as soon as possible.

  Railway Signalling
  Mr. Swinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many (a) miles of track and (b) railway junctions in Scotland are controlled by (i) colour light signal systems, (ii) radio-electronic token signals and (iii) mechanical semaphore signals. [108652]

  Mr. Hill
  1,497 miles of track in Scotland are controlled by coloured lights systems, 400 miles by Radio Electronic Token Block Signalling and 700 miles by mechanical semaphore signalling. An equivalent figure for railway junctions cannot be given as it is dependent on the definition used.

  Mr. Swinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what is the track mileage in Scotland which has electronic train protection, broken down by mileage of the system used; and how many (a) miles of track and (b) junctions in Scotland are not covered by electric or electronic train protection. [108653]

  Mr. Hill
  2,454 miles of track in Scotland are protected by the Automatic Warning System (AWS). 143 miles of track on the Ayr-Stranraer and Aberdeen-Inverness routes are without AWS, although they will be fitted later this year. The Train Protection Warning System (TPWS) will be fitted to 1,424 signals and 88 buffer stops by 2003. An equivalent figure for railway junctions cannot be given as it is dependent on the definition used.

  Post Offices
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what is his estimate of the number of sub-post offices which receive (a) 50 per cent, rates relief and (b) 100 per cent, rates relief; and what would be the estimated cost of extending rates relief at (i) 50 per cent, and (ii) 100 per cent, to all sub-post offices; and if he will make a statement. [108906]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The number of rural post offices receiving the 50 per cent, mandatory village shop rate relief and the number to which local authorities have granted discretionary relief of up to 100 per cent, are not collected centrally. However for 1998–99, the last year which figures are available, sole village stores and post offices in England received £2,022,332 in mandatory relief and £1,091,833 in "top up" discretionary relief.
  106W
  We are unable to estimate the cost of extending both mandatory and discretionary rate relief to all sub post offices because information is not held centrally on the number and rate liabilities of those already receiving village shop rate relief and those which are not. This information could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Air Services
  Angela Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he has approved the terms of reference for the South East and East of England Regional Air Services Study; and how he will ensure consistency in evaluating the demands for, and constraints on, airports and air service development in the South East and East of England Regional Air Services Study. [109353]

  Mr. Mullin
  I have now approved the final terms of reference for the South East and East of England Regional Air Services Study, taking account of comments received following the consultation on draft terms of reference. Copies will be placed in the House Libraries. They will be circulated to interested parties, and will be on the DETR website.

  A consultation paper, "Appraisal Framework for Airports in the South East and Eastern Regions of England" was published today. This paper is about the development of an appraisal framework to be applied to the alternative ways of dealing with future demand for airport capacity in the South East and East of England. Putting a framework in place will mean that schemes to meet or restrain that demand can be compared on a consistent basis.

  The consultation paper has been circulated widely. Comments have been invited from transport groups, airport consultative committees, local authorities, environmental organisations and other interested parties and will be considered carefully before the Appraisal Framework is finalised.

  Solar Power
  Mr. Hilary Benn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what research his Department has carried out into the contribution that the use of solar power in domestic dwellings can make to reducing energy consumption; and if he will make a statement. [108020]

  Mrs. Liddell
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) has funded a considerable amount of research into the exploitation of solar energy in the UK. This research can be divided into three technology sectors: Passive Solar Design—the direct use of solar heat gain and daytime light in buildings to display conventional energy demand—Solar Thermal Hot Water Heating—to displace energy from other conventional heating sources—and Photovoltaics—which produce electricity from the action of daylight on photovoltaic cells.

  To date most of the DTI funded PV research has focused on issues which are common to all applications of PV in buildings, and to research into aspects of PV integration into larger non-domestic buildings. The

  107W
  potential contribution that PV can make to UK conventional electricity demand has been estimated in "New and Renewable Energy Prospects for the 21st Century. Supporting Analysis. March 1999. ETSU R-122". This gave a theoretical estimate of around 270 TerraWatt hours a year (TWh/yr) if PV were installed on all available walls and roofs for the entire building stock. More realistically, if PV were to be installed on all south-facing roofs and facades this would yield an annual output of around 70 TWh, or a little over 22 per cent, of current electricity consumption, which stands at around 324 TWh/yr. Obviously, if we are looking only at the roofs of domestic properties, the theoretical potential would be proportionately less. Installing 2 kW systems on 50,000 homes would cost around £500 million at current prices, but would generate less than one half of one tenth of 1 per cent, of current UK electricity demand.

  In the short to medium term, up to 2010, the installed cost for PV on dwellings is expected to remain a major barrier to faster deployment of the technology. However, costs are expected to continue to reduce, and a market for domestic PV should develop accordingly, so that in the longer term PV has the potential to make a significant contribution to reducing energy consumption and carbon emissions.

  The DTI funded a demonstration project for a domestic PV roof in Oxford in the mid to late 90s. The 4 kW system cost in the region of £25,000, and showed that, over the year, output from the system could match demand from an energy-efficient home, with surplus electricity generated by PV during the day, particularly during the summer months, being exported to the grid, and being balanced by imports during the night and winter months.

  The DTI is contributing £1 million towards a field trial looking at the implementation of PV on clusters of domestic dwellings. It is hoped this will result in total investment of £2 million and the installation of PV systems on two to three hundred dwellings. Other ongoing work within the DTI Solar Programme is investigating the development of PV systems for domestic roofing.

DEFENCE

  Medical Records
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what his policy is on keeping medical records of personnel working in sensitive defence research establishments. [108469]

  Dr. Moonie:
  [holding answer 7 February 2000]: This is a matter for the Chief Executive of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency. I have asked the Chief Executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Sir John Chisholm to Mr. Tarn Dalyell, dated 8 February 2000:
  I have been asked to reply to your question about policy on keeping medical records of personnel working in sensitive defence research establishments in view of my responsibilities as Chief Executive of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency (DERA) which comprises many of the previously separate Ministry of Defence research establishments.
  108W
  The medical records of personnel fall into two types:

  (a) Records of a clinical nature which are required to be held under conditions of medical confidentiality. Where there has been any occupational health intervention of anything more than a trivial nature, such a record should exist and will be held within the occupational health department under the control of suitable medical staff for the duration of a person's employment. Material maintained in the record will include items such as the results of medical examinations, results of health surveillance and clinical correspondence from other medical practitioners.

  (b) Records not requiring storage under conditions of medical confidentiality which are retained on an individual's personal file. These will include items such as sickness certificates, any medical advice from a doctor to the employer (which should not include medical-in-confidence material) and records of sickness absence.

  All records are maintained for the duration of an individual's employment by DERA. In the case of individuals taking up further Civil Service employment, it is our policy to forward records to the new department or unit along with all other personal records. Otherwise, the clinical records are associated with the personal file (in a suitably sealed package) and forwarded to the Defence Storage and Distribution Centre at Llangennech.
  I hope this information is helpful.

  Smart Procurement
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the accountability to the taxpayer provided by Smart Procurement; and if he will make a statement. [108742]

  Dr. Moonie
  My Department's accountability to Parliament and the taxpayer has not been affected by Smart Procurement. By applying Smart Procurement principles to the way we conduct business, the taxpayer should see increased value for money from every pound spent on defence equipment. It enables us to equip, train and support the armed forces as cost-effectively as possible.

  Gurkhas
  Mr. Burnett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when the Government next intend to review with the Indian and Nepalese Governments the salaries and pensions payable to Gurkhas serving in the British Army; and what is the Government's policy on salaries and pensions payable to Gurkhas serving in the British Army. [108794]

  Mr. Spellar
  Under the terms of the Tri-Partite Agreement (TPA) between India, Nepal and the UK, rates of pay and pensions are linked to the Indian Army pay code. Major reviews of pay and pensions are carried out by Indian Government Pay Commissions which report every 10 years. The next Pay Commission will report in 2006. Interim changes continue to be implemented as they are notified to us by India.

  British Gurkha pay is calculated in line with Indian Army rates although in 1997 a Universal Addition was introduced to take account of the cost of living outside Nepal; this is reviewed annually. These two elements combine to give salaries for British Gurkhas that are in line with comparable British servicemen.

  The recent examination of Gurkha pensions and gratuities has substantially increased Gurkha pensions to allow for a welfare related cash uplift that will double the

  109W
  pension payments for all Gurkha pensioners with effect from 1 April 2000. There are no plans for any further reviews of this nature. Pensions will continue to be paid immediately after 15 years service and index linked in accordance with cost of living in Nepal. These increases remain within the context of the TPA.

  Anti-ballistic Missile Treaty
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if his Department permits the use of MoD land by the United States for activities contrary to the terms of the anti-ballistic missile treaty. [108896]

  Mr. Spellar
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 30 November 1999,Official Report, column 83W.

  Departmental Secondments
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many staff were seconded from the private sector to his Department from(a) May 1997 to April 1998, (b) May 1998 to April 1999 and (c) May 1999 to the latest date for which figures are available, stating in each case the companies from which staff have been seconded. [109074]

  Dr. Moonie
  Secondments and attachments are part of the Interchange Initiative which promotes the exchange of people and good practice between the civil service and other organisations. All sectors of the economy are involved: Voluntary, Eduction, Health, Public and Private. Interchange is a key component of the reform agenda. The Modernising Government White Paper committed us to increasing interchange, in particular by bringing in more people on secondment and sending more of our people out.

  The information requested on personnel on secondment from the private sector to my Department, excluding Trading Fund Agencies, is as follows:

  May 1997-April 1998

  Total—17

  Company:

  Rolls Royce Ltd. (x2)

  British Aerospace (x5)

  BMT Defence Systems

  British Nuclear Fuels Ltd.

  British Telecom

  GEC Marconi Radar and Defence

  Pricewaterhouse

  Private Finance Panel Ltd. (x2)

  Tarmac ServiceMaster

  Vickers

  Vosper Thorneycroft

  May 1998-April 1999

  Total—19

  110W
  Company:

  GEC Marconi Radar and Defence

  Private Finance Panel Ltd.

  Tarmac ServiceMaster

  British Nuclear Fuels (x2)

  AWE plc

  Gardiner and Theobald

  TI Group

  British Aerospace (x3)

  Devonport Management Ltd.

  Simmons & Simmons

  Wragg & Co.

  Defence Acquisition Group (x2)

  PA Consulting Group

  Dibb, Lupton Alsop

  Rolls Royce

  May 1999-to date

  Total—19

  Company:

  British Nuclear Fuels

  Devonport Management Ltd.

  Simmons & Simmons

  Wragg & Co.

  Defence Acquisition Group (x2)

  PA Consulting Group

  Dibb, Lupton Alsop

  Marconi Electronic Systems (x3)

  British Aerospace (x5)

  Price WaterhouseCoopers

  Rolls Royce Ltd. (x2).

  RAF Menwith Hill
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what authority the US Government sought from his Department before commencing the construction of an anti-ballistic missile system at RAF Menwith Hill. [108893]

  Mr. Spellar
  RAF Menwith Hill is the site for the European Relay Ground Station of the US Space Based Infra Red System (SBIRS). SBIRS is designed to detect and provide information on the launch of ballistic missiles. As Her Majesty's Government retain legal ownership and control of all sites made available to the United States Visiting Forces in the UK, it was necessary for the US to seek permission to construct the SBIRS European Relay Ground Station at RAF Menwith Hill. Permission was granted in March 1997.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations his Department has received from the French Government in respect of anti-ballistic missile developments at RAF Menwith Hill. [108897]

  Mr. Spellar
  None.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if the anti-ballistic missile defence system being constructed at RAF Menwith Hill will provide protection from attack for the United Kingdom. [108895]

  Mr. Spellar
  RAF Menwith Hill is the site for the European Relay Ground Station of the US Space Based Infra Red System (SBIRS). SBIRS is designed to detect and provide information on the launch of ballistic missiles, but offers no physical protection. It will upgrade the detection and warning capabilities that currently contribute to the defence and security of the UK and NATO.

  Departmental Contracts
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list for the financial year 1998–99 the number and total value of contracts let by his Department with external consultants and advisers that have(a) been put out to competitive tender, (b) not been put out to competitive tender and (c) been let on a non-commercial basis, stating in each case the names of the individuals or organisations that have carried out the work. [109065]

  Dr. Moonie
  This information is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Garvie Island, Sutherland
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what supervisory arrangements are operated to monitor the use by foreign military forces of Garvie Island, Sutherland, as a target. [108992]

  Mr. Spellar
  Any use of ranges at Garvie Island is governed by UK regulations and is directly supervised by UK military personnel.

  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he has approved the use of Garvie Island in Sutherland for shelling by US warships; and if he will make a statement. [108991]

  Mr. Spellar
  I have not approved Garvie Island in Sutherland for any use by US warships.

  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if depleted uranium-based ammunition is authorised for use at Garvie Island, Sutherland, by(a) UK forces and (b) overseas forces; and if he will make a statement. [108993]

  Mr. Spellar
  Depleted uranium is not authorised for use at Garvie Island either by UK or overseas forces.

  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence under what arrangements exercises by non-UK forces are conducted involving the(a) shelling and (b) bombing of Garvie Island, Sutherland; and if he will make a statement. [108990]

  Mr. Spellar
  The range at Garvie Island is open to use by members of NATO. All exercises are conducted under UK regulations and are under the direct control of UK military personnel. Garvie Island is used only by aircraft. There is no shelling of the island.

  Army Foundation College
  Ms Dari Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what progress has been made on the PPP project for the Army Foundation College at Harrogate. [109357]

  Mr. Spellar
  I am pleased to be able to say that a contract has been let to Defence Training Services Ltd., a joint venture between Jarvis Projects Ltd. and Halifax Bank, to provide and run a modern residential Army Foundation College at Harrogate, with the associated accommodation and infrastructure support services, for a period of 30 years. The military element of the training at the college will continue to be delivered by uniformed personnel. This investment of private finance and expertise will create a flagship college where young 112W
  people will have a unique opportunity to gain qualifications combining vocational education with military leadership skills.

  Royal Navy Links
  Ms Squire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent progress has been made on strengthening links between the Royal Navy and the French Navy. [109358]

  Mr. Spellar
  I am pleased to announce that HMS Victorious will shortly conduct a port visit to France. She will arrive in Brest on 11 February. This is the second visit of its kind, the first having taken place at Gibraltar in November 1998. The visit has been made possible as a result of the reduced operational tempo of our SSBN fleet, as implemented in the Strategic Defence Review.

  Helicopter Landing Platform
  Mr. Burnett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which vessel his Department plans to be used as a landing platform for helicopters over the next 10 years during the times when HMS Ocean is in refit. [108803]

  Mr. Spellar
  On current plans HMS Ocean's first full refit will take place in about seven years' time. It is anticipated that the new Landing Platform Docks, HMS Albion and HMS Bulwark, currently being built, will cover the period of refit, along with an Invincible Class aircraft carrier in the Landing Platform Helicopter role.

  Iraq
  Mr. Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the military actions carried out by Iraqi forces against Kurds and Sh'ia Muslims between 18 November and 15 December 1999 which required operational sorties by UK forces. [108434]

  Mr. Hoon
  It is not for us to account for the actions of the Iraqi military over a specific period of time. It is clear, however, that Saddam's internal security organisations continue to persecute all opponents of the regime on the ground. Coalition patrols of the no fly zones prevent Saddam Hussein from using his air force to repress the Iraqi people in the north and south of Iraq. Previously he has made extensive use of helicopter gun ships to repress the Kurdish population in the north, as well as both fixed wing aircraft and helicopter gun ships to repress Sh'ia Muslims in the south. Given the extensive history of brutality by Saddam Hussein's regime, there is no reason to believe that he would not resume these tactics were we to cease patrols. Coalition patrols of the no fly zones remain an essential humanitarian task in support of UN Security Council Resolution 688; without our continued presence in the air, he would be free to use his air force to return to an all out assault.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Millennium Dome
  Mr. Efford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will make a statement about the change of Chief Executive at the Millennium Dome. [109501]
  113W
  Mr. Chris Smith
  Jennie Page has done a sterling job seeing the Millennium Dome through from its inception to opening, on time and on budget, on 31 December. The scale of this achievement should not be underestimated. However, it is the view of the NMEC Board, supported by the Shareholder on behalf of the Government, that a different approach and different skills are now needed to manage the project successfully during its year of operation. Jennie Page has resigned as Chief Executive of NMEC. The NMEC Board have appointed Pierre-Yves Gerbeau to succeed her. He took up his post yesterday. A copy of the Press Notice has been placed in the Libraries.

  Lottery Funding
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how much money from National Lottery funding has been directed to projects in parliamentary constituencies in the London Borough of Wandsworth; and for what projects this funding has been used. [109052]

  Kate Hoey
  I have placed a table showing National Lottery awards directed to projects based in parliamentary constituencies in the London Borough of Wandsworth (correct to 7 February 2000) in the Libraries of the House. This information is taken from the National Lottery Awards database which uses information supplied by the Lottery distributing bodies.

  Nandrolone
  Mr. Reed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will make a statement about the UK Athletics report into the drug nandrolone. [107655]

  Kate Hoey
  UK Sport's review into the anabolic steroid nandrolone which I initiated in August last year, reported on 18 January after an intensive period of expert study and discussion lasting three months.

  UK Sport has accepted the conclusions of the Review Committee and has already consulted the International Olympic Committee and the International Amateur Athletic Federation—both of whom co-operated with the review and who have received the report favourably. National governing bodies are also being consulted. Comments on the report have been invited by the end of February.

  The report has also generated substantial interest among members of the public, media, legal and scientific communities. I have placed a copy in the House Libraries.

  Sports Facilities
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what discussions he has held with local education authorities on the increased provision of facilities for sporting groups. [105544]

  Kate Hoey
  My right hon. Friend and I are in regular contact with ministerial colleagues in the Department for Education and Employment, and through them, local education authorities, on a wide range of issues of mutual interest, including the important issue of improving the provision of sports facilities in schools.

  I have also discussed this with local authorities in my travels around the country and have met with the Local Government Association.
  114W
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what recent discussions he has had with the Department for Education and Employment on increasing the number of playing fields and extending sporting facilities at schools. [105102]

  Kate Hoey
  [holding answer 17 January 2000]: My right hon. Friend and I are in regular contact with ministerial colleagues in the Department for Education and Employment on a wide range of issues of mutual interest, including the important issues of playing fields and improving the provision of sports facilities in schools. I have also discussed this with local authorities in my travels around the country and have met with the Local Government Association and the National Playing Fields Association.

  Oath of Allegiance
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many letters he has received since 1 May 1997 on(a) constituency matters and (b) other matters of Government policy from each of those Members of the House who have not taken the Oath of Allegiance. [108403]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  [holding answer 3 February 2000]: The information requested is not held centrally.

  Lottery Funds
  Mr. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how much money the National Lottery has donated to the National Health Service; and if he will make a statement. [108716]

  Kate Hoey
  The National Lottery has not donated any money to the National Health Service. The New Opportunities Fund has a remit to support initiatives connected with health, education and the environment, all funding allocated to health programmes, such as for the establishment of Healthy Living Centres or for cancer prevention, detection, treatment and care is quite separate from and additional to any money spent by the National Health Service in these areas.

  Digital Television
  Mr. Livsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many relay stations will be digitalised when the phasing out of the analogue system is completed. [108719]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  At least 30. The current digital terrestrial television (DTT) transmission plan comprises a network of 51 main transmitter sites and 30 relay transmitters. The BBC and Independent Television Commission, with their transmission providers, are now considering how to develop DTT coverage further, in consultation with the digital broadcasters, Government and representatives of manufacturers and consumers.

  Concessionary TV Licences
  Mr. Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will make a statement on the application of the concessionary TV licence scheme to sheltered housing units where the residents include non-pensioners who have been placed there by the local authority to meet urgent housing needs. [106833]
  115W
  Mr. Chris Smith
  [holding answer 25 January 2000]: I recognise that this practice is increasing and gives rise to apparent anomalies in the application of the concessionary television licence scheme to sheltered housing units, which depends on the particular circumstances of the case. The Government asked the independent review panel on the future funding of the BBC to consider the structure of the scheme and whether a suitable alternative structure might be available. The Government are considering the Davies report's recommendations in the light of responses to the public consultation. We intend to announce our conclusions shortly.

  BBC World
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) if he will make an assessment of the benefits to the United Kingdom from BBC World; [108649]

  (2) what discussions he has had with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in respect of funding for BBC World. [108648]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  [holding answer 7 February 2000]: I have had no such discussions with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. BBC World is a commercial venture and we have no plans to assess its impact overseas, though I would expect that, in its own way, BBC World makes a positive contribution to the standing of the United Kingdom.

  Millennium Commission
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) how many applications for lottery funding, and to what value, have been received by the Millennium Commission in each year since its establishment; and what is the number and value of grants made or announced in each year; [108773]

  (2) what arrangements are in place for the continued funding after 31 December of ongoing projects supported by the Millennium Commission; and if he will make a statement. [108771]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  [holding answer 7 February 2000]: This is a matter for the Millennium Commission. I will write to the hon. Member in my capacity as Chairman of the Commission, and place copies of my reply in the Libraries of the House.

  Research Contracts
  Dr. Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, pursuant to his answer of 8 December 1999,Official Report, column 537W, what restrictions were placed on contractors carrying out research projects funded by his Department in 1999 in respect of them discussing their findings with journalists (a) before and (b) after publication. [108204]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  All research contracts contain standard terms and conditions which place restrictions on contractors requiring permission from the Department before any discussions of their findings with journalists, either before or after publication.

  School Playing Fields
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will encourage the(a) Football Association, (b) Football League, (c) television networks and (d) Football Trust to provide funds for schools without sports playing fields to obtain access to such fields for team sports. [108284]

  Kate Hoey
  The FA Premier League and the Nationwide Football League have signed the Central Council of Physical Recreation's Voluntary Code on Broadcasting, under which governing bodies commit themselves to investing at least 5 per cent, of broadcasting revenues in the grass roots development of their sports. The Premier League re-affirmed its commitment to the principles of the Code in January 1999 following the publication of the Football Task Force's report Investing in the Community. My officials are in discussion with the Football Trust and the sport's governing bodies about the distribution and use of that investment, a proportion of which may be allocated to the provision of playing areas for school team sports.

HEALTH

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he will give a substantive answer to the question from the right hon. Member for Birkenhead on the birth weight of babies, tabled on 12 January (ref. 105430). [109122]

  Yvette Cooper
  I shall let my right hon. Friend have a reply to his earlier question as soon as possible.

  Dental Services
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many dentists have been(a) struck off and (b) reprimanded for professional negligence in each year since 1995. [106719]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 24 January 2000]: Under the Dentists Act 1984, it is the General Dental Council (GDC) that has statutory functions in relation to both the professional conduct and the fitness to practise of dentists in the United Kingdom. The proceedings of the Professional Conduct Committee of the GDC are made public by the Council. The number of dentists found guilty of serious professional misconduct in the last five years is given in the table.

  Dentists found guilty of serious professional misconduct 1995–99

  Year

  Erased

  Suspended1

  Admonition

  1995

  4

  1

  3

  1996

  7

  0

  3

  1997

  7

  1

  2

  1998

  5

  0

  6

  1999

  6

  5

  2

  1 Suspended up to 12 months

  Source:

  General Dental Council

  Waiting Lists
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what percentage of patients on waiting lists, and how many patients this represented, were waiting over one year in(a) 1979, (b) 1989, (c) 1995 and (d) the latest date for which figures are available; [107062]

  (2) in which year since 1970 there was the smallest percentage of patients on waiting lists who were waiting over one year for hospital treatment; and how many patients this represented. [107106]

  Mr. Denham
  The information requested is shown in the table. The March 1996 data are presented since this is the year with the smallest percentage of patients waiting over 12 months for inpatient treatment:

  Date

  Total waiting

  Over 12 month waiters

  Percentage over 12 months

  September 1979

  695,726

  197,532

  28.4

  September 1989

  929,056

  218,116

  23.5

  September 1995

  1,040,142

  27,938

  2.7

  September 1996

  1,061,558

  14,993

  1.4

  September 1999

  1,084,529

  50,916

  4.7

  Notes:

  Ordinary cases only collected in 1979 (day cases were not included).

  All other years represent ordinary and day cases combined.

  March 1996 figures were total waiting: 1,048,029; over 12 month waiters: 4,576; percentage over 12 months 4.7.

  Source:

  KH07 return (Trust-based data)

  Chiropody
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on NHS chiropody services in Gloucestershire. [107560]

  Mr. Hutton
  As part of a package of savings to ensure Gloucestershire Health Authority meets its financial duties, Gloucestershire Health Authority introduced changes to the provision of chiropody on 1 November 1999.

  The changes to chiropody services have been reached in agreement with local National Health Service trusts and primary care groups to ensure that patients are affected as little as possible by the need to make financial savings.

  All the measures taken have been aimed at ensuring chiropody services continue to be provided to all individuals with an identified medical and chiropodial need for the service.

  Gloucestershire Health Authority are continually monitoring the impact of the changes in chiropody and are reviewing the situation early this year and again at the end of April 2000.

  Ethnic Monitoring
  Mr. Hope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when charities will be notified of the outcome of their section 64 applications for projects beginning in the financial year 2000–01. [109046]

  Mr. Hutton
  Section 64 applications are still being considered for the financial year 2000–01. The Department hopes to be able to notify decisions before April 2000.

  Disease Statistics
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the incidence of (a) serious kidney disease, (b) prostate cancer and (c) cervical cancer (i) in the last 12 months for which figures are available and (ii) five years ago. [108524]

  Yvette Cooper
  The category of "serious kidney disease" is not used in the statistics collected. One definition would be those with end stage renal failure, who are receiving renal replacement therapy (dialysis and transplant). The last published national survey of renal units showed the number of such patients treated in England and Wales in 1995 was 473 per million population. The 1999 report of the United Kingdom Renal Registry shows that the most comparable figure for 1998 was 528 per million population. The latest available incidence figures (1996) for prostate and cervical cancer together with data for 1991 for comparison are shown in the table.

  England and Wales

  1991

  11996

  Incidence of prostrate cancer (ICD9 185)

  Number of newly diagnosed cases

  14,256

  18,900

  Rates per 100,000 population2

  49.7

  63.5

  Incidence of cervical cancer (ICD 9 180)

  Number of newly diagnosed cases

  3,592

  2,600

  Rate per 100,000 population2

  12.8

  8.9

  1 Provisional data

  Directly age standardised to the European standard population

  Source:

  Office for National Statistics (1999), Report: Registrations of cancer diagnosed in 1993–96, England and Wales, Health Statistics Quarterly 4; 59–70

  Child Runaways
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what progress has been made by his Department in developing a joint strategy with the Home Department to provide services for children who run away from home; [108521]

  (2) if he will make it his policy to introduce central monitoring of the number of children running away from local authority care; and if he will make a statement; [108522]

  (3) what progress has been made in identifying care placements which have a high rate of children running away; and if he will make a statement. [108523]

  Mr. Hutton
  We are taking forward a comprehensive range of measures to prevent children reaching the point where they feel the need to run away from home. These include the Government's Supporting Families programme and the Quality Protects programme to transform social services for children in need and their families. These initiatives will help to reduce the pressures felt by families which can lead to conflict and the breakdown of relationships. Schools have also been asked to pay greater attention to the home circumstances of a child and to liaise with other agencies where a child appears to have problems or difficulties. The proposed youth support service for 13–19 year olds will also have a significant role in identifying and assisting children in difficulty at home or at school.
  119W
  It is essential that a holistic multi-agency approach to runaways is taken locally and the Department's Children's Services Planning Guidance advises social services departments to plan services for runaways on a collaborative basis with other agencies. Current provision includes refuges, drop-in centres, advocacy for young children, emergency foster care placements and night-stop accommodation.

  Children's Services Planning Guidance also stresses the need for local authorities to monitor incidence and patterns of running away to assist the planning of services and to identify both families and institutions from which children run away repeatedly. From this April we will require local authorities in England to record absences of more than 24 hours from agreed placements for a sample of one third of their looked after children. These data will provide the first national estimate of the incidence of running away.

  Bed Availability
  Mr. David Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects to publish the bed availability statistics for the year to 31 March 1999 in England. [109058]

  Ms Stuart
  The information will be published shortly.

  Departmental Secondments
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many staff were seconded from the private sector to his Department from (a) May 1997 to April 1998, (b) May 1998 to April 1999 and (c) May 1999 to the latest date for which figures are available, stating in each case the companies from which staff have been seconded. [109073]

  Ms Stuart
  Secondments and attachments are part of the Interchange Initiative which promotes the exchange of people and good practice between the Civil Service and other organisations. All sectors of the economy are involved: Voluntary, Education, Health, Public and Private. Interchange is a key component of the reform agenda. The Modernising Government White Paper committed us to increasing interchange, in particular by bringing in more people on secondment and sending more of our people out.

  Central records are held on the following secondments from the private sector which commenced in the years shown:

  Year

  Number

  Companies seconded from

  May 1997-April 1998

  6

  Private Finance Panel Executive (2)

  Tarmac plc

  Nabarro Nathanson

  Pinsent Curtis

  Rawlings Ophthalmic Opticians

  May 1998-April 1999

  6

  Hempsons

  Price WaterhouseCoopers

  Ward Hadaway

  Beachcroft Stanleys

  Dickinson Dees

  Lloyds Bank

  May 1999 to date

  6

  Addleshaw Booth and Company

  Beriwin Leighton

  Taylor Woodrow

  Deloitte and Touche

  Herbert Smith

  British Airways

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  World Trade Organisation
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what organisations he has consulted regarding Her Majesty's Government's policy in relation to the Seattle round of negotiations of the World Trade Organisation; and if he will list separately the Scottish organisations in the consultation process. [107467]

  Mr. Caborn
  [holding answer 2 February 2000]: We have consulted a large number of organisations across the UK, including the Scotch Whisky Association. We do not have a separate list of Scottish organisations since many Scottish interests are also represented by UK-wide organisations.

  Export Credits Guarantee Department
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will publish a list of those countries excluded from guarantees from the Export Credits Guarantee Department for unproductive expenditure, showing for each(a) the number and (b) the value of credits given for (i) defence and (ii) other unproductive exports in each of the past five years. [108479]

  Mr. Caborn
  ECGD has supported no defence related business for any of the affected countries in the last five years.

  While it is not possible to apply the criteria for productive expenditure retrospectively on a definitive basis, from information readily available, all business supported by ECGD on these markets in the past five years would have met the criteria against which future export credit business with these countries will be assessed.

  Mr. Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the investigations carried out into allegations of corruption and maladministration in the use of Export Credits Guarantee Department funds. [108798]

  Mr. Caborn
  In the last five years ECGD has reported five such cases to HM Treasury. In only one of these cases was it felt necessary to refer the case to the relevant external investigatory body. My hon. Friend will appreciate that it is not possible for me to provide details of individual cases for legal reasons.

  Coal
  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the percentage was of UK-mined coal burned by individual power stations in Britain in 1999. [109019]

  Mrs. Liddell
  In the 12 months to November 1999 major power producers' net purchases of coal amounted to 40.1 million tonnes. Of this, 32.8 million tonnes (82 per cent.) was of UK purchased coal and 7.3 million tonnes (18 per cent.) was of imported coal. The total quantity of coal consumed by major power producers over this 12 month period was 39.2 million tonnes. Data for individual coal-fired power stations are not available.
  121W
  Mr. Trickett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what estimate he has made of the accessible coal reserves in each of the collieries in Yorkshire; what is their current rate of depletion; and what is his estimate of the life of each colliery at current rates of depletion. [109116]

  Mrs. Liddell
  As part of its Review of Energy Sources for Power Generation, the Department of Trade and Industry commissioned International Mining Consultants Limited (IMCL) to provide a report on the prospects for coal production in England, Scotland and Wales in the period to 2020. That report was substantially undertaken in May 1998 and published by The Stationery Office in March 1999. Since that time the world price of coal has fallen and this is likely in general terms to have reduced the levels of economically workable reserves and to have accelerated the date at which economic reserves of some collieries are likely to exhaust.

  A summary of the assessment of reserves for each of the collieries in Yorkshire as at early 1998 was shown as follows:

  Proven (Mt)

  Probable (Mt)

  Ricall1

  4.664

  14.793

  Stillingfleet2

  2.315

  20.102

  Wistow

  3.085

  11.173

  Kellingley

  3.698

  11.509

  Maltby

  4.086

  15.222

  Prince of Wales

  2.258

  2.953

  Rossington

  —

  12.714

  Hatfield

  0.305

  1.639

  1 Ricall/Whitemoor combine

  2 Stillingfleet/North Selby combine

  Various scenarios were considered in the report. The summary of projected operating performance prepared by IMCL, on the scenario of current mines to exhaustion at company output levels full profit/loss cost basis, for each of the collieries in Yorkshire in 1998 was shown as follows:

  1998 output 000t

  Projected exhaustion date

  Ricall1

  1,730

  2009

  Stillingfleet2

  3,700

  2009

  Wistow

  2,600

  2009

  Kellingley

  1,348

  2020

  Maltby

  1,400

  2020

  Prince of Wales

  1,750

  2009

  Rossington

  825

  2020

  Hatfield

  348

  2009

  1 Ricall/Whitemoor combine

  2 Stillingfleet/North Selby combine

  Electricity Interconnector
  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when negotiations will begin with EDF on a replacement electricity supply contract through the interconnector; if he will seek a reciprocal arrangement; and when the new contract is required to be in place. [109018]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The Interconnector Agreement between the National Grid Company and EDF expires on 31 March 2001 and it is a matter for the parties to the Agreement when negotiations on a successor Agreement take place.
  122W
  As an essential facility, access to the interconnector should be granted to third parties on reasonable and non-discriminatory terms, and any new Agreement will be subject to the normal application of EU competition law.

  Pakistan
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list (a) the total number of contracts and their value relating to arms exports to Pakistan for each of the last five years, (b) the value of ECGD support and (c) what payments were made under the ECGD scheme. [108880]

  Mr. Caborn
  ECGD has not supported defence related equipment to Pakistan in any of the last five years.

  Postal Services
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry which EU document promotes the lowering of the monopoly limit on postal services of member states; what measures restrict national choice; and what consultation he has had with postal users in the United Kingdom concerning the policies of Her Majesty's Government in these matters. [108722]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  The Postal Services Directive (97/67/EC) sets the agreement between the European Union member states and the European Commission on common rules for the development of the internal market of community postal services and the improvement of quality of service. The Directive established the principle that postal services may be reserved by member states only to the extent necessary to ensure the maintenance of the universal service. The initial upper limit to the reserved area was set at five times the public tariff for an item for correspondence in the first weight step of first class post provided that it weighs less than 350 grams. The United Kingdom's reserved area is within this limit. The Directive also provided for further steps to be taken towards the completion of the internal market of postal services and tasked the European Commission to come forward with proposals for gradual and controlled liberalisation. It is expected that these proposals will issue shortly.

  In the United Kingdom, extensive consultation has taken place, in relation to the reserved area and other postal matters, during the review which led to the White Paper on Post Office Reform which was published in July 1999. A Bill has now been laid in with the intention of consolidating the reforms outlined in the White Paper.

  The Government are of the view that greater competition is essential for postal reform. Liberalisation promotes competition and greater choice and keener pricing for consumers. It also encourages greater innovation, productivity and growth of businesses. The Postal Service Commission (which takes up its duties on 1 April 2000) will have a duty to promote the interest of consumers of postal services, having regard to the need for effective competition wherever possible and appropriate.

  As set out in the White Paper, the Postal Services Commission will be expected to report on the scope for liberalisation within one year of appointment. We shall be asking the Postal Services Commission to provide its advice on the scope for reductions in the monopoly at the

  123W
  earliest opportunity. We shall also be encouraging them to be thorough and to take account of the views of all interested parties.

  Match Funding
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to his answer of 17 January 2000, Official Report, columns 258–59W, on match funding,
  (a) what structural funds grants were received in the United Kingdom for (i) 1999 and (ii) preceding years, (b) what was the total of associated matched funding for that sum, and (c) if he will initiate a scheme to record the sources of matched funding for each grant received in 2000. [108966]

  Mr. Caborn
  As explained in my previous answer of 17 January 2000, Official Report, columns 258–59W, there are no specific annual allocations to structural funds programmes and grants for individual years therefore cannot be identified. However the total value of grants to the UK's structural funds programmes which ended in 1999 amounted to approximately £5.5 billion.

  The previous answer also explained that the level of match funding varied from programme to programme, and depended on the nature of the various projects. That information was not recorded centrally.

  It would require disproportionate effort to record and collate the precise source of match funding for each of the many thousands of projects which receive structural funds assistance.

  Kerosene and Gas Oil
  Mr. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much (a) kerosene and (b) gas oil was used industrially in the last year for which figures are available. [108711]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The latest published data show that during 1998 the amounts of kerosene and gas oil used by industry were 841 and 2,894 thousand tonnes respectively, the latter figure including some eight thousand tonnes of gas oil used by industry for on-site generation of electricity during the year. The figure for gas oil does not include any amount of gas diesel oil used as a fuel for round transport, i.e. DERV fuel. Information on the amount of DERV fuel used by industry is not available. Preliminary figures for 1999 suggest that industrial kerosene use has increased by approximately 15 per cent. while industrial gas oil use has decreased by approximately 10 per cent.

  Parental Leave
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will estimate the total cost of statutory paid parental leave in the United Kingdom set at the level of the minimum wage. [109045]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  It is not possible to provide an estimate based on the information given in the question. The cost of any paid parental leave scheme to the Exchequer and employers will depend upon the assumptions made about take up, the length of leave taken as well as the level of support provided.

WALES

  Departmental Consultation
  Dr. Tony Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the public consultation exercises on policy matters carried out by his Department and its agencies in each of the last five years; who was consulted and by what means; how responses were analysed; how and in what form the results were transmitted to those responsible for the consultation; how the results of the consultation were published; and what analysis has been carried out of the extent and nature of policy changes resulting from the consultation. [106294]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  The Government want to hear what people have to say about suggested new proposals and policies, and this is an important aspect of the modernising government initiative. However, for the Welsh Office up until 30 June 1999, the information requested is not held centrally, and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  For the Wales Office from 1 July 1999, a joint consultation with DETR titled "Improving Rights of Way in England and Wales" has been carried out. The actual consultation was carried out by the Assembly, on my behalf, and they wrote to me summarising the responses, and copied them to the relevant Whitehall department, to ensure that the responses were fed into the outcome. The results have not yet been published, and it is too soon for any analysis of the extent and nature of policy changes arising from the consultation to have been conducted.

  A further consultation, again in conjunction with DETR, into "High Hedges: the Problems and Possible solutions in England and Wales" has also been carried out in Wales by the Assembly on my behalf. The consultation period has just concluded, and responses are now being analysed.

  I have also asked the Assembly to carry out a consultation on "The Physical Punishment of Children". The Assembly will be issuing this consultation shortly. A similar consultation has been issued for England by the Department of Health.

  Farming
  Mr. Walter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what recent discussions he has had with the Minister of Agriculture regarding the state of farming in Wales. [105570]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  [holding answer 18 January 2000]I speak regularly with my colleagues in Whitehall, and we discuss a wide range of issues. I am acutely aware of the long-term problems facing Welsh agriculture and the current difficulties. Our priority must be to work towards a stable, sustainable and prosperous future for Welsh farming. Support for this objective is a matter for the Assembly and they are pursuing it through their Food Strategy and Rural Development Plan.

  Post Offices
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what proposals are being considered by his Department to help sustain and develop the viability of rural and urban sub-post offices. [105855]
  125W
  Mr. Hanson
  I refer the right hon. Member to the reply given to him by the Minister for Competitiveness, my hon. Friend the Member for Hull, West and Hessle (Mr. Johnson) on 20 January 2000,Official Report, column 520W, as these matters relate to my hon. Friend's responsibilities within the Department of Trade and Industry.

  Cubie Report
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what discussions he has had with the First Minister of the Welsh Assembly concerning the Cubie report. [105927]

  Mr. Hanson
  [holding answer 24 January 2000]: I recently met the National Assembly for Wales Secretary for Training and Education Tom Middlehurst, when we discussed the Cubie report. The Cubie report is a report to the Scottish Executive on student finance, an area of responsibility that has not been devolved to the National Assembly for Wales. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment has announced that he has set aside resources for a major new package of extra measures to widen access to higher education and tackle student hardship in England and Wales. Mr. Middlehurst will be announcing in due course increased help for students at higher education institutions in Wales through the Assembly's HE Student Access funds.

  Research Contracts
  Dr. Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer of 6 December 2000,Official Report, column 370W, what restrictions were placed on contractors carrying out research projects funded by his Department in 1999 in respect of them discussing their findings with journalists (a) before and (b) after publication. [108200]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  The standard contract for Research Services which is used by my Department provides that researchers shall obtain the approval of the Client before making any communication to the press or others on the Project, its contents, or the results.

  Working Families Tax Credit
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales in what ways he has publicised the working families tax credit in Wales; and if he will make a statement. [107423]

  Mr. Hanson
  My right hon. Friend and I take every opportunity to publicise the Working Families Tax Credit which demonstrates this Government's strong commitment to improving the lot of working families and to eradicating child poverty.

  In a statement on 7 September 1999, my right hon. Friend said
  "The Working Families Tax Credit represents a major step forward in making work worthwhile, and in helping those workers who were most disadvantaged by the previous system. This is especially good news for Wales, which has suffered from amongst the lowest wage levels in the UK".
  A copy of the press release is available from the Library of the House.

  Rail Transport
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what recent representations he has made to the Secretary of State for the Environment concerning improved rail transport in Wales; and if he will make a statement. [107420]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I have regular contact with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions to discuss a range of issues. In particular I have discussed with him and with the Minister for Transport how we can ensure that Welsh interests are properly reflected on the face of the Transport Bill.

  Alyn and Deeside
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will discuss with the First Secretary the situation of dairy farmers in Alyn and Deeside. [106702]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I meet the First Secretary regularly and we discuss a wide range of issues, including various aspects of the agriculture industry, and we are aware of the problems currently facing dairy producers. The Assembly is supporting the farming industry, in particular through their Food Strategy and Rural Development Plan.

CABINET OFFICE

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office how many questions to her Department tabled for written answer on a named day during Session 1998–99 were answered(a) on or before a named day, (b) within one week of a named day, (c) within one month of a named day, (d) within three months of a named day and (e) after three months of a named day. [106483]

  Mr. Stringer
  The information is not held in the form requested. In the Session 1998–99, 154 named day questions were tabled to the Cabinet Office of which 68 per cent. received a substantive answer on the day specified.

  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office how many questions to her Department tabled for ordinary written answer during Session 1998–99 were answered(a) within two weeks of tabling, (b) within one month of tabling, (c) within three months of tabling and (d) after three months of tabling. [106488]

  Mr. Stringer
  The information is not held in the form requested. In the Session 1998–99, 291 ordinary written questions were tabled to the Cabinet Office of which 83 per cent. received a substantive reply within five working days.

  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office how many questions to her Department were tabled for written answer during Session 1998–99; and how many of these she replied to(a) by means of a letter placed in the Library rather than by substantive answer in the Official Report, (b) by stating that a substantive answer could not be given due to information not being held centrally and (c) by stating that a substantive answer could not be given due to disproportionate cost. [106484]
  127W
  Mr. Stringer
  In the Session 1998–99, 676 questions for written answer were tabled to the Cabinet Office of which 12 were replied to by means of a letter placed in the Libraries of the House. Five questions received an answer in part in so far as information was available, and 13 were replied to by stating that the information requested was not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  National Minimum Wage
  Mr. Swinney
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if she will estimate the impact of increasing the minimum wage(a) in line with average earnings, (b) to £4 per hour and (c) to £4.20 per hour on the cost of salaries of the Civil Service (i) in total and (ii) for each nation of the United Kingdom in the next financial year. [108654]

  Mr. Stringer
  This information is not held centrally. The effect of an increase in the National Minimum Wage would need to be calculated against an individual's precise working hours and contractual terms. This is therefore a matter for individual Departments.

  Departmental Expenditure Limit
  Mr. Patrick Hall
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what proposals she has to change the 1999–2000 Departmental Expenditure Limit of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration and Health Service Commissioners; and for what reasons. [109356]

  Mr. Stringer
  The total Departmental Expenditure Limited for the Office of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration and Health Service Commissioners on Class XVIII, Vote 4 will be reduced by £570,000, falling from £14,971,000 to £14,401,000.

  The Office of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration and Health Service Commissioners is currently meeting the cost of complaints in respect of services which, following devolution, now fall within the responsibility of the Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly. The cost of these services will in future be moved to a repayment basis. The proposed reduction in the Departmental Expenditure Limit will allow for this. Of the reduction £300,000 will be transferred to the Welsh Assembly Ombudsman and Welsh Health Service Commissioner and £270,000 will be transferred to the Scottish Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration and Scottish Health Service Commissioner.

  These changes will not add to the planned total of public expenditure.

  Mr. Goggins
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what proposals she has to change the 1999–2000 Departmental Expenditure Limit or running costs limit for the Cabinet Office. [109355]

  Mr. Stringer
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary Supplementary Estimates:The Departmental Expenditure Limit for Cabinet Office will be decreased by £4,163,000 from £318,701,000 and the running costs limit will be decreased by £156,000 from £115,018,000 to £114,862,000.
  128W
  This is mainly to take account of the following changes:

  Transfer payments in
  A transfer towards the project review of Better Government for Older People from Department of Social Security (Class XII, Vote 3) (£20,000).

  Transfer payments out
  A transfer in respect of staff transferring from Security Facilities Division to Police Scientific Development Branch to the Home Office (Class XVIII, Vote 3) (£25,000). A transfer payment to the Privy Council Office (Class XVIII, Vote 3) (£89,000) and to the Countryside Agency (Class III, Vote 1) (£64,000) to provide for accommodation costs. Provision for ownership of St. Christopher House has transferred from the Property Advisers to the Civil Estate to the Ministry of Defence (Class VI, Vote 1) (£1,075,000). Provision for ownership of 83 Piccadilly has been transferred to Department for Education and Employment (Class I, Vote 1) (£2,000).

  Civil Superannuation
  The scheme for the central funding of early departures as announced in the White Paper: The Civil Service: Continuity and Change (Cm 2627) ended on 31 March 1997. The amount of central funding required has decreased by £2,900,000.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Fraud
  Mr. Dobbin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what steps his Department is taking to reduce benefit fraud; and if he will make a statement. [108576]

  Mr. Rooker
  We set out our strategy for combating fraud and reducing error in "Safeguarding Social Security", published on 23 March 1999. We are putting this strategy into practice with strong and sensible safeguards to ensure the right money goes to the right people. Among the new initiatives that carry this forward are the following:New more robust powers for fraud inspectors in The Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Bill published on 1 December. These provisions give greater clarity and allow all benefit fraud investigations to proceed on the basis of common powers.
  All payments will move to automated credit transfer (ACT) from 2003 as a modern, more secure and efficient method of paying benefits. This will virtually eliminate "instrument of payment" fraud and enhance security over the life of a claim. This is expected to yield fraud savings in the region of £140 million—£240 million.
  A regional radio campaign, costing some £500,000, with supporting adverts in local newspapers, to advertise the Benefit Fraud Hotline. This has led to thousands of extra calls to the Hotline. Later this year the public will be able to contact the Hotline via the internet.

  Pensioners' Incomes
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will update his estimates based on the Family Resources Survey 1997–98 of(a) median pensioner incomes, excluding means-tested benefits, by age, sex and marital status, consistent with his answer of 18 January 1999, Official Report, column 372W, on pensions, and (b) the size of each group. [108493]

  Mr. Rooker
  The information is in the tables.
  129W

  Pensioner units median gross income excluding means-tested benefits, by age 1997–98

  £ per week

  Age

  60–64

  65–69

  70–74

  75–79

  80+

  Single male pensioners

  n/a

  125

  107

  104

  106

  Single female pensioner

  130

  106

  101

  88

  90

  Pensioner couples

  n/a

  254

  202

  197

  187

  Notes:

  1. All amounts are in £ per week at July 1997 prices. They are rounded to the nearest £1, although estimates are not necessarily accurate to this level.

  2. Estimates are for pensioner units. A pensioner unit is defined as a single (non-cohabiting) person over State Pension Age (65 years or above for men and 60 years or above for women), or a couple

  Number of pensioner units by age and marital status 1997–98

  Age

  60–64

  65–69

  70–74

  75–79

  80+

  Single male pensioners

  n/a

  250,000

  210,000

  220,000

  260,000

  Single female pensioner

  380,000

  540,000

  640,000

  700,000

  1,010,000

  Pensioner couples

  n/a

  1,020,000

  780,000

  490,000

  360,000

  Notes:

  1. Figures are for GB only and rounded to the nearest 10,000 pensioner units.

  2. Estimates are for pensioner units. A pensioner unit is defined as a single (non-cohabiting) person over State Pension Age (65 years or above for men and 60 years or above for women), or a couple (married or cohabiting) where the man, defined as the head, is over State Pension Age. Estimates for pensioner couples are broken down by the age of the man.

  3. Estimates marked "n/a" are not applicable. Single men and couples are only defined as pensioner units if the man is aged 65 years or above.

  4. Estimates are not controlled to independent population estimates by the age bands used in this analysis and therefore may be affected by variation by age in survey response rates.

