Sitting of 15 February 2000

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
  PRIVATE BUSINESS

    GREENHAM AND CROOKHAM COMMONS BILL (By Order)
    Order for Second Reading read.
    To be read a Second time on Tuesday 22 February.

  CHILD CARE PROCEDURES AND PRACTICE IN NORTH WALES
  Resolved,
  That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, That she will be graciously pleased to give directions that there shall be laid before this House a Return of the Report and Summary (including a Welsh translation of the summary) of the Report of the Tribunal of Inquiry into the abuse of children in care in the former county council areas of Gwynedd and Clwyd since 1974, entitled Lost in Care.—[Mr. McNulty.]

Oral Answers to Questions
  FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  The Secretary of State was asked—
  FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

    World Peace Council
    Dr. Julian Lewis: If he will make a statement on (a) the status of, (b) the recent evolution and changes in the role of and (c) the identity of those funding the World Peace Council. [108519]
    The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Keith Vaz): This Government have had no direct contact with the World Peace Council. It is an international non-governmental organisation, which has apparently been based in Paris since 1996. It has no member organisation in this country.
    Dr. Lewis: Is not that a rather thin account of the World Peace Council, which for more than 20 years was on the Labour party's list of proscribed organisations as the principal Soviet propaganda front? Given that that was its role and that it followed every twist and turn of Soviet foreign policy, will the Minister explain why the Foreign Secretary saw fit to appoint as the chairman of the Westminster Foundation for Democracy, which is intended to inculcate democratic values in ex-communist countries, someone who was a former active member of the World Peace Council at the height of the cold war?
    Mr. Vaz: I must tell the hon. Gentleman that, on Sunday afternoon between "EastEnders" and "Songs of
    750
    Praise", I spent a happy time reading his speeches on the World Peace Council. Nobody in the House has given the organisation more coverage than he has. I assure him that it is an out-of-date organisation. It is almost as out of date as the hon. Gentleman's views on the cold war.
    Mr. Michael Clapham: Does my hon. Friend agree that world peace can be advanced only by Governments who look to the future? Does he share my fear that, looking back over the past 10 years since the ending of the cold war, little progress has been made on nuclear disarmament? Will he assure the House that he will press the Russians to ratify START 2 and the Americans to ratify the comprehensive test ban treaty?
    Mr. Vaz: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Of course, we use every international forum and every opportunity to encourage countries to be fully involved in these processes. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary will visit Russia next Monday and Tuesday and he will use that opportunity, as he has always done, to encourage the process. Our views on the comprehensive test ban treaty are also very clear: we would like the United States to sign it. We were very disappointed that it did not, and we shall continue to urge all countries to be involved in this important process.
    Mr. Michael Colvin: Will the Minister acknowledge that other organisations came into being during the cold war and that some are now outdated? A good example is the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe, which is now the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe. It succeeded in bringing down the Soviet bloc—that is why it was created—but it is now taking on other responsibilities and usurping the already well-established responsibilities of the Council of Europe. Have the Government thought seriously about reorganising the political structures of Europe following the collapse of the iron curtain? In that respect—
    Madam Speaker: Order. This is hardly relevant to the World Peace Council. [Interruption.] Order. I say to the hon. Gentleman that the question was entirely about the identity and the funding of the World Peace Council and it has been answered.

    Russia (Arms Exports)
    Mr. Andrew Miller: What representations he has made to the Government of Russia about the supply of weapons to countries in the middle east. [108531]
    The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Keith Vaz): My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary discussed the dangers of arms exports and assistance to countries of concern with Foreign Minister Ivanov when he visited Russia in March last year. He expects to do so again when he visits Russia on 21 and 22 February, next Monday and Tuesday.
    Mr. Miller: I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for that answer. He will no doubt be aware that Russia, perhaps because of its financial plight, continues to supply missiles and missile-related technology to countries such

    751
    as Iran, which is not very supportive of the middle east peace process. He will also be aware of my interest in nuclear power. I am deeply concerned about such technology transfer because of the weakness of the technology and its potential application in enhancing Iran's nuclear weapons capability. When my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary visits Russia, will he use all his diplomatic skills to address these very serious problems?
    Mr. Vaz: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for raising this matter. He has a great interest in those issues, and I can assure him that at every opportunity Foreign Office officials have raised them with the Russians. The Russians have assured us that their assistance to Iran is for civil nuclear application only and is in line with International Atomic Energy Agency standards. My hon. Friend has urged the Foreign Secretary to raise the matter again with the Russians, and I categorically assure him that my right hon. Friend has just told me that he will do so. I shall be happy to tell the House and my hon. Friend what happens as a result of those discussions.
    Mr. John Wilkinson: Is it not the case that client regimes in the middle east and elsewhere that are in the marketplace for weapons like those armaments to be well tried and tested? Could not Her Majesty's Government therefore argue to the Russians that it is iniquitous and wrong for them to use their genocidal conflict in Chechnya as a proving ground for the weapons systems that they sell in the middle east? It is high time that those weapons were no longer used on the Chechens within the Russian Federation and no longer sold to rogue regimes outside it.
    Mr. Vaz: Our position on Chechnya and the Russian action there is absolutely clear: we do not believe that the use of disproportionate activities by the Russians was right. I expressed that view to the Russian ambassador. The hon. Gentleman's other points are, of course, matters that will be raised. It is absolutely essential that the major arms export countries adhere to the Wassenaar arrangement so that there is full transparency and disclosure. That is one way in which we can ensure that the export of arms is controlled.

    EU Enlargement
    Helen Jackson: What recent discussions he has had with EU counterparts regarding enlargement. [108532]
    The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Robin Cook): I shall make a statement on the Government's policy on enlargement later this afternoon.
    As I speak, the European Union is launching accession negotiations with six more applicant countries to join the six already in negotiation. Along with my EU colleagues, I discussed the prospects for enlargement with the Foreign Ministers of those six countries last night. I was impressed by their commitment to making a success of their application. Their enthusiasm for the European Union
    752
    demonstrates a shrewder understanding of the benefits of membership than we often hear in the House from those on the Opposition Benches.
    Helen Jackson: Did my right hon. Friend read the comments of the former shadow Foreign Secretary, the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maples), in The Daily Telegraph last week, when he argued that Britain should hold up European Union enlargement until it accepted his pick-and-choose interpretation? [Interruption.] I am aware that that will not have been the reason that he was sacked, because he never discusses foreign policy with his leader. Does my right hon. Friend agree that such a view of enlargement is a betrayal of Britain's interests and something that no responsible politician should advocate?
    Mr. Cook: I assure my hon. Friend and the House that the Government's policy is to do everything that we can to enable enlargement to proceed as quickly as possible. It is important for Britain's interests that, when those countries enter the European Union, they should remember Britain as a friend and an advocate of their membership.
    I have long been puzzled by the Conservatives' policy of vetoing enlargement treaties if they do not get their way, but I understood how they got themselves into that position when I read the former shadow Foreign Secretary's remark today that he never had a serious discussion on foreign policy with his leader, despite several attempts to do so. Perhaps the right hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude) should now tell us whether he will advise his leader to ditch that embarrassing policy out of the back of his white van, or whether he has not yet had a chance to discuss the matter with him.
    Mr. Francis Maude: Everyone should be totally committed, as we are, to the European Union at last embracing the whole of Europe. It is a scandal that, 10 years after the Berlin wall came down, not one of the great European countries that regained their freedom and nationhood at that time has yet been admitted to the club. Will the Foreign Secretary commit himself today to arguing in the intergovernmental conference for a new framework of flexibility so that at least the new entrants to the European Union can be spared the stifling grip of the "one size fits all" straitjacket that is currently promised?
    Mr. Cook: We have no intention of using the intergovernmental conference to try to turn the treaty into a charter for opt-outs. We shall not do so, because we do not for one minute believe that it would be in Britain's interests for France to have the right to opt out of food safety regulations, Spain to opt out of animal welfare regulations, or applicant countries to opt out of environmental rules, such as the condition accepted by many of them to close nuclear reactors that do not meet safety standards faster. I repeat my question to the right hon. Gentleman: if he does not get his way, will he veto enlargement and so make the Tory party as unpopular among the 12 new members as it is among the existing 14?
    Mr. Maude: Is not the simple truth that, faced with a choice between the modern, flexible Europe of the sort that is increasingly advocated, in which nations can