  5. All estimates, and in particular those for single male pensioners, should be treated with caution since they are based on small sample sizes.

  Source:

  The Pensioners' Incomes Series dataset, based on the Family Resources Survey (FRS) 1997–98.

  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will provide separate analyses for pensioners aged 80 years or above as part of the core analyses contained in the Pensioners Income Series. [108432]

  Mr. Rooker
  The age groupings used in the Pensioners' Incomes Series will be reviewed before the publication of the 1998–99 edition, as part of the publication's ongoing development.

  Incapacity Benefit
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate the cost to(a) the United Kingdom and (b) Scotland of restoring eligibility for incapacity benefit to its status before 1999. [106579]

  Financial effects of welfare reform measures in Great Britain from April 2001

  Measure

  £ million

  Incapacity Benefit contribution changes

  -20

  Incapacity Benefit occupational and personal pension changes

  -30

  Replacement of Severe Disabled Allowance by Incapacity Benefit for under 20–25-year-olds

  0

  Severe Disablement Allowance abolition for new cases

  -10

  Extension of Disability Allowance mobility component to 3 and 4-year-olds

  +15

  Disability Income Guarantee

  +60

  Notes:

  1. Estimate for the United Kingdom is unavailable.

  2. Estimates are available for Great Britain. It is expected that the effects will be proportionate for each measure in Scotland.

  3. All above figures are in April 1998 prices from April 2001.

  4. From 6 April 2001 the Welfare Reform and Pensions Act 1999 amends the National Insurance contributions that have to be met to qualify for Incapacity Benefit and provides for some account of occupational and personal pension income in excess of £85 a week to be taken. Both measures apply to new Incapacity Benefit claims only.

  5. The Disability Income Guarantee is included in the above table as it was part of the welfare reforms published in the command paper "A New Contract for Welfare: Support for Disabled People".
  130W
  (married or cohabiting) where the man, defined as the head, is over State Pension Age. Estimates for pensioner couples are broken down by the age of the man.

  3. Estimates marked "n/a" are not applicable. Single men and couples are only defined as pensioner units if the man is aged 65 years or above.

  4. Means-tested benefits are defined as Income Support, Family Credit, Council Tax Benefit and Housing Benefit.

  5. Levels of means-tested benefit may be particularly affected by mis-reporting by survey respondents, as receipt of State Retirement Pension and receipt of Income Support are often confused in the FRS.

  6. All estimates, and in particular those for single male pensioners, should be treated with caution since they are based on small sample sizes.

  7. Figures are for GB only.

  Source:

  The Pensioners' Incomes Series dataset, based on the Family Resources Survey (FRS) 1997–98

  Mr. Bayley
  [holding answer 25 January 2000]: Information is not available in the form requested. Such information as is available is in the table.

  Our welfare reforms are estimated to affect benefit expenditure for disabled people in Great Britain from 6 April 2001 as shown in the following table. The Incapacity Benefit charges apply only to new claims and no existing recipient will be adversely affected at the point of change.

  Our reforms are intended to modernise the welfare system and to encourage work for those who can, while providing security for those who cannot. The reforms are not focused on making savings in benefit expenditure; spending on benefits for sick and disabled people will continue to rise.

  Minimum Wage
  Mr. Swinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate the impact on benefit payments in the next financial year of a single minimum wage for all age groups of(a) £4.00 per hour, (b) £4.20 per hour and (c) £4.50 per hour. [108674]

  Angela Eagle
  The information is in the table.

  Estimated savings in 2000–01 on benefit payments of a national minimum wage of £4.00, £4.20 and £4.50

  £ million

  £4.00

  £4.20

  £4.50

  Income Support/JSA (IB)

  -30

  -50

  -70

  Housing Benefit

  -50

  -100

  -140

  Council Tax Benefit

  -10

  -20

  -30

  Total

  -90

  -170

  -240

  Notes:

  1. Estimates based on 1996–97 Family Resources Survey data, uprated to 2000–01 prices and benefit rates.

  2. Estimates rounded to the nearest £5 million. Totals may not sum due to rounding.

  3. Estimates assume no secondary effects on employment or wages.

  Benefit Administration
  Mr. Best
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what assessment he has made of the initiatives local government authorities have taken to improve the administration of benefits. [107342]

  Angela Eagle
  Local and central government have a common aim in transforming the delivery of Housing Benefit/Council Tax Benefit (HB/CTB) so that all local authorities can provide their communities with a faster, more accurate service which is more secure against fraud and error, provides value for money and takes account of the views and needs of clients.

  Many local authorities are providing an excellent benefits service and are committed to modernising the way in which they provide it for local people. We are delighted that Leeds City Council was one of the five councils awarded Beacon status under the Modern Service Delivery theme along with the London Boroughs of Camden and Harrow, Exeter City Council and New Forest District Council. Beacon councils have a key role in disseminating best practice so that others can benefit from their experience.

  New Best Value performance indicators will target key areas of benefit administration from April 2000. All local authorities will be required to set and meet challenging targets against indicators and demonstrate that they are achieving continuous improvements in the standards of service they provide.

  There are many other initiatives underway between local and central government, including the pilot ONE service where Leeds City Council is a key player. Their involvement has been key to the delivery of the ONE service in Leeds, not only because of their responsibility for delivering housing benefit and council tax benefit, but also because of their expertise in providing a wide range of local services and information.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Departmental Secondments
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many staff were seconded from the private sector to his Department from(a) May 1997 to April 1998, (b) May 1998 to April 1999 and (c) May 1999 to the latest date for which figures are available, stating in each case the companies from which staff have been seconded. [109072]

  Mr. Lock
  Secondments and attachments are part of the Interchange Initiative which promotes the exchange of people and good practice between the Civil Service and other organisations. All sectors of the economy are involved: Voluntary, Education, Health, Public and Private. Interchange is a key component of the reform agenda. The Modernising Government White Paper committed us to increasing interchange, in particular by bringing in more people on secondment and sending more of our people out.

  Records in this Department are only available for the periods April 1997 to March 1998 and April 1998 to March 1999. During 1997–98, we had one individual seconded from ICL to LCD Headquarters for less than three months and in 1998–99 a lawyer from Clifford Chance was seconded to the Law Commission for more than three months.

  Public Trust Office
  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how his Department will take forward reform of the Public Trust Office following the Quinquennial Review of its executive agency status, published on 18 November 1999. [109502]

  Jane Kennedy
  When he published the Quinquennial Review of the Public Trust Office, my noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor indicated that he would explore the Review's recommendations in a programme of reform and would make a further announcement on the way forward in February 2000. It remains his view that radical reforms are needed but he is also determined to ensure, in an area where we are trying to protect the interests of some of the most vulnerable in society, that we consider very carefully the full implications of any changes we make. Several organisations and professional groups commenting on the Quinquennial Review have asked for an extension of the timetable in order to put forward their views. In order to ensure that all have sufficient time to give their views, the Lord Chancellor now intends to allow comments to be submitted up until 3 March. The Lord Chancellor will consider these and make an announcement on the way forward for the Public Trust Office by this Easter.

TREASURY

  Bertram Fleurose
  Mrs. Brinton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will place a copy of the transcript of the hearings of the appeals against the judgments of the Securities and
  133W
  Futures Authority's disciplinary tribunal in the case of Bertram Fleurose in the Library, together with a set of the papers available to the appeals tribunal. [109117]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  I will arrange for transcripts of the hearings to be placed in the Library as soon as possible. However, the papers available to the tribunal are not being supplied as they contain commercially sensitive information and documents subject to legal professional privilege.

  Government Spending
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if it his policy that the Comprehensive Spending Review to be announced this year will set Government spending plans up to and including 2004–05; and if he will make a statement. [108903]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the Pre-Budget Report (Box 2.1, page 15, "Stability and steady growth for Britain", Cm 4479).

  The Spending Review will set plans for Departmental Expenditure Limits up to and including the financial year 2003–04.

  Budget Statement
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he will present his Budget Statement for 2000; and if he will make a statement. [108977]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Chancellor announced to the House on 3 February 2000,Official Report, column 1187, that he will deliver his Budget Statement on 21 March.

  Partnerships UK
  Mrs. Lawrence
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what progress has been made with Government plans to establish Partnerships UK; and if he will make a statement. [109298]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  Partnerships UK will be a new public-private partnership which will make available to the public sector the key commercial skills to forge more and better partnerships with the private sector. The business plan for Partnerships UK is under development. The next step is to start putting arrangements in place to launch Partnerships UK. Parliamentary approval to this new service will be sought in an Estimate for HM Treasury, Class XVI, Vote 1. Pending that approval, urgent expenditure estimated at £3.6 million in 1999–2000 will be met by repayable advances from the Contingencies Fund.

  Cash Machines
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the possible effect of the introduction of surcharges for cash machine withdrawals on financial exclusion. [108436]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave my hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon (Ms Drown) on 2 February 2000,Official Report, column 634W.

  UK Economic Cycle
  Sir Brian Mawhinney
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what specific steps he is taking more closely to align the United Kingdom's economic cycle with that of the countries in the euro group of the EU. [108869]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  [holding answer 7 February 2000]: The Government's policy on membership of the single currency remains as set out by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in October 1997.

  The Government have introduced a programme of economic reforms, which by building a platform for greater stability are in the UK's national economic interest.

  The Government have said they will recommend joining a successful single currency only if it is in our national economic interest to do so, and if the economic benefits to the UK, from joining, are clear and unambiguous.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  European Council Appointment
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what controls, other than the provisions of the relevant treaties, there are on the activities of the High Representative and Secretary General of the European Council; for how long the present appointment has been made; and if it is renewable. [105130]

  Mr. Vaz
  The role of the Secretary General of the Council and High Representative for the Common Foreign and Security Policy is to assist the Presidency. The Presidency represents the Union in matters coming within the common foreign and security policy, and is responsible for the implementation of decisions taken under the common foreign and security policy. The High Representative has been appointed for five years. There has been no discussion of whether or not this period is renewable.

  Departmental Fees
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the fees his Department, its agencies and associated public bodies collect; how much has been raised or it is anticipated will be raised from each of these fees from 1989–90 to 2004–05; and which of these fees count as negative expenditure. [106000]

  Mr. Hain
  The Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) are responsible for accounting for receipts from Visa Issuing, Passport Issuing Overseas and Other Consular Activities fees. Visa Issuing became negative public expenditure in 1997–98, Passport issuing became negative public expenditure in 1998–99 and Other Consular Activities are classed as Consolidated Funds Extra Receipts (CFERs).

  Actual receipts from each of the categories, for the 10 year period from 1989–90 to 1998–99 and estimated receipts for 1999–2000 are, in pounds million, as follows.
  135W

  Fees

  Visa

  Passport

  Consular

  1989–90

  —

  4.7

  1.6

  1990–91

  31.0

  4.3

  1.6

  1991–92

  26.6

  4.8

  1.7

  1992–93

  31.2

  5.1

  2.6

  1993–94

  30.5

  5.9

  3.0

  1994–95

  32.3

  6.1

  3.5

  1995–96

  42.1

  6.0

  4.5

  1996–97

  57.0

  6.0

  4.6

  1997–98

  63.5

  6.0

  5.1

  1998–99

  67.5

  10.7

  4.6

  1999–2000

  69.0

  14.6

  4.6

  Departmental Press Releases
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many Press releases his Department issued in each year from 1995 to 1999. [106120]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  The Foreign and Commonwealth Office issues a daily bulletin of Ministerial engagements and announcements. We do not keep records of the number of additional press releases issued each year.

  Departmental Consultation
  Dr. Tony Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the

  Date

  Visitor

  EU Country

  (a) Visits made by presidents of other EU countries

  1 September 1997

  President Herzog

  Germany

  25–27 September 1997

  President Chirac

  France

  (b) Visits made by heads of government of other EU countries

  4 January 1997

  Chancellor Kohl

  Germany

  28–29 September 1997

  Prime Minister Prodi

  Italy

  29–30 October 1997

  Chancellor Klima

  Austria

  30 October to 1 November 1997

  Prime Minister Jospin

  France

  30 November 1997

  Chancellor Kohl

  Germany

  10 November 1998

  Prime Minister Lipponen

  Finland

  16–17 November 1998

  Chancellor Schroeder

  Germany

  1 June 1999

  Prime Minister Bondevik

  Norway

  29 July 1999

  Prime Minister Lipponen

  Finland

  (c) Visits made by other ministers of EU countries

  7–9 September 1997

  Foreign Minister Derycke

  Belgium

  8–9 September 1997

  Foreign Minister Vedrine

  France

  21–24 September 1997

  Defence Minister Von Sudow

  Sweden

  30 October 1997

  Interior Minister Napolitano

  Italy

  30 October to 1 November 1997

  Foreign Minister Vedrine

  France

  17 November 1997

  Foreign Minister Petersen

  Denmark

  17 September 1998

  Foreign Minister Schussel

  Austria

  17 September 1998

  Foreign Minister Kinkel

  Germany

  10 February 1999

  Foreign Minister Halonen

  Finland

  May 1999

  Foreign Minister Papandreou

  Greece

  30 November to 1 December 1999

  Foreign Minister Papandreou

  Greece

  20 January 2000

  Foreign Minister Dini

  Italy

  The rest of this information is not held centrally and to provide a complete answer would incur disproportionate costs.

  Research Contracts
  Dr. Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 20 December 1999, Official Report, column 315W, on 136W
  public consultation exercises on policy matters carried out by his Department and its agencies in each of the last five years; who was consulted and by what means; how responses were analysed; how and in what form the results were transmitted to those responsible for the consultation; how the results of the consultation were published; and what analysis has been carried out of the extent and nature of policy changes resulting from the consultation. [106300]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  The Foreign Office welcomes ideas from outside Whitehall. Ministers and officials consult widely on policy matters. Detailed information of the kind asked for is, however, not available centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Russia
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information the United Kingdom Embassy in Moscow has on the visits made to Russia by(a) presidents of other EU countries, (b) heads of Government of other EU countries and (c) other ministers of EU countries since 1 May 1997. [107628]

  Mr. Vaz
  [holding answer 31 January 2000]: The United Kingdom Embassy in Moscow does not keep records of all visits to Russia by EU partners. However, the information readily available in the FCO (which is not necessarily comprehensive) shows that the following visits took place:

  departmental research contracts, how many research contracts, other than science or technology contracts, have been let by his Department since May 1997; what is the value of each contract, and in each case whether the contract included (a) departmental veto over publication of the research results, (b) departmental control over the date of publication of the research and (c) a requirement that the final research results incorporate departmental

  137W
  amendments; and if he will place in the Library a copy of the standard research contract currently in use by his Department. [107103]

  Mr. Hain
  [holding answer 1 February 2000]: We have not let any research contracts since May 1997. There is no standard FCO research contract.

  EU Intergovernmental Conference
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his oral statement of 18 January 2000,Official Report, column 671, on the EU Intergovernmental Conference, what the source of his information was on the allegiances of the six members of the European Parliament. [108279]

  Mr. Vaz
  An article in The Independent entitled "Now MEPs round on Hague" (6 January 2000), confirmed by Conservative MEP, Daniel Hannan, in The Daily Telegraph (11 January 2000).

  Anti-ballistic Missiles
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the Government's policy in respect of compliance with the Anti-ballistic Missile Treaty by the parties concerned. [108415]

  Mr. Vaz
  We continue to value the Anti-ballistic Missile Treaty, and wish to see it preserved.

  But it is not for the Government to comment on the question of compliance with treaties to which it is not a party.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations the Government have received from (a) Russia and (b) other EU states in respect of the Anti-ballistic Missile defence system being constructed at RAF Menwith Hill. [108894]

  Mr. Vaz
  None.

  EU Enlargement
  Mr. Norman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) what representations the Government have made on the Commission's proposal in "Adapting the Institutions to make a Success of Enlargement", for the establishment of a European Public Prosecutor to investigate fraud across the Union; and if he will make a statement; [108499]

  (2) what representations the Government have made on the Commission's proposal in "Adapting the Institutions to make a Success of Enlargement", that some members of the European Parliament should be elected on Europe-wide lists; and if he will make a statement; [108497]

  (3) what representations the Government have made on the Commission's proposal in "Adapting the Institutions to make a Success of Enlargement", for the partial redrafting of (a) harmonisation of legislation on certain forms of taxation (articles 93 and 95 EC) and (b) measures in the social security field (first indent of Article 137(3) EC). [108500]
  138W
  Mr. Vaz
  We are in regular contact with the Commission about the IGC, and have taken careful note of its Opinion. However, the IGC is a matter for the member states.

  The Government will set out its position on all major IGC issues in a White Paper to be published very shortly.

  Feira European Council
  Mr. Norman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he will make to the Portuguese Presidency in advance of its report on security and defence policy to be presented at the Feira European Council; and if he will make a statement. [108498]

  Mr. Vaz
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary visited Lisbon on 6–7 January 2000. British Ministers remain in close touch with their Portuguese counterparts. UK and Portugal are working towards an effective European security and defence policy which strengthens both NATO and the European Union.

  Visas (Subcontinent)
  Audrey Wise
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what data he collates relating to visitor visa applications in the Indian subcontinent in addition to information on numbers allowed and refused. [108689]

  Mr. Vaz
  Full details of all information collected centrally on non-settlement visa applications can be found in the Global Entry Clearance Statistics, copies of which are available in the House of Commons Library for the years 1994–98. Statistics for 1999 are currently being compiled and will be placed in the Library in due course. Statistics collected in respect of applications in the Indian subcontinent do not differ from those collected elsewhere.

  Audrey Wise
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many applications for visitor visas have been (a) allowed and (b) refused, in each of the last two years, in (i) Islamabad, (ii) Karachi, (iii) New Delhi, (iv) Bombay and (v) Nigeria. [108688]

  Mr. Vaz
  The following are the figures for non-settlement visa applications in the countries requested.

  19991

  1998

  Issued

  Refused

  Issued

  Refused

  Islamabad

  26,249

  8,675

  26,737

  5,615

  Karachi

  21,763

  3,682

  22,270

  3,116

  New Delhi

  53,890

  10,547

  50,538

  7,742

  Bombay

  63,023

  5,431

  55,957

  4,528

  Lagos

  37,454

  8,138

  29,480

  8,351

  Abuja

  13,133

  1,883

  9,562

  1,421

  1 Provisional

  The Global Entry Clearance Statistics for 1999 will be placed in the House of Commons Library in due course. The figures for 1994–98 are already available in the Library.

  Audrey Wise
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will instruct immigration posts in Pakistan to allow applicants for visas to be accompanied at their interviews by a relative or friend. [108690]
  139W
  Mr. Vaz
  We recognise that it may be helpful in some cases for visa applicants to be accompanied at interview by a friend or relative. For this reason entry clearance posts have discretion to allow this. But in other cases the presence of a second person at an interview may make it more difficult for entry clearance officers to judge the applicant's intentions, which they are required to do under the Immigration Rules. I therefore believe that the current policy of allowing posts discretion to decide should be retained.

  Regional and Minority Languages
  Ms Atherton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on progress towards the ratification of the Council of Europe Charter on Regional and Minority Languages. [108435]

  Mr. Vaz
  We hope to sign the Charter very soon with a view to ratification later this year, subject to the completion of the required Parliamentary procedures.

  Freedom Party (Austria)
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the response of (a) the UK and (b) the President of the European Commission to the possibility of the Freedom Party attaining Government office in Austria. [108641]

  Mr. Vaz
  [holding answer 4 February 2000]: The UK has made very clear our deep concern and distaste at the inclusion of Haider's far-right party in the Austrian Government. We welcome the fact that the new government has committed itself to abiding by the common obligations and values of EU membership, but we will be judging it by its future actions. We also support the Commission statement on this issue. The measures which Britain agreed on 31 January with the 13 other member states are now a force to limit bilateral contact with Austria.

  Vishna Hindu Parishad
  Mr. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what reports he has received that the Vishna Hindu Parishad attacks on Christian groups are part of an orchestrated campaign of intimidation. [108709]

  Mr. Hain
  We share concerns in the UK over attacks on Christians in India and have relayed those concerns to the Indian authorities. We have been assured that the incidents in question are isolated, and that they have been investigated and action taken against the perpetrators.

  Saudi Arabia
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent reports he has received concerning the arrest and detention of Christians in Saudi Arabia; and if he will make a statement. [108889]

  Mr. Hain
  On 7 January, 15 Filipinos were arrested at a Christian service in Riyadh. According to the Philippine Embassy in Riyadh, 11 have been released without charge. The others are expected to be released soon.

  East Timor
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is his Department's estimate of the total expenditure of the United Nations in East Timor since its staff returned there in late 1999; of this expenditure, how much is (a) on UN staff costs and (b) distributed to the people of East Timor. [108887]

  Mr. Hain
  The Secretary-General reported to the UN General Assembly on 29 November that he expected the cost of civilian staffing for the United Nations Transitional Administration in East Timor to be US$53,632,100 and the cost of military staff to be $54,412,800 for the period 1 December 1999 to 31 March 2000. He will report again to the General Assembly in March with revised estimates, including on disbursements for staffing costs to date.

  The UN Inter-Agency-Coordinated Appeal for East Timor, launched on 27 October 1999, set out requirements of US$199 million for urgent humanitarian needs. This was subsequently revised to $126 million, with the remaining $57 million of spending plans assumed into those for longer term reconstruction and development spending. Of this $126 million, $40 million was expected to have been disbursed by the end of 1999.

  A United Nations/World Bank Donor meeting held in Tokyo on 17 December 1999 also set out requirements of $300 million over three years for reconstruction and medium to long-term development and $28.3 million for the governance and public administration of East Timor. Voluntary contributions for these requirements will be channelled through Trust Funds established by the World Bank and United Nations respectively.

  Indonesia
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will publish the recent representations which he has received on the issue of arm sales to Indonesia; and if he will make a statement. [108886]

  Mr. Battle
  To date I have received many representations from MPs, NGOs and members of the public on this subject. To publish them would entail disproportionate cost and permission from the authors of the correspondence.

  Chagos Islands
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what actions are being taken by his Department to ensure that the Chagos Islands can be re-occupied by the Ilois people. [108873]

  Mr. Battle
  The immigration law affecting the British Indian Ocean Territory is the subject of High Court proceedings. While these are underway the matter is sub judice and I cannot comment further.

  Sri Lanka
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent representations he has received from the different forces in Sri Lanka concerning a possible peace process; and if he will make a statement. [108884]
  141W
  Mr. Hain
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave on 18 January 2000, Official Report, column 416W.

  Bond Scheme
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has received on the proposed financial bond scheme for visitors to the UK from India, Pakistan and Bangladesh; and what reports he has received on reactions to the proposal in those countries. [108876]

  Mr. Vaz
  Ministers and officials in India and Bangladesh raised this issue with me during my recent visit to these countries. We have taken note of their concerns and will pass these on to colleagues in the Home Office, who are conducting a consultation exercise on the proposed scheme.

  Chechnya
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list his Department's ministerial meetings that were held with representatives of the people of Chechnya in the last 12 months. [108885]

  Mr. Vaz
  I refer my hon. Friend to the response given to an earlier question of 17 January 2000, Official Report, column 327W.

  No meetings have been held in the last 12 months between FCO Ministers and Chechen representatives.

  Pakistan
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what meetings British officials have held with human rights groups in Pakistan in the past 12 months. [108888]

  Mr. Hain
  The Political and Development Sections of our High Commission in Islamabad are in regular contact with a wide-range of human rights groups. These include the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan, Shirkat Gah (women's rights), SPARC (rights of the child) and the Progressive Women's Association. A senior FCO official visited Pakistan in May 1999 and had comprehensive talks on human rights issues with NGOs and the Pakistani authorities.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Prison Standards
  Mr. Derek Twigg
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how he plans to raise the performance of those prisons that are identified as performing to a poor standard. [109168]

  Mr. Boateng
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, West (Ms Kelly) on 31 January 2000,Official Report, column 426W.

  Passport Applications
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department for what reason the UK Passport Agency ended the service available at main post offices for processing urgent applications for passports. [108587]
  142W
  Mrs. Roche
  The Passport Agency's partnership arrangement with Post Office Counters Limited, entered into in January 1996, provided a facility for applications marked as urgent to be processed within a minimum of four working days. The service proved very difficult to operate and the urgency of the applications was not always clear. When the Agency re-tendered the partnership arrangements late in 1999, the specification was for a guaranteed 10 day service for customers applying via a partner. The Agency believes this is the best way to meet its customers needs. Final negotiations are currently taking place with Post Office Counters Limited on the new arrangements, but the Agency considered it sensible to implement the standard 10 day turnaround now.

  The Agency is planning to introduce a "Fast Track" five day service via the Post Office from December 2000.

  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what length of time in future the UK Passport Agency will take to process standard passport applications received via the Post Office's special service whereby applications are checked for common errors and forwarded by secure post. [108588]

  Mrs. Roche
  The Passport Agency aims to process all straightforward and complete applications received from their partners, Post Office Counters Limited and Worldchoice Travel Agents, within 10 working days. This target will continue to apply in the future.

  Electronic Tracking
  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 31 January 2000,Official Report, column 431W, on electronic tracking, (1) which category of one-off absence was used to allow a professional footballer to breach the home detention curfew restrictions; who gave authority for this one-off absence; and if the player will be allowed further one-off absences; [108682]

  (2) if he will make it a requirement for private sector contractors operating the home detention curfew scheme to notify his Department of all one-off absences and the circumstances in which they occur. [108683]

  Mr. Boateng
  Mr. Gary Croft was granted a variation in the hours of his Home Detention Curfew on 21 and 22 January by the Governor of Her Majesty's Prison Hollesley Bay. The variation in hours was, therefore, not a one-off absence, which can be granted by contractors in specified circumstances as outlined in my earlier reply to the hon. Member.

  Governors have the discretion to vary an offender's curfew hours, taking into account legitimate reasons for the necessary absence of the curfewee from his or her home at certain times. This would include working hours, and would take into account reasonable travelling times. Mr. Croft was granted the variation in hours to enable him to represent his employers, Ipswich Town Football Club, in an away match against Bolton Wanderers Football Club. He was subsequently granted a similar variation in hours to enable him to represent Ipswich Town in an away match against Barnsley Football Club on 5 February.
  143W
  Mr. Croft continued to be subject to the curfew requirement until his automatic release date on 6 February and the total number of hours he spend under curfew was not reduced.

  There is no contractual provision for the electronic monitoring contractors to notify the Home Office of one-off absences. The contractors are able to provide the Home Office with details of any such absence on request, and there are no plants to make any changes to these requirements.

  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what offences have been committed by prisoners released under the home detention curfew scheme while they were on the scheme. [108291]

  Mr. Boateng
  [holding answer 3 February 2000]: I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) on 2 February 2000, Official Report, column 249W.

  Satpal Ram
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if Satpal Ram has been given a place on the offending behaviour course. [108310]

  Mr. Boateng
  [holding answer 3 February 2000]: Mr. Ram is currently held at Full Sutton prison which does not provide a specific offending behaviour course. However, it does provide a number of other courses all directed towards dealing with offending behaviour. Following an assessment by probation staff and psychologists, Mr. Ram has been recommended for the reasoning and rehabilitation programme which is available at the prison.

  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when Satpal Ram will be eligible for parole. [108311]

  Mr. Boateng
  [holding answer 3 February 2000]: As with any mandatory life sentence prisoner, Satpal Ram will be released from prison on life licence only if, following a review of his case by the Parole Board, the Board recommend his release and Ministers, after consulting the judiciary, agree. Satpal Ram's latest Parole Board review began in December 1999. The review will take account of reports prepared by prison and probation staff familiar with Mr. Ram's case, an interview between Mr. Ram and a Parole Board member (who will not be a member of the Panel who ultimately considers Mr. Ram's case) and any representations which Mr. Ram wishes to make for consideration by the Board. A Panel of the Board will then consider his case and make their recommendation. This all takes time, but the outcome of Mr. Ram's latest review should be known later this year.

  Sexual Offences
  Jackie Ballard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will complete the review into sexual offences; and if he will list those offences which are under review. [109057]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Sex Offences Review should be completed in the spring. The review has been asked to review the sex offences in common and statute law in England and Wales. These are primarily contained in the 144W
  Sexual Offences Acts 1956 and 1967, the Criminal Law Act 1977 and the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994. The review is also looking at the offences of indecent exposure (Vagrancy Act 1824; Town Police Clauses Act 1847); indecency with children (Indecency with Children Act 1960); burglary with intent to rape (Theft Act 1968) and the prohibition on sexual intercourse with patients in the Mental Health Act 1959.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has made of the number of asylum seekers whose applications for asylum were refused who(a) were removed from the United Kingdom as a result of enforcement action, (b) left the United Kingdom voluntarily after enforcement action had been initiated, (c) left the United Kingdom voluntarily otherwise than as a result of enforcement action and (d) absconded, in each of the last 10 years for which figures are available. [109213]

  Mrs. Roche
  The available information on asylum removals and voluntary departures is given in the table. As requested, the information provided relates only to enforcement action and therefore excludes removals and voluntary departures of port asylum applicants under port procedures. There are no estimates of the numbers of failed asylum seekers who depart voluntarily before enforcement action has been initiated.

  The latest figure for the number of known asylum absconders is 20,000. This is a snapshot, taken from the immigration and nationality directorate (IND) port and enforcement databases at the end of November 1998, of those persons (excluding dependants) who have applied for asylum at some point and who have breached the conditions of their temporary admission, temporary release or restriction order, or are otherwise found to be out of contact with IND. Some persons recorded as absconders may have left the United Kingdom without the knowledge of IND.

  Removals and voluntary departures1 of asylum applicants, excluding dependants, as a result of enforcement2 action, 1992–993

  Removed

  Departed voluntarily1

  Total

  1992

  4—

  4—

  390

  1993

  4—

  4—

  580

  1994

  700

  170

  870

  1995

  1,000

  290

  1,290

  1996

  1,720

  430

  2,150

  1997

  2,340

  710

  3,060

  1998

  2,720

  720

  3,440

  19993

  4—

  4—

  2,750

  1 Covers only those persons departing 'voluntarily' after enforcement action had been initiated.

  2 Deportation and illegal entry action. Does not include removals and voluntary departures of port asylum applicants under port procedures.

  3 1999 data are provisional.

  4 Data not available.

  Note:

  All figures are rounded to 10.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what his estimate is of the number of asylum seekers held in detention. [108878]
  145W
  Mrs. Roche
  A total of 985 persons were detained in immigration detention centres and prison establishments in the United Kingdom solely under Immigration Act powers on 31 December 1999. This figure is not recorded in such a way as to identify those who had applied for asylum at some point.

  The latest reliable snapshot of detained asylum seekers relates to those asylum applicants detained in immigration detention centres, prison establishments and police cells solely under Immigration Act powers as at 30 December 1998 for port applicants and 4 January 1999 for in-country applicants. On those dates, 741 such persons were recorded.

  Mr. Tynan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what funds will be made available to assist in the Asylum Seekers Dispersal Programme with regard to(a) recurring revenue and (b) capital costs to local authorities. [108877]

  Mrs. Roche
  In England and Wales for the period 1 April—5 December 1999, local authorities may recover costs associated with supporting asylum seekers subject to unit cost limits of £140 per week for single adults and £240 per week for families. In addition, local authorities may reclaim a maximum of £10 per week for capital investment to bring accommodation on-stream. Financial arrangements for the period 6 December 1999 to 31 March 2000 are still being discussed with the Local Government Association.

  In Scotland, local authorities will be able to reclaim at the rate of £165 per week per person in this financial year.

  Where local authorities provide accommodation after 1 April 2000 for the National Asylum Support Service, this will be on the basis of a contract between the Home Office and the local authority or local authority consortia concerned.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects the backlog of unprocessed asylum applications to be cleared. [109210]

  Mrs. Roche
  We remain committed to meeting the White Paper targets of clearing the backlog of asylum applications by April 2001.

  Bond Scheme
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will publish the responses to his Department's consultation document on the proposed financial bond scheme for visitors. [108882]

  Mrs. Roche
  Responses to the consultation document are now being considered, and we shall make available an analysis of them in due course.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate his Department has made of the cost of administering a financial bond scheme for visitors to the UK. [108881]

  Mrs. Roche
  The cost of the proposed pilot scheme will be absorbed within departmental budgets. The costs of operating any scheme subsequent to the pilot could not be assessed until a decision were taken on whether to make the scheme more widely available.
  146W
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will make a statement on the introduction of a bond scheme for visitors to the United Kingdom under sections 12 and 13 of the Asylum and Immigration Act 1999.[108883]

  Mrs. Roche
  We intend to make an announcement about the results of the consultation process on the design of a pilot study for financial bonds for visitors under sections 16 and 17 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 in due course.

  General Pinochet
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will place in the Library all correspondence between his officials and the legal representatives of General Pinochet. [108872]

  Mr. Straw
  I have placed in the Library a letter dated 24 January from a Home Office official to Senator Pinochet's legal representatives which was disclosed in the application brought by Belgium for permission to bring judicial proceedings against the Secretary of State. All the correspondence between my officials and Senator Pinochet's legal representatives which has been disclosed in the current judicial review proceedings is now available in the Library. I do not at present propose to make available any other correspondence.

  Community Safety
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on recent initiatives local authorities have taken to improve community safety. [107340]

  Mr. Boateng
  The Crime and Disorder Act 1998 requires local authorities, jointly with police, to lead local partnerships to tackle crime and disorder in their area. The strategies which the 357 partnerships in England and Wales have produced show clearly the wide range of initiatives being undertaken. Coventry City Council is to be congratulated on selection as a Beacon Council in the field of preventing crime and disorder in town and local shopping centres.

  Graffiti
  Mr. Edward Davey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will estimate the cost of graffiti to public and private property owners over the past four years; what plans he has to tackle the problem of graffiti on public and private property; and what recent guidance he has given to paint spray manufacturers and retailers concerning age limits on the sale of their products. [109249]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Graffiti is a form of criminal damage, which is recorded in the Home Office Statistical Bulletin—Notifiable Offences. According to the Recorded Crime Statistics covering England and Wales from October 1998 to September 1999, there were 908,585 offences of criminal damage. There is no sub-total for graffiti and it is not, therefore, possible to estimate the costs of graffiti over the past four years.

  The Government take all forms of criminal damage seriously. Under the Criminal Damage Act 1971, where the value of the damage is more than £2,000, the

  147W
  maximum penalty is ten years imprisonment for those over 18 and over, and up to two years detention in a Young Offender Institution for those aged 15–17.

  The Home Office recognise that the most effective way to tackle vandalism is through co-ordinated preventive action at the local level involving all of the relevant agencies, such as the police, local authorities and schools. That is why the police and local authorities now have a statutory duty under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 to develop crime reduction partnerships.

  Regarding guidance for paint spray manufactures and retailers, I understand the attraction of introducing a ban on the sale of aerosol paint. To introduce a blanket ban on the sale of aerosol paint, however, would penalise young people who have a legitimate reason for their purchase. Such a ban would prevent the determined graffiti "artists" from obtaining aerosol paint and continuing their criminal activity. Retailers should, as a matter of course, give consideration to whom they sell such products. There are no plans to issue guidance on this; nor do we have any present plans to legislate against the sale of spray paints. The matter will be kept under review.

  Asylum and Immigration
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will publish the text of the amendment to the motion considered by the House on 2 February 2000 which was approved by Ministers but not tabled, to which he referred in his oral statement of 2 February 2000,Official Report, column 1048. [109215]

  Mr. Straw
  The text of the amendment to the motion approved by Ministers but not tabled, read as follows:"That this House approves the Government's comprehensive, integrated strategy to modernise the immigration and asylum system to make it fairer, faster and firmer; notes the increase in asylum applications in the United Kingdom and other European countries as result of the war in Kosovo and instability in other countries; welcomes the provisions of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 which will overhaul the inadequate legislative framework created by the previous Government and replace the present chaotic asylum support arrangements which have imposed an intolerable burden on local authorities; notes with concern the conclusion of the Seventh Report of the Public Accounts Committee that the contract signed in 1996 to computerise the Immigration and Nationality Directorate was over-ambitious from the outset; welcomes the substantial additional investment that the Government is making to increase the volume and speed of asylum decisions; and supports the Government's commitment to protecting genuine refugees while dealing firmly with those who seek to evade the control".

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prosecutions there have been under section 8 of the Asylum and Immigration Act 1996 in each of the last three years; how many were successful; and what penalties were imposed in each case. [109211]

  Mrs. Roche
  Home Office administrative records show only one prosecution under section 8 of the Asylum and Immigration Act 1996, in 1999. A company was found guilty on nine counts, fined £500 on each count and ordered to pay costs.

  Immigration Delays
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he intends to give formal notice to the Department of Social Security that Mrs. B (HO Ref:- B148W
  1009308) has been given exceptional leave to remain; why this was not done in July 1999; what were the reasons for the delay between July and late December 1999; what steps were taken following representations by the hon. Member for Manchester, Central; and what the reasons were for the further delay in taking action since December. [108600]

  Mrs. Roche
  After my hon. Friend was informed on 26 July 1999 of the decision to grant exceptional leave to enter to Mrs. B and her children, their papers were prepared and sent to the port for service. However, due to an administrative error the names on their papers were incorrect so they were returned for amendment. The file was then unfortunately put into a large queue and not considered until quite recently.

  Mrs. B was notified on 7 February that she and her children have now been granted exceptional leave to enter. She should show these papers to the Department of Social Security when she applies for benefits. I am sorry for the delay in dealing with her case.

  Drugs (Prisons)
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many reports on prisons were made by the Prisons Inspectorate in each of the past two years indicating those which mentioned the(a) use and (b) supply of illegal drugs. [107928]

  Mr. Boateng
  Between 1 February 1998 and 31 January 2000, the Chief Inspector of Prisons published 76 inspection reports on Prison Service establishments. Of these, 41 were announced and 35 were unannounced. Of the 35 unannounced, five were full inspections and 30 were short. To provide the detailed information on drugs requested would entail disproportionate cost. However, it is likely that all the announced and full unannounced reports will have mentioned the use of drugs, as will some of the short unannounced reports. References to the supply of drugs would require line by line scrutiny of each report.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if any prison establishment has been closed because of illegal drugs use. [107930]

  Mr. Boateng
  No.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will estimate the proportion of prisoners known to have taken illegal drugs who could only have taken the drugs while in prison. [107931]

  Mr. Boateng
  In 1999, 84,911 mandatory drug tests were undertaken, and some 17,789 of those tests were positive for drugs. This figure includes results from both random and targeted tests. Provisional information indicates that, during 1999, there were 15,857 recorded offences of "unauthorised use of a controlled drug", of which 13,409 were recorded as being proven at adjudication and punished under Prison Rules.

  Driving Licences
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 27 January 2000,Official Report, column 278W, on driving licences (a) what confirmation of details for the purposes of a driving licence application the Immigration and Nationality Department is prepared to offer those whose cases have yet to be finalised by them and (b) how long on average it took the

  149W
  Immigration and Nationality Department to issue such information of details in response to (i) a written request and (ii) a telephone request in the last 12 months for which figures are available. [108068]

  Mrs. Roche
  Further to the answer I gave on 31 January 1999 to my hon. Friend, as the Immigration and Nationality Directorate is not the issuing authority of an applicant's identity document, they are not in a position to offer any confirmation of their proof of identity.

  CCTV
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will take steps to promote the use of CCTV in car parks to increase safety and reduce theft; and if he will make a statement. [R] [108383]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Under the Crime Reduction Programme Closed Circuit Television (CCTV) Initiative, the Government are investing £153 million over three years in public area CCTV systems in England and Wales. We have already allocated £32 million for 180 car park related schemes under the first round of the initiative.

  The second round of the initiative will be launched in the spring. We will continue to encourage applications aimed at reducing theft in car parks, particularly where CCTV is being introduced as part of a package of measures to achieve Secured Car Park status.

  Car Theft
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent representations he has received on reducing car theft; and if he will make a statement.[R] [108384]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  We have received 110 comments in response to the report of the Vehicle Crime Reduction Action Team (VCRAT) published in September 1999 setting out measures to achieve the Government's 30 per cent, vehicle crime reduction target. All but two of the comments referred specifically to the VCRAT proposal for the compulsory fitting of electronic immobilisers to seven to 10-year-old cars and most of these were opposed to the proposal. Two comments were received on the question of compulsory carriage of driving licenses (one for and one against). In addition, two of the comments covered wider issues including the role of the courts, motor projects, the insurance industry, crime and disorder partnerships, legislative protection of marks on vehicle component parts, retention of motor salvage, motorcycle theft and the possibility of reducing the rate of Value Added Tax on vehicle security products.

  Police Pensions
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proportion of police funding was spent on pensions for each of the last 10 years for which figures are available; and what estimate he has made of the proportion to be so spent in each of the next 10 years.[109214]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The information available is set out in the table. Information on police pension costs as a proportion of police funding is not available beyond 2001–02.
  150W

  Percentage

  Year

  Proportion spent on pension costs1

  1990–91

  7.2

  1991–92

  7.7

  1992–93

  8.2

  1993–94

  9.2

  1994–95

  10.0

  1995–96

  10.8

  1996–97

  11.3

  1997–98

  11.9

  1998–99

  12.6

  1999–2000

  13.8

  2000–01

  14.1

  2001–02

  14.8

  1 Information from 1990–91 to 1998–99 taken from the Chartered Institute of Public Finance Accounts Police Statistics. Information from 1999–2000 to 2001–02 taken from Government Actuary's Department Projections of pension costs as a proportion of Total Standard Spending.

  Wheel Clamping
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received on changing the law in England and Wales to ban wheel clamping on private land; and if he will make a statement. [R][108385]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  We regularly receive representations from members of the public, right hon. and hon. Members, and others about wheel clamping on private land, but the majority are in favour of regulating, not banning, the practice.

  Race Relations
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent discussions he has had with chief officers of police regarding his proposals to amend the Race Relations (Amendment) Bill to make public authorities subject to legislation forbidding indirect discrimination. [109212]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The Commission for Racial Equality's Third Review of the Race Relations Act 1976 recommended, among other things, that the Act apply to all activities of Government and to all public sector bodies. The Association of Chief Officers of Police responded positively to this recommendation, as part of the Government's public consultation on the Commission's proposals, indicating support for it. The Association reiterated that support in March 1999 in the context of the recommendation in the Report of the Inquiry into the Death of Stephen Lawrence that the full force of the Race Relations legislation should apply to the police.

  The Government had initial concerns that including indirect discrimination in the Race Relations (Amendment) Bill might leave public bodies open to routine legal challenges to regulatory, economic and social policies in circumstances where these were entirely proper, in particular those that helped ethnic minorities the most. On balance, however, the Government concluded having listened carefully to the arguments put forward about this issue in Parliament and elsewhere that the risk of spurious challenge is outweighed by the principle of including indirect discrimination in respect of public sector functions in the Bill. No further formal public consultation was conducted.

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

Message from the Queen
Lord Carter: My Lords, I have the honour to present to your Lordships a message from Her Majesty the Queen signed by her own hand. The message is as follows:
"I have received your address and, relying on the wisdom of my Parliament, I desire that my prerogative, in so far as it relates to the selection of names for life peerages, should not stand in the way of the consideration by Parliament during the present Session of any measure providing for the establishment of a commission to make proposals for the conferment of life peerages under the Life Peerages Act 1958."

NHS Funding
2.37 p.m.
Lord Clement-Jonesasked Her Majesty's Government:
When they propose to raise the United Kingdom's ratio of health spending to gross domestic product to the European Union average, and how.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath): My Lords, the Government have already provided substantial extra investment for the National Health Service. As my right honourable friend the Prime Minister has said, we are entirely confident that we will be able to sustain those increases in funding over time and match the European Union average as a proportion of gross domestic product devoted to healthcare.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that clarification. It is similar to the formula he used in the debate last week. However, it is clear that a real annual expenditure rise of 5 per cent committed to, or aspired to, by the Prime Minister will not hit the European average of health spending in six years. What will the Government now do? Will they admit that the Prime Minister got his arithmetic wrong and that a great deal more money is needed? Will they continue to pull the wool over the public's eyes? Alternatively, will they take a principled stance, forgo the 1p cut in income tax in April, and spend the money on the health service?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the answer is none of those. We have made it clear that we are
506
committed to modernising the National Health Service. Historically, the NHS has had around 3 per cent growth per year. However, that has not been consistent. The figure has been up and down— boom and bust. As a result, there has been no long-term planning. In the current comprehensive spending review we have made a quantum leap to around 5 per cent in real growth. That is a measure of our commitment to funding the NHS and our determination to modernise it.
Earl Howe: My Lords, the crude average of European health spending is around 8 per cent. The weighted average, allowing for sizes of population in each European Union member state, is around 8.6 per cent. Which target are the Government aiming for?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I understand that in 1997 the EU total average healthcare expenditure as a percentage of GDP was 8 per cent. I repeat what I said and my right honourable friend the Prime Minister explained. Resources for the NHS will be matched by a determination to modernise the health service. He also made clear that levels of public spending are dependent on economic performance. However, as he said in another place on 19th January, if we continue to manage the economy properly we shall be able as a nation to afford to get in these real term increases which will over time bring us up to the EU average.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, what has the Treasury informed the Department of Health about the sustainable rate of growth over the next five years?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I cannot tell my noble friend that because I am not party to those discussions.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, does the Minister accept that the 8 per cent is a simple mathematical average which treats Luxembourg as being the same size as Germany? If the average is weighted for population, the correct average is 8.6 per cent and not 8 per cent.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, that is one of a number of explanations written by economists and others. So far none has agreed with the other. Many factors come into play when considering these matters: rate of growth in GDP; and spending on health and changes in spending on health in other countries. What is not in doubt is our commitment to the NHS, its sustainability and the necessary funding of the service.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I have listened to the Minister. However, the Question asks whether the Government propose to raise the ratio of health spending to the European ratio. What is the answer: yes or no?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I repeat what my right honourable friend the Prime Minister said to

507
the House of Commons on 19th January. If we continue to manage the economy properly we will as a nation be able to afford to get in these real term increases which will over time bring us up to the EU average. The noble Lord tempts me to comment on details of discussions within the comprehensive spending review which are taking place at present. He knows that I cannot do that.
Lord Rotherwick: My Lords, recently it has been stated that in their modernisation of the NHS, the Government have seen the benefits of community hospitals. When increasing the budget for the NHS, will the Government find more funds for reopening those community hospitals that they have now closed?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I cannot comment on specific hospitals. However, the noble Lord will recall the speech made last week by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State in which he acknowledged the role of intermediate care and the problems of people inappropriately placed in medical wards within our hospitals. Shortly we shall be publishing the results of the national beds inquiry. We shall address those issues in response to that inquiry.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that in order to provide adequate expenditure on the health service—in accordance with what the Prime Minister originally indicated—it will be necessary to revise the priorities of expenditure in the economy as a whole? However, does he further agree that these matters remain in the hands of the Treasury, who have made their view quite clear, requiring little elaboration beyond the necessity for a revision of priorities?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: No, my Lords, I believe that this Government's commitment to the National Health Service is absolutely clear. We have indicated our commitment and given visible demonstration of it by the record resources we are currently putting into the health service. We shall continue to sustain the National Health Service.
Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne: My Lords, while accepting that we are paying for two decades of underfunding by the previous government, does the noble Lord nonetheless feel comfortable with the fact that German executives working in the City of London have automatic clauses in their contracts stating that if they fall ill while in the United Kingdom they will immediately return to their country of origin? How soon can that situation be corrected?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the noble Baroness is quite right to speak of the gross underfunding of the health service during the period of the last government's administration. However, we should note that the Opposition's answer at the moment is to put their trust in private health insurance. I am sure that the British people will put
508
their trust in this Government to sustain the NHS, to provide the resources it requires and to ensure that a first-class quality service is delivered.
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Jay of Padddington): My Lords, the clock shows that we are eight minutes into Question Time. I am perfectly happy to continue with this Question if the noble Lord, Lord Hurd of Westwell, is happy to have the time spent on his Question constrained.
Lord Hurd of Westwell: My Lords, I believe that the whole House is eager to hear the noble Lord, Lord Winston.
Lord Winston: My Lords, my question is simple and, I believe, can be answered with a "yes" or "no". Is it the impression of my noble friend that the efficiency of our proportion of GDP spending on the health service is every bit as great as it is in the rest of Europe?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, my noble friend raises an important question. The fact is that the NHS is an extremely efficient system of healthcare. In comparison with social insurance systems in other countries, we find that they spend much more of their resources on bureaucracy and administration. The cumulative effect of that places great burdens on, for example, German and French employers. In effect, those systems have become a tax on jobs. We have a good system in the NHS. We should sustain and support it.

Kosovo: Police and Courts System
2.47 p.m.
Lord Hurd of Westwellasked Her Majesty's Government:
What contribution they are making to the establishment of an effective police force and court system in Kosovo.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Scotland of Asthal): My Lords, we provide 60 officers from the Royal Ulster Constabulary to the international police force in Kosovo. Thirty-one British police officers are at the OSCE-run Kosovo police school, training the future local police force. Furthermore, we are increasing our contingent of police trainers to 40 officers.
The establishment of an effective justice system in Kosovo is crucial. The UN Mission in Kosovo has changed the basis of applicable law to that which applied in 1989, before Milosevic removed Kosovo's autonomy. This will help recruit local judges and prosecutors, of which 130 were appointed last month alone.
Lord Hurd of Westwell: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that reply. However, is it true that, eight

509
months after the Kosovo war, member states have provided the United Nations with less than half of the 4,000 police officers who are required? The result of that failure has been murder and disorder occurring day after day under the noses of our troops. While I understand the difficulties of language and legal codes, does the Minister agree that if we are to be involved in this in any way, we should do the job properly? Does that not mean that we should equip the UN or the European Union to provide, in these cases of failed states, police officers, magistrates and other administrators to help rebuild civil societies?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, the noble Lord will know that the 4,700 estimate was a re-estimate and was not the original figure adopted. The reassessment took place because the needs of Kosovo were seen to be more acute. The international community is addressing that issue with vigour. The noble Lord is right to say that it is a matter of concern. However, the UK contribution—which, as I have just said, has been increased—is a significant one. The 60 police officers recruited from the RUC to the international police force are proving to be very sensitive and effective in their operations. Of course we appreciate that this matter needs further close attention and we are giving it just that.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, is the Minister aware that today Dr Bernard Kouchner, the head of UNMIK, the civil mission to Kosovo, said that his budget is totally bankrupt, that he is unable to pay civil servants, including those training police officers, that 102 million dollars is needed immediately, that that is less than the cost of sending one brigade to Kosovo, and that, having won the war, we are now in very grave danger of losing the peace?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, of course, we are aware of the difficulties with which Kosovo is faced. I believe that it is important for me to remind the House of the contribution which we have already made. As the noble Baroness will know, we have 3,500 troops in KFOR and command of the KFOR sector which covers central Kosovo. We have deployed the 60 RUC officers, whom I have just mentioned. In addition, in terms of bilateral aid, we gave over £90 million in response to the Kosovo crisis in 1999: £40 million was spent during the refugee crisis; £50 million since the conflict ended has been spent on de-mining, budgetary support for the UN mission, emergency infrastructure, power, water repair, etc; and the UK has indicated that it is prepared to spend up to £30 million this year. We have made significant contributions bilaterally. As the noble Baroness and other Members of your Lordships' House will know, we are making considerable contributions also to the EU contribution generally. We are aware that there is a need, and Europe is moving together to meet that need so that we shall, in fact, win the peace as well as the war.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, will the noble Baroness try to ensure that the expertise of the RUC officers whom
510
she mentioned is used at the interface between one community and another, because that is an area as regards which they are very skilled? Will she seek also to have urgent investigations carried out of recent reports of trafficking in women, mostly from other eastern European countries passing through Kosovo?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I understand entirely the point made by the noble Lord. We are doing all that we can to address the civil issues in Kosovo. The OSCE-run police school in Kosovo is training a local police force and the students come from all ethnic backgrounds. The training is extensive and covers crime investigation, defence tactics, democratic policing, respect for the rule of law, legal affairs, police patrol duties, use of firearms and general police skills. The objective is to train and deploy police officers who understand democratic values, respect human rights, protect lives and property, and ensure delivery of effective law enforcement services within Kosovo. We are determined to help to ensure that officers on the ground have the skills to police effectively what is a very sensitive and difficult area.
Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate: My Lords, I read recently of the work and contribution made by the Royal Ulster Constabulary officers who are on secondment to Kosovo. Bearing in mind the unfortunately great experience that they have in policing this type of situation, will the Minister agree that they should be commended for their contribution, taking into account that they are volunteers?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I agree wholeheartedly with that statement. Those officers are making a most valuable contribution, not only in the policing that they carry out, but in the assistance that they give to others. One must appreciate the sensitivity that is needed when dealing with a situation of conflict within a tight framework and on the border of a country which has always been in difficulties on cultural issues.

Asylum Applications
2.53 p.m.
Lord Rentonasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether, given that in 1999 the backlog of asylum seekers, excluding dependants, rose above 100,000 for the first time, they will curtail the rights of asylum seekers to enter and remain in the United Kingdom.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Bassam of Brighton): My Lords, this Government will continue to honour their obligation under the 1951 UN convention relating to the status of refugees to consider all applications for asylum made in the United Kingdom or at our ports. However, we are taking tough measures to curb abuse of the asylum process. The Immigration and Asylum Act 1999

511
introduces fundamental changes, including measures to discourage unfounded asylum applications, while continuing to provide protection for those who need it.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that reply and acknowledge the attempt that the Government have tried to make in order to deal with this difficult matter. However, as our enlightened asylum policy has been abused over the years by economic migrants and others, causing the backlog to be doubled during the time that this Government have been in power and causing great trouble and expense to local authorities and, indeed, to the Government, has not the time come for the Government to tell the world that we shall no longer tolerate the abuse of our asylum policy?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I cannot possibly agree with that. That would place the United Kingdom in breach of our international obligations. Like most other European countries, we are experiencing increases in asylum applications. We are taking firm measures to deal with those and I believe that we are widely respected for having done that.
Lord Northbourne: My Lords, is the Minister aware of the serious problems for the county of Kent caused by persons arriving at Dover and claiming asylum? Bearing in mind that this is a national problem, should not the Government be doing more to assist the county of Kent?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, we have been working closely with Kent County Council. We have been working extremely closely with the Local Government Association, to which we are indebted for the steps that it has taken to arrange for a voluntary dispersal programme in advance of our legislation coming into place. When the legislation is in place in the spring of this year, the new measures that we have introduced will enable us to carry out an orderly dispersal programme across the United Kingdom. I believe that to be in everyone's best interest.
Lord Merlyn-Rees: My Lords, will my noble friend provide comparable figures for all the countries of the European Union so that we can see to what degree there is a common problem? Does he agree that the suggestion made by the noble Lord in his Question will appeal very much to Herr Haider of Austria?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, those figures exist. Asylum applications in the United Kingdom last year were 71,000. I can tell the noble Lord that in Germany there were 95,000; in France, 30,000; in the Netherlands, 39,000; and in Belgium, 35,000. Our problems are shared by other countries across the European Union. Last year, in Belgium there was a 63 per cent increase in asylum applicants; in Hungary, 55 per cent; in Austria, 46 per cent; and in France, 34 per cent. I hope that that is a
512
comprehensive reply which puts in context the fact that we in the United Kingdom experience problems that other countries in the EC also experience.
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that a substantial part of that backlog was inherited from the previous administration; that we shall continue to honour our obligation under the UN convention on the rights of refugees and not play this numbers game; and that we should honour our obligation to admit genuine asylum seekers as part of our civilised and humanitarian values?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, we should continue to honour our international obligations. I believe that it is worth placing on record that the Government inherited nothing short of a shambles. Members opposite may not like this, but in 1996 they laid plans to reduce the number of staff in the Immigration and Nationality Directorate that would have left us short of people to process applications. That, and problems relating to inadequate technology, placed the present Government in a difficult situation—one that we inherited.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, perhaps I may say, first, that in 1996 there were 29,000 applications, and 39,000 decisions were made by the authorities on asylum cases. That compares with 71,000 applications and 32,000 decisions—a drop—made in the last year. That is why the backlog has increased to over 100,000. Will the Minister tell us how many of those who were refused asylum last year have left the country?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, last year we achieved the highest number of removals—7,650. That compares with figures in the early 1990s of 1,350, 1,820 and 2,200. We inherited the problem. Staff numbers were due to reduce under the previous government. The computerised system was a shambles. We are now tackling the backlog.
Baroness Whitaker: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that the United Kingdom receives far fewer applications for asylum per head of population than many other European Union countries?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am happy to confirm that the figures produced by the United Nations High Commission for Refugees confirm exactly that.
Lord Rotherwick: My Lords, in the light of the fact that 7,000 people have been sent home, will the Minister confirm that in the same year the Government tried to send home 20,000 people, of whom at least 13,000 escaped and went underground?

513
Is it not also true that every day in the past 1,000 days of this Government 50 more asylum seekers have been waiting for their cases to be heard?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, we have been given an interesting lesson in fictional statistics.
Noble Lords: Next Question!
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I know that there is some concern about how rigorously we apply the time limit on Questions. We have allowed as much time on this Question as we did on the first. Given the interest in the fourth Question, I believe that we should move on to it.

Public Lending Right Funding
3.2 p.m.
Baroness Rendell of Baberghasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are considering the case for increased public lending right funding which was submitted to them by the Public Lending Right Advisory Committee.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Government greatly value the public lending right scheme as a way of supporting both free access to books from libraries and the production of literature. Following the advisory committee's review of the scheme, the Government undertook a consultation exercise on the committee's principal recommendations and are now considering the case for an increase in funding as part of its spending review 2000.
Baroness Rendell of Babergh: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend the Minister for that encouraging reply. I declare an interest as a recipient from the fund and a member of the Society of Authors. Will he agree that the number of author beneficiaries from the fund has almost trebled since payments began and that a majority of authors look to the fund to augment the low incomes that they derive from writing? Will he also agree that far from primarily benefiting best-selling authors, an upper limit per author is set at £6,000 a year, ensuring that the public lending right is widely spread and that £0.5 million is distributed to poorer writers?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the public lending right scheme is not only good in its design, but it is also well administered. The administration costs of carrying out the sampling procedures are low and have been declining. The problem is that, until this Government came into office and until our Comprehensive Spending Review, both the total amount of funding to the public lending right scheme and the payment to authors per book loan was static in cash terms. Our last Comprehensive Spending Review succeeded in increasing that. As I have said, we are
514
now considering the case that my noble friend and others have made for an increase in the current spending review.
Viscount Falkland: My Lords, can the Minister give the House some statistics—I know that is a speciality of his—on how remuneration to authors compares with remuneration to any other section of society?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I suspect that that is an "unknowable" statistic in the sense that we do not have the power to interrogate the Inland Revenue on individual taxpayers' affairs. In general, my understanding is that authors are badly paid. Perhaps text book authors are not, but certainly authors of literature who benefit from the public lending right scheme are badly paid. The average annual payment to authors is £241, which will not make a huge difference to wealth or poverty.
Baroness James of Holland Park: My Lords, I declare an interest as President of the Society of Authors. Will the Minister accept that the public lending right is precisely that, a right and not a charitable subvention from taxpayers, and that the funding in real terms is now £1.7 million below where it stood 20 years ago? While I welcome the reply that the Minister gave to the noble Baroness, Lady Rendell, can we please be assured that the level of funding will be reviewed annually with a view to preventing future injustice, particularly to poorer writers who depend on borrowings from libraries as the main source of their income?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I believe I have made clear already my sympathy with the case made by the Society of Authors. I accept the figures that that society has put forward. We can do better than review the figures annually. As a result of the Comprehensive Spending Review we have given the figures for three years ahead. Everybody will agree that that is an improvement. This is clearly a candidate in the current spending review round, but it is one candidate among others and DCMS is one department among others.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, in considering this matter, will the Government take account of the fact that in this country more books are borrowed and fewer books are bought than in many other countries? We have a higher proportion of borrowing than most countries. In those circumstances, the average income per book is probably much lower in this country than in others. Totals on this issue could be deceiving. If the Government look at the matter from the point of view of income per author, I believe that they will find that a substantial increase is needed in input in order to bring about fairness between one author and another throughout the area where the scheme operates.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I believe that we have a higher level of loans from public libraries than do many other European countries.

515
However, I am unsure whether we also have a lower level of book purchase. I am not convinced that that is the case. Certainly the amounts of money that we are talking about—subvention by the taxpayers of scarcely more than £5 million a year—are not large.

Business of the House: Northern Ireland Bill
3.8 p.m.
Lord Carter: My Lords, it may be convenient for the House to know that we expect a Northern Ireland Bill to be brought from another place later this evening. Assuming that such a Bill is received in this House, the usual channels have agreed that the Second Reading of the Bill will be taken as first business tomorrow and the remaining stages will be taken as first business on Thursday. The Bill is already published and available in the Printed Paper Office and the Public Bill Office where they will receive amendments in advance of Second Reading.

Representation of the People Bill
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That it be an instruction to the Committee of the Whole House to whom the Representation of the People Bill has been committed that they consider the Bill in the following order:

Clauses 1 to 8,

Schedules 1 to 3,

Clauses 9 to 12,

Schedule 4,

Clauses 13 to 16,

Schedules 5 and 6.—(Lord Bassam of Brighton.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Comhairle nan Eilean Siar (Eriskay Causeway) Order Confirmation Bill
Considered on Report.

Learning and Skills Bill [H.L.]
3.10 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department for Education and Employment (Baroness Blackstone): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Baroness Blackstone.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [The Council]:
Lord Tope Lord Tope moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 8, leave out subsection (1) and insert—
("(1) There shall be nine bodies corporate called Regional Learning and Skills Councils.").
The noble Lord said: At Second Reading my noble friend Lady Sharp and I gave a broad welcome to the Bill, which I am happy to repeat. We also said that we had some serious concerns about the Bill. This first amendment, and the other amendments grouped with it, seek to address those concerns and to suggest some improvement.
Our principal concern was that the structure being proposed in the Bill is centralising and unnecessarily complex. Above all, there is a huge democratic deficit at the heart of the Bill. The Bill proposes the establishment of a national learning and skills council, together with 47 local learning and skills councils. The term "local" is something of a misnomer because in reality they are sub-regional rather than what I would understand to be local. It is still far from clear to me how these so-called "local" learning and skills councils will relate to the relatively new regional development agencies; how they will relate to the local education authorities in their areas; and, above all, how they will relate to the lifelong learning partnerships in those areas. I name only a few of the bodies which will continue if and when the Bill is enacted and do not mention any that will be discontinued. There are many others.
Perhaps I may turn to a particular interest of mine, which is the relationship between the local learning and skills councils and the lifelong learning partnerships, which I continue to be unsure about. However, I am sure that when the Minister replies she will have another attempt to help me with this. I have looked at the policy statement from the DfEE on the role of learning partnerships. It states:
"Learning, Partnerships and local LSCs will be distinct but complementary. The local LSCs will cover relatively large areas and their work will need to be informed by an understanding of local labour market needs. Learning Partnerships are ideally placed to provide that understanding".
I then look to my own local area in south London. The area of our recently created lifelong learning partnership covers the London boroughs of Richmond upon Thames, Kingston upon Thames, Merton, Croydon, Bromley and my own borough of Sutton. That is exactly the same area as is proposed for our local learning and skills council. Why cannot the role of the two bodies be combined in one? Why are we creating this unnecessarily complex structure? I am all in favour of coterminosity, but this does seem to be rather extreme.
Perhaps I may turn now to the democratic deficit. The Bill creates another 48 quangos. It proposes that approximately 700 people be appointed to those quangos; none of them elected, most of them not even appointed by any elected body. In total the body will be responsible for in the region of £6 billion of public money and will have considerable powers, most of which are yet to be decided by the Secretary of State. Yet there is to be no democratic accountability at all.

517
All that comes from a party which I had always understood to be opposed to quangos; or perhaps, as I sometimes suspected, their concern was more about who was being appointed to quangos under the previous government rather then the existence of those quangos.
I have an anxiety about democratic accountability. I want to be clear that I am not trying to thrust on an anxious public the task of going out each year and electing their local learning and skills councillor. I suspect I know what the turnout would be in any such election. The issue of accountability is important. In saying that, I compare and contrast the local authorities and the health authorities. Local authorities are accountable locally, perhaps imperfectly. We are trying to improve that. As the leader of a local authority, I have to stand up before the local population and be accountable for what my authority says and does.
Health authorities are accountable primarily to the Secretary of State. They look to him for their accountability, their funding and all resources. I have seen so often in a local context that that lack of democratic accountability makes a big difference. I worry that we are setting up a whole new "quangocracy" which will similarly look in the wrong direction. One of the most important roles of further education is its role and purpose in the local community. We should be strengthening that and not weakening it, as I believe the Bill does.
I now turn to the amendments and the proposals from the Liberal Democrat Benches. Perhaps I may say at the start that I recognise that the amendments are not perfect. We have to start from what we have and from where we are, not from what we want and where we would like to be. Ideally, we would like to see elected regional assemblies in England with the learning and skill councils, or whatever names they are given, firmly within that democratic structure. This is very similar to what the Bill proposes for Wales, where the members of the single council in Wales will be appointed by the Welsh Assembly. As I said, we start from where we are rather than from where we would like to be. That is why in these amendments we are proposing a simple structure of nine regional learning and skill councils, based on the government regions, as part of, and working with, each of the regional development agencies. Those regional bodies would have a clear relationship with the lifelong learning partnerships and, crucially, with local education authorities in their area. Instead of around 700 quango members we would have between 100 and 150.
We have thought about the appointment of those members. Ideally we would like them to be appointed by an elected regional assembly. Such bodies do not yet exist. We will have to await the election of a Liberal Democrat government before we can achieve that. In the meantime we have to propose that they are appointed by the Secretary of State, who is at least somewhat democratically accountable, if only at a distance and some what imperfectly. Also, we say that
518
before those appointments are made there should be full and close consultation with the RDAs, the local authorities and other interested bodies.
Finally, Amendment No. 101 gives to the local authorities the functions and the guidance which is suggested for the local LSCs, as proposed in Clauses 20 and 21.
In moving this amendment I recognise that our proposals are not perfect, not least because we do not yet live in a perfect world. But they do have the considerable benefit of being clear and straightforward; avoid duplication and they reduce bureaucracy. They also have some element of democratic accountability. I commend them to the Government. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: I rise not specifically to support the amendments, but to say to the noble Baroness that many of the arguments employed by the noble Lord, Lord Tope, in moving this amendment have great force. The democratic deficit in the Bill is colossal. There is a big hole. How that is filled will be a matter of debate as we go through the Bill. But I want to support very strongly that this is a top-down arrangement; it is a bureaucratic superstructure, and some of my amendments later will be bringing out those points in more detail.
It will be interesting to hear the response of the noble Baroness to the noble Lord, Lord Tope. I should like her to think of his argument in two parts: first, the amendment tabled by the noble Lord; secondly, the fundamental points he made in moving his amendment.
Baroness Blackstone: First, it would be wrong for me to anticipate later amendments in the Committee stage of this Bill. If I were to do so we would have the same debate many times over so I shall leave those issues until later.
I am a little sorry that we are starting this afternoon with a series of what are in effect wrecking amendments. They go to the heart of the Bill and destroy what the Government are proposing.
The Bill represents the foundation for a framework to help us identify our needs as a nation—I emphasise "as a nation"—for learning and skills development and to create an organisation fit to ensure that those needs are met. Important work in that area is already well in hand. For example, the National Skills Task Force identified crucial areas for improvement in basic and key skills, in intermediate technical and supervisory skills and in IT. The LSC, as a single organisation with a comprehensive remit to plan and fund post-16 learning provision across the board, will take forward that challenge.
The noble Lord, Lord Tope, supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, suggested that what has been created is 48 quangos; a top-down approach. But it is extraordinary that neither the noble Lord nor the noble Baroness seems to be aware of the fact that we are abolishing more quangos than we are creating. We are abolishing over 70 TECs in order to create a more

519
coherent and sensible structure for the delivery of learning skills. We are abolishing the Further Education Funding Council and its regional committees to do the same. In doing that, we are saving £50 million and a lot of unnecessary bureaucracy.
It is surprising that the noble Baroness should make such an issue of quangos when it was her government that created the TECs in the first instance, created the Further Education Funding Council and its regional committees; and took further education out of local education authority control. It is surprising, therefore, to hear the noble Baroness, who was a minister in that government, arguing about the democratic deficit.
The amendments would remove the LSC's capacity to tackle those issues on a national basis. In providing for nine separate regional councils they would increase the number of NDPBs significantly, and so require the continuous re-inventing of wheels as the separate regional councils strive independently of each other—or indeed worse, in competition with each other—to identify ways of tackling common problems. That cannot make sense.
We will turn at a later point to amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Tope, and others in relation to the co-ordination of the five local LSCs which will serve London. That concern is understandable, though our solution of a non-statutory co-ordinating body is vastly more appropriate. It is surprising here, then, to find that the noble Lord has no such concern about the co-ordination, or lack of it, between the nine regional NDPBs which he proposes should serve England.
The arrangements we are proposing contain a significant regional dimension—I must emphasise that because it is important—with an influential role for RDAs and the regional skills strategies provided for in the Bill. In contrast, the noble Lord's amendments go much too far and would sweep away the significant benefits which will accrue from the more coherent national arrangements that we envisage.
The noble Lord referred to the perfect world of the Liberal Democratic Party with elected regional assemblies which would make the appointments. We do not have elected regional assemblies so I feel that that is a little bit of Liberal Democrat wishful thinking.
Our proposals also provide for local learning and skills councils with wide representation from outstanding local individuals with relevant expertise to ensure that government-supported learning meets the needs of individuals, businesses and their communities at a local level. The noble Lord's alternative to those proposals for local arms of a single integrated organisation appears to be secured in Amendments Nos. 101 and 144. The noble Lord proposes that there should be provision for his nine regional NDPBs to delegate their powers to local authorities and that, if the local authorities then fail to secure the agreed learning provision, they would be open to direction from the Secretary of State.
520
It is far from clear that local authorities are best placed or would wish to deliver the full range of the LSCs' functions. Quite a lot has happened over the past decade to alter the role of local authorities in this area of education. Nor is it clear which organisation would do so if regional councils decided not to use local authorities. Local authorities already have a dual role in the new arrangements that this Bill will secure as key providers of adult and community learning in particular, and as bodies which have a vital strategic role to play in furthering the social and economic interests of their communities. Our arrangements reflect that dual role. Clauses 22 and 23 provide, as part of preparing their plans, how local LSCs will set out the provision which LEAs will be expected to secure and the resources to be made available for it. We are confident that local authorities will respond positively to those arrangements and prosper in this new learning environment. That is why we are guaranteeing two years of funding levels comparable to LEAs' current level of spend, provided that they maintain this level of spend and that they draw up and implement their lifelong learning plan.
I have already set out the Government's fundamental concerns in relation to the earlier amendments in this group. We must resist the later ones for the same reason. The noble Lord is proposing an inferior model to that being put forward by the Government, and I hope therefore that he will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Blatch: Before the Minister sits down, the noble Baroness referred yet again quite specifically to £50 million worth of savings. Can she say how that has been arrived at? Can she give some estimate of the cost of putting into place the new ConneXions proposals contained within the new document? Also, can she throw some light on the fact that in the Financial Memorandum the Government say that it is not yet possible to provide details of the resources that could be made available for powers to provide services for use? The Government also say that it is not yet possible to provide an accurate estimate of what may be needed for the extension of Ofsted duties and that the expenditure required for the setting up of the new adult learning inspectorate and the transformation as regards the FEFC will not rise substantially. They have also said that it is too early to provide an accurate estimate of the extent of the transitional costs of putting in place the new arrangements for the Welsh authority. How can the Government be so specific therefore about saving £50 million?
Lord Hylton: At the same time, will the Minister reply on the issue of democratic accountability which was so forcefully raised by the first two speakers?
Lord McCarthy: Perhaps when the noble Lord, Lord Tope, responds, he will tell us what is meant by the "democratic deficit". As far as I can see from looking at the amendments—I may have got it wrong—nobody is proposing direct elections. What sort of democratic influx is there to be? For example,

521
are we to take it from the Opposition that direct elections or elections of some kind are now the Conservative Party's policy? They never were in the past. They were all quangos. They were formed and then abolished, but they were never democratic. Can we be told in what sense they are to be democratic, which ones are to be democratic and how they are to be elected?
3.30 p.m.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: Can the noble Baroness also say why it is assumed that it is at the national level that the strategic over-view is required? In Germany and the United States the concept of strategy takes place at a much lower level. In Germany it is at the Länder level. Even here in the United Kingdom, Wales and Scotland have their own models. We had a national model before called the Manpower Services Commission. It was a pretty disastrous model. One reason why it was decentralised down to the TECS was to try to emulate the German model at a more local level. I do not believe that the TECS have been perfect.
One of the problems we now have is that the Government have created a hybrid in the local learning and skills councils. They are neither at the strategic regional level, such as the regional development agencies, nor at the local executive level for local authorities to which we are looking to perform many of the functions of this council. We have here a hybrid stuck between the two. I understand what the Government want to do, but the model has been tried and it failed. I do not understand why the Government reject the regional model which implicitly we are operating in Scotland and Wales. If we tried, we could operate it in England as well.
Baroness Blatch: Perhaps I may return to the specific question of the democratic deficit. I and our colleagues on the Liberal Democrat Benches have amendments to key into the process local authority representation. That will go some way towards getting some local input into this matter. The other point which disturbs us concerns the top-down approach. The directions will come from the Secretary of State to the national council and then cascade down to the local councils. Then local education authorities and local authorities will have to produce plans in conformity with the instructions that came from the top. That is not a bottom-up system, but very much a top-down one without any democratic representation at all.
Baroness Blackstone: I indicated at the beginning of Committee stage this afternoon that I believed that we should try to be orderly and not anticipate amendments which have to be dealt with later on, otherwise we shall never reach the end of what is quite an ambitious day's business. I do not want to go into the issues that the noble Baroness has just raised relating to later amendments. I do not believe that it would be right at this stage to go into issues as regards ConneXions because they will be raised on a later date. Also, I do not wish to go into matters concerning the
522
extension of Ofsted's role of inspecting FE colleges and sixth-form colleges and neither do I wish to go into issues concerning Welsh authorities.
I have already explained to the noble Baroness on a previous occasion how the figure of £50 million was reached so I am a little puzzled as to why she is asking the same question again. That figure does not relate to the overall savings from the entire ramification of changes that are brought in as a consequence of the introduction of this Bill. However, it relates to the new structures of a national learning and skills council, along with 47 local learning and skills councils, instead of 72 TECS, the FEFC and its regional committees.
I say once again to the noble Baroness that our assessment is that there will be savings of £50 million. They come from two main sources. First, they come from savings on operating through 47 instead of 72 bodies. Savings will also be made partly through operating more efficient systems and also through some savings on the provision of accommodation. These savings have been fairly carefully put together. I am a little surprised that the noble Baroness has yet again asked for information about them.
I now turn to the issue of the democratic deficit.
Lord Tope: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. The noble Baroness has explained again how the savings arise. Can she explain to us what will happen to them? Will they be put to the general benefit of further education or will they simply disappear back into the large Treasury pot?
Baroness Blackstone: An incredible improvement is anticipated over the previous situation as regards the availability of further education and a new ConneXions service for young people. The Government intend to spend more money on making sure that all young people and far more adults gain access to the learning and skills that they need. We shall be able to reinvest the savings so that they reach the learner rather than be soaked up in bureaucracy.
I return to the issue of democratic accountability. Again, I find it very puzzling that the Conservative Opposition is raising questions on this matter when the previous government took local education authorities out of this area completely. The LSC will be accountable nationally to the Secretary of State. The local LSCs will be accountable to LSC councils which will comprise local people. I accept that they will not be elected in the normal democratic fashion as for a local authority. But we have many structures of that kind throughout our system. I believe that this is the right approach to take in this area. It builds on what the previous government did in certain respects.
The noble Baroness, Lady Sharp of Guildford, referred to the German federal system. We do not have such a system in England or the regional assemblies with which the Liberal Democrat party is so enamoured. I do not believe that it is right to claim that the TECs follow the German model because they are of quite a different construction.

523
I repeat what I have already said. I believe that the appropriate way is by having a structure with a national body that attempts to identify the needs for national skills and to work out appropriate systems for funding those needs; with local arms that can meet the needs of local communities and which have some degree of flexibility in how they spend and control part of their budgets. Of course, it is absolutely vital that the local LSCs work with both the RDAs that cover their area and with the local authorities. Having said that, I very much hope that once again the noble Lord will be able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Tope: When the Minister first responded she described this set of amendments as going to the heart of the Bill and I entirely agree with that. They are intended to do so. I believe that I said in my opening remarks that they address one of the principal concerns that we and many others have about these proposals. Therefore, we are agreed from that point of view.
She also described them as wrecking amendments. I totally reject that. They are not intended to be and I do not believe that they are wrecking amendments, but a genuine attempt to try to produce a better, simpler and clearer structure which is less complex, bureaucratic and less undemocratically accountable, if I may put it in that strange way.
The noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, asked about the democratic deficit. I say straight away that the current policy of the Conservative Party on that subject is as much a mystery to me as it is to him. I am quite certain that the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, would no more wish me to answer for the Conservative Party than I would wish to do so.
Perhaps I may answer for my own party. When the noble Lord reads the report of the debate in the Official Report tomorrow, he will see that I tried to cover in my opening speech what I saw as the democratic deficit. I shall not bore the Committee by repeating that. I tried to explain that while I accept that the model we are proposing is not perfect, it is certainly better. It proposes just nine local regional and skills councils. I accept that they are not democratically elected and that they are appointed by the Secretary of State until such time as we have the regional assemblies with which we are so enamoured. However, the work below that level will be carried out by the local authorities and the lifelong learning partnerships in which local authorities play a significant role. That addresses the democratic deficit—not a great deal and not enough, but significantly better than is the case with these proposals.
I have a very real concern that if this is to be successful, as we all hope it will be—I certainly hope so—it needs to be firmly rooted in local communities. I do not believe that the proposals in the Bill will do that, but the proposals that these amendments try to encapsulate will do it very much better. However, I shall not pursue the matter further today, although I
524
suspect we may well return to these issues at later stages of the Bill. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Boardman Lord Boardman moved Amendment No. 2:
Page line 9, at end insert—
("( ) The Council is to make coherent provision for individual learning and workforce development which is responsive to persons receiving or intending to receive post-16 education and training and has regard to the needs of the local areas of England and Wales.").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 103. Perhaps I may first declare an interest in that I am patron of the Northamptonshire Chamber of Commerce for training and enterprise. With the benefit of its advice and that of the national council, I have tabled certain amendments. Amendment No. 2 is designed to clarify two matters: first, that the Bill is all about the education and training of the post-16s; and, secondly—although this is perhaps less clear in the Bill, it should be clear from previous debates and discussions—that the council is and will be responsive to local needs.
The Long Title to the Bill gives no guidance on these points. That is why I felt it right for us to have the primary objectives of the legislation on the face of the Bill: training and education for the post-16s, as well as giving far greater scope for the learning and teaching to be able to meet the needs of the local community. For that reason, I hope that this provision will be accepted so that the objectives are clear on the face of the Bill. As has been said in previous debates, there is an awful feeling of a top-down approach right through the Bill. It is most important that a commitment to respond to local needs be declared on the face of the Bill. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: In the absence of any other Members of the Committee speaking to this amendment, I rise to express my support for my noble friend. I suspect that this will be a theme of today's debates because we are constantly dogged by the framework set out in the Bill. The direction comes from the top, goes on to the national council, cascades to the local skills councils and then broadens out into all kinds of other bodies, including the RDAs; in other words, local needs are determined by the top-down approach.
Having come from a central direction, it is then left to the RDAs to be key in determining the nature of local skills needs and training. The only people who can properly define that are those at the local level. That is one of the difficulties. If the Government are not prepared to put these particular words on the face of the Bill, it seems to me that we should have something at the beginning of the legislation to give some assurance to many people who are concerned about the proper reading of "local needs" in terms of

525
education, skills and training. Therefore, I wholeheartedly support my noble friend's attempt to put this provision on the face of the Bill.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: In general, we on these Benches are supportive of the two amendments. Not surprisingly, given the first amendment that we proposed, we are very much in favour of the council reflecting the needs of the local community in its working. We have one slight reservation about Amendment No. 2 in the sense that it is important to recognise that education, training and skills do not necessarily start at 16. We are concerned that there should be an integration of the school curriculum into the learning and skills curriculum. However, we are broadly in favour of the spirit of the amendment.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Bach: As an East-Midlander, like the noble Lord, Lord Boardman, who moved the amendment, perhaps I may say how much he is respected on these issues in our part of the country. However, that does not mean to say that the Government will rush to accept his amendments. I do not think that the noble Lord will be entirely surprised by my response.
Amendment No. 2 would give a new duty to the LSC for individual learning and workforce development, which is responsive to the needs of learners and local areas. In fact the noble Lord includes Wales, which is perhaps in contravention of Clause 1(5). Amendment No. 103 makes a similar point in respect of the functions of local LSCs, adding the regeneration initiatives as a further responsibility.
The LSC's main duties are already framed in terms of meeting the reeds of learners. Local LSCs in England will be responsible for ensuring that provision is managed flexibly to meet the needs of their areas. They will also participate in regeneration activities. I should gently remind the noble Lord that the LSC's functions extend to England only. There will be a separate Assembly-sponsored body for Wales, so it would be inappropriate for the England council to be given responsibilities for Welsh matters.
The Government believe that much of the substance of the noble Lord's amendment—and we openly acknowledge his good faith—would be superfluous. The LSC's main duties are already framed in terms of provision, which is,
"suitable to the requirements of individuals".
One of the key aspects of the overall framework that we are proposing is that local arms of the LSC will ensure that provision is planned, funded and delivered flexibly in order to meet the needs of each locality.
Bearing in mind the contributions of the two noble Baronesses to this debate, perhaps I may point out that at the heart of the design are the 47 local—councils each with its own boards, drawn from local communities and businesses. It will fall to the local councils, working closely with all relevant partners at the local level, to identify the current and the future
526
learning and skills priorities for individual businesses and communities. It does not sound to me very much as though this is a top-heavy arrangement.
I turn now to the issues of workforce development and regeneration activities that the noble Lord has highlighted in his amendment. Clearly—and we can go this far—if we are to flourish and prosper, we must develop a system of support for workforce development that is responsive to the needs of the economy, local areas and particular industries and sectors. Stimulating and supporting workforce development will be an important part of the LSC's remit. That is partly why we have said that 40 per cent of the members of both the national and the local LSCs will have recent business or commercial experience, as will, most importantly, the national chair and most local chairs.
The LSC will support workforce development in working with employers, trade unions and many others, including Investors in People UK, the Small Business Service and the University for Industry. The council's approach must be pro-active and crosscutting. For example, it will work closely with national training organisations in developing frameworks for sector workforce development plans. In addition, at local level LSCs will prepare local workforce development plans that reflect the national framework and build on the work of local learning partnerships, and of RDAs, in identifying regional skill needs.
As we set out in the prospectus, it is equally important that the LSC's activities are integrated with local economic development and regeneration. Local LSCs will achieve this by consulting about their plans with RDAs, local authorities, the Employment Service and local economic development partnerships. So far, so good. But all that is a different matter from giving either the national council or the local LSCs a legal duty for all workforce development or for regeneration initiatives. Employers have their own responsibilities for, and derive benefits from, workforce development. Indeed we estimate that they may already be investing some £15 billion a year in this area. Of course the noble Lord is not proposing that the Government should impose a levy on employers to fund the LSC for this activity; and that does not form part of our plans. We do not expect to provide public funding for existing private activity. Neither do we envisage the LSC becoming the only "show in town" for funding and supporting regeneration activity. For those reasons we invite the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment. We shall bear very much in mind the points that he has made.
Lord Boardman: I thank the noble Lord for answering a number of points which had concerned me. I shall wait to see what emerges during the Committee stage. These points will be raised from time to time. I may want to return to the issue at a later stage if I am not satisfied with what emerges. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Northbourne Lord Northbourne moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 1, line 9, at end insert—
("() The principal objective of the Learning and Skills Council shall be—

(a) to enhance employability and social inclusion amongst young people in the United Kingdom, and

(b) to increase the proportion of young people in the United Kingdom who have the education and training they require to develop spiritually, morally, culturally, mentally, socially and physically, and to cope with the opportunities, responsibilities and experiences of adult life.").

The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 3 I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 61 and 62. I tabled Amendment No. 3 first and foremost because I believe that every business should from the beginning have a mission statement; namely, a statement of what it seeks to achieve. If you do not know where you are going, you are unlikely to get there. In this case the Government have an admirable objective. Why not state that on the face of the Bill? Surely that would help the LSCs to plan for the future; it would help later interpretation of the Bill; and it may even help to avoid challenges in court at some later date. I recognise, of course, that the wording of my amendment may need to be adapted and altered. However, I state the principle; namely, that in my view there ought to be a mission statement.
Amendment No. 3 also has a further function; namely, it seeks to probe what the Government plan for the LSCs. I have read the White Paper, the guidance notes, the Second Reading debate and I have received a helpful letter from the noble Baroness on the Government's vision and grand plan for 16 to 19 year-olds and for lifelong learning. It is a wonderful, bold plan which is right and good. It seeks to maximise the potential of young people in our society and to draw back into the mainstream of our society those who have become alienated and excluded.
That is an admirable vision which all of us ought to support wholeheartedly. However, I ask myself whether the structures which this Bill as drafted sets up will achieve that objective. Is the bold challenge of the Government's vision adequately reflected in the powers and objectives laid down for the LSC in this Bill? I think that it is not. The Government's vision, as I understand it, is that all young people should be sufficiently motivated, educated and trained to be able to lead full and happy lives, to contribute to the communities in which they live and to be eager for lifelong learning. That means a lot of suitably educated, motivated, trained young people.
However, what this Bill requires the LSC to deliver is a lot of education facilities. Facilities are not the same thing as educated young people. To enter education young people—particularly those young people who have withdrawn from education for a variety of reasons—need much more than good facilities. They need a whole range of other things. The Government have set out plans for a ConneXions service. They have set out fully the kind of initiatives that are needed to get young people into education; to
528
sustain and to support them while they are in education; to arouse their enthusiasm for learning and to keep their noses to the grindstone, as it were.
However, I have a dreadful fear that the Government envisage two different organisations; namely, the learning and skills council to provide the facilities and someone else—under the powers granted under Clauses 99 to 108—to provide the engagement, commitment, enthusiasm, support, encouragement and all those other matters. I believe that is a recipe for disaster. It constitutes the perfect formula for "passing the buck" and for avoiding having to deliver results in terms of young people being brought in out of the cold and producing young people who are enthusiastic, properly trained and educated and raring for more. However, if one organisation is responsible for motivating those young people and another is responsible for providing services, what will happen? The organisation providing the services will complain that people are not properly motivated and the organisation providing the motivation will complain that the services are inadequate and that is why it cannot motivate people. We shall end up wasting a lot of money and not achieving the Government's chief objective.
I drafted the three amendments in this group in such a way as to empower the learning and skills council to perform the functions that the Government have set out for the ConneXions service. I suspect that the Minister will say that that is not what the Government want. However, if that is not what the Government want, the Government are probably wrong. Education in the future will concern itself less and less with facilities and with "talk and chalk". It will concern itself with motivating people to take control of their own learning and helping them to access information and skills on the Internet, in the workplace and in the street. The role of education and motivation cannot sensibly be separated into two different organisations. Why not concentrate the main thrust of the Government's vision—including their plans with regard to ConneXions—within the role of the LSC? My Amendments Nos. 3, 61 and 62 are designed to achieve that. I beg to move.
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: As a preview to what I shall say later, I support the amendment. The noble Lord asks in essence for general principles to be established at this early stage of the Bill with regard to the objectives of the LSCs. I accept the Government's goodwill in wanting to improve education for 16 to 19 year-olds, but the danger is that the LSCs could be financially driven and could become purely utilitarian in their emphasis. I accept the proposal of the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, with regard to general principles. My amendment proposes another general principle: to allow more local participation in this matter. The Government should have regard to the desire to establish ideals in the Bill which can guide the councils and, in case of disputes, provide a point of reference. Not to do so could result in the bodies being

529
governed by the Treasury and by financial considerations. Therefore, as I say, I support the noble Lord's amendment.
Lord Hylton: I support the group of amendments to which my noble friend has just spoken. Amendment No. 61 refers to foyers. I am sure that the Minister will be familiar with foyers. She and the Committee will know that in these places not only are young people provided with a roof over their heads but also with access to education and training. These young people have the strong prospect of obtaining a job at the end of the day. We could do with having many more such establishments in this country.
Another important aspect is that, in the nature of things, the young people using them tend to motivate each other in a particular way. Possibly older people and professionals will not be able to achieve the same results. When she replies, I invite the noble Baroness to say how she sees foyers fitting into the overall structure of the Bill.
The Lord Bishop of Wakefield: I welcome very much the way in which the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, has drawn our attention to the need for some principled objectives to be included in the Bill, even though I realise that the Government may not wish to pursue his particular line.
I speak from experience of an area of the country in west and south Yorkshire where certainly issues of unemployment and social exclusion—particularly in the wake of the closure of the mines—have brought about a great deal of distress. The learning skills required by people there have been enhanced a little already by what has been done locally and I hope that the situation will be improved by the Bill. However, it would be good to have that highlighted here.
As one might expect of someone speaking from these Benches, I particularly welcome the mention of spiritual, moral and cultural development and so on—although I regret that the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, did not go into any further explanation of what he meant by those particular words. I understand that at this particular stage of the Bill it might not be appropriate for these objectives to be spelt out in that way.
If it turns out that that is the line the Minister takes, I, for one, should be grateful for an assurance that the Government agree with the matters detailed in Amendment No. 3, and, in particular, that they accept in principle the words "spiritually" and "morally" and that they see them as being important in the Bill.
The Lord Bishop of Lichfield: Perhaps I may add to what my noble colleague the Bishop of Wakefield has said. For more than 15 years I have come from—and cared for—a diocese which is not suffering from the closure of the mines but is in huge post-industrial shock after the failure and the closure of the foundries. I am talking of industrial towns in the Black Country.
If children—not only those at the post-19 level but those still at school—have seen two or three generations of parents and grandparents unemployed,
530
the motivation issue which the amendment addresses is absolutely crucial. I wish to add one piece of experience to the issue of motivation. In quite a number of places, including Wolverhampton, we have worked with local authorities and with the Church Urban Fund for what are called "re-entry workers". These people are virtually truancy workers, who have to go and more or less bring the children from school, fishing clubs at the weekend, football clubs, small classes—wooing them back and getting to grips.
I would add the word "personally" to "spiritually" and "morally". There must be a real personal engagement, so big is the gap and, therefore, the task in front of us. I hope that these amendments will not have to be moved and that the Government will hear the message.
The Earl of Listowel: I speak to Amendment No. 3 which stands in the name of my noble friend. I support the amendment because it places particular emphasis on training and education not targeted on employment, the very important point about utilitarianism made by the noble Lord. Lord Pilkington.
Young people need to have an enthusiasm for learning and we need to equip them to adapt to an ever-changing working environment and to be keen to do so. We need to build on their enthusiasms and on what they love. Your Lordships may have heard Bill Gates talking on the "Breakfast with Frost" programme at the weekend. He went into the computer business because he was passionate about programming. He returns now, as the richest man in the world, to software development because that is his real passion. There is a lesson to be learnt there. I know that the Government acknowledge that, but it needs to be put at the forefront of the Bill as the mission of the Bill. If I understand the Government, the mission of the Bill is lifelong learning. The amendment is useful because it places particular emphasis on training and education and is not targeted on employment needs.
Baroness Blatch: I should like to add my voice to support the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne—not specifically the words in the amendment but the spirit behind them. The right reverend Prelates, the Bishop of Lichfield and the Bishop of Wakefield, have given practical examples of how such words would set the context of how the practical delivery of education and training and links with employment would happen.
There are of course precedents. As far as I can remember, the Education Reform Act 1988, the Education Acts of 1993 and, I think, of 1996, were all prefaced with what one tends to call "mission statements", which spell out the vision of the Government and set the context in which education shall be delivered.
A worry runs through the Bill. I hope that the noble Baroness will not get tetchy about me referring to it as though it were a negative point. There is a feeling that the Bill is only about skills and vocational education. A large proportion of education delivery is a lifeline to some people—people who have not gained from

531
traditional education; those who come to it late; those who study for recreational purposes; those who study as a respite from caring duties or other kinds of obligations which keep them in their homes or in particular places where they are not able to access education in the normal way—and there is also a large amount of cultural and other education. We will be tabling amendments at a later stage which will seek to persuade the Government to place some formal recognition of those kinds of education delivery on the face of the Bill. The broadening of the aims and objectives of the education delivered within that context is important.
I echo the point made by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Wakefield. If one crawls over Hansard one will find that in years past I have used this phrase before: I think that education without a spiritual and moral dimension is no more than a clinical and arid experience. The way in which we can make real changes and have real influence on the lives of people—particularly on the lives of the kinds of people the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, has spent a lifetime caring about—is to set education in a moral and spiritual context. We should also not forget the social, mental and cultural context.
I support the input behind the amendment. Whether the Government will accept the wording, I do not know, but I hope that something will appear on the face of the Bill.
Lord Brightman: I had not intended to intervene in the consideration of the Bill. I was reminded by the opening remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, of certain words which I thought might be useful to repeat on this occasion. I refer to the Family Law Bill, which came before your Lordships on 22nd February 1996. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, then the Lord Chancellor, had to consider whether or not the general principles of two portions of the Bill ought to be set out. Reading as best I can from the copy I have—unfortunately, it is not clear because the spine has interfered with the photocopying—the noble and learned Lord said:
"My Lords, Amendment No. 1 follows our consideration in Committee of an amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, to insert a clause setting out the general objectives of the Act. During that debate it was clear that a number of your Lordships supported the inclusion of such a provision. I indicated in general terms that I was anxious to consider the matter and therefore I am happy to bring forward this amendment, which I hope reflects the mood of the House on this important issue.
It is important that the amendment is included … as it sets the framework for all those who will be concerned to operate it, whether it be persons exercising functions under Parts I and II or whether it be the court making decisions under these provisions".—[Official Report, 22/2/96; col. 1145.]
My noble and learned friend Lord Simon of Glaisdale then said—I believe that his words have been quoted before:
"The advantage of the statement of principles on the lines tabled by my noble and learned friend is that it gives a guideline to the interpretations of any matter in a measure which might be obscure or ambiguous. Secondly, it is a general guide to the way in which a statute should be interpreted when it comes before the courts".—[Official Report, 22/2/96; col. 1146.]
532
I hope that the Committee will forgive my intervention, which, I am afraid, occurred rather on the spur of the moment.
Lord Dormand of Easington: I rise to ask the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, a question for clarification. We all know of his great enthusiasm for the whole range of education, but it seems to me that in the two paragraphs of his amendment he seeks to cover the whole range of education. There is nothing wrong with that, but I am wondering how it will be carried out in practical terms. My question is quite simple. Can he give the Committee some indication of what kind of curriculum will deal, not only with employment, which, obviously all schools and colleges must have in mind, but will also,
"develop spiritually, morally, culturally, mentally, socially and physically"?
That is a fair range. I should be interested to hear the noble Lord comment on the curriculum.
Lord Northbourne: With the Committee's permission I shall answer the noble Lord. The quotation is, of course, taken from the Education Reform Act 1988. I always believe that the House in its entirety is more likely to accept a provision already on the statute book than one invented by me. In Amendment No. 37 I shall come to the question of what will be included alongside vocational education. I believe that the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, has already raised the issue as to whether the Bill is mainly or even wholly about vocational education. I know that it is not because the Minister has kindly written to me about the matter, but I believe that the point should be on the official record. My Amendment No. 37 deals with that issue, so, with the noble Lord's permission, I shall leave the answer until we reach that amendment.
Lord Tope: I shall not detain the Committee for long. I want to join the general welcome given to the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, for raising those particularly important issues and thereby giving the Minister an opportunity to inform us of the Government's thinking on the matter. We look forward to that with some anticipation.
There is no doubt that the social inclusion agenda—if I may use that term—is an extremely important part of what we are trying to achieve. Members of the Committee have already clearly stated the reasons for that and I do not need to repeat them. I am therefore grateful for the amendments. We have had a useful little debate and I am sure that we shall receive a useful response from the Minister in a moment. However, I have some doubts as to whether, important though the point is, it should be alone the principal objective of the learning and skills council. The principal objective is rather broader than that and relates to the whole area of post-16 education. Having said that, I welcome the amendments and look forward to the Minister's response.
4.15 p.m.
Baroness Blackstone: I begin by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, for his welcome for what lies behind the Government's thinking in bringing forward the Bill. I was extremely grateful to him for his support for what he more or less described as "the boldness of our vision". I am grateful also for all the contributions to the debate, which are in a sense probing, as are the noble Lord's amendments.
In response to the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington, the last thing that the Government want is a Bill that is only utilitarian in its approach. All Members of the Committee will share the view that we do not want simply financially-driven provision or to confine what the Bill eventually delivers when it is enacted to narrow, utilitarian and purely vocational kinds of provision. Indeed, the Government want to develop a much less rigid distinction between vocational and non-vocational education. I shall cover that issue when we debate later amendments. I entirely agree with the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, about the importance of all other forms of lifelong learning. I shall not be remotely tetchy in responding to any suggestion that that is what the Bill should be about. It is also about trying to be more socially inclusive and trying to help those young people—and, indeed, adults—who, for one reason or another, have missed out on education in the past.
I am not absolutely sure that it is right to include in Acts of Parliament mission statements in the sense that I believe the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, meant, but it would be absolutely right for the LSC to have its own mission statement. It will need to develop that in consultation with the Government and all the external partners with which it will be working.
I turn now to our intentions. I shall respond more specifically to the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne. Young people of course deserve the chance to be better qualified and to have the best possible start to their working lives. Over 160,000 young people between 16 and 18—around one in 11 of the age group—are not in learning or in work. We are already tackling the shortcomings in current arrangements. We have given young people aged 16 to 18 who are in employment the right to time off for study to enable them to achieve the qualifications that many of them failed to achieve at school.
We are trying to tackle financial barriers through increasing access funds for college-based provision and piloting education maintenance allowances to target financial support at young people who might otherwise be excluded from continuing in education after the age of 16. Through a combination of pressure and support we are trying to build on the best work carried out in schools and colleges—and, we must not forget, in work-based training—to drive up both quality and standards across all modes of learning and to retain such young people in learning.
The LSC, including through the work of its young people's committee, will be responsible for developing a high quality system offering all young people post-16 learning opportunities appropriate to their needs. It
534
will be responsible for delivering the national learning targets for participation and attainment by young people over the age of 16. Clause 2 delivers an entitlement to young people by placing a duty on the LSC to secure provision of education and training, broadly defined, to meet the reasonable needs of young people.
However, we know that many young people reach the age of 16 without the proper preparation for productive further learning or without the skills employers will look for as a basis for offering them work with training. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Lichfield pointed to some of those problems. We are broadening the options available at 14, including through the new GNVQ Part One. We are opening up opportunities in key stage 4 for 14–16 year olds to study in a range of learning environments, including in FE sector colleges where appropriate. We are strengthening those arrangements further through the Bill by giving the LSC a power to fund them directly. Last week, we set out in more detail our plans for a new ConneXions service to help young people from the age of 13 to stay in education and training and to help tackle the social exclusion which blights the lives of too many of our teenagers in ways that may hold them back throughout their adult lives. We shall have the opportunity to debate those provisions in Part V of the Bill in detail at a later stage.
The objectives set out by the noble Lord. Lord Northbourne, are shared whole-heartedly by the Government. Perhaps I may also reassure the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Wakefield in that regard. However, we do not believe that adding to the Bill the proposed amendment to Clause 1 would enhance the likelihood of our shared objectives being realised. Indeed, I fear it could serve to reduce the focus of the LSC on the important area of adult learning—we must not forget that the Bill is not just about young people but is about people learning throughout their lives—and in particular the task of re-engaging those many adults who did not succeed in learning at the conventional time as young people. I would ask the noble Lord to withdraw that amendment.
I now turn to the two proposed amendments to Clause 5 which follow on from the proposed amendment to Clause 1. Both would empower the learning and skills council to fund specific aspects areas of provision outside formal learning which are of particular help to the most disadvantaged young people. The first would empower the learning and skills council to fund advice and support services of the kind that the new ConneXions service will provide. It would also empower the council to fund supported accommodation for homeless young people. The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, mentioned foyers. The Government recognise the valuable work that foyers can do for homeless young people. The learning and skills council will want, particularly at local level, to work with foyers in the provision of support and advice about training and educational opportunities.