    753
    co-operate in friendship and harmony, and the steady drift towards a single European superstate, the Government have unhesitatingly chosen the latter? They have done so step by step.
    The Foreign Secretary talks about a charter for opt-outs, but he is getting rid of opt-outs. He gave up the opt-out on the social chapter, with the result that social legislation can now be imposed on this country from outside without Parliament or the House of Commons having any right to discuss it. The Government have signed away our veto in 16 areas as they proceed step by step down the road to the superstate. They are taking forward the defence identity outside NATO, and thereby risk undermining NATO. What have they got in return for all those concessions? Nothing.
    Mr. Cook: The right hon. Gentleman must have picked up his response to my statement this afternoon by mistake. No one advocates a centralised European state and that will not be the outcome of the intergovernmental conference. However, he must recognise that not a single Government in Europe will accept his proposal for a pick-and-mix Europe—not even a sister party of the Tory party would accept such a proposal. The leader of one, John Bruton, has said that the Tory proposal is disastrous—that is what the right hon. Gentleman's own allies say. I repeat my question: even if no other Government agreed to the Tories' demands, would they really veto the treaty and stop enlargement of the European Union?

    Middle East
    Mr. Malcolm Savidge: If he will make a statement on the status of the middle east peace process. [108533]
    Ms Christine Russell: If he will make a statement on the current status of the middle east peace process. [108546]
    The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Robin Cook): I visited the region again last month. I found deep concern at the delay on a framework agreement on the Palestinian track and at the suspension of talks on the Syrian track, but I also found optimism that procedural problems could be overcome.
    Clearly, the situation in Lebanon is grave; we are worried and saddened by the violence. I spoke on Friday to the Foreign Minister of Syria and conveyed our view that all parties in Lebanon must exercise restraint. We have delivered the same message to the Israeli and Lebanese Governments. The crisis underlines the importance of efforts to find comprehensive peace for the region, which can be achieved only by the parties returning to the negotiating table.
    Mr. Savidge: I thank my right hon. Friend for appealing to all sides to show restraint in Lebanon. Does he recognise that a lasting solution for Lebanon can be found only within the framework of a comprehensive peace settlement between Israel and Syria? Will he urge both those countries to return to the negotiating table?
    Mr. Cook: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that welcome. I agree that the only way forward is via the
    754
    negotiating table. It will be difficult to resolve the problems in Lebanon without a resumption of the Syrian track, on which I hope we can make progress on the basis of land for peace.
    Ms Russell: Will my right hon. Friend comment on reports that appear to indicate that the recent talks in Shepherdstown, West Virginia, broke down when it was revealed that the Israelis planned to leave 17,000 of their people living on Syrian soil? Will he reaffirm that our Government's position is that those settlements in the occupied territories and east Jerusalem are illegal?
    Mr. Robin Cook: It has been the long-standing view of Governments of both complexions that the settlements in the occupied territories are illegal under international law and are a block to the peace process. I am not sure that my hon. Friend is right about the current hiatus in the peace talks. It was undoubtedly unfortunate that one of the negotiating documents was published, it will be difficult to take such a sensitive and delicate matter forward if the negotiating documents get into the press.
    Mr. Jonathan Sayeed: Has the Foreign Secretary visited the middle east since March 1998? If not, is it because that visit was such a disaster for this country?
    Mr. Cook: I do not know where the hon. Gentleman has been during Question Time for the past six months. I visited Israel and the Palestinian Authority in October last year. I was well received and had useful discussions with the Israeli Government. [Interruption.] I do not understand why Tory Members find it hilarious that one is greeted well by the Israeli Government. Last month, I visited Jordan and Egypt where I carried forward discussions. We have been actively involved there; the hon. Gentleman should turn the record over.
    Mr. Francis Maude: We share the Foreign Secretary's hope that the talks, especially between Israel and Syria, will resume and prove fruitful. We understand Israel's desire to ensure the security of its borders against terrorist attack, but we hope that talks will resume quickly. What is the Foreign Secretary doing to assist the resumption of those talks? My hon. Friend the Member for Mid"Bedfordshire (Mr. Sayeed) recalled that, when the Foreign Secretary visited the area in March 1998, he managed to annoy everybody. Is not staying away the best that he can do?
    Mr. Cook: The Opposition should reflect on recent history and realise that there has been a change of Government in Israel. The Israeli Government are working closely with us; we have had frequent exchanges with Prime Minister Barak.
    Mrs. Cheryl Gillan: What about Lord Levy's involvement?
    Mr. Cook: Lord Levy has played a positive role in bringing the parties together. His visit to Damascus before the start of the Syrian talks was helpful in finding a formula to enable those talks to begin.

    755
    In the European Union, Britain is regarded as one of the leading advocates of the peace process. We shall continue to ensure that the European Union offers the necessary peace dividend if peace is to be permanent. The Government have fully supported the peace process; we are in contact with all the parties, and we shall continue to provide full support.
    Mr. Stephen Twigg: Is my right hon. Friend aware of recent anti-semitic propaganda in the state-sponsored Syrian Daily Tishreen, which suggests that the holocaust is a myth and condemns the Stockholm conference on the holocaust, which he attended? Will my right hon. Friend join me in condemning that propaganda, and will he make it clear to the Syrian authorities that the appearance of such articles poses a major threat to the peace process?
    Mr. Cook: I am happy to tell my hon. Friend that we have already made such representations. We understand from the Syrian Government that they regret the publication of those views, and that it is unlikely to happen again.
    Dr. Jenny Tonge: Does the Foreign Secretary believe that the Government's possible support for the Ilisu dam in Turkey and the water wars that might ensue will have a serious effect on peace in the middle east?
    Mr. Cook: The Department of Trade and Industry has set out four major conditions for providing export credit to the dam. They include considerations about the welfare of the people in the valley, provision for proper environmental impact assessments, treatment of any water that would be used or collected in the valley and consideration of the provision of a regular supply of water to countries such as Syria, which are further downstream.

    Zimbabwe
    Mr. John Randall: What recent representations he has made to the Government of Zimbabwe concerning good governance criteria. [108534]
    Miss Julie Kirkbride: If he will make a statement on human rights in Zimbabwe. [108536]
    The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Peter Hain): Zimbabwe has reached a turning point. President Mugabe has the opportunity to unite the country around him in a process of reform and recovery, which is long overdue. For far too long, dreadful economic mismanagement has propelled that potentially rich African country into crisis. I appealed to President Mugabe not to miss the moment and to face the challenges head on. It is the duty of friends to speak frankly. I have done that in private on several occasions to President Mugabe—unfortunately, to no effect. I hope that he will now accept that Zimbabwe's economy is in trouble and that the international community wants to work with Zimbabwe, not against it.
    Britain, other donors and, crucially, the international financial institutions stand ready to help. However, the Government of Zimbabwe must understand that we will do that only if they show real commitment to sound
    756
    economic policies and if they work with the international community in a spirit of political co-operation, rather than against us in paranoid isolation.
    I am saddened that the referendum process that was designed to unite Zimbabwe on a programme of sorely-needed reform was so badly flawed. There was no electoral roll and no access to the media for opposition groups; there were no observers, and scant information was available to voters. The overwhelming victory for the no camp is a sign of the deep dissatisfaction with the Government over that and other issues.
    The Government of Zimbabwe must now ensure that general elections in the spring are free and fair, give the voters a real choice and set Zimbabwe on the road to success.
    Mr. Randall: I thank the Minister for that full statement. He will be aware that the Prime Minister said in a written answer last week that the Government
    "will not grant export licences for new military dual-use equipment where there is a clear risk that it would be used in the DRC."—[Official Report, 9 February 2000; Vol. 344, c. 184W.]
    Does that mean that this country has put an arms embargo on Zimbabwe?
    Mr. Hain: No, the Prime Minister's answer means what it says. If there are any applications for export licences to sell to Zimbabwe arms that could be used for external aggression in the Congo or by other African countries involved in the Congo conflict, they will be refused. That is what the Prime Minister said and that is what the hon. Gentleman should have read into the answer.
    Miss Kirkbride: In answering both questions together, the Minister clearly sought to avoid my request for a statement on human rights in Zimbabwe. It would have been nice to have heard a little more about that. Does he agree that today's rejection of the referendum proposals by the people of Zimbabwe is a step in the right direction against the despotic powers of President Mugabe? When will the Government match their announcements on an ethical foreign policy? Why do we not attach conditions, such as the improvement of human rights in Zimbabwe, to bilateral aid? Why have we sold spare parts for Hawk jets to enable President Mugabe to maintain a bloody civil war in the Congo? Why do not the Government have President Mugabe arrested for abusing human rights when he comes to this country, as they did with General Pinochet, or is it business as usual—say one thing and do another?
    Mr. Hain: I remind the hon. Lady that her Government sold Hawk jets to Zimbabwe as, indeed, they sold arms to virtually every country on any basis—Suharto in Indonesia, for example. We have repeatedly made clear our anxiety about denial of human rights in Zimbabwe and we have consistently been concerned and made representations about the failure to establish a proper referendum. I repeat what I said in my initial answer: we want free and fair elections and Zimbabwe launched on a programme for democratic pluralism, including respect for human rights.
    Mr. Donald Anderson: The Minister has made a robust and principled response. Does he agree