535
The second amendment would empower the learning and skills council to fund the kind of recreational and leisure activities for young people which are currently provided by the statutory and voluntary youth services. We recognise the enormously valuable contribution made by the statutory and voluntary youth services in re-engaging some of the most vulnerable young people in society, and we are keen that that contribution is both supported and strengthened. But we do not intend that the LSC should have responsibility for funding those services which will fall within the remit of the new ConneXions service. The resources for this service will come from pooling existing central government resources and from those currently devoted by local ConneXions partners to youth support and guidance. Of the resources that we expect existing agencies and partners to contribute, around half will come from the existing Careers Service budget.
We must ensure that the ConneXions service is adequately funded to perform its essential task. So we are also considering what additional funding will be required as part of the Government's year 2000 spending review. I hope that that gives the noble Lord the reassurances which he seeks. I believe that there are already sufficient powers in the Bill for the LSC to fund the learning for young people which is provided in hostels, foyers and other supported accommodation. There will be scope for the ConneXions service to fund the advice and support services offered within these organisations, where appropriate. But I do not think it would be appropriate for the LSC—a body set up to fund education and training—to add funding supported housing to its portfolio. The housing elements of foyers will have to be funded from quite different sources.
Furthermore, while the LSC will have responsibility for post-16 learning, it not our intention that it will take on responsibility for the activities provided by the statutory or voluntary youth services. The Bill places a duty on the LSC to provide for vocational, social, physical and recreational activities in connection with post-16 learning. But LEAs retain that duty in respect of secondary education, so a duty remains with LEAs in respect of all 11 to 16s and all over-16s in school sixth forms. Local education authorities also retain all the powers they need to provide for youth service activities right across the spectrum.
Our objective is that LEAs will continue to provide youth services in collaboration with other providers of services for young people. There is no question of the LSC setting up a "youth service" or of the money which currently goes to LEAs in respect of the youth service being diverted to the LSC.
In the light of my explanation, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Blatch: Before the Minister sits down, perhaps I may say that that was a full and helpful answer. However, the noble Baroness sounded slightly
536
disparaging about having mission statements on the face of a Bill and at the beginning of a Bill. In previous Bills it has been stated clearly that the context for education "shall be" spiritual, cultural, mental, physical and so on. But the noble Baroness seemed to suggest that that should be determined locally and at local discretion. I wish to take issue with that. Given that the Government are setting up the whole remit and are setting up and establishing the framework within which people will be trained and educated, both vocationally and non-vocationally, I believe that setting the context is something the Government could do. If it is left to local discretion,
"spiritually, morally, culturally, mentally, socially and physically'',
could simply be left out. I am not sure that the Government would want that. All those dimensions are universally accepted as creating a context within which education should be delivered.
Baroness Blackstone: I apologise if I was not clear enough. I did not want to be disparaging about mission statements. What I thought I said was that the LSC will develop a mission statement—by the LSC, I mean the national LSC. I agree with the noble Baroness that we could not have this matter entirely determined locally. There needs to be a coherent framework of commitment to the kind of education and training that we all want to see. That has to be owned by the national LSC. I also said that it would have to be developed in consultation with the Government—with my right honourable friend the Secretary of State—but also with all the external partners that are involved in delivering this important part of the education system.
Lord Northbourne: I am most grateful to the noble Baroness for her very helpful answer and to those noble Lords who intervened in the debate. As far as concerns the mission statement, I cannot say that I am entirely happy. It seems to me that a mission statement evolved by the learning and skills council, possibly under pressure from the Secretary of State, might not necessarily accord with what Parliament would wish. It seems to me that a mission statement should be passed through Parliament and approved. It also seems to me that a mission statement on the face of the Bill would help to clarify what Parliament has authorised the LSC to do. From my reading of the Bill as it stands, a great many things may be challenged as being ultra vires. However, I shall look at these matters again and, if necessary, discuss them with the noble Baroness.
The noble Baroness made it clear that the ConneXions service is not the business of the LSC but the business of whatever happens under Clauses 99 to 108. Therefore, we shall have time to raise those issues later.
I do not think that I shall shift the Government on the entire structure of the Bill. But I believe that they are making an appalling mistake in putting the motivation element and the provision element under

537
separate hats. I think that there will be conflict, overlap and underlap. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 4 not moved.]
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Serota): In calling Amendment No. 5, I should point out to the Committee that if it is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 6.
4.30 p.m.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 1, line 11, leave out from ("members") to end of line 12.
The noble Baroness said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 7.
It is always difficult for government to get the size of a committee right. Therefore, I have not chosen to take issue with that aspect, although there are arguments both ways. Unwieldy committees are not in general very good, and getting the size right to do the job, consistent with efficiency and effectiveness, is often a matter of judgment.
The Minister will see that I am concerned about the "top down" approach and the way in which the Secretary of State has a hand on almost every aspect of the Bill. It is right that he should appoint the members of the council. There is no one else who can do that—certainly not for the initial council. However, I believe that the council should be sufficiently mature to be able to determine who shall, of its number, be chairman.
Although it is the subject of another amendment, I link the point with Clause 1(3), where the Government advocate that in appointing the committee, the Secretary of State,
"must have regard to the desirability of appointing a person"—
just one person—
"who has experience relevant to the Council's functions".
I find that extraordinary. I should have hoped that any person appointed to a national committee that is relatively small should have some skills or experience relevant to the council's functions. It seems to me extraordinary that, if 12 people are to be appointed, technically speaking 11 of those need have no experience at all if The wording of subsection (3) is to be taken literally.
Although he will appoint the council, the Secretary of State should leave it to people who one hopes will be extremely mature at national level to elect their own chairman. If they elect their own chairman, the confidence in that chairman will be all the greater. Also, the authority enjoyed by that chairman will be the greater, because confidence in the appointment will be vested in all the other members of the council. I beg to move.
Lord McCarthy: Perhaps I may ask the noble Baroness three questions. I am still trying to find out what she means by "the democratic deficit". This is a kind of self-selected internal promotion system—what
538
used to be called in Fleet Street the "sons and brothers" list. Is that a form of the democratic deficit now advocated by the Conservatives? Secondly, if a person were to be appointed in that way, would one also be allowed to sack that person? I should have thought that that would follow; or would one be allowed to set the terms and conditions? Thirdly, is this general policy in the noble Baroness's party? For example, under a future Conservative government would it apply to the chairman of the Low Pay Unit, the CAC, ACAS, or the monopolies commission, or anyone else; and if not, why not?
Baroness Blatch: I do not remember referring to "democratic deficit" in the context of this question. I am simply saying that the Secretary of State has a hand on almost every aspect of the Bill and the framework. The Secretary of State will appoint all the members. I thought it might be appropriate, as the council is to act as a corporate body, for it to elect its chairman. I make no greater or lesser case than that.
Lord Bach: If Amendment No. 5 as presently worded were to be accepted, it is difficult to see how the council would come into being at all. But that is a pure matter of detail. What the noble Baroness has made clear is the role of the Secretary of State in appointing the chairman.
We have made clear that all these appointments to national and local councils will be made following Nolan principles. That means that we shall draw up a specification of the skills, experience and background of the individuals we want for these demanding and important posts. We shall ask all our partners and stakeholder organisations with an interest and involvement in developing the LSC to encourage their own people to apply. We shall openly advertise all the posts and we shall ensure that we have an independent assessor who will sit on all the appointment panels. The panels will make recommendations to the Secretary of State on the best candidates for the post. We are delighted that the noble Baroness agrees that the Secretary of State should appoint the council. In these arrangements we shall follow the code of practice for public appointments that has been set out by the Office of the Commissioner of Public Appointments.
We argue that it is vital that in establishing the new learning and skills council we build a close working relationship between Ministers of the DfEE and members of the LSC. That applies in particular to the working relationship between Ministers and the chairman of the LSC. We shall want a direct working relationship on critical issues and a joint approach to the overriding mission of improving standards and participation in learning in this country.
We believe it right in those circumstances that the chairman of the council should be appointed by the Secretary of State. We are encouraged in our belief by the fact that, since 1992, the Secretary of State has appointed not only all members of the Further Education Funding Council but also its chairman. I ask the rhetorical question: why was that all right in

539
1992 but is not all right now? As I say, in establishing the new LSC, a close working relationship is vital, particularly between Ministers and the chairman of the council.
We are not attracted to the alternative suggested by the noble Baroness in Amendment No. 7 for a further reason. All the appointments to the national council are important and we shall be looking for talented people with the necessary drive, enthusiasm and commitment to fill these posts. That is particularly the case for the chairman. We shall be looking for a business person who commands national respect and who is able to make a substantial time commitment to the council. That is why we shall be advertising that post separately. There may well be people who would relish the challenge of taking on the chairmanship but who would be less attracted by being a member of the council.
It is entirely right that the Secretary of State should make these appointments. I therefore invite the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for pointing out where I have drawn the line; namely, at "members" rather than "Secretary of State". I have been drafting the amendments personally and do not happen to have the skills of an expert counsel. I also have a difficulty. I have tabled amendments under which other bodies would nominate people. I accept that they will be formally appointed by the Secretary of State; however, I shall want to argue strongly that some of the appointments should come through other bodies.
Secondly, I am very disturbed at what the Minister has just said; namely, that the Secretary of State will be minded to appoint, and that there will be an advertisement for, "a businessman". The Government, and the noble Baroness in particular and her colleagues in another place, in my presence and, I believe, on the record, have said endlessly that 40 per cent of the council will be represented by business. Why, therefore, will one business appointment be advertised—quite distinct from the 40 per cent business representation on the committee?
Lord Bach: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for giving way. I obviously did not make myself clear. In regard to the position of chair or chairman, the Secretary of State will be looking for a business person who commands national respect and who is able to make the substantial time commitment to the council. That does not take away at all from the figure of 40 per cent given in relation to the new council.
Baroness Blatch: Then I am even more critical of the wording of subsection (2). It states that,
"The Council is to consist of not less than 12 and not more than 16 members appointed by the Secretary of State, and he must appoint one of them as chairman".
540
rather than stating, as the noble Lord has just said, that there will be a distinct advertisement for the kind of person whom the Secretary of State would wish to be chairman. In other words, there will be a body of 12 to 16 people, and the Secretary of State will, distinctly, advertise for someone to be the chairman who will have business experience and who will be a member of the board. That is a rather different interpretation from the wording that one sees on the page. There is a difficulty here. The business sector, which takes a close interest in the debate, will be grateful for some clarification of the distinction between the chairman, who is to be a businessman or woman (as the case may be), and the composition of the whole council.
Our confidence has been slightly shaken by the recent appointment of the person in charge of the Dome. As far as one is aware, Nolan procedures were not followed and there was no advertisement of the position. The same Government ask us to trust them that all of these procedures will be put in place. Therefore, it is of assistance to have on record that in this instance the procedures will be followed. I am not happy with the response of the noble Lord. Perhaps I should be flattered that the noble Lord says that because the Tories did it in the past there is no reason why the present Government should not do it now. But this council, which is of a different kind, will be very influential in the policies that cascade down to local councils and local authorities. It is important that each of the 12 to 16 members of the council has confidence in the chairman. I should like the members to have the ability to make appointments. However, I rest my case until the next stage of the Bill in the hope that later this afternoon there is some clarification of the business representation. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Wade of Chorlton Lord Wade of Chorlton moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 1, line 12, after ("them") insert ("who has experience of commercial business").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I draw to the Committee's attention that the wording I propose is a little different from what appears in the Marshalled List. The Marshalled List states that there be inserted after "them" the words
"who has experience of commercial business",
whereas I intend that it should read,
"as chairman who has experience of commercial business".
I am prompted to table this amendment because I am very much aware that the training and enterprise councils, many of which have been enormously successful in serving a good number of the purposes previously debated, have been driven by the business community. We are grateful for the amount of work that many businessmen have done in leading training and enterprise councils and the time that they have given in that regard. I welcome the Minister's recognition, when responding to the previous amendment, of the importance of business leadership. To ensure that we continue to have the support of the business community in the setting up of these new

541
bodies, it must be clear to that sector that they are being led by people who are recognised in the industry as having sound commercial and business experience and who can bring to the councils expertise in achieving efficiency and making things happen.
I have tabled this amendment in order to understand the Government's intentions. The Government have made some very encouraging noises, which we all appreciate, but it would be of enormous help if their exact intentions in this regard were made clear in the Bill. I beg to move.
4.45 p.m.
Baroness Blackstone: I hesitate because I do not know whether the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, wants to speak to her amendment in this group. If so, I am content to sit down and let the noble Baroness speak.
Baroness Blatch: I had not realised that my amendment was grouped with Amendment No. 6. I support the sentiments behind the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Wade. The Government have made it clear over many weeks—it also appears in some of the documents which accompany the Bill—that at least 40 per cent of the membership of the councils will come from the business and commercial sector. Unless that is on the face of the Bill there will be no guarantee at all. There is absolutely no definition of "commercial and business sector". Members of the Committee will note that my amendment states that,
"Not less than 40 per cent of the members shall be persons who have current or recent non-public sector business or commercial experience";
in other words, they will be truly people from the business or commercial sector.
The Secretary of State, the noble Baroness and her honourable friend in another place have said that they want business to be in the lead and that business people understand the need for the education and training of their workforce. Today, almost everybody goes into work and therefore they must be educated and trained for work. If the Government mean what they say the business sector is fully behind the amendment. All of the responses to consultation in relation to this particular matter have stated the desire to see something firm on the face of the Bill, and I believe that there is a strong case for it. I do not see an argument against it. The Government have made it clear that they expect the figure to be 40 per cent. My amendment proposes that it should be at least 40 per cent so that it does not go below that figure, but it does not necessarily mean that it should go above it. I support the amendment moved by my noble friend, and I shall press my amendment when it comes to be considered.
Lord Tope: I thank the noble Lord, Lord Wade of Chorlton, for tabling this amendment. We all understand the intention behind the amendment rather than what is expressed in the Marshalled List. The noble Lord raises an important point which will enable the Minister to make clear the Government's intention. I believe that their intention is, and should
542
be, that normally the chairman of the council is someone with experience of commercial business. I part company with the noble Lord slightly if he suggests that this should be made clear on the face of the Bill. In response to this amendment, and the amendment to be moved by the noble Baroness. Lady Blatch—I shall say it again later—1 have some hesitation about being so prescriptive on the face of the Bill. I entirely support the intention behind the amendment. As the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, stated, the Government have said many times—in a minute, they may repeat it—that this is their intention. I believe that to have that on record in Hansard is enough, and I do not want to see it encapsulated in the Bill for all time until there is another Act of Parliament to change it. I am wholly sympathetic to the intentions behind both amendments, provided that in due course they are withdrawn.
Baroness Blackstone: I do not believe that there is much between us in this area. The Government's intentions are absolutely clear. As the noble Baroness and her noble friend have said, we have made the position clear on a number of occasions. The only difference between us—here I entirely accept the comment of the noble Lord, Lord Tope—is whether this matter should be spelt out on the face of the Bill. I fully support the wish of the Committee that the business sector should play a major role in the LSC's strategic decision-making and planning. For that reason, I sought to reassure noble Lords during Second Reading that,
"Forty per cent of LSC board members at both the national and local levels, together with the national chair and most local chairs, will have significant business or commercial experience".—[Official Report, 17/1/00; col. 878.]
The reasons for these commitments are three-fold. First, we want to build on the success of TECs in developing links between the world of learning and work. The noble Lord, Lord Wade of Chorlton, referred to the TECs in this context. Secondly, we want to ensure that the LSC's £6 billion annual budget produces the skills that our economy needs. Thirdly, we want the business perspective to help create a customer-driven system. All of these are vital points and our commitments in this respect have won the support of employers and their representatives, including the CBI. But it does not follow that we should incorporate these clear commitments on the face of the Bill.
Quite aside from the other obvious problems of definition—and here I want to turn the noble Baroness's arguments on their heads—"business", "commercial", "public sector" or "non-public sector" are not terribly easy to define in terms of legislation. We most certainly do not want to find ourselves on the slippery slope, as the noble Lord, Lord Tope, was implying, to a system of filling quotas of places. That would take us a very long way from our firm intention of appointing as members people who will serve the interests of the council as a whole. That is why we set out in the prospectus clear guidelines and criteria for filling all positions on the councils. I think that should be a significant reassurance. We want to encourage

543
many people to apply and we want to appoint the best candidates. It will be important to set out in the job specification accompanying the advertising for the post of national chair the qualities that the noble Lord, Lord Wade, wishes to see. We will consult the CBI in drawing up that specification. Again, I hope that what I have said provides some reassurance to the noble Lord, Lord Wade, and to the noble Baroness about our intentions.
Most of all, I simply do not believe that it is appropriate to set out in legislation the ratio of the membership of a public body. Appointments then become a matter of legal and arithmetical nicety, rather than of having the more obvious priority of finding the best people for the job in the categories set out. I hope therefore that both the noble Lord and the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw their amendments.
Lord Wade of Chorlton: I am grateful to the Minister for her further explanations and reassurances. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 1, line 12, at end insert—
("() The Council shall elect a chairman from among their number for a period not exceeding 5 years.").
The noble Baroness said: I should like, if I may, to speak to just one point on Amendment No. 7. I did not refer to the term of office. Noble Lords will have noticed that in my amendment I refer to a period not exceeding five years. It is normal to have a period of time specified for an appointment to a national body such as this. I should like to ask the Government whether they have any intention of putting a period of time upon this appointment, or will the chairman be appointed for all time until either he or she is disgraced, sent out of office or retires? I beg to move.
Lord Bach: The noble Baroness has quite justifiably come back to this amendment to ask the question. We are going to be dealing with time-scales for membership of the committee and, as I understand it, for the chairman a little later. I should like to respond to her on this point then, if I may.
Baroness Blatch: I am grateful to the noble Lord. In anticipation, I will ask leave to withdraw the amendment and wait for the explanation.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 1, line 12, at end insert—
("( ) The Council shall appoint a Chief Executive on such terms as it determines who shall not serve as a member of any Learning and Skills Council.").
The noble Baroness said: There is an anomaly in the Bill. Clause 1 states that the Secretary of State shall appoint the council and appoint a chairman from within the council. There is no reference whatsoever to
544
how that will be done. The schedule contains no reference to that. Then, quite extraordinarily, there is a reference to the chief executive being appointed from the members of the council. This is a job. The board, or council as it is now called, would appoint a chief executive and not the Secretary of State. The chief executive would then answer to the council but not be a member of it.
There may well be precedents. There has been a very interesting debate, which has gone on for a long time. There ought to be a separation between the chief executive and the chairman of the board and the board itself. Certainly that is what happens in the private sector. It is important that the terms and conditions should be laid down by the board or by the council; the chief executive should be answerable to them. He should be the executive arm, in other words, delivering the policies of the council, working with all the other members of staff and being the chief member of staff working for the council.
I find that strange. Secondly, I find it strange that for the chairman there are no arrangements set out in the schedule at all. Yet on page 55 we have some fairly detailed arrangements set out for the chief executive. On the face of the Bill it is said that the chairman shall be a member of the council. There is no reference whatsoever to the chief executive being a member of the council until we turn to the schedule. It is not on the face of the Bill but it appears in the schedule that one of the council members is to be its chief executive.
Referring to the members of the council who are to represent the body that has already been mentioned by the Minister and indeed by others, you need particular skills to be a chief executive and sometimes you need different skills to be a member of the council. I cannot understand why there is a separate schedule with a definite statement saying that one of the council's members shall be its chief executive. No arrangements, on the face of the Bill, appear in Clause 1 or a statement that says that the council shall be appointed by the Secretary of State and that one of its members shall be chairman.
My amendment deals with two main points. First, I should like an explanation as to why they are treated so differently. Secondly, I should like to know whether the Government believe there should be a distinct split between those who make policy and those who have to deliver it. Thirdly, may I ask why it is that a chief executive should be a member of the council? I beg to move.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: I rise to support the amendment moved by the noble Baroness. We on these Benches agree with her that it is not right that the chief executive of the council should also be a full member of the council. We also agree completely that it should be for the council itself to appoint the chief executive. The chief executive is the servant of the council, as happens, as the noble Baroness said, normally in business.
Baroness Blackstone: Perhaps I could start with Amendment No. 8. We have made provision in

545
Schedule 1 for the first appointment of chief executive to be made by the Secretary of State rather than by the council. The noble Baroness's amendments would change that position and give the responsibility to the council alone. The reason why we intend the appointment of the first chief executive to be made by the Secretary of State is one of practicality. It is very common when setting up a new body of this kind, when there is no existing council membership in place, for a chief executive to be appointed in this way. It is vital that we have an early appointment of a chief executive to take charge of the very wide range of implementation of staff appointments, ensuring that there is an effective funding and information system and that plans for the council's first operational year are drawn up in good time.
If we wait until all the council members are appointed we will inevitably be delaying the process and we may put at risk a smooth transition, which I am sure all Members of your Lordships' Committee would wish to see, to the new arrangements. Your Lordships will perhaps be reassured to hear that we intend to identify the chair of the learning and skills council first, and then involve him or her in the appointment of the chief executive, since it is clearly of paramount importance that there should be a really good working relationship between the chair and the chief executive. The Bill already provides in Schedule 1 for all future appointments of the chief executive to be made by the council. I hope that that clarifies one of the questions raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, and indeed by the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp.
Turning to Amendment No. 19, this would prevent the chief executive being a member of the council. Contrary to what has been said by both noble Baronesses, I think this would diminish the status and the authority of the chief executive to that of an employee rather than creating a situation where the chief executive is fully part of, and committed to, the strategic direction that the council takes.
I accept that there is a distinction between the role of the chairman and members of the council, who are part time and in that sense have a non-executive role, and that of the chief executive who is a full time paid official. However, that should not suggest that the chief executive is not a member of a council. In the Higher Education Funding Council and the Further Education Funding Council the chief executives are members of those councils. It is an established practice that chief executives of NDPBs may be members of their governing councils. We believe it is right that that should be so in this instance. We must remember that the chief executive will be the accounting officer for some £6 billion of public expenditure. It is only right that he or she should be fully party to the decisions of the national council.
The current draft of the clause and related schedule provides for a good start for the council and the establishment of an effective organisation. I hope that the noble Baroness will not press the amendment.
Baroness Blatch: I am extremely disappointed with the answer. The Minister did not answer the question
546
as to why the Secretary of State appoints one of the board as chairman but not as chief executive. As regards the appointment, why should the provision appear only in a schedule? There is no link between the schedule and the main part of the Bill. Normally schedules support clauses in the Bill; this schedule does not.
The noble Baroness has not answered the point about the importance of the chief executive being a servant of the council and the board. He or she is responsible for carrying out the policies of the council. Therefore that seems to be a problem. There is the flimsiest defence. The Government intend to appoint early the first member of the board who shall be the chairman, and to involve the chairman in the appointment of a chief executive.
Has the Secretary of State time on his hands? Is not the Secretary of State an extraordinarily busy person? The Bill provides for the Secretary of State to approve plans and to do this, that and the other. Every appointment to all the bodies will be approved by the Secretary of State. Those of us who watch the Secretary of State on television are impressed by his performance. But the idea that he should be engaged in the minutiae of every single appointment is extraordinary.
The Minister referred to the accounting officer. There are endless examples of bodies I sit as a volunteer on one—where the accounting officer does not necessarily belong to the policy-making body. It is not uncommon for the accounting officer not to be a member of the policy body. Again, the accounting officer is a servant of the organisation. So that is no argument.
Amendment No. 8 provides that,
"The Council shall appoint a Chief Executive on such terms as it determines who shall not serve as a member of any Learning and Skills Council".
It is an important amendment. I wish to seek the opinion of the House.
5.3 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 8) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 95; Not-Contents, 111.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Byford, B.

Aldington, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Alton of Liverpool, L.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Chadlington, L.

Attlee, E.

Clement-Jones, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Colwyn, L.

Biffen, L.

Cope of Berkeley, L.

Blatch, B.

Courtown, E.

Boardman, L.

Cowdrey of Tonbridge, L.

Briggs, L.

Cox, B.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Cranborne, V.

Burnham, L.

Dahrendorf, L.

Buscombe, B.

Dean of Harptree, L.

547

Dholakia, L.

Norton of Louth, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Dundee, E.

Palmer, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Falkland, V.

Perry of Southwark, B.

Fookes, B.

Pilkington of Oxenford, L.

Geddes, L.

Rawlings, B.

Geraint, L.

Reay, L.

Goodhart, L.

Rees, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Rennard, L.

Haslam, L.

Rix, L.

Henley, L. [Teller]

Roberts of Conwy, L.

Hogg, B.

Rotherwick, L.

Hooper, B.

St. John of Fawsley, L.

Howe, E.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Howell of Guildford, L.

Sandberg, L.

Seccombe, B. [Teller]

Inglewood, L.

Selborne, E.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Selsdon, L.

Kimball, L.

Sharman, L.

Knight of Collingtree, B.

Sharp of Guildford, B.

Liverpool, E.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Luxe, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Strathclyde, L.

McNally, L.

Swinfen, L.

Mancroft, L.

Thomas of Gresford, L.

Marlesford, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Marsh, L.

Tope, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Tordoff, L.

Naseby, L.

Vivian, L.

Newby, L.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Northbourne, L.

Wallace of Saltaire, L.

Northesk, E.

Wilcox, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Alli, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Amos, B.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Ampthill, L.

Gregson, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Harrison, L.

Ashton of Upholland, B.

Haskel, L.

Bach, L.

Hayman, B.

Barnett, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Blackstone, B.

Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

Blease, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Bragg, L.

Howells of St Davids, B.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Brookman, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Burlison, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L. (Lard Chancellor)

Carter, L. [Teller]

Christopher, L.

Jay of Paddington, B. (Lord Privy Seal)

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Jeger, B.

David, B.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Davies of Coity, L.

Judd, L.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Kennedy of The Shaws, B.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

King of West Bromwich, L.

Dearing, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Desai, L.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Dixon, L.

Lichfield, Bp.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Lipsey, L.

Dubs, L.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Eatwell, L.

Longford, E.

Elder, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Evans of Parkside, L.

McCarthy, L.

Evans of Watford, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller]

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Filkin, L.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

Fitt, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Gale, B.

Massey of Darwen, B.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Goldsmith, L.

Molloy, L.

Goudie, B.

Morris of Manchester, L.

548

Nicol, B.

Simon of Highbury, L.

Orme, L.

Smith of Gilmorehill, B.

Paul, L.

Smith of Leigh, L.

Pitkeathley, B.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Stone of Blackheath, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Puttnam, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Rea, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Uddin, B.

Rogers of Riverside, L.

Warwick of Undercliffe, B.

Roll of Ipsden, L.

Whitaker, B.

Sainsbury of Turville, L.

Whitty, L.

Sawyer, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Serota, B.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Shepherd, L.

Winston, L.

Shore of Stepney, L.

Woolmer of Leeds, L.

Simon, V.

Young of Old Scone, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
5.13 p.m.
[Amendment No. 9 not moved.]
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 1, line 12, at end insert—
("() Not less than 25 per cent. of the members shall be nominated by the Local Government Association.")
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 10, I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 11, 13 to 15 and 152. Before I turn to the amendments, I should like to point out that there is a typing error in Amendment No. 107. I should have mentioned this earlier, but I have given the Minister notice of the mistake. The amendment should read:
"The Council must elect one of its members as [Chairman] for a period not exceeding 5 years."
The word "Chairman" should replace "Chief Executive" in the amendment. I did not want this to come as a surprise when we reach it later.
I should also like to point out that, because I have written most of these amendments myself, if I am successful in pressing Amendment No. 13, then my noble friends and colleagues in the Chamber will not be able to press their amendments. As I shall be supporting one or two of those amendments, that may prove to be difficult. However, I should like to make again a point that I made in passing on a previous amendment; that is, that Amendment No. 13 refers to a subsection in the Bill that appears on the face of it to be absurd. It states:
"In appointing a member the Secretary of State must have regard to the desirability of appointing a person"—
only one person—
"who has experience relevant to the Council's functions".
If a relatively small council—but nevertheless a national council—is to be appointed and there is in place a commitment to appoint only one person with relevant experience of the functions of the council, that will be very strange indeed. I hope that all those appointed to the council will have some experience and strengths to bring that will be relevant to the council's functions. However, in order to allow the other

549
amendments to be considered, I shall not press the amendment. However, at a future stage I shall seek to alter the wording of the subsection, depending on whether the noble Baroness will accept amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Rix.
In Amendment No. 10 I have argued—and I believe that I have some support in this—that the council should have serving on it representatives of the local authorities. A little, earlier I think that I was teased by the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, for having argued about the considerable democratic deficit in the Bill and for having asked the Government to explain such a policy. Local education authorities have now lost a number of powers—they have lost powers to the organisational committees, to the educational adjudicators, on decisions on funding for sixth forms and many other local decisions. They will be able to plan only in conformity with directions from the Secretary of State. However, I feel that where local knowledge is relevant, along with maintaining existing relationships with many other local bodies, including the present training and enterprise councils, there should be some representation on this committee.
At Second Reading the point was made that the Bill makes no reference to the national training organisations. Amendment No. 11 provides for some recognition of those organisations which make a huge contribution to education and, in particular, training in this country. The Engineering and Marine Training Authority has already been mentioned. Such organisations have made a huge contribution and have been in the forefront of arguments for proper representation in the Bill. I support those arguments very strongly.
I have already referred to Amendment No. 13. Amendments Nos. 14 and 15 will be spoken to in more detail by the noble Lord, Lord Rix, as will Amendment No. 152, which seeks to provide for representation from those with,
"experience and knowledge of the needs of disabled people".
The noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, will gather from that that there is a great deal of concern about who will be appointed to the committee. I know the difficulties of having a totally representative committee. However, there should be a way of saying that those who are referred to—disabled people, training organisations and local authorities—are important in their own right and are essential to the provision of education training and links with employment. I believe that they are important and I should be interested to know what the Minister has to say in response. I beg to move.
Lord Rix: Before I speak to Amendments Nos. 14 and 152, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, for making clear her intentions on Amendment No. 13. Clearly, my noble friend Lord Northbourne and I would have been left as stateless persons without a clause to which to attach our amendments. Therefore, I am grateful for that clarification.
I should like also to clear up one point. My noble friend Lord Northbourne will speak to Amendment No. 15. I shall confine myself to Amendments Nos. 14
550
and 152. Also, the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, said that she believed that she was supporting some of these amendments. She was supposed to be doing that but, somehow, in the printing of the Marshalled List her name appears to have disappeared and in its place is that of my noble friend Lady Darcy de Knayth. Therefore, we have made rather a mess of that. Our intention was that there should be all-party support for these particular amendments.
Today in particular, it has been made abundantly clear that there will be an emphasis on the representation of members of the business community on the learning and skills councils. Amendments Nos. 14 and 152 seek to ensure that the Government will take steps to make certain that the councils' membership reflects the diversity of the community and, in particular, develops expertise to meet the needs of learners with physical and sensory disabilities, as well as those with learning disabilities.
Again, these are not novel amendments. I moved similar ones in relation to the Disability Rights Commission. Now, of course, we have the fortune to look forward to a commissioner for the learning disabled with appropriate support. However, this is a matter of importance not only on the national scale—in this case, on the national learning and skills council—but also on the local scale in respect of the network of local learning and skills councils.
Our regional development agencies have been established with appropriate representation from local business and local government, but there is little or no representation from disabled people. At present, local learning partnerships are also being formed and a similar criticism applies. Furthermore, the Further Education Funding Council regional committees have been unimpressive in securing representation of disabled people.
As president of Mencap, I recognise our obligation as a voluntary organisation to make sure that people with learning disabilities are aware of ways in which they can become involved in the work of public bodies, but more needs to be done in respect of all disabilities. Perhaps the Disability Rights Commission could nominate a member of the national learning and skills council and play an active part in facilitating representation on local councils. I and other Members of the Committee—those billed and those unbilled—are asking for nothing more than a commitment from the Government to convince disabled people that the proposed learning and skills councils will address disability issues with the seriousness which they merit.
Lord Northbourne: I rise to speak to Amendment No. 15. Before I do so, I mention in relation to Amendment No. 14 that I hope that when we come to discuss disability we shall talk about it in the widest possible context, including the problems of mental disability and emotional disadvantage.
In connection with Amendment No. 15, if the learning and skills councils are to be successful, they need to understand the needs of education and training in a modern society and the needs of local employers.

551
Also, they need to understand the social and emotional problems which beset alienated and excluded young people. The noble Baroness said this afternoon that alienated and excluded young people are among the most important targets of this Bill. Often their problems arise much earlier in their lives, from experiences in the family or in local authority care. Unless one has experience of working with such young people—and I have had the privilege of doing that, as has the noble Earl, Lord Listowel—it is hard to believe that such young people are deeply vulnerable human beings, in spite of the veneer of "street cred", and one cannot begin to understand the problems that they have.
Therefore, I have suggested that on the councils there should be at least one person with experience of youth work in general and one person with experience of vulnerable young people. I do not believe that representatives of local business and of normal education are necessarily capable of envisaging the problems which those young people have and, therefore, of providing the services that they need. My amendment seeks to ensure that there will be at least one voice on each council with experience of very disturbed young people.
5.30 p.m.
Baroness Blackstone: Perhaps, at the beginning, I may clear up one matter in response to the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch. She commented that Clause 1(3) states that only one person is required to have relevant experience of the council's functions. I believe that she has interpreted that rather too literally. I understand that in Acts of Parliament the general rule is that the singular includes the plural unless the context otherwise requires. Therefore, under Clause 1(3) all persons must have experience relevant to the council's functions. I am sorry about that rather technical point, but I believed that I should clear up the matter and explain why there may be a little confusion.
I start with Amendment No. 10 in the name of the noble Baroness. I find it hard to comprehend how a party which in government did its utmost to diminish the power and status of local government should have performed such a spectacular U-turn. Of course, it would be ungracious of me not to welcome its conversion, but I fear that it has not yet found the right balance. Let me make it clear that we see a major role for local government in the new arrangements. It will be a central partner, not only in providing and securing learning opportunities in schools and through adult and community learning, but also as an organisation which can provide vision and leadership for local communities.
The new arrangements will offer greater influence over the whole range of post-16 provision as local LSCs will be required to consult local authorities on their plans and set out in them the post-16 learning provision which LEAs will secure. I am happy to
552
confirm that we expect the national and local LSCs to include members with current local authority experience.
However, it would be wrong to go further than that and to build in 25 per cent of places for local authority representatives. Then it would be difficult to ensure that there were enough places for all the other interests to be represented. In this group of amendments, we have already had requests from Members of the Committee for several other categories. However, we want employees, young people, adult learners, the voluntary sector, and so on, to have their place. It would be wrong to have members nominated by another body. We want members who are appointed on merit because of what they can offer, rather than as delegates of other organisations. I hope, therefore, that the noble Baroness will withdraw this amendment.
An important point in Amendment No. 11 is that national training organisations have a pivotal role to play in these new arrangements. I was encouraged to hear how many noble Lords highlighted the NTO role during the Second Reading debate. The NTOs have to be at the forefront of identifying national school needs in their sector and, working with RDAs and local LSCs, they will help to ensure that local skills needs are not just identified, but also met.
Recognising the importance of NTOs, we said in the prospectus that business members who are appointed to local LSCs will be expected to develop effective links with an appropriate NTO. That goes far further in practice than the amendment before us in ensuring that there is a truly effective role for NTOs.
I believe it would be unhelpful to specify in the Bill a requirement along the lines of this amendment, or indeed to legislate for the more ambitious arrangements that I have described and which we intend. We have clearly said that we do not want members of councils to be delegates of other organisations. There are difficulties of definition. It is not the NTOs which need to be represented, but the interests of different industrial and commercial sectors. We shall discuss how the skills needs of sectors can best be reflected when we consider the amendment of my noble friend Lord Haskel later this evening and when I shall make what I hope will be seen as a positive suggestion in this area. For those reasons, I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, will withdraw her amendment.
On Amendment No. 13, we want all the appointments to the national and local councils to be made following the so-called "Nolan" principles. That means that we shall draw up a specification of the skills, experience and background of the individuals we want for these demanding and important posts. We shall ask all our partners and stakeholder organisations with an interest and involvement in developing the learning and skills council to encourage their own people to apply. We shall openly advertise all the posts and ensure that we have an independent assessor who will sit on all the appointment panels. The panels will make recommendations to the Secretary of State on the best candidates for the posts.

553
In all these arrangements, we shall follow the code of practice for public appointments which has been set out by the Office of the Commissioner for Public Appointments. It is surely right that the Bill should contain a provision ensuring that the Secretary of State appoints people with relevant experience. That reflects similar provisions made in respect of the FEFC in the 1992 Act or, to take a more recent example, the provisions for the constitution of the RDAs in the Regional Development Agencies Act 1998. It is also vital to the success of an organisation which must understand and seek to meet the learning needs of a wide range of individuals and employers. Once again, I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, will withdraw the amendment.
Identifying and meeting the learning needs of disabled people will be part of the core business of the LSC and the CETW—not a peripheral concern. That is why the Bill requires the LSC and the CETW to have particular regard to the needs of people with disabilities and to report annually on their progress and plans in meeting the needs of disabled people. That is also why the Government have made a firm commitment in the learning and skills council prospectus that they would expect the national and local LSCs to have members who understand the needs of people with learning difficulties and disabilities.
As the functions of the LSC and the CETW clearly and explicitly include provision for disabled people, the Secretary of State and the National Assembly for Wales must—and I emphasise the word "must"—under Clauses 1 and 30 respectively, have regard to the desirability of appointing members of their respective councils who have experience relevant to disability matters. With that reassurance, I hope that noble Lords will feel able to withdraw Amendments Nos. 14 and 152.
Turning to Amendment No. 15, I want to make it clear that the new framework will support the severely disadvantaged and, socially excluded young people. The new arrangements provide for the LSC to work with partners at national and local level in creative ways to stimulate interest in learning and create opportunity and aspiration, especially among those who do not consider themselves to be learners. As we made clear in the prospectus, that will mean ensuring that learning should be accessible to all individuals and sections of the community and above all to the socially disadvantaged. I am happy to confirm that we expect the national and local LSCs to include at least one member with relevant knowledge and understanding of the needs of those severely disadvantaged or socially disadvantaged members.
Furthermore, at national level the head of the Notional ConneXions Service Unit will be invited to attend all meetings of the national council and of its Young People's Learning Committee. At local level the ConneXions Partnership will be invited to attend each meeting of the local councils of the LSC. So at every meeting of every LSC someone will be present with an understanding of the needs of socially excluded young people and experience of delivering support services to them.
554
It would be wrong to go further than that and guarantee at least one place for each group as members of the national council. That would make it difficult to resist calls from other groups or bodies and would be counter to the Government's wish that all council members are appointed on merit because of what they can offer rather than as delegates of other organisations. I hope, therefore, that the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Baroness Blatch: As I moved the first amendment in this group, I shall respond first. When I undertook the job now carried out by the Minister I suffered great frustration in relation to counsel's opinion. Almost daily I argued with the pedantic nature of the advice that I received from counsel. On one occasion, having received in the Chamber the most incredibly persuasive and I thought common-sense argument against me, I returned to the department and said, "I will not go into the Chamber once more defending the indefensible". I asked whether I could meet counsel. A great shudder went through the room and there was a great intake of breath. I was told that nobody meets counsel; counsel does not talk to Ministers. I insisted that I met counsel. I decided to hold a meeting in which I would sit as the honest broker and counsel would sit face-to-face with my noble friend Lord Renton, who with Members from other Benches had led the fray in the Chamber, and that they would battle it out. I watched and after about 10 minutes counsel conceded the argument.
I find this matter extraordinary on two counts. First, I believe that the wording is clumsy and that the only intellectually valid argument advanced by counsel—I do not blame the Minister—is that it has been done this way for a century so there is no reason to change it. Secondly, it is extraordinary that it should be necessary for any government to say, in appointing members to a national body which has a specific remit set out in law, that they will appoint the kind of members who will do a good job. I would have thought that that would go without saying.
I do not blame the Minister, but I believe that across this House we should insist that counsel must not be so pedantic and should concentrate energy and efforts on parts of the drafting of legislation that have much more substance about them.
The Minister chided me because of my apparently new-found interest in local government. I come from local government, I have a great affection for it and some experience of it. The removal or reforming of powers was carried out in the interests of devolving power downwards and not upwards, such as devolution to schools and autonomy for further education colleges. Such moves were welcomed by most councils in the end and they were certainly welcomed by the schools and colleges.

555
Councils are now being second-guessed by organisation committees and second-guessed, sometimes wrongly, by adjudicators. They will lose some of their funding powers under this Bill and they certainly will lose their power to determine matters locally. As set out in this Bill, whatever they do will have to conform with the directions of the Secretary of State as sent down through the national and local schools councils. I defend my right, first, to be a supporter of local government and, secondly, to say that over time its role does change, but I think that it should not change in keeping local the determination for decisions that impact on local people. I shall not be pressing my Amendment No. 10.
I hope the noble Lord, Lord Rix, will accept that Amendment No. 152, which bears his name—and I confirm on the record that I supported his amendments—impacts on Wales. My noble friend Lord Roberts will be dealing with all Welsh aspects of the Bill. When it comes to Amendment No. 152, he will speak to it in the context of it applying to Wales. I believe that he will support it. I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 10.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 11 to 18 not moved.]
On Question, Whether Clause I shall stand part of the Bill?
Baroness Blatch: At the beginning of the afternoon the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, was particularly cross with me, the noble Lord, Lord Tope, and the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, because we started off on what appeared to be a negative note. Indeed, it was either the noble Lord, Lord Tope, or the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, who was accused of wrecking the Bill. Like them, I can see how that interpretation is technically drawn in relation to the amendments that we are discussing today. The argument is not about whether there needs to be more coherence for 16-plus education. There is no disagreement across the whole of the Chamber about that. The argument is about means to ends. From what the noble Baroness has said and what the noble Lord, Lord Tope, has done, I believe that it could be done better, more effectively and certainly at less cost.
My view is that there seems to be almost a fetish on the part of government that anything invented by the previous government must be changed, even if they agree it in principle, rather as they tried to agree with grant-maintained schools in principle. But grant-maintained schools had to go. They had to be redefined. Some changes had to be made. Sadly, the changes were in terms of losing autonomy. They knew that deep down it had in fact been a good idea to give schools more control and more operational autonomy.
556
Much the same is happening with training and enterprise councils. At some stage, the noble Baroness said that there were good, bad and indifferent training and enterprise councils. Earlier this afternoon, they were referred to as quangos. They are not quangos. They are incorporated companies, and they are separate. Hence, there is no clause in the Bill to dissolve them. They will not be dissolved: they simply will not receive contracts from the DfEE. They will not wither on the vine, but will go in some haste. It is not clear from the details in the Bill exactly how that transition will occur and what some of the practical manifestations of it will be.
There are two fairly important points when it comes to management of change. One is that it can be difficult. It certainly can be painful for the people who are involved and who are the losers. Certainly many members of staff will not be reappointed. Some people who have given very good service as voluntary members will cease to be used. The other side of management of change—and this has been my experience in local and in national government—is that management of change is expensive. To be done properly, it is costly. It is conventional for government, and indeed local government, never properly to fund management of change. Often, with hindsight, the reason why changes do not happen in quite the way that Ministers want them to happen has more to do with the fact that the changes were implemented on a shoestring.
Clause 1 is a bureaucratic monster. It is far removed from the aim of the Bill, which is to introduce more coherence and a more locally-tailored service to meet the skills and educational needs of communities and of business and commerce. A network is already in place. There is an argument for revisiting TECs—training and enterprise councils—looking at their composition, powers and modus operandi, and for introducing some reform so that they can deliver what the Government want.
The noble Baroness earlier criticised the fact that there are too many TECs and said that they are going to be reduced in number. I shall come back to the financial aspect of that in a moment. If that is the case, looking at their coterminosity with other bodies with which they have to work and at whether or not the areas they cover are right, the relationship between them, local business, local commerce and local authorities could be built upon in a practical and cost-effective way.
I was disturbed when earlier today the noble Baroness appeared to imply that part of the £50 million would in fact be saved by reducing the 72 councils down to 47. It is of course true that they may operate in fewer buildings. Parkinson's law being what it is, I suspect that those buildings will still stay within the public sector. But they will use fewer buildings. Is the intention to use fewer staff? And is the intention to have less money? In other words, is the money that is presently available to training and enterprise councils to be reduced in order to provide for the local skills

557
councils and the national skills council? If so, what is the equation and what is the basis on which that calculation is to be made?
5.45 p.m.
Lord Haskel: I am most grateful to the noble Baroness for giving way. I wanted to remind her that we are debating whether Clause 1 shall stand part of the Bill. Will she tell us why she thinks that Clause 1 should not stand part of the Bill?
Baroness Blatch: I have given a few reasons already—management of change; costly bureaucracy; this is not the way to achieve the ends; that the argument is about means to ends and not about wrecking the Bill. How many other arguments would the noble Lord like me to introduce? I introduced funding and the cost of management of change. I have even been positive and suggested that there is a way of taking the existing network and building upon it. I have talked about the possibility of revisiting the training and enterprise councils and looking at their coterminosity with the bodies with which they work. I could go on.
In the past few minutes I have mentioned all those points. All of them are relevant as to whether Clause 1 is the best way forward or whether there are alternatives which would work in an effective way. This is a bad way to go forward. It is a top-down system. It is going to be expensive. It is going to be remote from the people it serves. It is going to require even more co-ordinating bodies than presently exist. The coterminosity makes some sense in some parts of the country, but not a great deal in others. That has not been addressed.
The Government have a propensity for not accepting any amendments—I say that having watched the television programme on Sunday evening—even minor amendments, when almost everyone's view, both in the back room and in counsel's opinion, is that the Bill could be changed. I am not hopeful that we will get change in this respect. I believe that this clause should not stand part of the Bill in the interests of giving us an opportunity to find a better way to achieve the aim of more coherence of post-16 education.
Baroness Blackstone: We have heard a good deal from the noble Baroness and from the Benches opposite, through their amendments to this clause, about their concerns over the membership and status of the council. But they miss the basic point that there is wide recognition among learners, providers and employers that the current system of post-16 education and training no longer meets the country's needs in the 21st century.
This is nothing to do with a government with a fetish for change. This is a government listening to the criticisms of many people—whether students, employers or providers—of the current system. We would be failing in our duty if we did not listen. Respondents to our Green and White Papers were clear that we have to do away with the incoherence and
558
duplication of different funding, planning and delivery systems. We have to raise standards, increase and widen participation and tackle the skills deficit. That is what the new learning and skills council will achieve.
I was not cross with the noble Lord, Lord Tope—I see he is not in his place—for introducing his amendments; I was just a little disappointed that we began our proceedings today with what I feel were close to being wrecking amendments. However, none of the alternatives proposed by the Benches opposite offers a coherent solution. The regional structures advocated by the noble Lord, Lord Tope, rob us of the opportunity to meet national challenges with national solutions. Large employers, national public and voluntary organisations all welcome the prospect of being able to relate to the LSC at a single national level. They know that they will be able to avoid the duplication and wasted effort which many face now when dealing with 72 separate TECs. The noble Baroness was correct in her definition of them, but they all have different systems and different approaches. We are constantly being told that that makes it difficult when dealing with them.
The proposals from the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, to distance the Secretary of State from appointments and essential links with the LSC serve only to limit the elements of control and scrutiny which Parliament should properly expect government to exert over an NDPB. I say again in relation to the proposals specifying the composition of the council on the face of the legislation that, although the Government are committed to the inclusive nature of the council under the business leadership that we set out in the LSC prospectus, we do not accept that legislation should or needs to specify quotas. That of course applies to local government representation.
I entirely accept what the noble Baroness was saying earlier about her long record in local government. When I was being critical in suggesting that there was a U-turn, I did not mean it personally. It is perhaps the case that she not only fought parliamentary counsel—I wish I had been a fly on the wall at that meeting—but also fought her colleagues in reducing the role of local government in this whole area. That is certainly what her government did.
The learning and skills council represents a new opportunity to tackle more effectively the learning and skills deficits that have for so long blighted economic performance and the development of an inclusive society. Clause 1 is central to the Bill and I urge the Committee to agree that it should stand part of the Bill and I hope the noble Baroness will withdraw her objection.
Baroness Blatch: That was again an interesting answer. The noble Baroness said that there needs to be more coherence. I admitted that from the outset. There is no argument between our Front Benches in relation to coming together in the interests of having more coherence in post-16 education.

559
The criticism of the system is interesting. I have spoken to a large number of people in the build up to this Bill. Almost always people said that they did not like the way the Government decided to resolve this issue, but that is a lost argument; that has now gone. People are pragmatic. They realise that they must get on with their lives. They accept, at the end of the day, that they have to live with the government of the day. Business people in particular have to get on. They have neither the time nor the resources to engage in a long war of attrition about these matters.
There is huge support for coherence. Duplication of funding is also an issue. The problem of some people being paid twice can certainly be resolved. We are worried about the duplication of funding because we feel that what is behind it is a kind of averaging downwards. At Second Reading the Minister referred to averaging upwards and, in the interests of Pepper v Hart, we shall be watching that carefully. Indeed, in a letter to me the noble Baroness put on paper that there will be no averaging downwards. But it begs the question that where there is a policy intention that equal funding for equal courses shall be pursued— similar courses are at present being funded differently—will that be levelled upwards or downwards?
We are also concerned about the funding mechanisms which will change; for example, the circuitous method of top-slicing sixth form money at national level; giving it to the national councils who will then give it to the 47 local councils who will then give it to the hundreds of LEAs who will then give it to the schools. First, that will be a costly circuitous route; and, secondly, each individual school wants some guarantee that it will not lose out in real terms. Or will there be an amortising across the schools? So real practical problems arise in relation to the system underpinned by Clause 1.
Finally, the Minister refers to training and enterprise councils as being different; some being effective and some not so effective; some having different systems and some different approaches. The idea that 47 local skills councils will be uniformly good and uniformly effective is a nonsense. Human beings are what they are. Some will be led by good people and have exceptional boards, and some will not. It is a matter of fact that when there are so many councils, there will in the end be the good, the bad and the indifferent.
I feel strongly that there are better ways of doing this. There are ways of building on the strength of what works now and I wish to press for the opinion of the Committee.
5.57 p.m.
On Question, Whether Clause 1 shall stand part of the Bill?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 118; Not-Contents, 62.

Division No. 2

CONTENTS

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Irvine of Lairg, L. (Lord Chancellor)

Alli, L.

Amos, B.

Jeger, B.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Judd, L.

Ashton of Upholland, B.

Kennedy of The Shaws, B.

Bach, L.

King of West Bromwich, L.

Barnett, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Blackstone, B.

Lipsey, L.

Blease, L.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Borrie, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Bragg, L.

McCarthy, L.

Briggs, L.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller]

Brookman, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

McIntosh of Hudnall, B.

Burlison, L.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

Carter, L. [Teller]

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Christopher, L.

Massey of Darwen, B.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Crawley, B.

Molloy, L.

Darcy de Knayth, B.

Morris of Manchester, L.

David, B.

Nicol, B.

Davies of Coity, L.

Northbourne, L.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Orme, L.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Palmer, L.

Dearing, L.

Paul, L.

Desai, L.

Pitkeathley, B.

Dixon, L.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Dubs, L.

Puttnam, L.

Eatwell, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Elder, L.

Rea, L.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Evans of Watford, L.

Rix, L.

Falconer of Thoroton, L.

Rogers of Riverside, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Sawyer, L.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Filkin, L.

Shepherd, L.

Fitt, L.

Shore of Stepney, L.

Gale, B.

Simon, V.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Simon of Highbury, L.

Goldsmith, L.

Smith of Leigh, L.

Goudie, B.

Stevenson of Coddenham, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Harris of Haringey, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Harrison, L.

Tenby, V.

Haskel, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Hayman, B.

Uddin, B.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Warner, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Warwick of Undercliffe, B.

Howells of St Davids, B.

Whitaker, B.

Howie of Troon, L.

Whitty, L.

Hoyle, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Woolmer of Leeds, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Young of Old Scone, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aldington, L.

Byford, B.

Astor of Hever, L.

Caithness, E.

Attlee, E.

Colwyn, L.

Biffen, L.

Cope of Berkeley, L.

Blatch, B.

Cox, B.

Boardman, L.

Cranborne, V.

Bridgeman, V.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Buscombe, B.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

561

Elton, L.

Norton of Louth, L.

Ferrers, E.

O'Cathain, B.

Fookes, B.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Geddes, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Glentoran, L.

Pilkington of Oxenford, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Rawlings, B.

Henley, L. [Teller]

Reay, L.

Hogg, B.

Rees, L.

Hooper, B.

Roberts of Conwy, L.

Howe, E.

Rotherwick, L.

Howell of Guildford, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Inglewood, L.

Seccombe, B. [Teller]

Kimball, L.

Selborne, E.

Kingsland, L.

Selsdon, L.

Knight of Collingtree, B.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Liverpool, E.

Stewartby, L.

Luke, L.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Lyell, L.

Strathclyde, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Swinfen, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Tebbit, L.

Marlesford, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Northesk, E.

Young, B.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Clause 1 agreed to accordingly.
6.7 p.m.
Schedule 1 [Learning and Skills Council for England]:
[Amendment No. 19 not moved.]
Baroness Sharp of Guildford Baroness Sharp of Guildford moved Amendment No. 20:
Page 55, line 23, at insert ("for one further term only").
The noble Baroness said: This is a minor amendment. Paragraph 2(2) of the schedule states that,
"On ceasing to be a member a person is eligible for re-appointment".
The purpose of this amendment is to place a limit on the number of times re-appointment can take place. We believe that in any organisation it is healthy to have some renewal of membership. There is a tendency sometimes for organisations to become self-perpetuating oligarchies. Therefore, we believe it is a good idea to have on the face of the Bill a limitation on the number of times that a person may be eligible for re-appointment. On that basis, we suggest that a person should be eligible for re-appointment only for one term. I beg to move.
Lord Bach: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for moving her amendment so quickly. But I am confused. As I understand the amendment, it refers to "one further term", which suggests two terms in all. I understand that I am right in saying that.
The Government are fully in agreement with the general rule set out in the code of practice for public appointments and by the Office of the Commissioner for Public Appointments, that members and chairs of the LSC should generally serve for a maximum of two terms. In making the appointments, we shall follow those guidelines. But they allow for exceptions in exceptional circumstances. It may be that a member or chairman of the LSC makes such a valuable contribution that it would be right to re-appoint that
562
person for a third term. I stress "exceptional circumstances". Therefore, we do not believe it appropriate to write into the Bill an absolute bar against serving more than two terms in every case. In the light of the assurance I gave that the Government will follow the guidance in these matters, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Blatch: I hope that the noble Baroness will forgive me if I put a question to the Minister before he sits down. The noble Lord appears to be accepting the thrust behind the amendment; namely, that there should be a defined period of time beyond which someone should not be appointed. I believe it is possible to deal with this in the Bill. The proviso would not apply to the chief executive. I put him in a different bracket, as he will be the number one employee of the council. However, it would apply to the chairman and the members of the council. Would it not be possible to insert the words,
"shall not normally serve more than one further term",
so that it is presumed in favour of not serving one more term? I wonder whether the noble Lord is sufficiently open minded to consider not only the points made by the noble Baroness but also my suggestion that some provision should be placed on the face of the Bill to ensure that people do not believe that there is a sort of unwritten rule that they could serve two, three, four or even more terms.
Lord Bach: I hope that I am sufficiently open minded to listen carefully to all the suggestions made by the Committee. However, tempting though that offer is, I must reject it. I repeat: we intend to follow the code of practice for public appointments. It is publicly stated and publicly known. Given the fact that we are likely to do so, it would be wrong to put anything like the provision suggested by the noble Baroness on the face of the Bill. I take this opportunity to return to the point about the chairman's appointment. I should make it clear that we see the first appointment being for a term of between three and five years.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: I have to say that I am most disappointed that the Minister cannot see his way to putting this provision on the face of the Bill. Given that it is in the code of practice for public appointments, it seems most appropriate for it to be on the face of the Bill. However, given the Minister's insistence, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 21:
Page 56, line 7, leave out sub-paragraph (3).
The noble Baroness said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 22 and 23. This amendment proposes to remove paragraph 1(1) of Schedule 1 which relates to the appointment of the chief executive. I feel most strongly about this matter. The first line in the schedule reads:
"One of the Council's members is to be its chief executive
If it is good enough for that line to appear on the face of the Bill in Clause 1, as it relates to the chairman, it seems to me that it should also appear in the clause as a definitive statement that a council member is to be chief executive. The Minister will know that I think that that is wrong. I believe that there should be a proper separation between the chief executive and the policy makers. Therefore, I do not accept or support the arrangements set out in Schedule 1(1).
Amendment No. 22, which proposes to leave out subparagraphs (6) to (8), has been tabled for the sake of clarification. I seek some explanation in this respect. These paragraphs are very difficult to read. For example, subparagraph (6) says:
"The Secretary of State may remove a disability",
but what is a "disability"? We need a definition of that word. Moreover, the powers referred to in subparagraph (7) include those to,
"remove (either indefinitely or for any period) a disability which would otherwise attach to any member, or members of any description, by reason of such interests, and in respect of such matters, as may be specified or described by the Secretary of State".
Again, what does that mean? What are the "interests" and "matters" referred to? What description can the Minister offer us in that respect?
Finally, in subparagraph (8) we read:
"Nothing in this paragraph precludes any member from taking part in the consideration or discussion of, or in voting on, any question whether an application should be made to the Secretary of State for the exercise of the power conferred by sub-paragraph (6)",
which I simply do not understand. As I said, the purpose of this amendment is to seek clarification.
Amendment No. 23 refers to paragraph 9(1) of the schedule and deals with something that I battled for in the past. However, I lost that battle and am now trying to see whether I can win it from this side of the Chamber. I do not believe that we should have interference or intervention by the Secretary of State, or by a person acting in his name, at these meetings. The council should at least have some say in whether it has a representative of the Secretary of State attending and taking part in deliberations at its meetings.
If the Government are really arguing that the Secretary of State will not have a handle on absolutely every aspect of this Bill, this is a very good area to demonstrate that fact. It seems to me that the council has been established to carry out a task for which it has a remit, and it must do that job within the framework of the law. Therefore, if the council would like a representative of the Secretary of State to be present at its meetings and take part in the discussions, that is fine; but it should be a matter for the council. I beg to move.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Bach: Amendment No. 21 would affect LFC staff, who will be public servants working for a non-departmental public body. While the detailed terms and conditions of their employment will be a matter
564
for the LSC to determine, it is surely right that the Government should be able to ensure that those terms and conditions are in line with public sector policies. This is well established for other NDPBs and replicates provisions made in respect of the Further Education Funding Council's terms and conditions. I give way.
Baroness Blatch: I thank the noble Lord. I should point out that the amendment does not refer to members of staff. Paragraph 1 is headed "Chief Executive" and only refers to him. There is no reference to the appointed members of staff.
Lord Bach: I believe I know what has happened here. Amendment No. 21 refers to line 7 on page 56, which falls under the heading of "Staff". Having heard the noble Baroness's opening remarks, I suspect that she meant to refer to line 7 on page 55. Therefore, although I am properly addressing the amendment on the Marshalled List, it is not the one that the noble Baroness intended to move. Perhaps I may suggest to her that it would be sensible to re-table the amendment on Report so that it could be dealt with at that stage.
Baroness Blatch: I am grateful to the noble Lord. There has either been a typographical glitch, or I am responsible for making a mistake. In fact, there should be two amendments: one should refer to subparagraph (3) on page 56, while the other should refer to removing subparagraph (1) on page 55. I apologise for any confusion that has arisen. I shall return to both amendments.
Lord Bach: With the greatest respect to the noble Baroness, as the amendments deal with the same matter she could withdraw these amendments today and re-table them on Report. That would clarify the situation.
Baroness Blatch: I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 22 and 23 not moved.]
Schedule 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 [Education and training for persons aged 16 to 19]:
Baroness Sharp of Guildford Baroness Sharp of Guildford moved Amendment No. 24:
Page 1, line 21, after first ("education") insert ("and training").
The noble Baroness said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 28 to 30, 48 and 49. All these amendments relate to the inclusion of the words "education and training" together, rather than separately. Our reason for so doing is to stress the fact that education should be holistic for those who are under 16 as well as for those who are over 16. By separating the two and creating a separate world for both education and training, we are breaking the holistic nature of the two concepts, putting them into separate compartments and treating them as such. We feel that the two need to be considered together.
Earlier in the debate the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, said that in the modern world in which we live people need to have largely transferable skills. Our young people need a good, solid base of education and of skills. The latter are often referred to as the training element of education. People need to acquire high levels of capability and competence in skills to enable them to be transferable in the modern world where people cannot expect to hold a job for life but have to move from job to job and retrain. They need to be able to cal on the solid base that they have acquired. As I say, this solid base incorporates both education and training. Therefore it is extremely important that both aspects should be considered together. That is the essence of our amendments in this group.
I turn to Amendments Nos. 48 and 49. Clause 3(4)(c) states that,
"training includes vocational, social, physical and recreational training".
Amendments No;. 48 and 49 seek to amend that phrase to,
"education and training includes vocational, social, physical and recreational education and training".
It is important to recognise that as regards many forms of adult education in particular it is not a question of training or of acquiring vocational skills but rather of broadening the mind. We would like to see that concept included on the face of the Bill.
Amendment No. 33 is in many senses the odd one out in this grouping. It seeks to amend Clause 2(3) which is concerned with the facilities that the council must provide. We believe that the provisions in this subsection are static in nature. In this modern age it is important to recognise that facilities become out of date. Anyone who now has a 486 computer will recognise how difficult it is to run up-to-date software on it. One can get by for a while but one has to be able to interchange information with others and that becomes increasingly difficult. These changes take place quickly. As I say, it is important that the facilities that are provided for our young people should be kept up to date. For that reason we have tabled Amendment No. "33 which states,
"take account of technological development".
I beg to move.
Lord Northbourne: I speak to Amendment No. 37 which is grouped with the amendment that we are discussing. This is simply a probing amendment. I hope that the noble Baroness will make clear what meaning the Government attribute to the words "education", "training" and "leisure-time occupation". The noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, spoke of broadening the mind. I wonder whether cultural education, for example, would be included in the education that the Government envisage. I should like to see education defined in the same way as in the education Act and defined using the phraseology that I included in my Amendment No. 3—the wording of which is taken from the 1988 Act.
566
Will the kind of education and training that the learning and skills council will be charged with delivering include that wider kind of personal development which is sometimes described as "life skills education"? For example, does it include personal, social and health education and citizenship education, if those have not been adequately delivered to and absorbed by a 16 year-old who may have been out of school for a number of years? I am particularly concerned about education for relationships and parenthood because young people who have missed school and who have disturbed family backgrounds are not likely to have received any guidance whatever with regard to the responsibilities of parenthood. I believe this issue to be of the utmost importance in our society today. I refer to both the responsibilities and the joys of parenthood.
As regards leisure-time activities, does the learning and skills council have the power to fund personal, social and emotional development through, for example, sport, outdoor leisure and adventure activities and challenges such as the Duke of Edinburgh Award Scheme? Would the council have the power to support and fund more ambitious projects under Operation Raleigh or the Sail Training Association which can be so valuable in terms of giving young people more confidence in themselves? Finally, would the council have the power to provide supervised accommodation and support for young people while they are pursuing this kind of education?
Baroness Blatch: I believe that the concerns of the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, and of the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, could have been satisfied if the relevant wording had been taken from the 1988 Act and included in the Bill. That would constitute a statement to the effect that education is multi-dimensional and involves spiritual, moral, mental, social and cultural dimensions. The inclusion of that wording would have reassured all those people who consider that the Bill is narrowly drawn and ignores those other aspects of education that have been mentioned. I support the thrust of what has been said in this regard. The noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, presented the Government with a simple solution to this problem.
Lord Bach: We recognise and accept that our present arrangements for post-16 education and training are too fragmented and incoherent, and for far too many people are not working as well as they should. The most vulnerable and disadvantaged sections of our community are too often excluded from participation in education and training, a cycle that all too often is perpetuated from generation to generation.
Members of the Committee quite rightly make the point, in Amendments Nos. 24, 28, 29 and 30, that the proposed new arrangements should not simply perpetuate the artificial distinctions and separate systems of the past. The Government appreciate the concern that the form in which the duties of the council are expressed may imply a continuation of such

567
divisions. However, I can assure the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, and the Committee that this is not so. Indeed, we would be concerned if there were any implication that the needs of individual learners had to be pigeonholed into convenient categories of education or training, rather than provision that responded to what learners actually require across the whole spectrum of needs. Nor is this the intention of the clause, which sets out in a comprehensive fashion the duties of the council in respect of the 16 to 19 age group. It ensures that, whatever their education or training needs, they will have an entitlement to receive provision that meets their needs. I give the noble Baroness that assurance. I hope that in the light of that assurance she will feel able to withdraw her amendments.
Turning to Amendment No. 33—the amendment relating to technological development—I should point out that the Government have been paying great attention to ensuring that the rapid pace of technological development has not been leaving our schools and colleges behind. Of particular relevance to post-16 education and training has been the initiative to establish the national learning network, the planned IT infrastructure supported by £74 million of new government funding resulting from our Comprehensive Spending Review. This will be centrally procured on behalf of the further education sector through the Joint Information Systems Committee by UKERNA, the United Kingdom Education and Research Networking Association. The network is to be established by March 2001 and will connect all FE colleges and higher education institutions with links to the national grid for learning.
This will provide the essential infrastructure so that our major providers will have a national learning network linking further with higher education, improved access to IT facilities for both students and staff, including access to modern learning materials. This will also support the sector's capacity to play a leading role in the University for Industry.
All this has been achieved within the existing framework. We expect this work to continue and to develop under the LSC without the need for an express legal duty. The key factor is that the LSC must be led by the needs of the learners who access the provision the council supports. This will encompass a wide range of facilities, not least including those required for agricultural, artistic, scientific and cultural needs. We believe that it would be wrong to single out for special attention and give priority to one set of facilities, important though such facilities may be, and give them priority over others. On that basis, I invite the noble Baroness to withdraw that amendment.
Turning next to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, I hope that he will forgive me if I first make what may seem to him to be a technical point more than anything else. Much of the Education Reform Act 1988 has been replaced and its main provisions are now concerned with further and higher education. As of course he knows, matters relating to secondary education are now found in a consolidated
568
form in the Education Act 1996. We are therefore slightly wary that his amendment could be a wrecking amendment—although it is not intended to be—because it would impact upon the learning and skills council's ability to support secondary educational provision made by schools, particularly in sixth forms.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Northbourne: I thank the noble Lord. I did make clear that these are only probing amendments.
Lord Bach: I understand that. I am grateful to the noble Lord for reminding me.
Turning to the other components of the amendment, as the noble Lord knows, Clause 2(4)(c) already ensures that "training" includes social, physical and recreational training. But in addition it includes vocational training, which we think is an important element. We believe that our formulation is good.
"Leisure time" occupation is a recognised definition found in Section 2(6) of the Education Act 1996. Although it is phrased in different terms, I can assure the noble Lord that the kind of activities described by him are encompassed within the meaning of post-16 education and training. I should also make clear that although the scope of the council's responsibilities extend to England only, if a course required related activities such as a field trip outside England, the Bill does not prevent that.
I shall use a fairly broad approach to try to answer the noble Lord's more detailed questions. He mentioned various kinds of education—cultural education—and he then referred to what he quite rightly said are known as "life skills". In a broad sense, the Bill and the LSCs are intended to cover those kinds of education as well.
I turn now to Amendment No. 40. The concerns creating artificial distinctions—
Baroness Match: I am grateful to the Minister. I did not refer to Amendment No. 40. It is by way of a probing amendment. My specific concern—and, looking again at the amendment, it perhaps refers more to paragraph (d) than to paragraph (c)—relates to small companies. Given that education and training will be delivered by many providers, including the workplace, and given that some very small companies take on trainees, I am anxious for confirmation from the Minister that there will not be a requirement on employers to provide leisure and recreational facilities which are entirely beyond their means. Perhaps he can confirm that there will be a way of, not circumventing what is set out in the clause, but of circumventing the practicalities so that what is set out can be met by other means. I have included colleges of education in the amendment so that if they are provided with football facilities, games facilities or whatever, a way is found to ensure that the burden does not fall on a very small employer.
Lord Bach: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for explaining the purpose of her amendment. The

569
amendment is about creating artificial distinctions. On the face of it, there is no good reason why those who are educated in a college should be able to take part in broad educational activities while those who are educated in other places cannot. We recognise the importance of the further education sector. It will be receiving a large amount of money from public funding each year and it will have the major responsibility for the delivery of post-16 education and training.
I am sure that the noble Baroness did not intend by her amendment—which she said is a probing amendment—not to take into account the adult education work carried out by local education authorities and the voluntary sector. That is essential work which complements the work of the further education colleges. I cannot think it is the intention of the noble Baroness that they should be excluded from the council's remit. As for the assurance that she requires, I can give her that assurance. Perhaps on that basis she will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
I turn now to deal with Amendments Nos. 48 and 49. We understand the concerns of the noble Baroness about the wording. The education and training to be secured by the council should not be construed in a narrow way. Vocational, social, physical and recreational education are all encompassed within the meaning of "education". I appreciate why the noble Baroness, upon leading subsection (4) of Clause 3, might come to the conclusion that they are not. What appears on the page is an express provision for vocational, social, physical and recreational training, but no equivalent in respect of education. That is her point. It is a reflection of the way in which education and training legislation has developed over the years, and which this Bill, thankfully, at last brings together. As the noble Baroness knows, education law fills four weighty volumes, no doubt at enormous expense. The statutory provisions which enable training arrangements are very much less detailed.
The meaning of "education" in this subsection should be interpreted to include both secondary education made in sixth forms and further education, definitions of which are contained in Section 2 of the Education Act 1996. These have the broad meanings sought by noble Lords and include vocational, social, physical and recreational aspects. But there is no equivalent definition of "training". To ensure that there is no doubt that the council must secure training in its broadest meaning, subsection (4) includes the reference to vocational, social, physical and recreational training. The noble Baroness has raised a good point. I hope that she will accept that her amendment is unnecessary for the reasons given.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: I thank the Minister for his full replies on the various points I raised. The Minister says that the spirit of our proceedings is to be holistic, to include education and training; and that we do not want to return to the bad old days of fragmentation. I find it somewhat disappointing, therefore, that it is not on the face of the Bill. If the Government want to turn over a new leaf and move
570
forward in those new ways, it is disappointing that they cannot find the ability to write that into the Bill and to get away from the twofold definition. I accept the Government's good intentions on the matter, but there may in future be governments who are perhaps not so well-intentioned. It is therefore good to have such provisions on the face of the Bill and that is why we are asking for them.
I shall for the moment withdraw my amendment, but we shall consider the issue again and perhaps return to it at Report stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 25:
Page 1, line 23, at end insert ("or of persons who are above the compulsory school age but have not attained the age of 25 and who did not acquire a level 2 qualification in the year in which they attained the age of 16").
The noble Baroness said: In moving the amendment I shall speak also to Amendment No. 26, which is in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Tope. There is a difficulty here. I should like to flag up the amendment at this stage, but I shall certainly not be pressing it. There is a basic concern that there is a split in the Bill between those up to the age of 19 and those beyond the age of 19. For those up to the age of 19, "proper" facilities must be provided; for those over the age of 19, "reasonable" facilities need to be provided.
The distinctions are subtle and important. However, education and training are not like that. There are young people studying for A-levels who may become 19 or 20 while they are doing so. Many young people are in the middle of a course at the age of 19. They may have completed one, two or more years of a course. They may be in one establishment straddling the age groups of up to 19 and 19-plus. There is a real difficulty in the way in which the Bill has an absolutely definitive cut-off at 19. Some would ask why the line is there at all. We could argue about the difference between the words "proper" and "reasonable" unless the Government have a specific reason for the distinction.
The noble Lord, Lord Tope, is more flexible in his suggestion. His amendment specifies, "or older", giving the Secretary of State a discretion which may be flexible. I am saying more definitively that the cut-off age should be 25. Young people may be mid-stream in their courses when they pass the age of 19. There will be others who, for one reason or another—which may be health reasons—simply have not got out of basic statutory education what they should have done and for some reason leave school without qualifications. We all know that there is a disturbing number of young people still leaving school without basic qualifications. Their needs continue to be of concern.
The Government have laid great stress on the importance of finding a way to encourage such people back into education. That policy is supported by Members on all sides of the Committee. Too many young people are simply wasted to society, to themselves and to their families. If ways can be found to bring them into the fold, that is to be supported.
If there is to be some difference between the emphasis given to whether "proper" or "reasonable" provision is made for students of a certain age, I believe that the stipulation of 25 covers school-leavers who are lost to the system and are found perhaps at the age of 20 or 21 and those who, perhaps for health reasons, find themselves grappling with basic education and training post-19. It is an improvement for all sorts of other practical reasons. We are concerned on two grounds. First, the artificiality of making a definitive split in the Bill at 19; secondly, to find a more practical way of giving a more firm guarantee of proper provision for people who leave education without having acquired a level two qualification. I beg to move.
6.45 p.m.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: I rise to endorse the remarks made by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch. We on these Benches are extremely concerned that there is a cut-off at 19 when it is clear that, as the Minister herself mentioned earlier, quite a large of number of people who missed out on the education process during the normal school years are now returning to it. Many are doing so after a period in and out of work or of unemployment, having come to the conclusion at a somewhat older age that they wish to return to education and training. The Government are extremely anxious to encourage such people back in. The distinction drawn implies that there is a right for those under 19 to those facilities but for those over that age it could be more difficult if the implication of the distinction between Clause 2 and Clause 3 is, "If there's enough money in the kitty we'll do it; if there isn't, we won't".
We should like to see that entitlement extended to those aged up to 24. The National Skills Task Force recommended in its third report that the entitlement up to level three education should be met by the Government up to the age of 24. We should like the Government to accept that proposal. As the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, mentioned, our amendment is somewhat looser than hers. It gives greater discretion to the Government and in that sense it is something of a probing amendment. We are looking for a commitment or statement from the Government as to how they view the proposals from the National Skills Task Force.
Baroness Blackstone: We recognise that the country needs a substantial improvement in participation and achievement at every level of attainment, not only at level two. We are only too aware of the legacy left, I am afraid to say, by a failure to invest in our education. The amendments highlight that part of that legacy, indicating that nearly 900,000 people in the 19 to 25 age group in England do not have a level two qualification. There are well over 1 million such people in the United Kingdom as a whole.
We have already acted to improve performance towards all the national learning targets, supported by an unprecedented investment of public funding. Our
572
target is for 85 per cent of 19 year-olds to attain level two. The attainment of that target is not only a task of the post-school world; schools also have a vital, if not a predominant, role to play in ensuring that pupils leave with the skills they need for the future. We expect the provision funded by the learning and skills council to build on the improvements now taking place in school standards.
The LSC will be required to give priority to the learning of 16 to 19 year-olds, fulfilling our commitment in the White Paper to give all 16 to 19 year-olds an entitlement to education and training, whether full-time or part-time, if they want it. In response to the concerns expressed by the Committee, we expect the additional resources that we are devoting to post-16 learning to allow access to learning for all those who need it. We are making the biggest ever investment in further education: £3.9 billion in 2001–02, compared with £3.1 billion in 1998–99—an extra £800 million.
In discharging its duties, the council must of course take into account the differing aptitudes and abilities of all the people for whom it has responsibility. The local LSCs will have discretion to secure the right balance and mix of post-19 provision in their area. Delivering progress towards the national targets will be an important part of their responsibilities. But to single out the needs of one group of adults and to give them priority over all adults would be wrong, although of course I have some sympathy with what lies behind the amendments. It would restrict the council's ability and discretion to make judgments about what may be the equally, and perhaps even more pressing, needs of other adults, including those with special needs or disabilities. The LSC must be able to exercise discretion.
Although we judged it right to make a distinction between provision for the 16 to 19 age group and adults in much the same way as the previous government's legislation, it is certainly not the case that we regard learning for adults as unimportant. I accept what the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, said about 19 not being a complete cut-off age. Of course it is not; of course there are young people half-way through courses; and of course there are young people who for one reason or another need to catch up. However, for the sake of convenience, we need to have some clear understanding of what constitutes "young people" for the purposes of this Bill, and indeed for the purposes of the work of the LSC, as against adults.
We have already announced an enormous increase in resources available for adult learning in further education. In 1998–99 expenditure on adults in further education was £1.6 billion pounds. In 2001–02 it will be £2 billion. This will enable the number of further education students to increase by 650,000 by the academic year 2000–01, compared with 1997–98. We need to go further. We expect to widen participation substantially, and the major part of that expansion will be for adults. I do not accept that we are in any way undervaluing the learning needs of adults.

573
The UFI, which is to be launched in the autumn, will provide adult learners with, we hope, even greater choice and flexibility. It will offer innovative ways of accessing and delivering provision and will be responsive to the needs and circumstances of many hundreds of thousands of learners. The LSC will work closely with the UFI to ensure a coherent approach to education and training for adults. No one should be in any doubt that the Government wish to embed lifelong learning into people's lives.
However, we must get things right for younger learners in the first place. The challenge at 16 to 19 cannot be underestimated. Noble Lords will no doubt be aware of the findings of the Social Exclusion Unit's report Bridging the Gap, but I want to highlight a few key findings. In the 16 to 19 age group we have still, regrettably, some of the lowest rates of participation in Europe. We have a sharper decline in participation from age 16 to age 18 than many countries in Europe. Young people who are not participating are at increased risk of being unemployed, becoming involved in drug abuse and having poor physical health. We are clear that the LSC's priority must be the 16 to 19 age group, and nothing must detract from that. Let us get this right and then we can focus the increasing resources we are devoting to adults into enhancing and developing higher level skills, not in tackling the results of earlier failure. If we can get it right, we will save on later expenditure. We will pick up the pieces from that failure and be able to invest more in developing adult skills.
I must also point out that extending the entitlement has substantial resource implications. Although it is attractive in many ways, that point must be taken into account. For young people alone the council will be spending the best part of £4 billion pounds on an age group that covers a two-year cohort. As I said, we have increased the resources for adults and will continue to do so. But with the best will in the world, no government could put on the face of the Bill a commitment of the type that is sought. It would be misleading and deceptive to make a provision that we could not deliver; and equally it would have been misleading for us not to have made clear in the Bill our policy priorities.
In the light of what I have said, I hope that the noble Baroness will understand why I must resist her amendment and ask for it to be withdrawn.
Baroness Blatch: The noble Baroness said that it is important to have a definition of "young adult"—someone up to the age of 19 as set out in the Bill. But there is no rationale for that other than the use of the word "proper" in subsection (1) and the word "reasonable" in the first line of Clause 3. Otherwise it would not be necessary to define that at all. The noble Baroness has not referred to those two words and has not referred to the distinction which I asked to be made when I moved Amendment No. 25.
As far as I can see, there is not an open cheque for proper provision as set out in Clause 2, unless the Government say that proper provision means that proper provision will be made as long as the resources
574
are used cost-effectively—but will be made whatever it costs. In Clause 3, which uses the word "reasonable", subsection (2) is very restrictive. It refers to,
"taking account of the Council's resources".
Is the argument that for making proper provision the council does not have to take into account its resources and that in making reasonable provision the council does have to have regard to its resources?
In the real world any local authority or any local skills council trying to perform its duties under the Bill, even in the proper provision set out in Clause 2, will inevitably have to have regard to the resources allocated to it through the funding system. I, am fascinated by the distinction between provision for under-19s and provision for post-19s and the distinction between "proper" and "reasonable".
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: I thank the Minister for her reply. I, too, am somewhat disappointed by it. I had hoped that we would receive a clearer statement as to where we might be on the learning entitlement for 19 to 24 year-olds, although I understand the argument that at the moment the Government's priority lies with the younger age group. I also take in fully the points which the noble Baroness made in relation to the need to give priority to that age group and how badly we perform in international terms at that level. I very much hope that before long the Government will be able to say something more positive on this issue.
Baroness Blatch: I asked the Minister a question. I am waiting for a reply.
Baroness Blackstone: There is an issue here about entitlement. Clearly, once we have written on the face of the Bill an entitlement, there are major resource implications. In relation to "proper" and "reasonable" and the use of resources, later amendments refer to this issue. Perhaps I may deal with the matter when we reach them.
Baroness Blatch: I find that extraordinary because this is absolutely material and key to these amendments. The whole point of looking at the distinction between up to 19 and beyond 19 relates to these two words in the first lines of Clauses 2 and 3. That is entirely pertinent. I do not know to which amendments the noble Baroness refers. I am talking about Clauses 2 and 3, where two distinctive approaches are taken to providing education for pre-19 and post-19 year-olds. Clause 3 refers to the council being mindful of resources. I am arguing that, in the real world, even in making provision under Clause 2, any council will have to have regard to its resources. It is not a blank cheque policy.
Baroness Blackstone: In the interests of making progress, as the issue is raised directly in Amendments Nos. 34 and 35, I should be grateful if we could return to it when we debate those amendments.
Baroness Blatch: I am disappointed; however, I shall wait in anticipation for the explanation in response to Amendment No. 34. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 26 not moved.]
7 p.m.
Lord Rix Lord Rix moved Amendment No. 27:
Page 1, line 23, at end insert—
("() education (other than higher education) suitable for the requirements of persons with learning difficulties or disabilities (or both) who are above compulsory school age but have not attained the age of 25,").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I note that the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, will speak to Amendments Nos. 38, 47, 159 and 160 dealing with vocational and non-vocational learning for people with learning difficulties and disabilities. I shall speak to those amendments at the appropriate time. For the present, I shall confine myself to Amendments Nos. 27 and 156, which seek to remedy a well-known inadequacy in the Further and Higher Education Act 1992; namely, the Act does not fully recognise the importance of learning opportunities for students with learning difficulties up to the age of 25.
The amendments are not designed to be dogmatic in awarding disabled students a stronger entitlement to further education than other students (who are of course entitled up to the age of 19). Rather, they seek to embrace in law the power to remedy a system which in practice fails a significant number of disabled young people.
At Second Reading, I spoke of the impact of learning difficulties on the learning process, recognising that disabled learners often take longer than their peers in terms of speed of learning. I spoke specifically of the impact on students with learning disabilities, but it is also true of students with other impairments, particularly progressive conditions. Young people with physical disabilities or health problems may lose study time while undergoing treatment, with a cumulative effect on their learning. Deaf or visually impaired students, like students with learning disabilities, may have problems accessing or processing information.
The law as it stands has had a direct adverse effect on students, often mid-way through their course as they have reached the critical age of 19. LEAs operating blanket policies of support have been known to withdraw critical support services once the age of 19 has been reached on the grounds that the students no longer fit the standard eligibility criteria. And of course, once such provisions as transport funding are withdrawn, courses are often untenable for students with disabilities.
It is something of an irony that the substantive point has been partially recognised. The DfEE extended entitlement to special training needs up to the age of 25, and in the residential further education sector there is also an entitlement up to the age of 25.
That creates anomalies of another kind, about which I spoke in some detail at Second Reading. Under the current dispensation, individuals have to be rejected by a number of mainstream colleges before being offered funding for residential provision. That is
576
a substantial barrier to accessing education appropriate to the individual, which the new Learning and Skills Council Prospectus heralds as the ideal. I shall be delighted if the Minister will assure me that that barrier will be removed under new arrangements so that all students with disabilities will have the opportunity to extend their education to the age of 25 if that is necessary on account of their disability. I beg to move.
Lord Addington: My name appears on almost all the amendments in this group. The noble Lord, Lord Rix, has slightly understated the case. People have problems going through the educational process if they have disabilities because they "do not fit", or—probably the worst scenario—if their disabilities are not recognised in time. Anyone who has had contact in the field of education with those with disabilities must have heard the great mantra: the disability was not recognised on time or the person did not "fit the form" or the way matters were arranged. Such people may suddenly find themselves running into the problem of being too old to go through the education process that they have begun.
Different examples can be offered but they all come back to one thing: if the student has a parent or teacher who is on the ball and gets on to the right path quickly enough, most of the problems disappear. Certain groups need continued support, and these amendments cover them. But for many—I refer principally to dyslexics or those with mild autism, Asperger's syndrome—unless they get onto the treadmill of the right form of education and into the right set quickly enough, they will bump against the age limit of 19. For people from lower income backgrounds, especially those whose parents are not, for instance, good at paperwork, it becomes a major problem.
During a discussion on this issue at my party conference last year, someone said to me that he had a disabled child "who had chosen its parents terribly well". I think it was a case of a lawyer and a doctor. They knew how to fill out the forms and how to batter civil servants, minor officials and local education authorities into providing the right help at the right time. That is important. If—and it is a very big "if"—the age of 25 can be added to the provisions, suddenly the situation will start to fit people better. They will have a better chance of getting through their chosen educational process, and of obtaining training and support afterwards.
I know that many local authorities make provision afterwards, if possible; but it is a lottery. The outcome is dependent on where a person lives, the type of support that he or she has and on an organisation picking up the problems early enough. The amendment would prevent the difficulties in many cases. I hope that the Government will listen solidly to the proposal. I have made far too many speeches on this subject over the years and should like to stop!
Baroness Blatch: I support the amendments. Perhaps I may say to the noble Lord, Lord Rix, that I

577
thought, when we discussed groupings this morning with the officer dealing with the matter, that we were taking out the Welsh amendments, Amendments Nos. 156, 159 and 160—not because they are not important but because my noble friend Lord Roberts would like to deal with them. I know that he will deal with them supportively. Therefore, I wonder whether the noble Lord will agree that they will be dealt with under the Welsh clauses in the Bill.
The other amendments standing on my name repeat the theme that has been set out, and in my view understated, by the noble Lord, Lord Rix, and by the noble Lord, Lord Addington, with some passion.
The fundamental points are these. For many, non-vocational education is recreational. They can take it or leave it. Therefore, it can sometimes be seen as less important than vocational education. But for those with learning difficulties, non-vocational education is often important to them and to their lifestyles for developing self-confidence, independent living skills and the like. Therefore, to such people the importance is all the greater. The amendments would place on the face of the Bill a recognition of the importance of non-vocational education.
I know that people with learning disabilities would not wish to be singled out specifically in this way. For many others, non-vocational education is important. But there is a general feel about the Bill that non-vocational education does not receive a great deal of emphasis and will somehow end up subservient to narrowly focused education and training, mostly leading to vocational qualifications.
I make this appeal to the Minister. For a number of people, particularly those with learning difficulties, non-vocational education is special to their lives—and in a practical way, not simply a recreational way. I support the noble Lord, Lord Rix.
Baroness Darcy de Knayth: My name is not attached to any of the amendments in these groups—I exclude the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, for the moment. However, perhaps I may say briefly how strongly I support them. I very much hope that the divide between those up to 25 years old in the residential and non-residential sectors will go. What one needs is to follow the appropriate course. Obviously, if one is capable of going to a local non-residential college that is a further development in one's ability to manage. It is depressing that there are still instances in which support is withdrawn at the age of 19. We do not appear to have moved very far since the passing of the 1992 Act. I very much support the observations of the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, about non-vocational courses, particularly for those with learning difficulties but also for the aged, the lonely and those who do not get out much. Such courses help their lives enormously.
Baroness David: My name is also added to these amendments, which I strongly support. I believe that the case for these amendments has been well made. Non-vocational courses provide a way in for a great many people. The noble Baroness, Lady Darcy de
578
Knayth, has referred to the old. I believe that these courses provide people with the means to get started again. They may enjoy non-vocational courses that encourage them to move on to vocational courses. I very much hope that, if my noble friend cannot give way entirely, she will give some hope—I am sure that she will express understanding—that something will be done at some stage.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: Perhaps I may intervene briefly to support these amendments. In doing so, I should declare an interest as the father of a 19 year-old daughter with Down's syndrome who, therefore, has learning disabilities, or mental handicap (as some of us still prefer to call it). At the moment, very often there is a gap, or trap, into which children like my daughter fall when they leave school and should go on to educational provision provided by the FEFC. It is not surprising that there is no tremendous enthusiasm on the part of the FEFC or social services to take over this function completely. Therefore, such young people fall into this very unfortunate gap.
I am glad that Amendment No. 27 spells out the fact that we are dealing also with young people with learning disabilities as opposed to learning difficulties, the former being very much more severe (in the jargon). Can the Minister say whether I am right in assuming that the social services content of the provision for these young people will continue under the new system in the same way as it should do—although it does not always—under the present system? In other words, what happens to the social provision in a young person's life when he or she leaves a course at, say, three o'clock in the afternoon, perhaps being in accommodation nearby, and all the rest of it? At the moment, this is a difficult area that is not working well. I hasten to add that my daughter aged 19 has not yet encountered the difficulties to which I refer, but I have heard of very many such cases over the past dozen years or so. I support the amendments and ask the Government to do what they can to meet them.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Rix: I am grateful to all Members of the Committee for the support that they have given. I should like to speak to Amendments Nos. 38, 47 and so on; in other words, I wish to speak to the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, which are separate from mine.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Strabolgi): The noble Lord is perfectly entitled to speak to other amendments, although he cannot move them. Although it is not my business, I suggest that it would be tidier if at this stage the Minister replied to the first amendment.
Lord Rix: I shall give way.
Baroness Blackstone: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Rix, for allowing me to reply to this group of amendments. I am perfectly content if, following my reply, the noble Lord wishes to raise issues related to

579
other amendments in the group. A good deal of support for these amendments has been voiced in all parts of Chamber. I hope that what I am about to say is not misconstrued. Once again, it is not that we do not sympathise with and support a great deal of the thinking that underlies the amendments. However, there is a more specific difficulty with the amendments.
Clauses 2, 3, 31 and 32 place the councils under clear duties in respect of persons aged 16 and over. They include persons with learning difficulties or disabilities for whom the councils must have particular regard because of Clauses 13 and 40 respectively. Further, as part of the councils' duties they must take account of the varying abilities and aptitudes of different persons. The Government recognise that those needs, abilities and aptitudes do not suddenly change overnight on a person's 19th birthday. No one would expect a young person who is part-way through a GNVQ not to be allowed to complete his or her course. Likewise, nothing in these provisions prevents learners from continuing their education, whether it is secured under Clauses 2 or 3 or Clauses 31 or 32.
Where a person over the age of 19 has learning difficulties which have delayed his progress or ability to complete a course we do not want his or her opportunities for learning to be diminished; far from it. We want that person's opportunities to continue to learn to be enhanced and supported. We want to build on existing good practice. In further education, many adult students with learning difficulties already successfully undertake courses in a range of areas. Currently, arrangements enable effective support to be provided to students, including carers of various kinds and signers, material in alternative formats and so on. Students are also supported to attend specialist institutions where their needs can best be met in that environment. That will continue and will provide the basis for the LSC's work in this area.
In response to the noble Lord, Lord Rix, the LSC is to be set up to meet the needs of those with learning difficulties as a priority, and so it should be. Unlike existing arrangements under the FE Acts, this Bill does not require consideration to be given to mainstream provision before a specialist place can be sought. It is not the intention that young people should be required to take provision that does not meet their needs. We shall consult on the arrangements that the LSC will develop in this area. That said, where possible we wish young people with learning difficulties to learn with their peers. I am sure the noble Lord agrees that, where possible, that should be encouraged.
I accept that Members of the Committee can cite instances where individual learners such as I have described have not had the opportunity either to complete or to undertake the course of their choice. However, the arrangements that we propose in the Bill enable the LSC to provide effective support for them. I am in no doubt about the importance of the LSC exercising its duties under Clauses 2 and 3 in a way which reflects the need for students with learning difficulties to be able to complete their courses, perhaps having started at a later age than some of their
580
fellow students or needing a little longer to complete them. I intend to issue guidance to the LSC to underline and reinforce that point.
We do not, however, believe that Amendments Nos. 27 and 156 are required to ensure that the needs of such learners are met. Their effect would be to give everybody up to the age of 25 who has learning difficulties an entitlement to post-16 education and training. As many Members of the Committee will be aware, some people have relatively minor learning difficulties and their ability to learn is not significantly impaired. The consequence of the amendments would be to give them priority at the expense of other learners, some of whom may have much more significant problems due to terrible past experiences in their lives. These people come from extremely disadvantaged backgrounds of one kind or another.
I turn to Amendments Nos. 38, 47, 159 and 160. I recognise the concern of noble Lords that persons with learning difficulties should have access to the full range of educational opportunities that is available to other students.
One of the changes introduced by this Bill is an end to the unfortunate and artificial divide created by Schedule 2 to the FHE Act 1992. The duties of the LSC and the CETW are not hindered by this divide. Indeed Schedule 2 will be abolished: it is going. The duties extend to all forms of post-16 education and indeed throughout this Bill we have sought to define education so as to have the widest possible meaning.
To qualify the definition in this way may possibly call into question that wideness of interpretation elsewhere. Clauses 2, 3, 31 and 32 place the councils under clear duties in respect of all persons aged 16 and over. I want to reinforce what I said earlier. That will include persons with learning difficulties, for whom the councils must have particular regard because of Clauses 13 and 40 respectively. There really should be no doubt that the education to be procured by the councils include both vocational and non- vocational education, not just for those with learning difficulties but for everyone.
Of course I accept what has been said by the noble Baronesses, Lady Blatch and Lady Darcy de Knayth, that vocational education can be especially important for those with learning difficulties and indeed also with other disabilities. But while sympathising, as I said earlier, with what lies behind these amendments, I do not actually think they are necessary. I hope that, in the light of the reassurances that I have been able to give, those with their names to these amendments will feel able to withdraw them.
Baroness Blatch: I thank the noble Baroness, but may I just remind her that my noble friend Lord Roberts reserved the right to speak quite independently to the Welsh amendments. The noble Baroness has not referred to them in responding to this group of amendments but my noble friend will in fact come to them fresh, and of course given that the Welsh

581
system is different anyway it will give him an opportunity to deal with these matters in the context of the Welsh Assembly.
Baroness Blackstone: I am sorry that I did not pick up that point, but there will be absolutely no problem about that.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: May I ask the noble Baroness the Minister to confirm the point that I put to her—that social services will be encouraged to deal with the social part of the costs of a child or a young person at least as enthusiastically as they do at the moment: perhaps even more so? Secondly, will the LSC be able to fund young people with severe learning difficulties in special schools that may be suitable to their needs and in accordance with their parents' wishes?
Baroness Blackstone: On the first point, this Bill is not really about social service provision and so perhaps it would be inappropriate for me to give any commitment in the context of the Committee stage of this Bill, other than to say that of course we are trying to do everything possible to improve social services provision in this particular area. As to specialist provision, I believe I referred to that earlier in responding to the noble Lord, Lord Rix. Yes, we wish to make it possible for young people with severe learning difficulties to have the specialist provision that will be more appropriate to their needs.
Lord Rix: I am very grateful to the Minister for her full response. I must apologise if I appeared to be interrupting before she actually responded to me and to others. In fact I had just been handed a paper outside the Chamber which illustrated the problems between vocational and non-vocational opportunities. There is a college of further education that has cut its part-time pre-vocational programmes for students with severe learning disabilities by half—that is 13 programmes—because it is difficult to prove that all the students would move on to vocational courses. I must stress that many in the MENCAP constituency are people with profound multiple disabilities who will never actually be able to take part in what are considered to be normal educational or indeed vocational activities. However, they should still be given an opportunity to progress. That is what I was hoping to add before the noble Baroness replied.
As regards Amendment No. 27, obviously I am disappointed that we cannot get a commitment to continue the education of people with learning disabilities up to the age of 25, but I must take away the Minister's response. I will consult with my colleagues on the disability consortium on post-16 education and training, and with others in your Lordships' House, before possibly returning to this at Report stage. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 28, 29 and 30 not moved.]
Lord Bach: Before Amendment No. 31 is called, perhaps I may beg to move that the House be now resumed. In so moving, may I suggest that the Committee does not begin again before 8.26 p.m.?
Moved accordingly, and, On Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Latin America: Trade
7.26 p.m.
Baroness Hooperrose to ask Her Majesty's Government what plans they have for promoting trade with Latin America in the light of the review by British Trade International.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the purpose of this short debate is, first, to ascertain the Government's latest plans to help and support British exporters in finding new markets and further developing existing trade and commercial links. Secondly, it is to inquire what the proposed changes may be. Thirdly, it is to ensure that at least some of the views of those who have been working in the field are given due consideration before it is too late.
My own particular focus, as president of Canning House (the Hispanic and Luso Brazilian Council), will be on Latin America and in particular on the work of LATAG, the Latin American Trade Advisory Group. My noble friend Lady Young will, I believe, concentrate on the Caribbean Trade Advisory Group. I am most grateful to her and to all speakers who are going to contribute in either a general or specific way to this debate from all sides of the House.
The immediate background and the reason for the timing of this debate follows on from the review of the current official arrangements for the support and promotion of exports initiated in June 1998 by the Foreign Secretary and the then President of the Board of Trade. Sir Richard Wilson was appointed to head the review team, composed of leading industrialists and senior civil servants.
This led to the Wilson Review, published in February 1999, which considered five broad options for structural change, and came down in favour of a unified DTI/FCO operation for furthering and improving British trade. Thus British Trade International was born in June 1999. So far so good, although these developments did not catch the headlines and to this day I believe that a large number of people in the business world are quite unaware of the changes.
One of British Trade International's first functions was to look at the role of business advisory groups. There are some 44 various groups covering most parts of the world, in terms of individual countries, regions and sectors of trade. Some of these work well and some do not. Some of these operate "in-house", within the

583
Department of Trade and Industry—or, as it now is, British Trade International. Some of them are "out-housed", as in the case of LATAG.
Perhaps I may move now from the general and dwell particularly on the Latin American Trade Advisory Group as an example of an out-housed area advisory group which has worked extremely well. In your Lordships' House, I hardly think I need reiterate the desirability of a strong British presence in the important developing markets of Latin America. Suffice it to say that the United Kingdom is the third largest investor in Latin America after the United States and Japan. Our exports, however, do not on the whole enjoy a favourable trade balance, and certainly suffered a sharp decline in 1998–99 because of the recession.
Nevertheless, we enjoy very good relations, historical and actual, in the region and we want to send the right signals to Latin American governments at a time when UK support for their various reform programmes is so important and when opportunities for UK trade are expected to benefit as a result.
LATAG has been promoting awareness of Latin America to British exporters in a number of ways. It has put its DTI funding to the best possible use. For example, it has initiated missions to markets no one else wishes to visit, and maintained that focus until the mission sponsors have taken up the role: for example, to Peru and Bolivia in the early and mid-1990s; to Central America in the late 1980s; and currently with the approval of the DTI desks, it plans to visit Ecuador, Colombia and Venezuela in February 2001.
It has targeted consumer goods manufacturers in the United Kingdom and organised 10 exhibitions in a number of markets in Latin America. It has worked closely with the DTI to encourage our mining equipment manufacturers to target the region with a four-year programme; oil equipment manufacturers with a two-year programme; gas equipment manufacturers with a two-year programme; and auto component manufacturers over a four-year programme. It is now targeting our universities to promote healthcare education and training in the region over a three-year period.
It publishes a bi-monthly magazine and a weekly newsletter, neither of which are subsidised by the DTI grant, and has secured 205,000 euros in funding from the European Union in 1998 and 1999. It has achieved all that with a very small secretariat which, nevertheless, represents an in-depth background knowledge of the region, has the necessary language skills and in addition shows proven administrative ability and the personality to carry a representational role as well as benefiting from continuity.
It has benefited from successive high-powered chairmen, enjoys good private-sector support in cash and in kind and, because it is housed within Canning House, shares and benefits the wider work we carry out there.
584
However, it is in relation in particular to its work with small and medium-sized enterprises that LATAG has been successful. Those of us with experience in the field know that the big boys can to some extent look after themselves, but the contacts and initial moves required by small and medium-sized enterprises must be focused and helped by the expertise that an advisory group such as LATAG can provide. Without a doubt, the work of LATAG has been efficient and cost effective, and we want to maintain and build upon its energy and drive in our continuing efforts in the Latin American markets.
I referred earlier to the business advisory groups' review. It recommends that most of the out-house groups should become in-house under the remit of British Trade International. I understand that North America, the Caribbean and the whole of Latin America will become one in-house group, although the final structure is due to be announced next month.
There is a cautionary tale here. I look back to the unhappy transition from the British National Export Council to the British Overseas Trade Board which was attempted in 1972–72. It was handled abruptly and the regional structure all but collapsed with the old BNEC members simply walking away. I believe that there were instances where in the end the DTI reverted to giving cash support to out-housed activities. We do not want to see a repetition of that. I am indebted to my noble friend Lord Limerick for that information. Had circumstances not changed last year, he would certainly have contributed to this debate, as on so many occasions in the past, from his expertise and interest in overseas trade. In that context, I need hardly add that my noble friend Lord Montgomery, although similarly barred, is following keenly our procedures.
In conclusion, I wish to make a plea. It may sound like several pleas. However, the one objective is to ensure that those vital and growing markets which stretch from Mexico through Central America and the Caribbean, and all the way through South America to Tierra del Fuego, remain as accessible and open to British trade, commerce and investors as they are now—indeed, we should improve on what is happening now—and that the United Kingdom can continue to be seen as an important link or bridge between the development of EU trade with the Latin American markets and the growing regional groupings such as Mercosur and the Andean Pact. My plea for achieving that objective is that the Government should not make change for the sake of change. They should ensure that all necessary consultation has taken place and full consideration given to finding the best possible alternative to the present out-housing arrangements, if change there must be.
Secondly, my plea is that the danger of a "one solution for all" approach is fully recognised and that decisions concerning, for example, the Latin American Trade Advisory Group and the Caribbean Trade Advisory Group, be taken individually and on their own merits.