    757
    that it was unfortunate that Commonwealth Ministers rejected the proposal made at the Heads of Government meeting in Durban last year for an enhanced Commonwealth ministerial action group to deal with such abuses of human rights?
    Mr. Hain: My hon. Friend is right. A proposal was put to the Commonwealth and I was at the Commonwealth ministerial action group meeting that agreed to, and strongly supported, the suggestion that its remit should be expanded precisely to cover abuses of human rights and not only military juntas. I hope that the high-level group that has been established as a result of the Durban deliberations can take that agenda forward.
    Mr. Mike Gapes: Does my hon. Friend agree that there has been a steady deterioration of human rights and more and more authoritarianism during the 20 years in which the regime in Zimbabwe has been in power? Is it not hypocritical of Conservative Members suddenly to notice that now, when we are the first Government to begin to take action against those human rights abuses and authoritarian, anti-democratic practices?
    Mr. Hain: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The Conservatives were in power throughout the 1980s and most of the 1990s when the situation in Zimbabwe deteriorated, but did very little, if anything, to challenge that deterioration. We want Zimbabwe to succeed. It has enormous wealth, infrastructure and skills compared with the rest of Africa and is the best-educated country on the continent. If it reforms its economic policies and commits itself to a democratic future, we shall work with it to achieve that success.
    Mr. Menzies Campbell: The Minister has rightly referred to the wealth and potential of Zimbabwe. In those circumstances, is it not a matter of profound regret that the people of that country should find themselves short of food, short of fuel, in a deteriorating economy and facing an AIDS epidemic? Will Her Majesty's Government assure the House that they will call upon Mr. Mugabe to observe the results of the referendum? Will they also make it clear that Britain's support depends on the adoption of the principles of good governance and that we expect Harare to observe the principles of the Harare declaration?
    Mr. Hain: Yes, we expect the Zimbabwean Government to comply with the results of the referendum, deeply flawed though it was, and with the Harare declaration, in terms of their membership of the Commonwealth. It is also absolutely vital that we see the kind of leadership in Zimbabwe that tackles the AIDS epidemic and deals with the economic failure that has led to fuel shortages and other problems. Without it, Zimbabwe is poised on the edge of an abyss and could go over the edge. That would be very serious for its people and, indeed, for South Africa, its major trading partner, and the whole of Africa. We want Zimbabwe to succeed.
    Mr. Peter L. Pike: While we recognise the problems with the referendum procedure, should not this country now, with the Commonwealth, tell Zimbabwe that we will help it with the preparation of an electoral register for the April election and that the Commonwealth will assist in monitoring a free and fair election?
    Mr. Hain: We would be well prepared, as I am sure the Commonwealth and the European Union would be, to assist with a properly planned free and fair election. Unfortunately, because of the telescoped timetable for a quick election, without the necessary fair preparations or transparency it is very difficult to dignify such an election by providing official observers. That is the difficulty that we face, which is why I urged President Mugabe to look again at when, and the basis upon which, that election will be staged.
    Mrs. Cheryl Gillan: Observers of this Question Time will see from the Minister's answers what a mess and muddle this Government are in. At the beginning of this month, when there were reports of the aerial bombardment of civilians in the Congo war, using Zimbabwean aircraft, the Prime Minister overruled the Foreign Secretary and the Foreign Office by insisting that spare parts for military aircraft were sent to Zimbabwe. How helpful did the Minister find that intervention? Does he think it will increase his effectiveness in influencing African affairs, when at the same time he was telling other African countries that we are determined to do everything in our power to stop fuelling the conflict in the Congo? Is he not even a little embarrassed that, rather than there being a fig leaf of an ethical dimension to the Government's foreign policy, he is now prepared to display on the international stage their willingness to do one thing and say another?
    Mr. Hain: Absolutely not. This Labour Government changed the whole policy on arms exports applications. Instead of being prepared to sell arms for internal repression or external aggression, as the Conservatives did year after year, to every dictator throughout the world, we have introduced strict criteria, which we are now applying, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister announced last week, to ensure that no country can use British arms, under new export licences, in the Congo conflict.
    I remind the hon. Lady that it was her Government who sold the Hawk jets in the first place. We have simply been obliged to honour contractual commitments and supply spares for the two Hawk jets that are still being used in the Congo.