585
Thirdly, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, will convey to his noble friend Lord Sainsbury—I understand that he has departmental responsibility for some of those decisions—the concerns and arguments raised in the debate; and the hope that his door will remain open to those who have direct knowledge of and commitment to the work in this overseas trade region before any final decision on making changes takes place.
7.36 p.m.
Lord Rea: My Lords, the noble Baroness has explained the basis of her concerns, in particular the consequences of the transfer from out-house to in-house status for the area advisory groups of the DTI and their merging into larger groups. The noble Baroness concentrated on LATAG. However, she referred to the Caribbean Trade Advisory Group (CARITAG), about which I am sure the noble Baroness, Lady Young, will speak with expertise, and which has the same concerns. Under the aegis of CARITAG is the Cuba Initiative for which the noble Baroness, Lady Young, was the midwife and of which I am a member. I can declare that I have no financial interests in trade with Cuba or Latin. America.
The small secretariat of the Cuba Initiative is provided by CARITAG and housed in the same building. Although many of the recent meetings of the Cuba Initiative have been held at the DTI it is a sub-outhouse—a small garden shed perhaps—compared with the large barns of LATAG at Canning House. I do not think that Canning House would like to be called a barn, but it "out-houses" that organisation.
Although I have visited 12 Latin American and Caribbean counties, I have spent the longest time in Cuba, including being a member of the British IPU Group which visited Cuba in September 1998. As we discussed in the Unstarred Question on Cuba which was introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, last year, Cuba had completely to reorientate its external trading arrangements after the collapse of the Soviet Union with whom 80 per cent of its trade was done. That has not been easy, especially with the embargo on Cuba imposed by the United States which is Cuba's natural trading partner. Cubans had to tighten their belts, and nutritional deficiencies occurred in the early to mid-1990s. However, the worst is now over and the Cubans have developed trade links with Europe, Japan, China and other Caribbean and other Latin American countries. The tourist industry is growing rapidly and the sugar crop is now beginning to recover after some lean years.
Until this year, there was a long period when Britain alone among European countries could not, or would not, provide export credit guarantees to Cuba. However, thanks to a considerable extent to the continuous knocking on the door of the Department of Trade and Industry by the noble Baroness, Lady Young, there has at last been a renegotiation of Cuba's modest medium-term debt so that the ECGB may shortly be able to offer loans. Just before he was
586
appointed to the Scottish Office, Brian Wilson, the then Minister for Trade, said last October at the Havana International Fair,
"The ECGD agreement is of symbolic as well as substantial importance. The old debt has been used as a reason for no progress being made in trade relations between Britain and Cuba. Removing that obstacle has been the focal point for changing relations between the two governments".
So I hope to see a rapid rise in British exports to Cuba, despite Helms-Burton and the US embargo. There is a huge need for replacement of the outdated and decrepit infrastructure of Cuba, as well as further tourist associated exports, which Cuba has already been able to pay for since they bring such immediate returns.
The relevance of this to the noble Baroness's Question is that the personal contacts, detailed local knowledge and linguistic ability of members of CARITAG and the Cuba Initiative and the sharing of their experience will be helpful, if not essential, in getting needed British exports to Cuba off the ground. As an example of the kind of value given to such contacts and advisory groups by exporters, I shall read out a couple of paragraphs from a letter sent to me by the president of the British Association of Day Surgery, which is carrying out work in Argentina.
"Personal contact and friendship still seem to be worth much more than promptness on the fax and e-mail and recently in Argentina involved both political parties at the time of their elections.
An advisory group can afford to be a little more eclectic than governments. Half-hearted and misdirected efforts need to be wheedled out which can be more difficult for Government bodies".
I hope that the proposed DTI review will in no way curtail the work of these free-ranging advisers.
7.42 p.m.
Baroness Young: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Hooper for raising the question of area advisory groups to British Trade International and their future. I spoke briefly on this matter during the recent debate on foreign affairs. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, understands fully that this is a matter of very deep concern to Caribbean governments, to the business community in the United Kingdom trading with the region, as well as to the members of the Caribbean Area Advisory Group, known as CARITAG.
I should declare an interest as president of the West India Committee and chairman of the British Cuba Initiative, about which the noble Lord, Lord Rea, has already spoken. Furthermore, I hope that the noble Lord will pass on to his noble friend Lord Sainsbury our anxieties about the proposed changes, because I understand that, as part of the plans to reorder priorities within BTI, a decision will be taken shortly to change the way in which it advises the private sector in the United Kingdom and delivers its export promotional services. Instead of having area advisory groups that reflect the complex and diverse nature of our trading relationships, it is likely that their special expertise will be dispensed with. This applies to groups covering all parts of the world as different as Eastern

587
Europe, Israel, the Caribbean and Latin America. In their place, consideration is being given to amalgamating them all into a limited number of internal groups run by officials with priority and resources only being made available for those countries or sectors within the region that BTI considers to be of importance. So for area advisory groups, which are mainly drawn from small and medium-sized enterprises and whose members have personal experience in regions like the Caribbean, the future is very uncertain.
This means that the area advisory groups for the region about which I am most concerned—the Caribbean—will be merged with Latin America and North America into an Americas group. The prevailing BTI logic suggests that this single body will concentrate on the United States and Brazil. I understand that this approach will be mirrored in the way that resources are managed within BTI and that the level of attention given to the Caribbean by officials will be further diminished.
I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, understands that trade and investment are the cement of international relations. Any decision, no matter how pragmatic, that diminishes the attention given to a region such as the Caribbean will quickly result in a reduction of the importance of that region. I am surprised that this should happen when, by common consent, the region is very fragile and vulnerable as it transits out of its existing preferential arrangements for commodities such as bananas. Furthermore, I am sure that the noble Lord is aware of the great anxiety lest that transition should mean a replacement with something as difficult and unpleasant as the drugs trade.
Any decision to diminish the already weak profile of the Caribbean is particularly curious when I understand that as recently as last September the Prime Minister assured Commonwealth Caribbean heads of government attending the CHOGM conference that he recognised that the moment had come to find ways to renew the relationship with the Commonwealth Caribbean.
It is even more surprising that CARITAG may be merged into an Americas group when it is clear that the Commonwealth Caribbean heads of government are asking Britain to recognise their special regional identity. The British Government will host a Caribbean forum for Caribbean foreign Ministers in May of this year. I believe that this is intended to identify ways to renew and build a new relationship with Britain. How does all this fit together?
CARITAG's demise also brings into question the very special relationship with Cuba, referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Rea, that has enabled Britain to expand its dialogue with the Cuban Government through trade. Indeed, Ministers have recently made clear to this House the importance of our trade contacts with Cuba in enabling dialogue.
However, what concerns me most is that this is potentially—I hope that the noble Lord understands this point and I choose my words carefully—a foreign
588
policy disaster. Anyone who knows the region will be aware of the recent events over bananas, the WTO process in Seattle and the changed relationship with Europe which has left the Caribbean feeling sensitive and marginalised. Last year the Spanish Prime Minister visited the Caribbean and met Caribbean leaders. President Chirac will soon do the same. The Caribbean market, although small, purchases over a billion dollars' worth of goods from us each year. In the light of that, what sense does it make for Britain to save the £95,000 a year that it spends on CARITAG?
I should like the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, to answer a number of questions. Can he say when the Government plan to reorganise the area advisory groups and when he will announce this? Have there been consultations with the Foreign Office and with our posts about the political and economic implications for the Caribbean? Do the Government intend to inform Caribbean governments of their decision? How does BTI intend to retain region-specific expertise on the Caribbean in its future deliberations? How does it intend to deliver Caribbean-related programmes for the community in the UK or Cuba?
I do not ask these questions to be difficult. I am very concerned about the Caribbean. This is an extremely serious situation and if the Minister cannot answer my specific questions tonight, perhaps he will be good enough to write to me.
7.49 p.m.
Lord Sharman: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, for giving us the opportunity to discuss the review by British Trade International with particular reference to Latin America. From a personal point of view, I welcome that review. I found it useful, although I share her concern about the lack of information. I found it hard to find out about the review. However, once I discovered the website, I found that to be quite helpful.
From my perspective, I believe that consolidation of export and trade promotion into a single brand— "digitally available", to use the words of the website— is good. From bitter personal experience—I spent 11 years on the other side of the export effort overseas— the most confusing thing was the plethora of export promotion bodies that came through the front door asking for help. That left the local market places confused and unfocused.
I believe that the most encouraging aspect of the strategy which is outlined on the website is what I would describe as a move from the shotgun approach of export promotion to one of rifle shot. I regard that as particularly important in the context of Latin America. Latin America is easy to talk about, but it is not a homogeneous area, economically, geographically or culturally. It has three very large economies: Brazil, at 780 billion dollars in GDP—about half the size of the UK; Mexico, which everyone focuses on, with a GDP of approximately 400 billion dollars—somewhere between that of the Netherlands and India; and Argentina, at approximately 340 billion

589
dollars—the size of Australia. At the other end of the spectrum is Guyana, with a GDP of 700 million dollars. The range is enormous. The cultural diversity is vast; the opportunities, I suggest, are limitless, but we must focus on them.
If looked at as an exporter, those economies in general have not been doing well. The combination of El Niño, the collapse of world commodity prices and the reduction in access to international capital markets on the back of the Asian crisis have caused them problems. Uncertainty in their cycle of presidential elections has made that worse. Although the forecasts are for that region to grow and for many of the economies to perform better, I believe that the issue is one of focus; it is one of selecting where to put our effort, and we might well look al. Mexico as an example.
Mexico, with its relationship with NAFTA, has border developments which competitor nations—particularly the Japanese—have not been slow to exploit. A whole series of manufacturing operations are being established along the Mexican border, which is seen as a base for access to the US market at a lower cost. That is allied to the presence in the region of what I believe to be a formidable competitor—the USA—not only in terms of its economic power but in its foreign direct investment into that area, which has been vast. The USA has an advantage in its cultural and heritage aspect, particularly with regard to Hispanic matters. That has given it an advantage over us when talking to the Hispanic nations there.
Perhaps more importantly, and not often realised, is the transport advantage which the USA has. While North American cities may well be an equal distance away, if one travels to Latin America, as frequently as I have done, one will find that frequently it is best to travel from one country to another by going via Miami. That is an advantage in economic terms.
I summarise, therefore, by encouraging the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, to look at this issue through the sights of a rifle rather than over the barrel of a shotgun, remembering that at present the area accounts for approximately 1.9 per cent of our exports and approximately 1.6 per cent of our imports. We need to focus carefully with the best possible expertise on the areas that will yield us the best results. That is my view in economic terms. There are, of course, other foreign policy matters that need to be considered as well.
7.54 p.m.
Viscount Waverley: My Lords, many issues arise from the Question of the noble Baroness. So far as Latin America is concerned, we need to differentiate between investment and trade opportunities. On the one hand, Britain excels; on the other hand, we have not risen sufficiently to the challenge.
Realistic opportunities do abound with national economies prospering. But with global exports increasing, and with developing countries bringing an increase in competition, the United Kingdom simply cannot take a relaxed view, particularly when we hold many comparative advantages. We in this country are
590
bad at harmonising national strategies that encompass public and private sectors. That needs to be overcome as an imperative. The French notably are far better than we are in this regard.
The private sector is in the ascendant in the United Kingdom, yet the public sector continues to interfere regularly with private sector goodwill endeavours. As chairman of a chamber of commerce, for example, I have had recent experience of high-handed intervention by a BTI official, who sought to undermine co-operation with a foreign chamber. Happily, an MOU was none the less subsequently signed, and it has already borne fruit.
As no or little government funding is forthcoming for innovative strategic marketing of services by the private sector, the Minister responsible should be careful not to erode the endeavours of the private sector, such as that that concerns the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper. That said, however, I welcome the spirit of the long overdue Wilson review and hope that Sir David Wright will address where the public sector contribution to export promotion begins and ends so as to allow others to make a much-needed contribution.
Sir Martin Laing's interim report has recommended combining the Americas, and that includes Canada and the Caribbean. With the exception of the Miami gateway factor, the United States is a long way removed from South America. In my view, care needs to be taken when considering the geographical split.
Whatever is finally agreed, the objects of organisations such as LATAG and, in the case of the Caribbean, CARITAG have a key role. On the broader front, the Institute of Export survey of international services provided to exporters confirmed that exporters are still unaware of the many excellent services available from government sources. The plethora of services available from a range of different official sources creates confusion, and so they are under-utilised. Government export support services should be more closely targeted, with better signposting and clearer branding of key services. The Wilson review appears to recognise that export promotion must become more customer-focused, more coherent and should be less diffuse. A clearly coherent strategy must succeed and without delay.
Beyond that, Sir David must maintain his customary pragmatic approach, but be supported with a comprehensive policy to export promotion. For example, in my mind, it serves little point to work hard in the national interest when a sometime key ingredient—ECGD—is unresponsive, with its often exasperating criteria for project support.
7.58 p.m.
Lord Luke: My Lords, first, I thank my noble friend Lady Hooper for giving us the opportunity to have this small but important debate. I shall not trouble your Lordships for long this evening, but I have had some small experience of both trading and living in Argentina. Aspects of the review by British Trade

591
International which we are considering this evening give me cause for concern, although, of course, I support worthwhile and effective reform in this area.
Like earlier speakers, I wondered whether the "out-house" restructuring would mean merely desk-bound civil servants taking over jobs from businessmen to the detriment of the vital person-to-person contacts which smooth the way for trade. Those sometimes take years to build up, as we all know, and could so easily be inadvertently destroyed by lack of the right kind of background and knowledge.
It is important, for example, to realise that the phrase "Latin America" is not always helpful when describing countries that may be thousands of miles apart and that have individual characteristics, procedures and approaches. Taking the whole of the two great subcontinents together and calling them for trade purposes "The Americas" seems to me to be the same as lumping together China and Russia and calling them Asia, saying that we shall treat the whole area in the same way. I hope that is not true.
There are enormous opportunities for our businessmen in South America, particularly with Mercosur. We should change the second language taught in schools in this country to Spanish—not forgetting Portuguese, although I do not suggest that that should be the second language. We should make absolutely sure that bodies set up to help businessmen trade are composed of persons skilled in personal contacts. The customer must be served.
8 p.m.
Lord Desai: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, for introducing this debate. Until I had read the material I would not have been aware of such great changes taking place. When she said that British Trade International did not make a splash, that is an understatement. Given a title like that I would be surprised if anybody noticed it.
I want to make a couple of points about the report and then to talk specifically about Latin America. The report is an example of people wanting to rationalise everything. The rationale for doing so, in the way that I read the report, has not been made. The survey showed that the level of customer satisfaction was high, although I agree that in the case of Latin America only one out of 17 people replied. By and large, customer satisfaction was high. We also see that not much money is being spent on this and that very little is being wasted.
Compared with an in-house group, an out-house group means that one can have flexible strategies and that people can be co-opted as and when one likes. I am sure that an in-house group would cost more money, would be less flexible and would not do such a good job. One of the oldest lessons learned in economics is how to use local knowledge. One has to decentralise, to take advantage of the private sector initiative and not put everything into administration.
Given that background, I would not have chosen the umbrella approach but a matrix approach which would not have meant aggregating all the Americas
592
into one lump. They could have had a matrix of countries by sectors or by markets and therefore one could pick up a combination of countries and markets rather than having this peculiar umbrella approach.
If it is not too late and if the co-operation and expertise of the private sector can be retained, given that it is not onerously expensive, I believe that that should be done. It is also the case that a variety of opportunities will arise, not necessarily in the narrowly defined trade areas but in other areas, including healthcare, as mentioned by the noble Baroness. I know that a lot of municipal water schemes, in which Britain has great expertise, are being launched. I believe that in the near future water will become a big investment area.
I believe that an out-house agency can take advantage of university expertise, but that is not mentioned in the report. All those area groups ought to liaise with the tremendous expertise that our universities have in relation to these regions. We have people who have absorbed the details of the regions over many years. That is an under-utilised resource. I say that as an academic. I know that the Institute of Latin American Studies at London University would be a good source for expertise, as would Oxford and Cambridge. I do not want to be parochial. That can be done by an out-house agency. For an in-house agency it would be difficult because it would have to go through DfEE or the like and it would become too complicated. At the end of the day, I hope that whatever happens, trade grows rather than decreases.
8.5 p.m.
Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lady Hooper on raising this important Question.
I am always pleased to see the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, however I am sorry that the Minister for Science at the Department of Trade and Industry, the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, is not in his place to respond to specific concerns raised this evening.
In considering the Question before us it is helpful to remind ourselves of the criteria used by the Wilson review for determining the preferred option for structural change for the delivery of export promotion. They are as follows. Would any proposed arrangements be clearer to potential exporters? Would a new structure be more accessible than the present arrangements to customers? Would any new structure deliver services, including market information to clients more quickly? Would a new structure have clearer leadership with the necessary clout with Ministers and customers? Would a new structure deliver the export forum recommendations more effectively? Would a new structure be better placed to change schemes and services when appropriate and be better placed to take speedy actions? Would a new structure improve and strengthen linkages between front-end delivery and the centre? Would a new structure strengthen links between export promotion and trade and inward investment policy?

593
British Trade International was formed with a view to meeting those criteria and it is now looking to the role of the business advisory groups within its remit. Clearly there is considerable concern with regard to the future of such groups and a fear that decisions—important decisions—that will necessarily impact upon the ability of British Trade International to perform its role in the promotion of trade are being taken too quickly and without sufficient consultation with interested bodies that are working in the area. We have been told that there is to be a single Americas committee—one of four world-wide—catering for all market needs in that region and that committee will advise on both regional and sector issues so that a number of existing area advisory groups will cease to exist.
The knock-on effect of that would, in practice, be to focus upon the larger, more established markets or economies of, for example, Brazil and Mexico. Of course, Mexico already has the advantage of being a member of NAFTA. That would take place at the expense of smaller economies such as Bolivia, Paraguay, Equador and Columbia. In addition, the promotional and developmental work carried out by outhouse groups such as LATAG and CARITAG will be lost. Given that the proposed Americas committee will include within its remit the USA, the Caribbean, Canada and South America, it is hard to envisage proper emphasis being placed upon any other than the dominant economies.
We are also informed that if all or most of the current so-called outhouse groups are brought inhouse they will be run or managed by civil servants as opposed to commercially-minded businessmen with skills and experience pertinent to their geographical or sector area. There is no question that businessmen prefer to do business with fellow businessmen and there is a concern that that culture will be lost. We would welcome the Government's response to such concerns.
On a positive note I want to make it clear that, having consulted with representatives from a small number of business sectors with interests in South America, there is no doubt that some broadly welcome the concept of British Trade International. I offer as an example the motor sport performance engineering sector. That is a small sector with an overall turnover of approximately £2 billion per annum. However, it is highly influential in the global automotive marketplace. It is a flagship sector that punches above its weight and one that has found British Trade International helpful and resourceful. Their trade association representative has spoken of British Trade International having clarity of brand and marketing, making its support services for their customers accessible, user-friendly and, therefore, effective. However, I should add that this positive experience relates to a relatively large established economy in South America; namely. Brazil.
Ultimately, of course, our interest must be to view its delivery of services through the eyes of the customer. That delivery must depend on how its resources are focused. Can it work for the small
594
economies as well as established economies? Is it, the aim of government to develop a service which is sector-focused and/or regionally focused? I like the idea of the noble Lord, Lord Desai, when he makes reference to a matrix. Surely it should be possible for us to consider a more sophisticated approach now, whereby we drive our focus towards sectors as opposed to geography.
Can a grouping such as the Americas committee honestly deliver with such a broad remit for such a diverse group of countries, both commercially and culturally? We are considering a very important mix of economies with numerous diverse emerging markets. Therefore, I repeat the plea of my noble friend Lady Hooper who is asking that we ensure that vital and growing markets remain as accessible and open to British trade and commerce as they are now.
In considering the future of the advisory groups, I would ask the Minister to look again at the criterion originally set for effective export promotion by the Wilson review—to which I have already referred this evening—and to consider whether the proposed changes to the British advisory groups will protect and enhance the trading interests of all affected countries, including vulnerable countries such as the Caribbean and Cuba.
Perhaps I may also reiterate the deep concern articulated by my noble friend Lady Young regarding the future of the Caribbean. I hope that her concerns will be seriously considered as decisions are taken, remembering that trade promotions should not be considered in a vacuum without proper regard for the bigger picture, and that must include the cultural and political stability of each country.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Government also are grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, for introducing this debate. I must say that she timed it extremely well. It is quite clear that a number of your Lordships have concerns about the nature of the review which is taking place of our export promotion activities, particularly in Latin America and in the Caribbean. It is proper that those concerns should be expressed and should be available to Sir Martin Laing and of course in the end to the Board of British Trade International which is to consider his final report which will be submitted to them at the end of March this year.
I apologise for my noble friend Lord Sainsbury who was unable to take this debate. I assure noble Lords that he does not have specific responsibility within the department either for trade or Latin America. If he did, I might not be here. This is particularly so since my qualifications for taking part in this debate are negative rather than positive. My contact with Latin America and the Caribbean has been as an organiser of trade missions to a number of places there; in particular, Panama, Mexico and Guatemala, but on behalf of the European Commission. It felt guilty about the advantages given to the Lomé Convention countries, and wanted to organise trade missions from Europe, which I organised for it, to encourage exporters from those countries to sell to Europe. So we were taking groups of importers from Europe, perhaps

595
it might be said, in conflict with what noble Lords' expertise is. I do not think so. I think it has to work in both directions. So I hope that my experience has been helpful to me in thinking about the issues raised in the debate today.
Certainly, from the point of view of the Government, our trade relationships with Latin America are an important subject for the House to consider. Over the past decade the region has emerged as a growing force on the world stage, not only economically, but also politically. But, as the noble Lord, Lord Sharman, said, there are still many problems despite the political and economic reforms and the historic co-operation between countries in the region which forced the rest of the world to take notice of Latin America, perhaps in an unprecedented way.
This is particularly true on the trade and economic front where Latin American countries have been at the forefront of trade liberalisation moves. It is now widely accepted that countries in Latin America are natural trading partners for other liberal economies. Our support for this process helped to forge last year a free trade agreement with Mexico and the EU. It is also helping to move forward discussions on agreements with Mercosur and Chile. The Government intend to continue playing a full part in ensuring that British business takes every advantage of the enormous opportunities for trade, investment and business partnership with Latin America.
I pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, and other noble Lords for their contributions over many years to the fostering of closer relations between the United Kingdom and the countries of Latin America. Although strictly speaking the Caribbean is not the subject of the debate, I pay comparable tribute, in particular, to the noble Baroness, Lady Young, and to all who worked with her in CARITAG. I do not shy away from discussing the Caribbean just because it was not part of the original subject of this evening's Question.
All parts of the United Kingdom, and countless organisations and enterprises in the private sector, have been responding to this challenge. As well as the many missions sponsored each year by British Trade International with private sector organisers, others have been promoted by agencies in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, invariably in collaboration with British Trade International. I entirely agree with what noble Lords have said, notably my noble friends Lord Rea and Lord Luke, that personal contact is absolutely essential if we are going to make progress in this area. There has not been any falling off in ministerial visits. I do not have the full list, but my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis, when he was Minister of Trade, made two visits in one year to Latin America as part of a punishing schedule. Indeed, sadly, it was a schedule which has punished him.
I return to Latin America. A central role in this process has been played by Canning House, of which the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, is the current president. I also pay tribute to Lord Montgomery and Lord Limerick who are no longer with us, but who are
596
past presidents of Canning House, and of course the Latin America Trade Advisory Group, which originally emerged from it and whose work was so well described by the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper. Especially in the bleak 1980s—the so-called "lost decade"—when for so many Latin America appeared to be a lost cause, those two organisations helped to keep interest alive in this country.
When Latin America so impressively re-emerged during the 1990s, those two organisations played an important role in supporting the government in developing a closer relationship with Latin America. I thank them both, and all Members of this House associated with them. I would extend those thanks to those who have supported CARITAG. But I know that both of them, while preserving our history, also look forward to the future. We must do as much as we can to ensure that our businesses are well equipped for the task ahead. That means ensuring that the support and promotional services provided by the Government are the best available and meet the needs of business. The words of the noble Lord, Lord Sharman, on this issue were very wise. Not being very knowledgeable about guns I am not sure that I follow the metaphors about the "shotgun" or "rifle" approach, because I really do not know what they do. However, I think that someone is trying to tell me something.
Just as Britain has been forging a new relationship with Latin America for the future, so the Government have been examining ways of improving our services to exporters, as well as looking at ways of using our resources more effectively. I want to emphasise that we have done that all the time in close collaboration with business itself as we have been determined to ensure that in all we do we focus above all on customer needs. The process started in 1997 when the Government set up the Export Forum to assess the effectiveness of current arrangements with particular emphasis, as was identified by the noble Lord, Lord Sharman, on the recommendations which addressed weaknesses which were seen to reduce the effectiveness of the Government's overseas trade services. They included the need for a greater customer focus and more defined market priorities with a greater emphasis on sectors and outward investment.
A number of noble Lords seemed to feel that the Wilson review received poor publicity. The noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, in particular said that it was not well known. When we look at the 24-page list of contributors to the review it is obvious that, whether or not they read the review to which they contributed, they knew it was taking place and must have received copies of it when it was concluded. It seemed to me to be a comprehensive list of everybody who might conceivably be interested in the review's outcome. That resulted in the setting up last year of British Trade International which brought together the trade promotion activities of the DTI and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (through its post overseas) in a unified operation under a chief executive, reporting to a board drawn predominantly from the private sector.

597
That is why I do not understand the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Luke, and the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, that somehow it is an organisation driven by civil servants. It consists largely of export promoters, development counsellors, as well as hundreds of commercial officers overseas, all of whom have direct links with the markets in which they are located. The emphasis was always on developing a more coherent approach with an overriding customer and sector focus combined with a shift towards trade development; that is, helping companies—particularly smaller companies to which reference has been made—to develop their capacity and ability to tackle overseas markets. It is not a bureaucratic organisation. It is a commercial organisation driven by business and the private sector. It has achieved a great deal in a short time.
Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, perhaps the Minister will allow me to intervene to say that I obviously did not make myself clear, was saying that we have been informed that if the advisory groups were brought in-house, they would be managed by civil servants as opposed to people from the business sector.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, we must draw a distinction as regards a secretariat. It does not matter enormously who employs the secretariat; the secretariat of LATAG has the status of home civil servants. That does not mean that they necessarily behave like civil servants even if that were a bad thing to do, which I cannot accept when I look around me. Let me assure your Lordships that it is all business-driven.
The Wilson Report then recommended that the board of BTI should review the present structure and role of the business advisory groups involved in providing advice and in carrying out promotional activities. When I heard the list of questions about the new structure which the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, asked, I felt sure that I could assure her that all of those were part of the remit of the review which Sir Martin Laing, the vice-chairman of the board, agreed to undertake. The report has been made available in draft to all advisory groups and has been placed in the Printed Paper Office. It is a research-based report which goes into enormous detail. It includes all the considerations which noble Lords quite rightly demanded that it should.
If I may anticipate my response to the noble Baroness, Lady Young—of course, I shall write to her in detail about each of her questions in turn—I found myself nodding each time she raised an issue because I was confident that, when she talks about for example consultation with the Foreign Office, with Caribbean governments and ensuring that there is expertise in the region, they have all been taken fully into account. We cannot therefore be accused, as my noble friend Lord Desai accused us, of having an "umbrella" approach.
Work is continuing on the options for a revised advisory structure which will result in a more focused activity by advisory groups. But I must stress that no
598
decisions have yet been taken on the future of out-housed secretariats such as LATAG and CARITAG, despite the implication in some of the contributions this evening. That is why I repeat that this is a well-timed debate. It gives an opportunity for what noble Lords say to be taken into account in the final decisions which the board will be taking.
Full account will be taken of the contribution that out-housed secretariats can make to the delivery of British Trade International's objectives as well as other considerations such as efficiency and value for money. However, I must emphasise that it is not money-led. The £95,000 cost of CARITAG is hardly a sufficient justification for saving a few thousand here or there for what the noble Baroness, Lady Young—I believe wrongly—described as a potential foreign policy disaster. I can assure noble Lords that their views will be given full weight before the final recommendations go to the board and by the board itself in considering the issues debated this evening.
Meanwhile, whatever the outcome of the review and while it is still in progress, the Government have every intention of continuing with their task of promoting trade with Latin America and the Caribbean. The Minister for Trade, Dick Caborn, launched a three-year promotional campaign last month to assist British companies to develop their business in Mexico. We are in the second year of a similar initiative in Brazil and Mercosur. There are plans to mount a millennium products exhibition this year in several Latin American countries, including Argentina, Brazil and Mexico accompanied by other events seeking to promote Britain as a country at the leading edge of technology, design and innovation. Throughout the region there will continue to be a full programme of supported trade fairs and trade missions which will take many companies into those markets.
I hope that I have reassured noble Lords that we place high importance on our trade with Latin America and indeed with the Caribbean and will not rashly take any steps which would put that at risk.

Learning and Skills Bill [H.L.]
8.17 p.m.
House again in Committee on Clause 2.
Lord Haskel Lord Haskel moved Amendment No. 31:
Page 2, line 4, at end insert ("and
() training suitable to the requirements of employers as expressed by employers and through their training organisations").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 31 I shall speak also to Amendment No. 41. Amendment No. 31 relates to people under 19 and Amendment No. 41 relates to people over 19, but the subject of the two amendments is the same. Indeed, we touched upon this matter when we were debating Amendment No. 11.
I remind Members of the Committee that at Second Reading I welcomed this Bill as an important initiative to provide education and training at college and at

599
work. During that debate many speakers, including the Minister, referred to the shortage of skills and education at work and how that was holding back our economy. Everyone agreed that training would make our companies more competitive and most of us agreed that this Bill would help.
Yet when we turn to look at the Bill, and the main duties of the learning and skills council, there is no recognition of that. Certainly the council is required to secure provision of proper facilities for education and training. Certainly the facilities have to be suitable to the requirements of people and, quite rightly, the Bill implies that the training belongs to the individuals, to the people being educated and trained.
The purpose is to provide people with the skills and education for personal development at leisure and work, for vocation and non-vocation. The council has to provide facilities for the skills that employers need. They have to be relevant. There can be expensive facilities for training engineers and technicians as well as less expensive ones for training, shall we say, hairdressers and journalists.
How best can we ensure that the facilities are relevant? It seems to me quite obvious. Surely it is to involve employers and their training organisations. The purpose of this amendment is to put that on the face of the Bill. I beg to move.
8.30 p.m.
Baroness Blackstone: Improving the employability of young people and adults will be a major feature of our new arrangements. We recognise that the training needs of employers, including an adaptable workforce which has the capacity and opportunity to learn new skills, must influence the way in which the council exercises its main duties. We have made it clear that employers will have a major say on the council itself and its local arms, and that it must be responsive to the needs of employers. The local and national council planning arrangements, informed by RDAs, will need to take that on board.
Employers, therefore, will have plenty of opportunities to ensure that their voice is heard. In particular, national training organisations have already made proposals as to how they intend to form close, practical links with the national and local LSCs to help to ensure that their work is "earthed" in the sectoral training needs. I welcome and very much applaud their ideas.
However, employers have their own responsibilities for developing and training their employees in the workplace. There is a balance to be drawn between what should be funded by the state and what is the responsibility of employers. We need to recognise that. We welcome the contribution of employers, who spend very substantial amounts in this area.
We also have to look carefully at the actual effects of these amendments. They would make the council statutorily responsible for all employee training and then leave the judgment of what is necessary to employers and not the council. That goes too far. We
600
expect employers to continue to be responsible for their own workforce training and not expect to substitute state funding for such activity.
For these reasons, I cannot support the amendments. However, I would like to consider an alternative way of reflecting the point that my noble friend Lord Haskel has made with these amendments. There is a good case for the Bill including a specific reference that the learning and skills council, in performing its duties, should take account of the skill needs of different sectors of employment. Such an amendment would also reflect the important role of NTOs which serve the needs of particular employment sectors. Many Members of the Committee have referred to the important role that they play. With the assurance that I will bring forward an appropriate amendment to reflect this point, I hope that my noble friend will agree to withdraw these amendments today.
Lord Haskel: I am grateful to my noble friend for suggesting that there will be specific reference to the skills and needs of different sectors. I look forward to seeing her amendment. I believe that it will do exactly the same as my amendment. I beg leave to withdraw that amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Tope Lord Tope moved Amendment No. 32:
Page 2, line 8, leave out paragraph (b).
The noble Lord said: At Second Reading I drew attention to the differences between Clauses 2 and 3 and the weasel words "sufficient", "adequate" and "reasonable". I promised to come back to the matter and I now keep my promise. In moving this amendment, I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 39, 43, 44 and 50. I believe that Amendment No. 42 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Boardman, is partly taken up by my Amendment No. 43. Nevertheless, I look forward to hearing his contribution if he wishes to make one.
As currently drafted, the distinction between Clauses 2 and 3 suggests that while provision for 16 to 18 year-olds should meet demand and be of the highest possible quality, that for adults should be dependent on the finances available to the council not only as regards quantity but also quality. Given the commitment to wider participation, it is a case of "never mind the quality, feel the width".
The volume may vary between provision for those aged between 16 and 19 years and those over 19, but it should always be of the highest quality for both. We reject the distinction between the two. The purpose of Amendment No. 50 in particular is to try to ensure that whatever the difference may have to be in quantity, the quality is adequate to meet the needs of individual learners.
We are also concerned about the definition of the word "reasonable" in Clause 3. Are the Government able to define it a little more clearly? Do they intend that the word should be backed by guidance as to what it means? For instance, the third report of the skills

601
taskforce argues for an entitlement for 19 to 24 year-olds up to level three and for an entitlement for adults up to level two. In her report the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, argued for an entitlement to level three for all, recognising that that level is often the trigger to independent learning for adults.
It would be helpful if the Government identified an entitlement to level three for adults as an aspiration to be achieved over time. In the meantime it would certainly be helpful if they could identify minima for what is reasonable provision, without which their national target for participation by adults is unlikely to be achieved.
Currently there is a fifty-fold difference in range, volume and investment in adult learning between the best and the worst served areas. Without any guidance on what is reasonable, the situation is unlikely to change quickly enough to achieve the aspirations of the White Paper. I hope that the Minister will help us to understand the Government's understanding of the meaning of "reasonable". I beg to move.
Lord Boardman: I shall confine my remarks to Amendments Nos. 39 and 42. In Clause 2 there is provision for "proper facilities". In Clause 3 there is provision for "reasonable facilities". The distinction is rather stark. If we wish to establish lifelong learning we do not want to have a cut-off point where at the age of 19 a person moves from one grade to another. Obviously, the grade below that for the age of 19 will include many facilities which will not be available afterwards. We do not wish to proceed from one standard of judgment to a quite different one.
The meaning of the words "reasonable" and "proper" must have been debated many times in this Chamber. I do not know what the answers have been. However, it appears very strongly to me that proper facilities will be provided up to a certain age but after that they will just be reasonable, which is very unfortunate. There appears to be a conflict with the objective we all have to achieve lifelong learning and teaching.
The Lord Bishop of Lichfield: I wish to stress generally that I speak for all the Churches in giving strong support for the whole thrust of this Bill. Its major restructuring has been widely welcomed. As a bishop coming from the West Midlands, I particularly welcome the siting of the new council in Coventry.
It is important that the Bill engages the whole community. I shall be grateful to receive help from the noble Baroness on the meaning of "reasonable" and "proper" in Amendments Nos. 42 and 43. The concern behind this is that the Bill should engage—indeed, we are jealous for it to do so—with the whole community, if the Government are to achieve their objective. Therefore, it is imperative that every encouragement is given to the churches, voluntary organisations and faith communities within the local community. Without further guidance as to what the word "reasonable" means, there could perhaps be a danger of slippage and important partners in this whole process being missed.
602
Being rooted in local communities, Churches and faith communities have long experience of the effectiveness of community work and this is well known. However, perhaps it is not so well known that the Churches ecumenically sponsor something called the "Churches' Further Education Beacon Award for Sustainable Community Development". We are delighted that the winning college, Dunstable (announced last November by the noble Lord, Lord Tope, at the annual conference in Harrogate of the Association of Colleges) had worked with the Churches in Luton and Dunstable to offer an innovative carpentry and joinery programme called, New Opportunities and Horizons (NOAH). This programme is a good example—there could be many others—and is attractive to a very wide cross-section of the local community. In this particular scheme, single parents, graduates, homeless people and people with learning difficulties were brought together through the programme in the process of developing new skills.
The Churches and other faith communities are glad to invest not only their physical plant, but also, as I said earlier when speaking of truancy workers in the Black Country, the energy and commitment of paid and voluntary workers in the community for capacity building. The evidence shows that much of this local activity, though sometimes small-scale, is highly effective in transforming people's life and performance. Therefore, guidance affirming the distinctive contribution of Churches, faith communities and voluntary organisations in developing neighbourhoods would be welcome to the constituency for which I speak. I wonder whether the Minister could help us with this by giving us guidance on this matter, which I have raised in connection with these amendments. I should stress that this is in the broad context of strong support for the Bill.
Lord Bach: I am grateful to noble Lords who have spoken on this series of amendments. Amendments Nos. 39, 42 and 43 would extend to all adults the entitlement that we have provided for young people. They cover the same principles that were explored to some extent by Amendments Nos. 25 and 26. My noble friend Lady Blackstone has already set out the Government's position in respect of the balance between Clauses 2 and 3. However, perhaps I may add something to that response.
The difference in words between the two clauses is intentional. The distinction between them is as follows. There is an entitlement at the ages of 16 to 19, but no government could enter an absolute guarantee to adults in the same way. This Government are extremely in favour of adult education and their record speaks very highly indeed for itself. However, for any government to pretend that resources were absolutely unlimited and that, therefore, they could do for adults exactly what they were going to do for 16 to 19 year-olds would be foolish; and, indeed, I venture to say, would not be believed by noble Lords and those outside this place.