    "Your Britain, Your Europe"
    Mr. Desmond Browne: What further plans he has for his Department's "Your Britain, Your Europe" campaign. [108535]
    Mr. Andrew Reed: What future plans he has for his Department's "Your Britain, Your Europe" campaign. [108540]
    The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Keith Vaz): We have encouraged the Welsh Assembly and the Scottish Executive to organise regional roadshows later in the year to promote the benefits of our membership of the EU, to follow the successful roadshow of last November. I am also writing to the leaders of the city councils of Leeds, Liverpool, Reading, Southampton and Norwich to explore the possibility of their organising a Europe Day in those cities during the summer.
    The Foreign and Commonwealth Office will shortly publish a "UK in Europe" public information brochure that will cover the history of our involvement in the European Union, and hold a Europe Day on 9 May.
    Mr. Browne: I thank my hon. Friend for his reply. Is he aware that Ayrshire, which contains my constituency, accounts for 15 per cent. of Scotland's total exports; that 62 per cent. of that 15 per cent. are exported to the European Union; and that if the anti-Europe campaign launched by the Leader of the Opposition this morning works, about 40,000 jobs that depend on those exports will be put directly at risk? Will he accept my invitation—issued on behalf of those workers and their employers—to bring the information roadshow to Ayrshire, preferably to Kilmarnock, and use it to build on the productive relationship that has developed between Ayrshire and the European Union?
    Mr. Vaz: My hon. Friend is absolutely right: the benefits of EU membership are clear to the people of Ayrshire. I happily accept his invitation to visit him in Kilmarnock with the Scottish roadshow.
    I am delighted that the Leader of the Opposition has decided to follow my lead in engaging in a tour of the United Kingdom. He said first that he would travel in a flat-back lorry; that turned into an unmarked white van, and my sources in St. Albans now suggest that it is down to a moped, with the right hon. Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Mr. Portillo) at the front and the right hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude) pushing from behind.
    I hope that, when the Leader of the Opposition goes around the country, he will hear what I heard: that the people of the United Kingdom support Britain's being in Europe. We benefit greatly from being in Europe, and we will continue that membership.
    Mr. Andrew Reed: As one who, in the 1990s, worked in the European Union—in Brussels—on behalf of the people of Leicestershire, may I say that those people were particularly angry that their views were not heard in Brussels because of the antics of the Conservative party? Does my hon. Friend agree that the Conservatives have learned nothing from their election defeat in 1997, and still peddle the anti-Europeanism that is of such disadvantage to the people of Leicestershire? Will he bring his roadshow to smaller areas—non-cities such as Loughborough? Will he also issue invitations to people in successful businesses such as Campbell Scientific, which I visited a couple of weeks ago and whose exports have risen by 26 per cent. in Europe alone?
    Mr. Vaz: I congratulate my hon. Friend on all his excellent work in the constituency, promoting local businesses. I will go to Loughborough with the roadshow
    760
    and I will not be in an unmarked white van—the benefits to this country of membership of the European Union will be clearly stated.
    As my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary said earlier, the former shadow Foreign Secretary has said that the renegotiators have taken over the Conservative party—a party whose spokesman is the man whose fingerprints and signature are on the Maastricht treaty.
    Mr. David Ruffley: Can the Minister estimate how many people he has spoken to during his roadshow about UK entry to the euro, and what proportion of those people have told him that they do not want this country to join?
    Mr. Vaz: I have spoken to about 5,000 or 6,000 people at public meetings and all over the country. Two people spoke against British membership of the European Union: their names were Ralph and Dave, and they were members of the Save the Pound campaign. The vast majority of people I spoke to supported our important role in Europe.
    Mr. Richard Spring: In his taxpayer-funded roadshow message, the Minister stated:
    "I want to let them know what the Government thinks."
    Does he not understand that, up and down the country, people know that the Government's views on Europe are minority views, day by day increasingly different from those of the clear majority of British people?
    Mr. Vaz: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his promotion to the post of shadow Minister for Europe. We remember fondly the contributions of his predecessor when he was here; he too did not understand the benefits of Britain's membership of Europe.
    Of course the people want to know the facts. That is why we went around the country to explain those facts. We do not support a campaign that is negative and that damages this country's national interest. A total of 3.5 million jobs depend on our membership of the European Union. The hon. Gentleman would do well to start campaigning on those issues.
    Mr. Bill Rammell: Is my hon. Friend aware that the Leader of the Opposition has not launched his campaign on a flat-back truck because he could not find one that did not depend on foreign investment? Would not that foreign investment, supplying those British jobs, be at stake if we ever supported the Tory party's policy of pulling out of the European Union?
    Mr. Vaz: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. As he has said on numerous occasions, the logical conclusion of the policy adopted by some Conservative Members—in the words of the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maples), the renegotiators have taken over the Conservative party—is that Britain would withdraw from the European Union. We need to be in Europe. We are