603
I turn now to the meaning of words. I should point out that I am doing my best here, because the meanings of these words may one day be interpreted in the courts of our land—who knows! The word "proper" in Clause 2 means quantity to meet the needs of individuals and of adequate quality; in other words, an entitlement, an objective test. Then we have the word "reasonable". This is the second time within a week that I have been faced with defining or discussing this word. As I said on the previous occasion, anyone who has been involved in the law for any length of time will know that it is tempting to try to define the word "reasonable", but the detail of it is always so difficult. However, I shall do my best.
In the sense of Clause 3, "reasonable" means that if they are of a quality and quantity that the LSC can provide from its resources—again, an entitlement which applies to those aged 16 to 19—there will be something slightly less for those over 19. I am not talking about an intention not to put funds into adult education indeed, that would be completely against this Government's intentions—but it is not quite the same. That is why the distinction between Clauses 2 and 3 is important.
Of course we recognise that those needs, abilities and aptitudes do not suddenly change over night on a person's 19th birthday. No one would expect a young person part way through a GNVQ not to be allowed to complete his or her course. Likewise, nothing in these provisions prevents learners continuing their education. My noble friend gave that assurance when she addressed earlier amendments.
The amendments now before the Committee go further than the earlier ones with the commensurate implications for public spending. For that and other reasons I have attempted to give, I invite noble Lords to withdraw their amendments. In short, they seek a commitment that no government could possibly give.
8.45 p.m.
Lord Boardman: I thank the Minister for giving way. Is he saying that the word "proper" means that no matter what the consequences are and no matter what the budget may be, those needs will be met? Is he also saying that "reasonable" means that the facilities will be available only if funds happen to be there?
Lord Bach: The noble Lord uses his own words; they are not mine. I was careful in the words that I chose. I prefer to say that there is an "entitlement" for those between 16 and 19 and to say that the LSC will do all that it can in relation to those who are over the age of 19. However, it cannot give to them the entitlement which applies to those between the ages of 16 and 19.
I turn to Amendments Nos. 32, 44 and 50. Improving quality for all learners, whatever their ages and whatever they may be studying, is a priority. That is why quality has been made an integral part of the council's main duties. I contrast that—I hope, gently with the arrangements made by the previous government for the further education funding
604
councils. There is no reference to quality in relation to the provision to be funded by those bodies. All they are required to do is assess quality; there is no requirement to do anything about it afterwards.
We know from reports of the inspectorates with responsibility for this key post-16 learning—Ofsted, the FEFC and the TSC—that much of post-16 education and training is of good quality. But there remain too many examples of weak provision. No particular sector is exempt. There are examples of poor quality provision made by private and voluntary providers, sixth forms and further education colleges. We are quite clear that all provision must be at least satisfactory and continuously improving. We want to promote excellence in all post-16 provision. We want to raise standards in post-16 provision, just as we have done in schools.
We do not make any distinction between different age ranges in our aims for improving quality. Nothing in this Bill requires quality for adults to be lower than that for young people or implies that it should be. Indeed, many providers would find the concept unimaginable and impractical because their provision meets the needs of all age ranges alongside each other. Nor will the common inspection framework be constructed on such an artificial basis. We expect quality to be equally high for all. That is why quality is not separated out as an add-on duty. We say that it must be integral to the core functions of the LSC. I hope I have persuaded Members of the Committee to withdraw their amendments.
Lord Tope: I am grateful to the Minister for explaining that the distinction between Clause 2 and Clause 3 is intentional. It had never occurred to me that it might be an accident! I rather thought that it probably was intentional. I wanted to draw attention to precisely that. I think I am right in saying that in a former life the Minister was a lawyer, and perhaps still is a lawyer. That may be why he was especially careful in attempting to define the words we were discussing.
Lord Bach: Once a lawyer, always a lawyer!
Lord Tope: I shall resist commenting. The Minister will know more about that than I. Perhaps that is why he was so careful in trying to define the words that we discussed. He was so careful in trying to define "reasonable" that I may not be the only person who is not much wiser than when the debate began. The Minister's former colleagues may test the definition of "reasonable" in years to come.
I am grateful for the Minister's comments on quality. I am sure they will offer some reassurance as we are all concerned that quality in provision must apply regardless of the age of the person who is receiving the provision. We shall ponder what the Minister has said and the distinctions he has drawn and consider the matter further. However, in the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 33 not moved.]
Baroness Blotch Baroness Blotch moved Amendment No. 34:
Page 2, line 17, leave out ("best") and insert ("most cost effective").
The noble Baroness said: I have been thrown completely because I understood that when we discussed the distinction between "reasonable" and "proper" earlier we would receive a reply to that matter with Amendment No. 34. I shall return to the fray as I would have spoken to this group of amendments had I known what the Minister was going to say.
We are now talking about resources and their use. I return to what I said earlier; namely, that we all, certainly governments, operate in the real world. We all know that there is no area of central or local government spending that is not restricted by the amount of resources available. It is important to ascertain right at the beginning whether there is no restriction as regards the provision in Clause 2 as opposed to the provision in Clause 3. We have tried to ascertain the difference between "proper" and "reasonable". I believe that more honesty is now entering the debate. When responding to the previous group of amendments the Minister mentioned an entitlement. There is no question of flexibility here because so far the Government have not given one inch on that. There is a cut-off point at the age of 19. There is a different obligation as regards those over the age of 19. We all hope that a person will complete a course; it is unlikely that someone will not. However, someone may be "picked up", as it were, at the age of 20, but the council has a different obligation towards such a person as opposed to the age group mentioned in Clause 2.
Earlier the noble Baroness mentioned the number of young people who will enter further education. There is an absolute obligation under the Bill to provide proper facilities and arrangements for a young person under the age of 19 who requires provision. However, there is no blank cheque available. My noble friend Lord Boardman tried to tease out that point. The council or providers have no blank cheque. However, those under the age of 19 will have the first call on the money that is available. Anyone over the age of 19, whatever their situation, can have only a reasonable expectation of provision funded by the money that is left over. That is the only way the system can work as it was explained by the noble Lord. He said time and time again that for people up to the age of 19 there is an entitlement to provision. Under Clause 3 of the Bill those over 19 have an entitlement to expect only "reasonable" provision, assuming that there is money left in the coffers to provide that.
The Government cannot say that they will meet everyone's needs and aspirations—I refer also to young people with special needs—if there is to be a distinction as between those under and over the age of 19. I understand that there is no bottomless pit of money available. All governments when in office realise quickly that there are constraints on the amounts of money that can be spent at any level of
606
government. I believe that those over the age of 19 will comprise as many needy cases as among those in the 16 to 19 age group. There will be no opportunity to determine priorities at a local level because under Clause 2 the council will have an obligation to provide an absolute entitlement to 16 to 19 year-olds. Under Clause 3 the needs of those over the age of 19 will be met with the provision of reasonable facilities if there is money left over with which to do that.
I understand that my noble friend Lord Pilkington has given the Minister notice that he intends to speak to Amendment No. 35 with Amendments Nos. 36 and 158. My Amendment No. 34 to Clause 2 seeks to replace the word "best" with the words "cost effective". I am not sure that anyone knows what "best" means. I believe that the most important concept here is to make the most effective use of resources. I am tempted to seek to insert the words,
"the most cost effective and the most operationally effective".
One could have simply "the most effective" or the most cost effective" if the matter is assessed purely on cost. However, it is not always merely a question of the best value for money, in that operational considerations may also need to be taken into account. However, I believe that it is better to include either the words "the most cost effective" or the,
"most cost and operationally effective",
use of the council's resources rather than simply a reference to the "best use of resources". This issue also arises in Clause 3. My Amendment No. 46 seeks to remove the words in Clause 3(3)(d),
"and in particular avoid provision which might give rise to disproportionate expenditure".
What do those words mean? Do they refer to wasteful expenditure? Sometimes expenditure can be disproportionate if one has to meet the needs of someone with very special needs. The cost of that is disproportionate when compared to the resources that one might allocate to someone who has no special needs whatsoever and is simply doing a straightforward course which requires no special provision to be made. However, to invite the council to avoid disproportionate expenditure might militate against making complicated provision for someone with multiple disabilities. That is extremely misleading. If one accepts that councils must make the most effective use of resources, that leaves them free to make judgments about where expenditure should be incurred and to make professional judgments about the particular needs of young people that have to be met, even if that involves incurring disproportionate expenditure within an allocated budget.
I hope that the noble Lord will accept that there is still much anxiety with regard to the cut-off point at the age of 19; the lack of flexibility on the part of the council to make judgments with regard to the needs of those over and under the age of 19; to make its own judgment about whether needs should be met; and to make its own judgment about use of resources, as long as such use is considered by those who judge it externally to be effective use of its funds to meet both the operational and the cost effective restraints upon it. I beg to move.
9 p.m.
Lord Bach: As I understand it, the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington of Oxenford, will speak to the next grouping of amendments.
The Bill fulfils our commitment to give an entitlement I use the word again to education and training for all young people over compulsory school age up until their 19th birthday. For the first time there will be a unified statutory entitlement for all young people in this age group, rather than the fragmented arrangements that everyone agrees have applied up until now. This will apply to young people whatever route they take after compulsory education—whether it be through a school sixth form, the further education sector or the work-based route.
I turn now to Amendment No. 34. I shall deal with Amendment No. 35 at a later stage. I am sure that we all expect the LSC to use the public funds placed at its disposal to achieve the maximum benefit for pupils and for students. This provision is concerned with requiring the council to do that. We expect the council to deliver excellent value for money. Value for money is achieved through balancing three different elements, the three "Es"—economy, efficiency and effectiveness. In our view, this is expressed most succinctly through the word "best", although it is possible that other formulations may be used to achieve the same effect. Indeed, the expression "best value" is not unknown to the Committee: regulations with that title were passed through this House 24 hours ago.
However, the Government have concerns about the particular formulation "most cost effective". Under the previous government we saw the effects of a "pile it high, sell it cheap" approach to further education and the disastrous effects of demand-led funding. It may have been cost effective but the impact on quality and the financial health of colleges was, at the very least, worrying. To focus on cost to the exclusion of quality would be wrong. The Government place great emphasis on the improvement of standards right across the education service. We expect a balanced approach to the use of public money and we believe that the present wording achieves this.
Turning to Amendment No. 46, apart from fulfilling our commitment to give an entitlement to education and training for all young people over compulsory school age up until their 19th birthday, we have brought together the duty to make education and training available for adults. We expect the council to use the public funds made available to it in the best possible way. However, the potential effect of Amendment No. 46 would be to require the LSC, in making provision of all types, to disregard excessive cost and the economic use of the very substantial public funds to be placed at its disposal.
Of course the council must ensure that reasonable facilities are available to adults wherever they may be receiving their education and training. That may be expensive. These provisions do not restrict the council's ability to fund expensive provision—we would be concerned if they did, especially if that impacted on the provision needed by the most
608
disadvantaged and vulnerable members of our community—but to disregard value for money in the use of public funds would be wrong, not least because excessive expenditure on one comes only at the expense of the learning opportunities for another or through the LSC exceeding the budget voted to it by Parliament.
When we consider the matters raised, quite fairly, by the noble Baroness at the outset in moving the amendments—she thought that the discussion would take place on these amendments rather than on the preceding amendment—it is essential to remember that all entitlements—even the entitlement to a free education up until the age of 16—depend to some extent on the resources available. As the noble Baroness rightly said, with her great experience of both local government and of national government, whoever is in charge of government has to decide what resources are placed in what fields. We repeat that the entitlement will be for 16 to 19 year-olds, but we expect the additional resources we are devoting to post-16 learning to allow access to learning for all those who need it.
Money is available for adult education depending on the resources made available by government. This Government, unlike their predecessor, have demonstrated their commitment to adult learning. Perhaps I may give one figure, which will be well known to most of your Lordships. We are spending £2 billion in the financial year 2001–02, up from £1.6 billion in 1998–99. We believe in lifelong learning, but we would be foolish if we expected the Bill to cover every aspect of adult education.
Baroness Blatch: With regard to the last statistic used by the Minister, of course the number of students has gone up so one would expect the expenditure to go up if one is to keep pace with the number of students. The Government have said that not only are there more students since that time but there are to be more this year, next year and through to 2002. Expenditure per student will be static even if more money is put into the budget and, therefore, the quality of provision to the individual student may only be sustained by an injection of even more money.
The Minister mentioned the words "best value"—which is the argument used by the noble Lord—but the words are not on the page; there it simply says "best use of resources". As to the Minister's criticism that "cost effective" is too narrow, he will remember that when I spoke to the amendments I argued that there is another dimension to this matter; that is, operational effectiveness. I concede that sometimes cost effectiveness is not the only consideration for getting the best possible value for money from a service. Indeed, I lobbied my own government when competitive tendering was introduced and won the argument that we should not be pressed to accept the lowest possible tender on the grounds that the lowest tender might not, in the long term, offer the best value for money and that it would be better to pursue best value. Therefore, if the Minister was hinting that the Government would put into the Bill either "value for

609
money" or "best value" as a counter to my proposed "most cost effective" and/or "operationally effective", I should be more content. I am certainly not content with simply, "best use".
The Minister kindly returned to the issue of the distinction between "proper" and "reasonable". Again, as I understand it, there will be no flexibility for local authorities under the Bill. The Government have quite rightly taken pride—and I shall not in any way criticise them for this—in the fact that they have strengthened the obligation of providers and the Government to young people up to the age of 19. They have set out in legislation that proper provision will be made for young people up to the age of 19—whoever they are, whatever background they are from and whatever their needs. That is an obligation in the Bill. It is a legitimate entitlement to the individual up to the age of 19.
I have said before, and I repeat, that there will be limited resources for most public authorities, including the local skills councils. Therefore, the first legitimate call on their moneys will be to meet properly the needs of all young people, including the extra numbers coming into the system that the Minister mentioned earlier. It is only when all those needs have been met that others may be considered. Even someone with severe needs who is post-19 cannot have his needs met until the outstanding needs of anyone under the age of 19 have been met.
We have been looking for two kinds of flexibility. One concerns the line between under 19 and over 19. We seek to allow some flexibility, especially for people who, for one reason or another, continue mainstream education after the age of 19. We seek also some flexibility to allow local authorities determination over their obligations to young people. Otherwise, the needs of someone just under the age of 19 who has all the wherewithal to find accommodation for further training and education outside the system may be met, while those of someone over 19 with extreme needs will not be met simply because the provision would incur disproportionate expenditure.
The Minister's answer on disproportionate expenditure simply did not stand up. There will be disproportionate expenditure on some students and rightly so, because the expenditure needed in order to meet their needs adequately will be considerable. Either normal or even below normal expenditure will be spent on others because they have the wherewithal or they have done it on their own or their needs are small. That kind of flexibility at local level is important.
If the Minister has said his last word in saying that the best term that can be mustered—I return to my criticisms—is "best use" and if "best value", or "most cost effective" plus some accommodation for "operational effectiveness" or "value for money" cannot be included, I wish to test the opinion of the Committee on Amendment No. 34.
9.12 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 34) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 35; Not-Contents, 90.

Division No. 3

CONTENTS

Astor of Hever, L.

Luke, L.

Blaker, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Blatch, B.

Mancroft, L.

Boardman, L.

Mayhew of Twysden, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Northesk, E.

Buscombe, B.

Norton of Louth, L.

Elton, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Fookes B.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Geddes, L.

Pilkington of Oxenford, L.

Griffiths of Fforestfach, L.

Prior, L.

Roberts of Conwy, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Seccombe, B. [Teller]

Henley, L. [Teller]

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Hooper, B.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Inglewood, L.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Jopling, L.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

King of Wartnaby, L.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Lamont of Lerwick, L.

Young, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Harrison, L.

Ahmed, L.

Haskel, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Alli, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Amos, B.

Howells of St Davids, B.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Hoyle, L.

Ashton of Upholland, B.

Jay of Paddington, B. (Lord Privy Seal)

Bach, L.

Barnett, L.

Judd, L.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Blackstone, B.

Lichfield, Bp.

Borrie, L.

Lipsey, L.

Bragg, L.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

McCarthy, L.

Brookman, L.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller]

Burlison, L.

Carter, L. [Teller]

McIntosh of Hudnall, B.

Christopher, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Clement-Jones, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Crawley, B.

Massey of Darwen, B.

Darcy de Knayth, B.

Nicol, B.

David, B.

Palmer, L.

Davies of Coity, L.

Pitkeathley, B.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Prys-Davies, L.

Dholakia, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Dixon, L.

Rea, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Dubs, L.

Rennard, L.

Elder, L.

Rix, L.

Evans of Watford, L.

Russell, E.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Sainsbury of Turville, L.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Sharp of Guildford, B.

Filkin, L.

Simon, V.

Gale, B.

Smith of Leigh, L.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Goldsmith, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Thomas of Gresford, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Thornton, B.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Tope, L.

Harris of Haringey, L.

Tordoff, L.

611

Warner, L.

Whitty, L.

Warwick of Undercliffe, B.

Winston, L.

Whitaker, B.

Woolmer of Leeds, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
9.21 p.m.
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford Lord Pilkington of Oxenford moved Amendment No. 35:
Page 2, line 17, leave out from ("resources") to end of line 18.
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, as I have arranged with the Minister, I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 36 and other amendments. The noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Conwy, has said that he will listen to my remarks on Amendments No. 158. I confess an interest: I discussed the amendment with my union, the National Association of Head Teachers, and to some extent it reflects its views on the Bill.
I return to a discussion in the early stages of this Committee. My amendment is a statement of principle. I quote my noble friend Lord Bridgeman in saying that it could guide judicial reviews.
I and other Members of the Committee are concerned about the future of school sixth forms under the new arrangements. I remind the Committee that sixth forms constitute around 60 to 70 per cent of the arrangements for 16 to 17 year-olds.
In the past, the controversial issue of closing a school sixth form involved the local authorities, which were by their very nature influenced by public opinion. Further, many local councillors were also governors of the school. Therefore, there was a direct interest between the local council and the schools under discussion.
The problem is that the direct influence of the local council is now less, both as a result of the recent Education Act, which gave great powers to the adjudicator, and also because of the extensive powers given to the new learning and skills councils, nationally and locally, particularly in the matter of money to be allocated. They are now allocating money to the sixth forms, albeit through the local education authority. Therefore, the general guidance that is given to these new and powerful bodies is of great importance.
At present, Clause 2(3)(d), in general guidance, states that the council must:
"make the best use of the Council's resources and in particular avoid provision which might give rise to disproportionate expenditure".
That is the essence of the guidance, which would stand up if there were a judicial review of the closure of a sixth form. My Amendment No. 36 widens that guidance I remind the Committee (for the third time) that this is to be taken into account by a court—to include the duty to,
"promote choice and diversity in the type of facilities available to persons and take account of the desirability of ensuring that persons are able to access such facilities locally and easily".
To give one example, it may mean that consideration may have to be given to small rural sixth forms, which are not always inadequate. I attended a small sixth form—a history set—in which there were four people. But that school, with its small sixth form, managed to get quite a large number of people scholarships and exhibitions to Oxford and Cambridge and was very effective. The fact that something is small does not mean that it is inadequate. My amendment means that the LSCs will have to bear these matters in mind. I suggest to the Minister that, in view of the great influence of LSCs in the allocation of money and in many other ways, it is of enormous importance that guidance other than in relation to expenditure and practicality is borne in mind when, for example, it closes a sixth form or decides that in a rural area everyone should go to a college, which economically may be more effective.
The amendment proposes that the LSC bears in mind distance; accessibility; the part that the sixth form plays in the local community; the outside activities that it provides, for example music and so on; the fact that many people between the ages of 16 and 19 may be lost in the larger environment of the college; and, finally—I repeat a point that I made at Second Reading—that good teachers may be attracted to such a school in a rural area just because there is a sixth form.
I was very grateful that, following Second Reading, the Minister wrote a letter in which she assured my noble friend Lord Baker and other noble Lords that other bodies would be consulted in this matter, such as the school organisation committee. The Minister also referred to the powers of the Secretary of State. However, the Minister is aware that this House is mistrustful of guidelines and offers by the executive of safeguards of this kind. We saw an example of that last night. Therefore, the purpose of my amendment is to ensure that there is some guidance on the face of the Bill which can be pleaded when the LSC decides these matters. My noble friend Lord Bridgeman, who has much more experience of these matters, said that these matters were terribly important in the context of judicial review. We all know that executives hate judicial reviews. I beg to move.
Lord Bach: The Committee appreciates the noble Lord's concerns about sixth forms in schools which he expressed during Second Reading. I re-read his speech this morning. I remind the noble Lord that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State has made quite clear—I repeat it now—the value that he attaches to the best school sixth forms and that nothing we do should jeopardise them. He has also made it clear that the Government should protect the funding of school sixth forms in real terms as long as numbers do not fall. However, we believe that the potential effect of Amendment No. 35 is to require the learning and skills council to disregard excessive cost in making provision of all types, not just in sixth forms, and hinder the economic use of the very substantial public funds to be placed at its disposal. The council must ensure that proper facilities are available to all

613
young people, wherever they may receive their education and training, and that they are suitable to their requirements. However, to impair the effective use of public funds would be wrong, not least because excessive expenditure on one person could come only at the expense of the learning opportunities for others, or through the LSC exceeding the budget voted to it by Parliament. That attempts to deal with Amendment No. 35. While appreciating the concerns of the noble Lord, we say that his amendment is not acceptable.
As regards Amendment No. 36, to which he has also just spoken, our arrangements for 16 to 19 year-old education are extremely diverse and already provide a wide range of opportunities at local level. Young people can study in further education and tertiary colleges, sixth-form colleges, school sixth forms or in employment. There are over 400 colleges in the further education sector, including over 100 sixth-form colleges. There are about 1,800 schools with sixth forms. There are some 3,000 other providers currently funded through the TECs. Nothing in this Bill will restrict this diversity, which we expect to retain in order to match the varying needs of young people.
Nevertheless we recognise the need to ensure that we have the right balance and mix of provision for young people. Our proposals are intended to open up new opportunities for them, to ensure that we maximise participation in learning, improve retention and ensure that provision is responsive to the needs of individuals and employers. That is why the local councils of the LSC in England will have discretion to secure the right balance and mix of post-16 provision in their areas and the resources to deliver this. It will remain open to LEAs and other promoters to bring forward proposals not only for the creation of new sixth forms, if they judge there to be a need, but also for new LEA-maintained 16 to 19 institutions. We are also removing obstacles to collaboration between colleges and schools so that schools can draw upon the expertise which colleges have to offer, particularly in making vocational provision.
Our new arrangements are intended to support and encourage a pluralistic and diverse education and training system. How could it be otherwise, if provision is to meet the needs of our young people? I hope that those remarks will go some way towards reassuring the noble Lord, and I invite him to withdraw his amendment.
9.30 p.m.
Lord Tope: Before the noble Lord decides what to do, perhaps I may comment. First, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington, for raising the issue. I know he has a great concern about the future of school sixth forms. I know, too, that he is not the only one to have that concern, and I welcome the assurances that the Government have given and continue to give. I accept entirely that they mean what they say.
It is for the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington, to say, but I think the purpose of his second amendment is not to challenge that there is choice and diversity now, but rather to ensure that there remain choice and diversity
614
in the provision of post-16 education. In that we would strongly support him. I particularly welcome, as the Minister has just said, the provision for collaboration between school sixth forms and FE colleges—collaboration rather than competition—that has existed up to now and, I have to say, I believe has been in the worst rather than the best interests of the learners.
I was less happy with the response to Amendment No. 35. If it were to be carried, Clause 2(3)(d) would read,
"make the best use of the Council's resources".
The Minister seemed to be saying that that would then mean that the LSC could disregard excessive costs. I wonder whether he could explain that. Perhaps I am just being stupid, but could he explain how making the best use of the council's resources would enable it at the same time to disregard excessive costs? It seems to me that making the best use of the council's resources means that you must have regard to excessive costs, however you might choose to define them. It seems to me, especially given the definitions we have had earlier today, that the inclusion of the words which the noble Lord is seeking to delete actually encourages his suspicions and fears, rather than discourages them.
I hope that I have given the Minister enough time to explain to me how making best use of the council's resources is consistent with disregarding excessive costs, which apparently he thinks that it would then be able to do.
Baroness Blatch: I wish to continue that point. I am only sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Tope, was unable to support us in the Lobby if only to give us another chance to return on another day to what is or is not best use of resources. An auditor will have to judge the council's spending against the word "best". In whose view is it judged best? Is it that of the Government, the national council, or the local council? In that case it is its own local independent judgment and may conflict with the view of the Secretary of State.
The noble Lord, Lord Tope, used the word "excessive". The arguments apply equally to "disproportionate". There will be legitimate uses of excessive expenditure or disproportionate expenditure which would be approved by Secretaries of State, the national council, local councils and all of us. The idea that they are not allowed to incur disproportionate expenditure is a real constraint. The word "best" needs qualifying by the word "value" or some reference to operational effectiveness. That expression is jargonistic and is used by management consultants but it refers to the best possible cost effective service. The word "best" does not express that.
Lord Bach: The word "disproportionate" does not rule out expensive expenditure, if I may use that phrase. However, on the face of the Bill it obliges the LSC to take into account wasteful expenditure. That seems to us a sensible precaution. I am slightly

615
surprised that the noble Lord, Lord Tope, makes such a fuss about it. It seems a perfectly ordinary, normal provision to put on the face of the Bill.
Lord Tope: I am pleased to have caused the Minister a little surprise at this time of night. I made no reference to the word "disproportionate". I picked the noble Lord up on his use of the words "excessive costs". The Minister said that if the amendment were passed it would mean that the LSC could disregard excessive cost. My question may be too simple but it is straightforward. How is it consistent that the LSC can disregard excessive costs—I refer to the Minister's words—while at the same time making the best use of the council's resources? If I am being stupid—although I see nods around me which suggest that I am not the only stupid person in the Chamber—perhaps the Minister (who has had several notes passed from the box) will explain what he means.
Lord Bach: I shall try again to explain the issue to the noble Lord, Lord Tope. Amendment No. 35 would remove the words that appear in the 1992 Act. They occasioned comment then that they might prevent further education councils from funding provision. The then government spokesman—it was not me; nor was it the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, but someone in government at that time—made the following statement: that the intention was,
"expenditure which is out of proportion to what is being provided for in regard to the discharge of the main duties".
The spokesman continued:
"It does not prohibit provision that is needed but rather provision that is unnecessary".
I hope that that satisfies the noble Lord.
Lord Rix: If it is a subjective view of the council, does it mean that if a person with a learning disability was incurring a great deal of excess expenditure, that would not be considered disproportionate to the effect that that education would have on that person?
Lord Bach: As so often, the noble Lord, Lord Rix, is quite right; that is what I am saying here. Such expenditure, simply because it happened to be very expensive, would not immediately be considered to be disproportionate. Proportionality is the clue to this issue.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: I believe that there has been a disproportionate use of words here. When responding to the previous amendment, the Minister made it quite clear that his definition of "best value" excluded disproportionate expenditure. It now seems to me that it is unnecessary for these words to be included and that the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington, is entirely correct.
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: I thank the Minister for his reply and also thank the noble Lord, Lord Tope, the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, and my noble friend Lady Blatch for their support. It perplexes me,
616
the innocent that I am, that the executive puts forward the most noble opinions from the Front Bench, but when we poor fellows in Opposition ask for those opinions to be put onto the face of the Bill, it will argue over how many angels can dance on a pin. All I am asking for here is allocation of resources and care for diversity but, like the Government's predecessors—I was not a member of the previous government, but all executives are alike—pinning them down causes them terror. However, I shall be back to harry the Government. Believe me, the next amendment will be even nastier. But for the moment I shall withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 36 to 38 not moved.]
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clause 3 [Education and training for persons over 19]:
[Amendments Nos. 39 to 49 not moved.]
Clause 3 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 50 not moved.]
Clause 4 [Encouragement of education and training]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 51:
Page 3, line 19, at end insert ("appropriate to their needs").
The noble Baroness said: I am sorry that I stopped the flow. I shall speak only to Amendment No. 51, the first in this grouping. It adds to the end of Clause 4(a), "appropriate to their needs".
I was reminded of a young man I met not long ago in the north-east, an area in which I was involved as a Minister, who said to me, "If they send me on that course one more time, I will scream". He was not able to get a job, mainly because in his area there were no jobs available to him. However, he kept being sent on courses that were of no interest to him and that were not furthering his skills and aptitude.
What that young man needed to secure one of the jobs available reasonably near to where he lived were skills matched to the needs of the skills requirements in that area. It was not the case that there were no jobs, only that the young man was not being equipped and fitted for those jobs. The courses that he wanted to take were not made available to him. If we are to make sense of the Bill, then the council must encourage individuals to undergo post-16 education and training—there is no argument about that. However, if it is to be fruitful and to properly equip young people for the particular jobs available in their area, that education and training need to be appropriate to their needs. I believe that this is a simple amendment. It is a totally cost-free amendment for the Government and it would be quite heartening if it could be accepted. I beg to move.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: I rise from these Benches to support the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, in her amendment. I endorse entirely what she has said. There are many occasions when people are sent, so to speak, on inappropriate courses, and I believe that it is useful that we have the word "appropriate" on the face of the Bill.

617
I should like to speak to Amendment No. 52, which is a probing amendment. It refers to "qualifying learning accounts" or what in common parlance are now known as "individual learning accounts". We shall consider those later in the Bill under Clauses 93 and 94. I should like to raise this point because, as envisaged in the various Green and White Papers that have preceded the. Bill and above all perhaps in the report on further education by the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, the idea was that contributions would be made into such accounts by the three partners to post-16 training and education; namely, the individual, his or her employer and the Government.
This amendment seeks to point out the kind of framework which the Government are considering setting up for the individual learning accounts. Do they envisage that employers should finance training via individual learning accounts or more directly? Is payment to be made to the individual? If employers are to make payments into such individual learning accounts, what about the Government? Will they, as another partner or stakeholder, also pay into such individual learning accounts?
Baroness David: I associate myself with these amendments. I believe that it is important not only that we provide what is appropriate for their needs but also that young people themselves can have a say in what they believe is appropriate.
Lord Boardman: I wish to speak to Amendment No. 54 which is being discussed in this group of amendments. The amendment seeks to,
"encourage persons to provide post-16 education and training".
Under the Bill as it stands, the council must encourage individuals to undergo post-16 education and training, encourage employers to participate and encourage employers to contribute to the costs. It leaves out the potential field of the valuable assistance that can be received from people who are neither employees, nor individuals undergoing training, nor employers who are contributing to costs. I believe that they form an important part.
That is particularly so in days when learning markets are changing so rapidly—when the whole issue of e-commerce and so on can open up vast opportunities. It is a vast, expanding market for learning skills. It may be right to encourage the assistance that one can receive from third parties outside who will welcome a group of young people to be trained in those fields. They should not be overlooked. Therefore, we should encourage them. My amendment proposes to encourage them in the list of those who participate.
Lord Wade of Chorlton: I should like to speak to Amendments Nos. 55 and 56, both of which are supported by the TEC National Council. The purpose of Amendment No. 55, which adds the point to,
"encourage links between education and business",
is to draw attention to what could be a great increase in demand for new and innovative ways of educating people. We are all aware of the need to build a demand
618
structure within education so that the right business opportunities can respond to that demand. Quite clearly, the opportunities for investing in infrastructure which relate to the supply of information, learning and teaching will be important, as will be the use of the new technologies that are now available. I believe that we should consider an overhaul of the rigidities which are now often within the system. The learning market is open to a whole range of new opportunities.
So the purpose of the amendment is to draw attention to what could be an exciting development in education, particularly for the people we are talking about. It also encourages business and education to come together so that business can be encouraged to provide new opportunities.
The other amendment draws attention to the role that employers can play and inserts after the word "persons" in line 26 the words "including employers". It is important to keep businessmen involved in such matters and they should be supportive of the new councils. We have to understand the role that employers can play in teaching. Many people learn from their first employers the skills which give them a successful life. Those employers teach and train them effectively and create the disciplines and the excitement of working in new areas. The role that employers can play, have played and will continue to play if given the right encouragement in the new arrangements needs to be recognised.
Lord Bach: I turn first to Amendment No. 51, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch. Our visions of a lifelong learning society will require us to overcome our nation's history of low levels of demand for education and training, both from individuals—particularly adults—and from employers—especially small firms. Often that is because people simply do not recognise the links between learning and skills on the one hand and economic success and personal fulfilment on the other.
The clause places a specific duty on the LSC to promote lifelong learning by encouraging people to undertake education and training. It is self-evident that the LSC will not succeed in that challenge if it encourages people to undertake learning which is not relevant to their needs. Indeed, it would not be reasonable for the LSC to promote learning which was anything but appropriate to the needs of individuals.
I should point out that the Bill already addresses the concern of the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch. The core duties of the learning and skills council under Clauses 2 and 3 of the Bill refer to the provision of education and training
"suitable to the requirements of"
those who receive it. Therefore, I hope that the noble Baroness will not feel the need to press this amendment.
Turning to Amendment No. 52 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, I can assure her that the Government see individual learning accounts as one of the initiatives that will encourage employers to build

619
on their existing levels of investment in learning and development. Employers will be key in promoting learning accounts to their employees and will be encouraged, where appropriate, to contribute to their learning accounts and to provide advice, guidance and other workplace support.
In answer to the questions raised by the noble Baroness, I point out that the framework is entirely voluntary. We shall encourage employers to contribute to learning accounts, but we shall not force them.
Clause 10 sets out the roles that the LSC will or may have in relation to individual learning accounts, including its power to promote learning accounts with individuals, employers, and other key stakeholders. Learning accounts are only one of many strands of this Government's vision of a lifelong learning society where responsibility for learning is shared, among others, by government, employers and individuals. Therefore, in this case we believe that it is unnecessary, indeed inappropriate, to specify learning accounts in Clause 4.
I turn to Amendment No. 54, the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Boardman. I make it clear that the LSC will support and develop the provision of post-16 learning of all types. Its aim will be to develop a network of well-managed and innovative providers, capable of identifying and responding to the needs of learners and employers.
For the first time we will have a single planning and funding system which brings together previously separate strands of provision. Through the local learning partnerships we will encourage all providers to work together more effectively for the benefit, we hope, of individuals and employers.
Local LSCs will also promote imaginative arrangements with providers, designed for example to meet the needs of particular groups such as women returners and learners from ethnic minorities. That will include the greater use of on-line learning through the University for Industry.
Those are all important objectives of the new system. But they are encompassed already by the LSC's duty to make proper and reasonable provision and by its powers to fund providers. We argue that the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Boardman, is not needed in the circumstances of the explanation that I have attempted to give.
Finally, I turn to the two amendments spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Wade. First, Amendment No. 55. We made clear in the prospectus that improving the links between business and schools will be yet a further way that the local LSCs will drive up the availability and quality of provision for young people. We have said that we want to build on the excellent work of EBPs and other local organisations to encourage more businesses and the wider community to support schools, working closely with local learning partnerships.
620
In accordance with the Government's wish to further strengthen those links, Clause 8 of the Bill gives the LSC powers to secure provision of work experience for those in the last two years of compulsory schooling and those in post-compulsory education up to the age of 19; and also to provide for educational business links for young people in education or training from any age up to the age of 19. Linked to that, Clause 4 places a duty on the LSC to encourage employers to participate in the delivery of post-16 education and training.
Secondly, I turn to Amendment No. 56. Clause 5 details the main powers of the LSC, but only addresses in broad terms the range of activities that the LSC can fund. This again, if I may coin a phrase, is intentional. We do not believe that it would be helpful to specify a particular group or organisation as it would be an impossible task to capture in legislation the full range of organisations that could contribute to what we hope will become the learning age. Even if that were feasible, it might constrain the LSC in encouraging new providers to come forward.
Important issues have been raised by this series of amendments. We believe they are adequately addressed in our proposals. Thus, the amendment, although welcome and subject to a good short debate, is not needed. We invite the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch to withdraw it.
Lord Wade of Chorlton: Before the noble Lord sits down, let me say that in relation to Amendment No. 55 my point in regard to business and education was not just in terms of relationships, working together and so on. It related also to the contribution that business can make to education in stimulating more innovative ways of using new technologies to educate people that they may not be employing themselves, but which they can develop with others. I did not feel that the noble Lord addressed that part of my point.
Lord Bach: The Government accept absolutely that it is a crucial and key role for business to play and I suspect it is one that it has begun to play already.
10 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: I thank the noble Lord for referring back to the reference in both Clauses 2 and 3 in relation to education which is,
"suitable to the requirements of such persons".
There is little difference between that and "appropriate to their needs". I accept therefore that the Minister makes a good point.
But there is another nuance about the need to be a young person. Sometimes what may be suitable for them may not be what is appropriate in terms of not just their own needs but of getting them into the workforce. Some young people may want to do one thing, but it may not be the best kind of training if somebody is trying to guide them into the workforce. Most of us are not concerned about people who can

621
make up their own minds. We are concerned about people who are net making appropriate decisions for themselves.
I do not argue with the Minister about the words, "appropriate for their needs". I feel that phrase would have helped because it would reinforce the point that the council, when encouraging young people, should ensure that whatever education and training they go into are appropriate to helping them into the workforce. However, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 52 not moved.]
Baroness Darcy de Knayth Baroness Darcy de Knayth moved Amendment No. 53:
Page 3, line 23, at end insert—
("() promote equality of opportunity between disabled and non-disabled people in education and training and all support services covering transition").
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 53, I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 131 and 161. These amendments have common purpose; namely, to strengthen the duty of the learning and skills councils to ensure equality of opportunity for disabled learners. Amendment No. 53 applies to the learning and skills council, Amendment No. 131 applies to local school councils and Amendment No. 161 to Wales. I spoke to the noble Lord, Lord Roberts. He is happy that we should keep Wales in an English group for the sake of progress.
The amendments are seen as necessary by the Disability Consortium on Post-16 Education and Training, which consists of Mencap, RADAR and Skill among others—I mention Skill because I have the honour to be its president and therefore have an interest to declare. Why are they necessary? I welcome the fact that the new council must have regard,
"to the needs of persons with learning difficulties",
in Clause 13, but the phrase suggests a reactive rather than a proactive duty. It is the same wording that appeared in the Further and Higher Education Act 1992. But it does not reflect the many changes that have happened since then with regard to disability issues.
In 1992 the legislation was a big step forward. But it still allows for different colleges to make varied provision for disabled students. There are still instances where disabled people do not gain access to further studies because their local college does not provide it. That is particularly true of students with more severe impairments. If the amendments are accepted, the new bodies will be required to ensure that all the organisations they funded were actively working towards ensuring equality of access to education and training. An awareness of the needs of disabled learners would have to inform their planning, delivery and training. The change in wording would bring the learning and skills council in line with a key recommendation of the Disability Rights Task Force;
622
that is, that the public sector should have a statutory duty to promote the equalisation of opportunities for disabled people in the provision of services.
At a meeting last week with the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, and her officials, which was welcome, she said that this duty would be better placed in the forthcoming disability and education legislation. But I have a number of concerns in that regard. First, since the legislation has not yet been written we do not know that it will include this duty. I do not know whether the noble Baroness or the noble Lord, Lord Bach, can confirm that it will be written in such a way. Secondly, while we have been told that the new disability and education Bill will be introduced this Session, about which I am delighted, we have been given no indication of a timescale for implementation. It therefore seems appropriate that the duty to promote should be included in this Bill, which does have a timescale.
But most important of all, the definition of "learning difficulty" and "disability" in Clause 13, on page 7, is rightly a definition which focuses on a person's ability to access learning. It is a wider definition than the more medical one in the disability discrimination legislation. It is wider even if the recommendations of the taskforce for changes to that legislation are implemented. Therefore, I hope that the Minister will be able to give a slightly more encouraging response than that given at the meeting or that the Government will agree to think about the matter and perhaps discuss it further. I beg to move.
Lord Addington: I support the noble Baroness in moving this amendment. It encourages the distribution of information. I refer to a speech that I made earlier about information that students require which helps them to get through their tasks. It also helps the colleges to take the right action. Half of the problems in this field arise from the fact that people do not know what to do. They spend hours scrabbling through regulations and saying, "It can be done like that. That is quite easy". Everyone in this particular field must have 100 similar stories.
It may well be that the noble Baroness will say that this matter is dealt with in other legislation. It would not hurt to have it in all legislation. We talk about joined-up government and trying to get something which is coherent across the whole provision for education. I hope that we can achieve something here. I am addressing this matter because so often it has not been possible to access the information and people do not know what they are supposed to do. Repeating it will not hurt.
Baroness Blatch: I believe that the noble Baroness took exception to the fact that I thought it unfortunate that we were unable to deal with young people with special educational needs at Second Reading of the Bill. The argument was put by the noble Baroness that a separate and free-standing Bill will deal with those issues. But they are inextricably linked with this Bill, hence many of the amendments today will, I am sure, also be addressed in the new Bill.

623
As one reads the present Bill, whatever the background of any young person or their learning needs up to the age of 19, they will have an entitlement. There will be obligation to provide properly for them. We have argued about those over the age of 19 where it becomes possible to make reasonable provision.
The point made by the noble Lord, Lord Addington, and the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy de Knayth, is that there is a great deal of nervousness. There is some evidence that some providers are not meeting their obligations. There is a great deal in this Bill which is otiose in the sense that it should be taken as read, whereas many other issues are not. Practical reassurance would be given to people who will know that just as someone who does not have learning difficulties will have an entitlement under Clause 1 of the Bill, it is very important that they should be conscious of the fact that they are included. The word "inclusive" is much used nowadays. It is appropriate that they should be included both for an entitlement to proper provision up to the age of 19 and a reasonable provision within the resource constraints if they are over that age. It would be a good thing to put that on the face of the Bill. It is a costly option, but it is an entitlement.
Baroness Blackstone: Identifying and meeting the needs of disabled people will be one of the core activities of the LSC and the CETW. I underline the fact that it will not be just a peripheral concern. The Bill places the councils under a duty to report to the Secretary of State or to the National Assembly for Wales every year on both the progress each has made in the provision of post-16 education and training for people with disabilities and their future plans for such provision. Councils will also be under a duty to have particular regard to the needs of all persons with learning difficulties and, where they are under the age of 25, they must secure boarding accommodation for them where they cannot otherwise make adequate provision.
We have paid very close attention to the need to improve the transition of people with special educational needs from school to other forms of post-16 learning. Where a person with a statement of special educational needs intends to leave school to continue in post-16 education and training, the Bill makes new provision for an assessment of his or her learning needs. Should a young person's learning difficulties become apparent only after leaving school, he or she may also benefit from such an assessment up to the age of 19.
The new ConneXions service, launched by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State last week, will have a key role in advising and supporting the transition in England. It will participate in the transitional reviews of all young people with statements of special educational needs which are undertaken by LEAs when detailed consideration of what post-16 provision would best meet their needs begins.
624
The new arrangements will ensure that transition planning for all those with statements of special educational needs starts at 14 and involves all local partners, the young persons themselves and their parents or carers, together with the local LSC. The LSC and the CETW will be under a duty to take account of such assessments in deciding what provision would best meet that person's needs. As I am sure the noble Baroness will agree, this is a very considerable step forward from the present situation.
None the less, I fully recognise and share the wish of Members of the Committee to ensure that learners with special needs, learning difficulties and disabilities receive the support that they need to succeed in post-16 education. I have listened carefully to the points that have been made this evening. I shall think further about whether placing the LSC under a duty to promote equality of opportunity would be helpful in addition to the measures already contained in the Bill, which I have just described. I hope to return at a later stage with an amendment. With that assurance, I trust that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Darcy de Knayth: I should like, first, to thank the noble Lord, Lord Addington, and the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, for their powerful support. I also thank the Minister for her reply, which became progressively more encouraging. I am most grateful for what the Minister said and look forward to seeing her amendment. I imagine that we shall be allowed to see her amendment before the next stage. I have no hesitation in begging leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments No. 54 and 55 not moved.]
Clause 4 agreed to.
Clause 5 [Provision of financial resources]:
[Amendment No. 56 not moved.]
10.15 p.m.
Baroness Blackstone Baroness Blackstone moved Amendment No. 57:
Page 3, line 43, leave out ("or advice") and insert (", advice or guidance).
The noble Baroness said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to the other government amendments in this group. I should also point out that I shall be referring to the amendments proposed by the noble Baronesses, Lady Blatch and Lady Sharp, the noble Lord, Lord Tope, and my noble friend Lady David.
Baroness Blatch: I should point out here that, for a reason beyond my ken, there is a typographical glitch or simply an error in my Amendment No. 59. My instruction for this amendment was to insert the words "and guidance". Therefore, I should be most obliged if

625
the Minister could take it in that spirit. I believe that the same applies to Amendment No. 89, which is also tabled in my name.
Baroness Blackstone: I am most grateful to the noble Baroness for clarifying what her amendments are meant to say.
The amendments in this group all concern the powers of the LSC and the CETW in relation to the funding of information, advice and guidance services. We launched a new initiative last year to develop these services at local level, boosted by a new investment of £54 million over three years. Over time, our aim is to ensure that adults everywhere can find the support that they need to make better choices about learning and about careers. As we announced in Learning to Succeed, we intend that responsibility for planning and funding these services should lie with the LSC.
The amendments standing in my name clarify the powers of the LSC and of the CETW in the area of information, advice and guidance. They do so in two ways. First, the amendments make clear that the LSC will have the power to fund the provision of "guidance"—as well as "information and advice"—about education, training and connected matters. This is not simply a question of semantics. To practitioners in this field the terms "information", "advice" and "guidance" have well-established and precise meanings. In essence, they describe different levels of engagement between a professional adviser and a client.
It may be helpful if I give the Committee some concrete illustrations of the differences between the three terms. Let us take the example of an adult who wished to take a course in, say, horticulture. "Information" would simply tell that client what learning opportunities were available in his or her locality in the general discipline of horticulture. "Advice" would typically involve a short discussion with a professional adviser. The adviser would be able to discuss with the client, for example, which courses might be most suitable and what entry requirements might apply, as well as to "signpost" the client on to further sources of advice. "Guidance" would be an altogether more involved process, where the adviser might encourage the client to think through his or her motives for wishing to pursue a course in horticulture, to reflect on exactly what they hoped to gain from it and to relate this to their wider plans for career development.
We want the LSC to have the power to fund all these different types of provision. My noble friend Lady David raised the point with me at Second Reading and I am pleased, with these amendments, to be able to put the Government's position beyond doubt.
The amendments standing in the name of my noble friend Lady David would restrict the funding powers of the LSC so that they were exercisable only in relation to information, advice and guidance. I believe that this is also the case now—in the light of the correction that the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, has just made—with regard to the amendments of the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch.
626
I return to the amendments of my noble friend Lady David, which would restrict the funding powers of the LSC so that they were exercisable only in relation to information, advice and guidance. That would mean that the LSC would be able to fund only organisations that were able to provide all three of these types of provision. I hope that the Committee will agree that such a change would not be sensible. We want as many organisations as possible to be involved in the provision of information, advice and guidance at a local level, including community and voluntary organisations, which are particularly well placed to reach out to socially disadvantaged people and to provide a high quality service at the grass roots.
Insisting that any organisations which the LSC funds must be providers of guidance, as well as of information and advice, would risk squeezing out precisely these organisations. That is not a change that we would want to see. I wrote to my noble friend Lady David after the Second Reading debate to address her concerns and make these points. I hope that my reiteration of the arguments here today will convince her that her concerns are unfounded and that she does not need to press her amendments.
The second effect of the Government's amendments would be to make clear that the LSC would have the power to fund information, advice and guidance about employment, as well as about education and training. This is an important clarification. Since the beginning of the current financial year, my department has been developing through local learning partnerships a publicly funded information, advice and guidance service for adults. That service—for which we intend the LSC to be responsible—is certainly intended to help adults make better choices about learning. The consequences of the wrong choices about learning—both for the individual and the taxpayer—can be quite serious. As we expect the number of adults involved in learning to increase significantly over the next few years, there is obviously a sound argument for ensuring that they have good access to reliable advice on the subject.
However, it is also important that the service should offer support to adults in their decisions about careers. Changes in the labour market and in the nature of work mean that people can expect to change their job much more frequently during their lifetime. That is, of course, one of the major influences on the demand for learning among adults, as all of us need to update our skills continuously through life. Therefore we want adults to have access to information, advice and guidance about learning and work and, perhaps most critically, about the relationship between the two.
For all these reasons, it is important that the LSC's funding power in this area is not too narrowly drawn and that it should extend to information, advice or guidance about employment as well as about learning. I beg to move.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Elton): I should inform your Lordships that, if this amendment is agreed to, I shall not be able to call Amendment No. 59.
Baroness David: I thank my noble friend for what she has done in this matter, which goes back to Second Reading. She has been extremely obliging and helpful. At Second Reading I said:
"I hope that the Minister will accept an amendment to add "guidance" to the phrase … If that cannot be agreed, as I hope that it will, can the Minister assure us that the terminology in the Bill includes access to an in-depth interview conducted by a trained adviser, which is what "guidance" means in this context?".—[Official Report, 17/1/00; col. 916.]
It is important to know what "guidance" means in this context. It is not absolutely obvious to any casual reader.
When my noble friend wrote to me and said that she was tabling an amendment to put "guidance" into the Bill I was extremely grateful. But then I was slightly disappointed when I saw that it said "or guidance" when I had hoped it would say "and guidance". I wrote to her and pointed out this matter, and I received a convincing reply in the letter that she wrote to me on 1st February.
I have tabled the amendment again because I want the Minister to explain to the Committee exactly why "or" was right and "and" was wrong. I hope she will repeat for the benefit of the Committee and to record the point in Hansard the reasons for this. I shall not be pressing my amendment. I tabled it only to draw out her response. I think that she has probably already given it.
Baroness Blatch: Perhaps I was not concentrating enough, but I was concerned about "all". Certainly in my amendments I had intended it to be "and guidance". I note that in Amendment No. 87, which stands in the name of the Minister, the words "advice or guidance" appear. It would be helpful when the Minister responds—without taking too much of the Committee's time—if she could give an explanation of that.
Although the Minister, in moving the amendment, was very helpful—it is clear that there has been a very positive response to the Second Reading—one point was not covered in regard to the role of the advisory service under the new arrangements. There is some concern about what its role will be, how it will work in practice, and what will be the practical arrangements for moving from the existing system to the new arrangements.
As has been said, the term "advice about educational training or connected matters" is inadequate. It should be more than mere information. We know that many people are given only information and then left wallowing and wondering what on earth they should make of it. Too many people need their hands holding at that point, and for some young people who drop out of mainstream education very often it is the key point at which they could have been helped. Their problems might have been resolved if they had had proper guidance at that time.
So many people will require more than information. Their interests, their aptitudes and their skills need to be properly identified under a more guided and, if I
628
may say so, independent and objective approach, without being over-prescriptive or dictatorial, in order to match their need for learning and working opportunities.
The Careers Service National Association has in fact suggested some definitions for "Information", "Advice" and "Professional guidance". I should like to place them on the record because they are worth studying. First:
"Information refers to data on learning and work opportunities conveyed through printed matter, audio visual materials or computer software, or through information officers in careers services or helpline services such as Learning Direct.
Advice refers to providing an immediate response to the needs of clients who present an enquiry or reveal a need that requires more than a straightforward information response. It is usually limited to helping with the interpretation of information, and with meeting needs already clearly understood by the client, and may or may not include signposting to a guidance interview where a more in-depth response can be provided.
Professional guidance"—
this point has been touched on by the Minister—
"reflects an in-depth interview conducted by a trained adviser which helps clients to explore a range of options, to relate information to their own needs and circumstances, and to make decisions about their career ie their progression in learning and/or work. It may or may not include psychometric assessment.
There also needs to be an indication of the criteria the LSC will use when contracting out services to provide career information, advice and guidance to ensure that the service is delivered by people who are appropriately qualified—the Institute's Register of Guidance Practitioners could be a useful quality instrument here".
That is advice from the Careers Service National Association. It would be helpful if the Minister was able to say something definitive about the role of the present Careers Service under the new arrangements.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: I am relieved to hear that the noble Baroness, Lady David, is adequately satisfied that "advice or guidance" means the same as "advice and guidance" because, on the face of it, it does not sound like the same thing. I am concerned not only for the reasons explained by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, but also for the adult guidance services where that provision is of initial key importance if the Government's concern to widen participation is to be successfully achieved.
The Guidance Council has identified the key elements of guidance. "Information or advice" does not cover the range of activities adequately. The omission of the word "guidance" from the text here is a key concern because the result will be that the local learning and skills councils will consider that they are unable to fund the guidance activities and, if the provision is "advice or guidance", they will limit themselves to advice and not provide guidance. It is important that we understand from the Minister precisely what role is seen here for adult guidance services; how extensive or discreet those services are to be; and how much continuity may be maintained.

629
What is the role of guidance services within the local learning partnerships? I should be glad for some clarification.
Baroness Blackstone: I am most grateful to my noble friend Lady David for what she has done in encouraging the Government to bring forward the amendments. I certainly believe that the Bill has been improved as a result. She asked about guidance and I believe that I have already said a little about the differences between information, advice and guidance, as have the noble Baronesses, Lady Sharp of Guildford and Lady Blatch. Guidance is of course a much more in-depth approach than simply providing information or advice. The Government intend greatly to extend services in that area as a consequence of the Bill. They are committed to improving opportunities for adults and to ensuring that they are placed in the kind of jobs that they have the potential to take up and pursue in a fulfilling way.
Until now the Careers Service has had a rather limited role in adult guidance because it has been so focused on young people, but in future, as a result of the ConneXions service—by which that part of the Careers Service's work will be taken on by a new organisation—we hope that there will be a great improvement in the availability of really good careers advice, information and guidance to adults who are either seeking a job or are dissatisfied with their present job and want advice on how to improve their position. I am most grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, for setting out the views of the Careers Service National Association on this issue. They sound extremely sensible.
Perhaps I may return to the more specific question about "and" and "or". In my letter to my noble friend I said that if we have on the face of the Bill "and guidance" the LSC would only be able to provide funds in circumstances where an organisation was providing all three elements of information, advice and guidance to individuals. It could not provide funds simply for, say, the promotion of information about education and that would cut out from local partnerships those many small community and voluntary organisations that may not be able to deliver in depth guidance but have an important role in reaching out to hard-to-help groups. I am sure that all those who have spoken would want us to be able to help such groups. So, in fact, "or" is an improvement on "and", but I point out to the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, that it is not the same. It is an improvement for the purposes which all of us who have spoken in the debate want to pursue. I hope that that clarifies the issues that have been raised.
Baroness Blatch: Before the noble Baroness sits down, will she refer to the role of the Careers Advisory Service? It is concerned about where it will fit into the new arrangements.
Baroness Blackstone: I do not think I can add a great deal to what I have said other than that there will be a continued role. It will continue to be funded and, as I said earlier, we see this as an expanding role.
Baroness Blatch: I am grateful for that, but I wish to press the noble Baroness a little more. Will those who
630
presently offer careers advice, information and guidance be the same people? Will they have a new remit or will they be given the remit under the ConneXions and under the new arrangements for advice, information and guidance to young people? Are we talking about the same professionals in the system now, who will be secure under the new arrangements? I had a sneaking suspicion that other people would be employed. I should be interested to know what will be the relationship between, for example, the personal advisers who will be newly trained and newly recruited into the service and the existing careers advisers in the system.
Baroness Blackstone: We need to distinguish here between the ConneXions service, which is about providing a whole range of personal advice for young people, and the provision for adults that we are discussing in this group of amendments. The Government are funding a new £54 million programme for adult advice and guidance. The LSC will be the agency funding that guidance. Local adult information, advice and guidance partnerships will be closely linked to the local learning partnerships. But the people who are currently involved in providing that adult advice and guidance will continue to do so under the new arrangements. I hope that that clarifies the position.
Baroness Blatch: I am sorry to press the matter, but I cannot do so at any other stage of the Bill. Does that mean that the present Careers Advisory Service will not have a role with regard to those under 19 or working with schools and young people on careers advice? Will that be contracted out to people other than those who are presently in the system and are presently doing that work?
Baroness Blackstone: As I said earlier, we have to distinguish here between provision made for young people and provision made for others. The Careers Service makes most of its provision for young people. They will be subsumed under the new ConneXions service. But those careers advisers who are working in adult guidance will continue to operate in adult guidance, funded by the Government through the LSC. The same people who have been providing this information, advice and guidance will continue to operate as such.
Baroness David: I am sorry to intervene again. If it were not so late, I should read quite a long extract from a letter I have received from the headmistress of Skipton High School, who is extremely anxious that the Careers Service should give her pupils the same service as it gives now. She says that those at the school could not possibly provide it themselves, and that they must have it. Many of the mainstream pupils still need the service. It will be for them as well as for adults. Will the Minister give that reassurance?
Baroness Blackstone: Yes.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 58 and 59 not moved.]
Baroness Blackstone Baroness Blackstone moved Amendment No. 60:
Page 3, line 44, at end insert ("(including employment)").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 61 and 62 not moved.]
Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 6 [Financial resources: conditions]:
Baroness Sharp of Guildford Baroness Sharp of Guildford moved Amendment No. 63:
Page 4, line 12, after ("may") insert ("after consulting providers or their representatives and such persons as it thinks fit").
The noble Baroness said: This series of amendments falls into two distinct groups. One group, Amendments Nos. 65 to 67, relates only to the conditions under which the council might have access to the accounts and information of service providers.
Under the Bill as presently drafted, it seems that the council would have almost unlimited rights of access to all financial and other information on the part of providers. On the face of it, that would seem contrary to natural justice. These amendments therefore seek to limit the rights of access to those matters that pertain to the council's business—hence giving such access and allowing such rights as are necessary for the carrying out of the council's functions. This is not a political point but a truly liberal one. It relates to the right to privacy of information on the part of providers.
The second, and in many senses the more important, set of amendments—Amendments Nos. 63, 68 and 252—relates to the powers of the learning and skills council to set charges. Currently, neither the Further Education Funding Council nor the Secretary of State has powers to impose on providers requirements as to the fees that must be charged.
Clause 6(3) consequently represents a major extension of current powers. At no stage in the development of the policies that underpin the Bill has there been any suggestion that such powers would be taken. Nor has there been any opportunity for public debate about either the Government's objectives in introducing controls on provider fees or about the way in which such powers may be used.
The introduction of controls of this kind would represent a considerable erosion of the autonomy of further education colleges and an almost unprecedented interference with the rights of private training providers to establish their own fees structures. It would take away one of the few options open to providers in tailoring provision to local market needs—not just in setting open market fees but also in negotiating with employers on a shared responsibility for some types of publicly desirable trading such as NVQs. As drafted, the clause would appear to permit the LSC to impose different arrangements on different providers and, in doing so, impose unequal or unfair conditions on some individual providers or some classes of providers as compared to others.
Without any indication from the Government as to the rationale for such a policy, the case for the imposition of conditions on fees has not been made. Although there may be justification for imposing common arrangements in some specific areas where forms of public funding are involved—such as individual learning accounts—no such explanation has been offered. Equally, although there may be a case for curbing some of the more extreme examples of fees policies seen in recent years both in the FE sector and among the private training providers, it is difficult to see how any national fees scheme could work. Market conditions vary enormously across the country and in different areas of vocational education and training. No single pricing regime could work without having different effects in different areas. For example, relatively high fees may be feasible in the south-east where incomes are high and the economy is buoyant but may have a disastrous effect on participation in depressed areas of Merseyside. Therefore, this series of amendments seeks elucidation from the Government as to precisely what they have in mind. I beg to move.
Lord Bach: The learning and skills council will pass considerable sums of taxpayers' money—some £6 billion a year—to a wide range of providers of education and training. The Government believe it is essential that the council should be able to establish whether these funds have been used properly and in accordance with the conditions on which they have been given. If public funds have not been used properly the council will be able to take steps to recover them. Amendment No. 67 would restrict the exercise of the council's right of access to its statutory functions. The council is to be a statutory corporation created by Parliament and it may exercise only those powers granted to it by Parliament. This is a well-established principle of law. I have no problem with the concern that lies behind the amendment. For example, if the LSC funds workplace training at a major company—for example a car-maker or supermarket—clearly it is wrong for it to rummage through documents that deal with entirely unrelated and perhaps confidential manufacturing or retailing processes. But the amendment is unnecessary because this kind of behaviour would clearly not be permitted under the Bill.
The Government believe that the remaining amendments will add considerably to bureaucracy and, although genuine, are misconceived. Under Clause 25 the Secretary of State may attach conditions to the grants that he makes to the council. Those conditions will in turn apply when financial resources are passed on to providers. It would be bizarre to require the Secretary of State to make statutory instruments to approve LSC conditions of funding which he had made in the first place. These amendments would require every change in a condition to come back to the Secretary of State, who would have to make a new order to amend previous orders, and so on and so forth. That is a waste of everybody's time, not least that of Parliament and this

633
Chamber, and is hardly consistent with the concerns that noble Lords have expressed about excessive bureaucracy.
But, more generally, these arrangements impose constraints upon the ability of the LSC to exercise flexible judgments about the financial agreements that it needs to reach with providers. By comparison, currently the FEFCs have a financial relationship with a relatively homogenous group of providers, principally further education colleges and some institutions in the higher education sector. The LSC, through its local bodies, will have direct financial relationships with several thousand providers, including employers, colleges, LEAs and voluntary organisations. To work properly it must have the ability to tailor its arrangements and should be able to do this flexibly. The Government believe that it would be inappropriate to impose on those arrangements a superstructure of statutory bureaucracy. I hope that that explains to some extent the rationale behind this part of the Bill and that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: I thank the Minister for his explanation, but I cannot say that I am satisfied on either count. The advice that I received from some of our lawyers in relation to the first matter was that the powers in the Bill were extremely sweeping and there was a case for curbing them.
As to the second issue, I am disturbed because Clause 6 (3) represents a major extension of current powers. I shall withdraw the amendment for the present, but we may wish to return to it at the Report stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
10.45 p.m.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 64:
Page 4, line 15, leave out paragraph (a) and insert—
("(a) require any person receiving financial resources from the Council to provide the Council with such documents as requested by the Council as relate to their application for that financial resource;").
The noble Baroness said: Perhaps I could start by saying to the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, that I would have supported her very warmly on all the arguments she put. The whole of Clause 6 is extremely worrying. I think the autonomy of further education colleges and training providers is going to be seriously inhibited by it. The noble Lord the Minister is always eloquent on all these occasions, but he used a phrase which may resonate rather nervously outside this Chamber. He said that he would not want people to go rummaging around people's computers and files and all the rest of it for irrelevant material. I would not want them to go rummaging around even for relevant material.
Clause 6(1) says that if the council itself provides financial resources it may impose conditions, which may include "any provisions described below". Clause 6(2)(a) refers to designated people being allowed access to a person's accounts and documents, and also to a person's computers and associated apparatus and
634
material. That can only be done by gaining access to premises and there is absolutely nothing here about how that would be done, whether under licence or with some kind of permit. This simply is an unacceptable paragraph and I think that it should come out.
I have no quarrel with the principle that where a provider is grant aided or receives money from the council there should be an obligation to provide all that the council may need that is relevant to the way in which it disposes of those funds and the way it uses them, given that the council would only grant aid or allocate funds on the basis of a specific remit to achieve a particular service which would have been specified at the outset.
I have no quarrel with the idea that the provider must be accountable and that there should be an obligation to provide information to the council. Therefore, Amendment No. 64 would include any training providers receiving financial resources from the council being obliged to provide the council with such documents requested by the council as relate to their application for that financial resource. I think there is a very real issue here of autonomy and of access. Quite frankly, the method by which this information could be provided is very debatable. I believe that the wording in my amendment should be substituted for the wording in Clause 6(2)(a). I beg to move.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: If your Lordships agree to this amendment, I shall be unable to call Amendments Nos. 65 to 67.
Lord Bach: The Government feel that circumstances covered in the noble Baroness's amendment do not exist in the real world. It would remove the provision giving the LSC access rights to any person it funds and substitute that with a bit of a mouse; that is, a requirement for potential providers to provide no more than information relating to an application for funding. The persons would include LEAs, FE colleges and private providers. The LSC will need powers of access for audit and related purposes connected with the proper use of council funds. An inability to seek assurance that funds are being used properly could severely hamper its ability to claw back funding which has been improperly used and put a large amount of taxpayers' money at risk.
We argue that the simple reality is that the effect of Amendment No. 64 would be to deny the council the ability to inspect relevant providers' records, whether written or held on computers so as to establish whether taxpayers' money had been used properly. That is rather irresponsible and not something that any government could do. On that basis, we resist the noble Baroness's amendment and hope that she will withdraw it.
Baroness Blatch: That was a disappointing answer. The Minister gave no explanation of his meaning of "access". Can the council force access? Can it break in? Can it hack any computer?

635
As I pointed out when I spoke to the amendment, I have no difficulty with someone who receives public funds being accountable for the use of those funds and being obliged under the law to provide the information required for audit purposes and/or the local council's satisfaction that those funds were being used for the purpose for which they were given.
The Bill does not define the kind of person referred to. It could be the caretaker, the cleaner or anyone. The council designates "a person" and allows him access to a person's accounts. No one could see my accounts without breaking into my home. And if that person broke into my home he would not see those accounts unless he broke into my computer. And he could only break into my computer if he hacked into my password. Is that the power being given to the learning skills council? If so, it is important that the Minister explains what he means by "access".
If I were in receipt of funding from the council for a purpose laid down by the council, I am proposing an obligation under the law to provide the council with all the information it needs as evidence that I am using that money for the purposes for which it was given. If I broke that law it would be for the law enforcers to deal with and not some undefined member of the council to come to my home, the premises of a private company, or an FE college and simply force access. It is important that the noble Lord spells out precisely what the provision means in practice.
Lord Tope: I share the concern expressed by the noble Baroness—although my accounts are far less interesting than hers must be!
We share strongly the concern. I do not argue with the noble Baroness about which of our amendments is the most appropriate. What is appropriate is the concern we share. Neither of us may yet have found the right words for an amendment. But can the Minister tell us—I do not know the answer—where else in legislation similar powers are granted to funding bodies? If he cannot answer tonight, perhaps he will let us know before the next stage of the Bill. I am sure that it is a subject to which we shall wish to return. The powers granted here seem excessive and draconian. We should not lightly let them pass.
Lord Bach: Perhaps it is the lateness of the hour, but Members of the Committee are becoming somewhat overwrought on the issue. The noble Lord asks for examples. The provision is similar to the funding conditions from the FEFC and TEC funding contracts. There is nothing unusual in what the Government suggest here. The terms will be in the conditions of funding set out by the LSC in the normal way. As I have already said, these funding conditions are similar to those already in existence in law. The obligations go hand in hand with the obligations accompanying the provision of public funds. It is surely the duty of the Government to protect public funds.
Baroness Blatch: I believe that I have already said to the Minister that I, too, think it is the duty of the
636
Government to protect public funds. However, as set out, this is an unacceptable power. The Minister still has not told the Committee whether in certain circumstances there could be forced entry, how that would be done or what definition is in place of a person who could be designated to hack into a computer or break into a company to seek access to their funds. It is important that this point is clearly understood. Once we have reached a clear understanding, it is also important that a better form of words is put onto the face of the Bill.
Very small companies are doing their best to co-operate with New Deal programmes and various other training programmes. As it stands, those companies may come to believe that the Bill contains an unwieldy power enabling a person to break into a company to seek information even without any real grounds for suspicion. It appears that such a person has a right of access to a company's equipment.
Lord Bach: The noble Baroness is correct to the extent that I did not reply in exact terms. I did say, and I shall repeat it now, that those terms will be set out in the funding conditions set out by the LSC. However, I accept that the noble Baroness deserves more than that. Following the Committee stage of the Bill, I shall write to her with any further detailed information I can give in relation to the kind of powers being sought here. It is a fair request and I shall try to answer it fairly.
Baroness Blatch: I am grateful to the Minister for that response. However, I am not seeking details on the powers being sought; I wish to learn how they are to be exercised. I am also seeking a definition of what kind of person could be designated by the LSC to carry out what in fact will be breaking and entering into private property. However, I shall now withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 65 to 68 not moved.]
Clause 6 agreed to.
Clause 7 [Funding of school sixth-forms]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 69:
Page 5, line 11, at end insert—
("() Where an education authority has existing sixth form provision the Council must make a grant per sixth form pupil consistent with real terms value as defined in the average of the three financial years 1999–2001.").
The noble Baroness said: This amendment seeks to persuade the Government to put on the face of the Bill what they have said in practice. On a number of occasions I have invited the Minister to confirm that funding for sixth-form pupils would be sustained per pupil rather than for the entire sixth form in real terms.
On the last occasion that we had an exchange on this point, I recall that the noble Baroness said something along the lines of, "Yes, dependent on the numbers". My proposition does not depend on numbers. If the funding is to be made per pupil, then whether the numbers are high or low the authority will receive real terms funding. However, as I understand the Bill, if the

637
numbers begin to fall then the school may fall victim to the possibility of a notice being published for the sixth form to close. However, that is a debate for another day.
For the moment, the amendment states,
"Where an education authority has existing sixth form provision—
ahead of any publication of a notice to close—
"the Council must make a grant per sixth form pupil consistent with real terms value as defined in the average of the three financial years 1999–2001".
That is also a point at issue between these Benches and the Government: namely, the Government have taken one year as a baseline. However, we all know of the injustices that can arise out of using only a single year. It is much fairer to take an average over three years. Some schools probably had a very lean year this year and it would be unfair to use that as a base line if it was never meant to be sustained over a period. Therefore, there seems to be an argument for referring to the average over the previous three years.
There is a concern because, as I said earlier, as far as I know, there is no plan to put in extra funding for this provision. The money will be top-sliced at national level and will be given to the National Council, which will then send it down the line administratively to 47 local skills councils, which will then send it down the line to even more local education authorities, which will then fund the individual schools with sixth forms. There will be some dissipation of that money as it goes down the line unless extra money for its administration is found.
If LEAs receive less money than would have been the case had they received it through the normal grant-in-aid from the Government under the present system, they have a painful decision to make. It is difficult to reconcile the Government's promise that expenditure will be sustained in real terms per pupil if it is not matched with the kind of funding which would be needed in order for it to travel from government via a circuitous route through to the schools. There is great nervousness in the schools.
As I believe I said at Third Reading, many of us—and I include myself among them—believe that, although it may take a while, this represents a death knell for our sixth forms. I know that the noble Baroness said with every sincerity at Second Reading that sixth forms will form part of the tapestry of provision for 16-plus education. However, I have known the noble Baroness for a very long time. We met at educational meetings long before she and I came to this place. Indeed, we met back in the days when I was in local government and even before my time in local government. I know that at times it has been a policy aim of the noble Baroness, or at least a policy that the noble Baroness has supported in the past, to move to a tertiary system for sixth-form education. Indeed, that has also been the policy of many of her colleagues who now find themselves in government. Therefore, I believe that there is genuine concern and nervousness among people.
Lest it be misinterpreted, I do not want anyone to believe that the only provision that I would support for young people who are passing through school is to go into sixth forms. I believe that for many young people that is wholly inappropriate. Very often young people who choose to stay on in sixth-form education have not been properly advised and guided. They could be better placed by moving either into workplace training or into further education. Therefore, I have no wish to be branded as someone who considers that sixth form is the only provision. However, I believe very strongly that sixth forms must remain part of the tapestry of provision of education. That can be so only if they are funded in real terms at the rate at which they have been funded on average over the past three years.
My final point is that there is a very real worry about the ways in which funding will be used to cause the demise of those schools. Certainly, my next amendment, which is linked with this amendment, proposes that,
"Grants made under this section must be earmarked for individual schools or colleges".
I say that because the schools and colleges themselves are now concerned that money will simply come down in a block. In the past, when the local education authority has held the money, it has funded each school, whether it be a school for 11 to 16 year-olds or for 11 to 18 year-olds.
Now, all schools will be funded on an 11 to 16 basis and that separate funding will come through a separate system—as I said, a circuitous system—which will fund the sixth forms. Therefore, not only will schools be uncertain about what their grant will be for pupils up to the age of 16, but also those with sixth forms will be concerned about whether they will receive a fair allocation for post-16 pupils. Therefore, individual schools and colleges will be extremely concerned about their funding stream. It is important. If the reassurances that have been given already by the noble Baroness could be put on the face of the Bill, fears would be laid to rest and much anxiety would be assuaged. I beg to move.
Baroness Blackstone: I shall take the two amendments in the name of the noble Baroness together. Clause 7 will secure the LSC's power to fund LEAs in respect of school sixth form provision. For the financial year 2000–01, funding for school sixth forms amounts to some £1.22 billion.
In the consultation paper on school sixth form funding which was issued last summer we made it clear that our objective was to raise standards and to tackle poorly performing institutions, which is something that I am sure the noble Baroness would endorse. We are committed to having a strong and effective sixth form sector as part of our drive to increase success for all our young people. We want young people to have the opportunity to gain access to a broad learning programme, including A-levels and vocational qualifications, wherever they live. We also want the funding arrangements for school sixth forms to be as transparent and straightforward as possible.

639
I repeat that sixth forms will be part of the tapestry of provision. The noble Baroness asked about views that I may have expressed on this subject at various times in the past. I have always thought, as she has just admitted—she did not want to be misunderstood—that sixth form colleges provide extraordinarily good provision for many young people, as do generalist FE colleges. We seek choice and diversity.
In the consultation document to which I have just referred, we sought views on whether LEAs should in future be funded for school sixth forms by the LSC, or whether they should continue to be funded through the local government finance system. In the light of responses received, in particular from head teachers, we have decided that funding for school sixth forms should be allocated to LEAs by the LSC. The LSC will also fund colleges and other providers of education and training to young people. For 16 to 19 year-olds, schools and colleges tend to provide the same type of teaching, curriculum and qualifications. Broadening the LSC's remit to include the funding of LEAs for school sixth form provision will bring greater coherence to the overall funding of 16 to 19 year-old provision in England.
I can reassure the noble Baroness that individual schools will continue to receive their allocation of funds from the LEA, just as they do now. Those changes will not be introduced until 2002–03 at the earliest, and in planning for them we shall be working closely with LEAs, schools and others. Through that process we shall define more clearly the LSC's role in distributing funding to LEAs and establishing criteria for the allocation formulae for distributing funding down to individual schools.
We have repeatedly said that current levels of funding for school sixth forms would be at least maintained in real terms where student numbers do not fall. I make that pledge again today. But we do not believe, as Amendments Nos. 69 and 70 appear to propose, that primary legislation is the appropriate place for making guarantees of this kind. I do not believe that it is ever used in that way.
We have also said that the new funding system should not constrain the scope for expansion of successful sixth forms. We intend that a rise in pupil numbers should give rise to additional funding. Whether the addition could be on a fully pro rata basis—the key point—would depend on the availability of resources at the time. It would be wrong to introduce a system that takes no account at all of the degree to which pupil numbers may fall or rise over a period of time. Furthermore, I am sure that noble Lords will recognise that it would be irresponsible for any government to give absolute guarantees about the availability of future public funding.
Amendment No. 69 also seeks to define a three-year period—1999–2001—as the baseline against which the real terms funding guarantee for school sixth forms will be set. The noble Baroness raised questions on that matter. I can say to the noble Baroness that we are consulting at present on a number of details around
640
the way the changes to sixth form funding will be implemented. One specific question on which we are seeking views is the appropriate baseline period for calculating the real terms funding safeguard. It would be premature to undermine the consultative process by accepting this amendment when we have not yet had the opportunity to consider the views of all those who will be affected by the proposed new arrangements.
Amendment No. 70 would reduce the role of the LEA to a mere post box, rather than continue to recognise, as we do, the LEA function of making allocations to individual schools. It is also unnecessary, given that we have been quite clear that our real terms funding guarantee will apply—again I want to give this reassurance to the noble Baroness—school by school, and not just in aggregate. I would add in passing that I am slightly confused to find a reference specifically to "colleges" in an amendment to a clause concerned with the funding of schools with sixth forms.
In the light of what I have said, and the reassurance I have been able to give, I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, will not press her amendments.
Baroness Blatch: I entirely accept the explanation given by the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, that the appropriate period is under discussion. My understanding was that the Government were minded to take a particular view. That had caused some concern. So I am grateful for that. Of course I accept that that will take some time. The amendment will have to wait.
I was talking recently to the head of a school with a sixth form who had responded to the consultation paper about these arrangements. He admitted that there was a good deal of welcome for the proposals. It was interesting to learn the basis on which he said that that welcome came. He said that he was fairly unhappy about the way the sixth form was being funded at the moment through the LEA, and the fact that core funding for schools was being cut all the time. He saw this proposal as a lifeline. It gave him high expectations. He thought the school's funding would be more secure and better guaranteed if it came from national funds specifically for sixth forms, instead of coming from the LEA through the block grant. I have to say that, if that is a commonly held belief—which I understand it to be—it is naive in the extreme. I have seen and heard nothing to convince me that there is going to be a more generous stream of money coming down through the system.
The noble Baroness suggested that Amendment No. 70 would reduce the role of the LEA to a mere post box. I have to say that that is pretty well what they are going to be. This is money that, although originally allocated to LEAs through the block grant, is going to be taken by the Government and given to the national council. It will then be given to the local schools councils. It will then be given to the respective LEA. Finally, it will be given to the schools. One cannot say that the schools will be funded to the same value, depending on what baseline is actually chosen, and then expect an LEA to use its discretion not to fund to

641
that value. One can say that the LEAs will be given sufficient money to sustain that level of value, but what the LEAs do is a matter for them. Nor can we say that the schools are to be given some guarantee.
At this moment I would argue that the children, the parents, the staff and the governors of the school are concerned about the outcome of these policies, and not, I suggest, the mechanism for getting the money to them. The Government cannot have it both ways. They cannot say that schools can be assured that they will receive this money. The only guarantee the Government will not give—and I understand that—is an absolute guarantee for unknown numbers of pupils who will appear in the system in the future. The reassurances that have been given in the past fit ill if the money coming down this route can be dissipated on the way.
The Minister has given me enough to enable me to withdraw the amendment because I know that the discussions continue. But I shall return to it before the end of the passage of this Bill. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 70 not moved.]
11.15 p.m.
Lord Tope Lord Tope moved Amendment No. 71:
Page 5, line 17, at end insert—
("() Prior to imposing conditions made under subsection (2) above, the Council shall consult providers or their representative organisations, whichever is the most appropriate for the circumstances concerned.
() In imposing conditions made under subsection (2) above, the Council shall have regard to any guidance from the Secretary of State.").
The noble Lord said: The LSC will in the future be providing the funding for school sixth forms and understandably it is given power to develop schemes for assessing their performance. It will presumably then base its funding decisions on the results of those assessments. I have no problem with that, though I have anxieties as to how it will work in practice.
The purpose of Amendment No. 71 is to ask that, before the LSC imposes the conditions which it will be empowered to make under subsection (2), it should first consult with the,
"providers or their representative organisations, whichever is the most appropriate for the circumstances concerned",
and,
"In imposing [such] conditions … have regard to any guidance from the Secretary of State".
I am sure that that will be the case in any event, but I seek assurances from the Minister on both those points and perhaps those assurance will best be given on the face of the Bill. I beg to move.
Baroness Blackstone: Amendment No. 71 proposes that the LSC must consult providers or their representative bodies before it imposes any conditions on the way grant for school sixth form provision may be used, as the noble Lord, Lord Tope, explained.
642
Given that LEAs secure but do not directly provide school sixth form provision, the amendment would in effect require the LSC to consult some 1,800 individual schools with sixth forms or their LEAs or their representatives before being able to make grant to LEAs for their school sixth forms. That would add another layer of bureaucracy to the system when we are trying to simplify the way post-16 learning is organised and funded. We expect the LSC to work closely with providers and their representatives, including schools and LEAs, and to take account of their views in determining their funding and conditions of funding. I hope that that reassures the noble Lord about the Government's intentions.
But that should be a flexible and dynamic process. It should not be weighed down by a lot of administration and, as a consequence, delay. We do not believe that statutory obligations to consult on the detail of the conditions of individual grants are helpful or necessary. I hope therefore that the noble Lord will not press his amendment.
Lord Tope: I am not suggesting that they should necessarily consult on each grant, but certainly they should consult before conditions are imposed.
I will not rise to the bait that the Minister suggests to me; that is, that I am imposing extra bureaucracy. Indeed, in the light of the comments I made at the beginning of this afternoon I resist that suggestion strongly. I know from personal experience that some discussion before a specific condition as envisaged under Clause 7(2) is imposed, can considerably cut down time and thereby reduce rather than increase subsequent bureaucracy.
Of course I shall not press the amendment at this time. But I am disappointed that the Minister did not recognise the legitimate concern that exists in schools and school sixth forms in having conditions imposed upon them which may not be appropriate or fully considered or understood. Nobody is looking for consultation processes. They are seeking not to have conditions imposed upon them without reference and without discussions.
I hope the Minister will consider this matter a little further. Whether it is necessary to have something on the face of the Bill can perhaps be discussed, but the point is well made. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 7 agreed to.
Clause 8 [Links between education and training and employment]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 72:
Page 5, line 18, after ("of") insert ("appropriate").
The noble Baroness said: In moving this amendment, I shall also speak to Amendment No. 74. I return to a theme which we discussed earlier; namely, that where provision is secured it should be appropriate. That refers to Clause 8 which states:
"The Council may secure the provision of facilities for the gaining of work experience by young persons receiving education".
I say "appropriate" for the same reasons: that it is more satisfactory for the individual; more fruitful in outcome; and the person is more likely to benefit and become a positive, contributory member of society. Therefore, it makes sense. We know that simply securing the provision of facilities can sometimes be inappropriate. It is worth putting on the face of the Bill that it should be appropriate.
Amendment No. 74 is important. Again we are talking about flexibility for people with learning disabilities. Clause 8(2) states,
"The Council may secure the provision of facilities designed to form links between (on the one hand) employers and (on the other) persons falling within subsection (3)".
That is a very important provision in terms of people with disabilities and learning difficulties. Making the link between education, training and the employer can be extremely troublesome for some people. They need a great deal of help. Again, we have a dead cut-off point at the age of 19. All the arguments have already been deployed. Persons with learning difficulties should have more flexibility. Therefore, there should be some accommodation up to the age of 25. I would like there to be no distinction at all. When we had the fairly drawn-out debate about the distinction between "proper" and "reasonable", I understood from the Minister that that argument has now passed by. For this group of people some flexibility to the age of 25 is important. I hope that the Minister will be accommodating in her response.
Lord Rix: I support Amendments Nos. 74 and 91. As the experience of Mencap's Pathway employment service demonstrates, some young people need on-the-job coaching before they can make the best of work experience opportunities or they may need training in how to apply for a placement or how to obtain one. It may be something as fundamental as requiring support to decide the kind of work they wish to try. Even with the best intentions, this is a complex area which should command considerable commitment from government, which I hope will be forthcoming. If people feel that they are short of experience in this particular department, Mencap will be more than happy to give them any information in this regard which has been garnered from the experience of a quarter of a century in placing people with learning disabilities in open employment.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: I support Amendments Nos. 73 and 75 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Tope, and myself. In many senses, they duplicate the amendments already put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch. I endorse what she said about the need for work experience to be appropriate. We have already covered that in our earlier discussions. As regards the second matter, our proposal is not just that the facility should be applied to the disabled, but that there should be flexibility for all over the age of 19 for the reasons that we have discussed earlier. There are some who miss out on educational experiences and for whom work
644
experience is appropriate even though they are over the age of 19. I support what has already been said and make that extra point.
Baroness Blackstone: I shall deal with Amendments Nos. 72 to 74 and 91 together because they all relate to the power of the LSC under Clause 8 in providing facilities for work experience and for education business links. I was delighted to hear the endorsement that was given by all those who have spoken to these amendments about the value of work experience for many young people.
Amendments Nos. 72 and 73 are really unnecessary in the context of this kind of statutory power. In fact, it would be unreasonable for the LSC to secure inappropriate facilities for work experience or, alternatively, to secure facilities for inappropriate work experience. This much is implicit within the provision as it stands. A statutory organisation must, as a general principle, act reasonably. I hope that I am making myself clear in this respect.
Amendment No. 75 proposes that the Secretary of State may extend the power to secure facilities for work experience for an older group. Our intention in the clause as drafted is to maintain and develop existing initiatives designed to give young people in schools and of school age valuable insight into working environments and to inform their career choices. This is explicitly about young people of school age.
Employers, LEAs and schools have been working together for a number of years, including through Education Business Partnerships. A whole range of activities are now in place at local level, enabling pupils to gain valuable insights into the world of work and to inform their career choices. Employers report very considerable benefits from these activities.
Clause 111, which gives further education corporations further powers to collaborate with schools and others in the provision of secondary education, will help increase the number of young people who benefit from vocational learning and links with the world of work.
As regards adults, equivalent opportunities are already available as part of FE, where a substantial amount of provision is vocational and provides links for all learners between the worlds of work and learning. Similarly, such arrangements would be entirely superfluous to the needs of people who are undertaking training where contact with employers and the business world are all part and parcel of the learning experience. I hope, therefore, that Members of the Committee will see that they have no need to press any of these amendments.
There remains the issue of how these powers will relate to the particular needs of those with learning difficulties, as raised by Amendments Nos. 73 and 91. I shall deal, first, with the amendment that proposes to extend the LSC's power to provide for education-business links up to the age of 25, in the case of students with learning difficulties.

645
I have already described the vocational focus of a great deal of FE and training where very strong links between colleges, training providers and employers have, I am glad to say, been developed and sustained over a great many years. This has benefited learners over a broad age range and with a range of needs, including people with learning difficulties and disabilities. Further education colleges work hard at developing links with business. Indeed, such contact is a core element in some courses and is often a central and intrinsic part of any training experience.
I must once again state that I see no reason for Clause 8 to provide for those over the age of 19. I say again, the purpose of Clause 8 is to allow the LSC to support and expand education-business activities for young people in schools, as well as to continue to build on the work of the FEFC and TECs in respect of those of school age who are in post-16 learning. I believe that this amendment is, therefore, inappropriate and I hope that the noble Baroness will not press it.
However, I take a rather different view of Amendment No. 91 to Clause 13. The question is whether the LSC should have regard to the needs of persons with learning difficulties, as it does when securing its main duties under Clauses 2 and 3, when exercising its powers to provide for work experience and education-business links. I have considerable sympathy with this point and I would accept the principle behind it. However, I should like to reflect further on the precise wording of the amendment and return on Report with a government amendment. I trust that Members of the Committee will be content to proceed on that basis.
11.30 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: I am grateful for the Minister's comments with regard to Clause 8. This is not a complicated amendment. It simply seeks to link employment with education and training. If all three could be incorporated as measures to which the council had to have regard, that would be helpful. I hear what the Minister said with regard to what one would expect anyone acting reasonably to do. However, we all know of work experience that is not so "inappropriate" that it could be seriously challenged. Many people are adaptable and they can make effective use of almost any experience. However, I am concerned about more vulnerable people, in particular those with disabilities. I hope that the Government will consider introducing some flexibility in regard to provision for those below and above the age of 19 and will consider the importance of work experience being appropriate. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 73 to 75 not moved.]
Clause 8 agreed to.
Clause 9 [Assessments and means tests]:
Baroness Sharp, of Guildford Baroness Sharp, of Guildford moved Amendment No. 76:
Divide Clause 9 into two clauses, the first (Assessments) to consist of subsections (1) and (2) and the second (Means tests) to consist of subsections (3) and (4).
The noble Baroness said: This is a minor amendment. Clause 9 as drafted deals with two totally separate issues; namely, assessments of providers and setting means tests. We believe that it makes sense to divide the clause into two clauses dealing with those two separate issues. I beg to move.
Lord Bach: Although we have some sympathy with the thought which gives rise to this amendment, the fact of the matter is that the provisions it contains are adequately and appropriately drafted. We cannot see that the amendment would make any material improvement. Indeed, on the contrary, it would unnecessarily break apart two sets of provisions which both explicitly relate to the LSC's funding powers under Clause 5. I hope that that will persuade the noble Baroness not to press her amendment to a vote.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: I am not really persuaded but I can see that parliamentary counsel are formidable. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 9 agreed to.
Clause 10 agreed to.
Clause 11 [Further education: governors]:
Baroness Blackstone Baroness Blackstone moved Amendment No. 77:
Page 6, line 9, leave out subsection (1).
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 77 I wish to speak also to the other government amendments that are grouped with it. However, in speaking to these amendments I shall refer also to the amendments proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Tope, and the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp.
The Secretary of State and the National Assembly announced last year, as part of the revised accountability framework for further education colleges, that the FEFCE and FEFCW should be able to intervene at individual colleges by nominating up to two governors. We intend the LSC and the CETW to have the same capability but that they should have the power to appoint up to two additional members to any college governing body as they consider necessary. This power will allow the LSC and CETW to intervene, for example, where they consider that there might be mismanagement or potential mismanagement by the governing body, or where there are signs that the educational provision at the college is failing, before the problem becomes so serious as to warrant intervention by the Secretary of State or the National Assembly, and to threaten the provision of post-16 education, as was the case, regrettably, at Halton, Bilston and Gwent Colleges.
The key reason for this provision is, as I have said, to allow the councils to intervene early. Amendment No. 79 would restrict this power to the point that it would be quite useless. If the criteria required for the Secretary of State's intervention under Section 57 of the Further and Higher Education Act had to be satisfied before the LSC could exercise this power, he could himself act and there would be no need for the LSC to do so. But it would mean that the opportunity

647
to address problems at an early stage had been missed and cases such as those I have mentioned might be repeated. I therefore must resist this amendment. I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw it.
The power of appointment should not be restricted to vacancies only. If there was no vacancy the councils could not act. Even if there were to be a vacancy it may not be appropriate for the LSC or the CETW to make an appointment to it, for example if the vacancy was for an elected staff or a student member. In such cases we would be denying staff and students the opportunity to be represented.
Amendments Nos. 78 and 164 give the LSC and the CETW the power to make appointments of up to two additional members direct to any governing body, whatever size it may be and irrespective of any vacancies. Appointments would take effect immediately.
The amendment to Clause 11 also clarifies that the LSC may only intervene at colleges which mainly serve students from England, as opposed to those serving students in Wales. Amendment No. 164 provides similarly for the CETW in Wales. This ensures that there is no overlap of responsibility: a college cannot mainly serve two countries at the same time.
Amendments Nos. 247, 248 and 249, which affect the Further and Higher Education Act 1992, are consequential to this provision. At present, that Act only makes provision for governing bodies themselves to appoint members, except in the special circumstances that apply to former voluntary aided sixth-form colleges under Section 30. The amendments to Sections 29 and 31 of the Schedule to the Act are necessary so that the instruments of government for designated institutions and further education corporations can include provision for governors appointed by the LSC or CETW. I beg to move.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: I speak to Amendment No. 79, which is also in this grouping. We thank the Minister for her explanation and for the clarification involved, but we are still not completely convinced by what she said. Clause 11(2) at present gives unconstrained powers to allow the learning and skills council to appoint up to two governors to any or all colleges within the further education sector. That seems an unreasonable interference with the autonomy of individual colleges and is inconsistent with the Government's declared policy of intervention only in inverse proportion to success.
The Secretary of State will have powers to intervene under the amended Section 57 of the Further and Higher Education Act 1992, including the power to dismiss existing governors or to appoint new governors on his initiative. No explanation has been given as to why it is necessary for the learning and skills council to have parallel powers to those of the Secretary of State. The amendment would restrict the powers of appointment to those situations in which the Secretary of State has the power to act; in other words, where colleges are having serious
648
problems of mismanagement; where there is a failure to discharge a statutory duty; where the governors are acting unreasonably; or where there are serious weaknesses. In that sense, our amendment is totally reasonable.
Baroness Blatch: I rise to support the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp. She has gone further than I have in trying to at least bring forward some rationale for the use of the power whilst at the same time querying the power. All that we know is that there is a power to appoint additional members to a governing body; the conditions under which the power would be used are not spelt out in any way. As the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, said, there are other powers in statutes. I do not see the repeal of those powers anywhere in this Bill.
No trigger mechanism is set out. We do not know what would trigger the concern; on what basis that would happen; what would be the process; or what consultation would take place with the governing body. It is an open-ended power that allows the council to add, either objectively or subjectively, additional governors to the governing body.
I know of the powers in the previous Act and I know the reason for them. There are real examples—the Minister has already referred to one or two of them—where FE colleges have quite clearly needed some external influence in bringing sanity to bear on their management arrangements. At the same time, the way in which Clause 11 is set out is really not acceptable. I support the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, and shall accept the government amendments so far as they go, but when I first read the Bill, the idea that the council could simply fill vacancies was entirely unacceptable.
Baroness Blackstone: There really is some misunderstanding here. I have tried to explain that there have been a number of highly regrettable cases where the governing bodies of large FE colleges have failed to ensure that the quality of provision, standards and probity in relation to financial activities that we all require from an FE college have been pursued properly. Where it looks as if things are going wrong, it is entirely right that the LSC, which is to be the frontline body in close contact with providers, should be able to intervene early and provide for additional governors to help remedy the situation.
There can be no question of the LSC filling normal vacancies. That is not what the provision is about. It is a last resort measure when a governing body of an FE college is failing in its duty. It would be completely wrong for noble Lords opposite to oppose amendments which are entirely designed to try to make sure that we have an adequate system on which we can rely and can intervene to prevent the kind of failures that have been happening, I am afraid, with some regularity under the existing system. In the light of what I have said, I greatly hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, will not press her amendment.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: I thank the Minister for her response. The powers are seen to be somewhat

649
draconian in relation to what is proposed. I shall not move the amendment, but I shall read in Hansard what the Minister has said and I shall look more carefully at the government amendments. We may want to return to the matter at Report stage.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Blackstone Baroness Blackstone moved Amendments No. 78:
Page 6, line 9, leave out subsection (1).
Page 6, line 13, leave out ("fill the vacancy") and insert ("be a member of the governing body of an institution which—

(a) falls within the further education sector (within the meaning given by section 91(3) of the Further and Higher Education Act 1992), and

(b) mainly serves the population of England").

On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 79 not moved.]
On Question, Whether Clause 11, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
Baroness Blatch: My name is on the Marshalled List as opposing the clause. I did not make myself clear enough to the Minister when I responded to the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp. I referred to the way in which I read the Bill when it was first drafted. The Minister has tonight amended the Bill. It provided at the outset that the council would have the power to fill vacancies. I said that I was somewhat relieved that it was not the case that the body would be given the power to fill vacancies.
In speaking to the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, I said that I wholly accept the need to do something externally by way of putting in extra governors—that is one mechanism which has worked. It has certainly worked in some grant-maintained schools in the past and it seemed a proper way to go about it. But this clause does not say that. It does not specify the conditions under which that power will be exercised. It gives no indication of what would be the trigger for such a power to be exercised.
It is extremely important that if there is to be a clause in the Bill giving power to the council to add additional governors, it must, either in subsections, a schedule, or by means of regulation, set out the rationale for the power. In other words, if the power applies where the behaviour or lack of control of a governing body is such that a further education college is not being managed well by its governing body, it is entirely legitimate. But something along those lines should be on the face of the Bill and not simply an open-ended invitation to the council and power to add additional members. That is why I oppose the clause and why I believe it should be amended and brought back.
11.45 p.m.
Baroness Blackstone: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for explaining what she meant with regard to the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp of Guildford. I apologise if I slightly misconstrued what she had to say.
650
This is an important clause. The Government and the National Assembly for Wales announced, following the Public Accounts Committee hearings on Halton College and Gwent Tertiary College respectively, that the further education funding councils would be given the power to nominate up to two governors to any college governing body as they thought necessary. That measure was introduced on 11th October 1999 in both England and Wales. We consider that the LSC and CETW should have the same capability. That is what it is about.
Perhaps it should not surprise us that the noble Baroness opposes this clause. It is after all a provision to allow early intervention in colleges to prevent failure and to deal with poor management before it has a serious effect on provision. Our inheritance on taking office was one of sleaze and mismanagement in the further education sector, allowed to flourish by a government who took a back seat whenever they could. We have made every effort to tackle these problems since taking office, but have had to face the serious and much publicised cases that I have mentioned. Unfortunately, these have been the tip of the iceberg. At far too many of our colleges we have found low standards of provision and the improper use of public funds. In dealing with the backlog of failure we have been hampered by the present statutory provisions.
The lack of control which the previous administration had over the sector and the hands-off approach that they took led directly to the problems at these colleges lasting so long and getting completely out of control. The funding councils had been hindered by inadequate powers to intervene. We need to applaud excellence, but we also have to deal swiftly with failure. No one should doubt our determination to do so.
My right honourable friend the Secretary of State's powers to intervene when a college is in difficulty are a last resort. All too often by the time mismanagement or failure is drawn to his attention it is too late to avoid some adverse effect on the quality of education or the proper use of public funds. We want the frontline body with immediate responsibility for the management of the sector to be able to intervene quickly and effectively. We consider that a power to appoint up to two governors is necessary to allow the LSC or CETW to intervene and influence governing bodies where they are aware that there are existing or potential problems. That is the point.
Perhaps I may reassure the noble Baroness. I am absolutely convinced that the LSC would not wish to use this power except in such circumstances. It is not a power that we would expect to be used frequently, nor one that should be used lightly. But its availability may prevent a problem becoming deep-rooted, leading to more widespread failure that could have a serious impact on students. Unfortunately, I am only too aware how the education of large numbers of students has been blighted. I have seen the representatives from staff and students who, through no fault of their own, have been the victims of serious mismanagement.

651
However, the nomination of members, as under present arrangements, will not be enough to allow rapid intervention, because appointments need to be made by the governing body and this could be delayed for several months until its next meeting. The power to nominate members already exists, but the power to appoint rests with the governing body. We simply want the LSC and CETW to be able to intervene immediately and not be delayed by the requirement that a governing body, which is in difficulty, meets to make the appointments. Every delay can make the problem worse, and in a case of possible mismanagement the governing body may even attempt to avoid the appointments for as long as six months. That is clearly unacceptable. That is why we have chosen to give the councils the power of appointment in this clause. But I should make clear that, fundamentally, this is a technical change: if we did nothing in the Bill, the LSC would have a power to nominate additional governors in the same way as the funding councils do now. The point of this provision is to make the exercise of the power more effective.
I hope that I have been able to allay the noble Baroness's concerns by my remarks both now and in response to earlier amendments to the clause. I hope that she will accept that there is advantage in intervening earlier, and that this is a power to be used only rarely and after great consideration. It is not a novel power. As the noble Baroness has said, the previous government took similar powers in respect of grant-maintained schools and used them, rightly. I realise that these powers were for the Secretary of State. However, we firmly believe that it will be more effective if the power is exercised by the body responsible for the funding and supervision of the sector. I hope that the noble Baroness will see the strength of our argument in favour of such powers and will feel able to withdraw her objection.
Baroness Blatch: I am disappointed that the Minister has used a briefing note that was clearly written long before we came into the Chamber today. It took no account whatever of what I said.
I believe that the Bill should contain such a power. I believe that there is a case for early intervention. I believe it is right that additional governors should be appointed. I agree with all the reasons given by the noble Baroness as a rationale. I did not disagree with any of that, and indeed I said so, not just the first time, but the second time I spoke to amendments concerning this provision.
My point is that the Bill as presently drafted does not give any of those reasons why the power should be used. There is no subsection stating how the power should be used or under what conditions. If the power is for use where there are existing and/or potential troubles brewing in the management of a further education college, Clause 11 should contain a subsection to the effect that the power is not totally open-ended and unconstrained, but is there for a reason. I do not argue with any of the reasons given by the noble Baroness in her rather long exposition. She
652
made reference at the end to my statement that a similar power had been put on the statute book and had been used to some effect.
Philosophically, I have no objection; in practice, I have no objection. But this is an open-ended power on the face of the Bill. It will not reassure further education colleges which have enjoyed some autonomy, as the noble Baroness said. Where they are working well, we want that to continue. But there ought to be some attempt in the clause to set out how the powers would be used and what would trigger them. There should be some description of the process, even if it appeared in a schedule.
I want there to be no misunderstanding of how much I support the policy behind the clause. However, it should not remain in this form without proper qualification regarding the use of the power. If the noble Baroness has no more to say, I should like to test the opinion of the Committee.
11.54 p.m.
On Question, Whether Clause 11, as amended, shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 18; Not-Contents, 8.

Division No. 4

CONTENTS

Ahmed, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Bach, L.

Hoyle, L.

Blackstone, B.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Burlison, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller]

Carter, L. [Teller]

Davies of Coity, L.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Rea, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Rix, L.

Goldsmith, L.

Smith of Leigh, L.

Harrison, L.

Woolmer of Leeds, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Seccombe, B. [Teller]

Darcy de Knayth, B.

Sharp of Guildford, B.

Henley, L. [Teller]

Tope, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Tordoff, L.

12.3 a.m.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: As it appears that fewer than 30 Lords have voted, in accordance with Standing Order No. 57 I declare the Question not decided and, pursuant to the Standing Order, the House will now resume.
House resumed.

Northern Ireland Bill
Brought from the Commons, read a first time, and to be printed.
House adjourned at five minutes past midnight.

  Karen Refugees: Humanitarian Aid
  Karen Refugees: Humanitarian Aid
  Poverty in Developing Countries
  Poverty in Developing Countries
  Bonded Labourers
  Bonded Labourers
  Criminal Justice System in Northern Ireland: Review
  Criminal Justice System in Northern Ireland: Review
  Marine Environmental High Risk Areas: Report
  Marine Environmental High Risk Areas: Report
  RAF Personnel Premature Voluntary Retirement
  RAF Personnel Premature Voluntary Retirement
  Depleted Uranium Anti-tank Ammunition
  Depleted Uranium Anti-tank Ammunition
  Depleted Uranium and Gulf War Illnesses
  Depleted Uranium and Gulf War Illnesses
  New Millennium Experience Company: Chief Executive
  New Millennium Experience Company: Chief Executive
  Crusoe Microchip
  Crusoe Microchip
  10 Downing Street: Staff Costs
  10 Downing Street: Staff Costs
  Parliament: Eligibility for Membership
  Parliament: Eligibility for Membership
  House of Lords Appointment Commission
  House of Lords Appointment Commission
  House of Lords: Membership Arrangements
  House of Lords: Membership Arrangements
  House of Lords Appointments Commission
  House of Lords Appointments Commission
  House of Lords Reform
  House of Lords Reform
  House of Lords Appointments: Scrutiny
  House of Lords Appointments: Scrutiny
  House of Lords Appointments: Number
  House of Lords Appointments: Number
  Overstayers: Suspensive Right of Appeal
  Overstayers: Suspensive Right of Appeal
  Human Rights: Outstanding Obligations and Commitments
  Human Rights: Outstanding Obligations and Commitments
  Public Trust Office
  Public Trust Office
  Government Use of Private Sector Lawyers
  Government Use of Private Sector Lawyers
  Government Litigation
  Government Litigation
  EU Veto: Taxation
  EU Veto: Taxation
  Parliamentary Data and Video Network
  Parliamentary Data and Video Network