    761
    fully engaged in Europe. We believe in the reform of Europe, as my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary will show in his statement at 3.30 pm.
    Mr. Tony Baldry: The Minister will know that few Conservative Members are more in favour of the European Union than I, but the campaign sounds a bit too much like spin with little substance.
    Mr. Denis MacShane: That is the Conservatives' policy.
    Mr. Baldry: The Minister's Parliamentary Private Secretary seems to be prompting him, but I hope that no Government money is going into the project. If Foreign Office money is going into it, would it not be better if it went to the British Council and BBC World Service? One does not expect Ministers of State in the Foreign Office to feel it necessary to go on roadshows throughout the UK. They should be doing other things with public money in the Foreign Office, rather than feeling that they need to go on what is effectively an election campaign.
    Mr. Vaz: I am going to be nice to the hon. Gentleman because I know that he is a pro-European in a party that is anti-European. The amount of money that was spent on the last roadshow was a tiny proportion of—[HON. MEMBERS: "How much?"] It cost only £60,000, plus travel and accommodation. It is a tiny proportion compared with the £20 million that was spent by the last Conservative Government on an information campaign that was designed to prepare Britain for the common market—a campaign that was authorised by the shadow Foreign Secretary.

    EuroMed Agreements
    Mr. Gordon Marsden: What recent discussions he has had with the Government of Tunisia and other near eastern states about their participation in the EU' s EuroMed agreements. [108537]
    The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Peter Hain): My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary had a bilateral meeting with the Tunisian Foreign Secretary on 24 January. The Government have had regular contacts at various levels with the Tunisian Government.
    Mr. Marsden: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply and I am delighted, given the importance of Tunisia as a country of stability in the Maghreb, that those contacts have been so recent and extensive. I urge him and the Foreign Secretary to continue to make strong representations to our European partners about the importance of the Maghreb and the near eastern countries in that process. With the forthcoming investment seminar on the EuroMed coming up in Lisbon in two weeks, I also urge them and their colleagues in the Department of Trade and Industry to give British companies every encouragement and incentive to invest in that area.
    Mr. Hain: I will certainly give my hon. Friend, who takes a great interest in the matter, those assurances. We attach great importance to our relations with Tunisia, which was the first Maghreb country to sign up to an association agreement with the European Union.
    Miss Anne McIntosh: Can the Minister say whether those negotiations include such topics as asylum seekers and immigrants seeking entry to the European Union?
    Mr. Hain: They cover a range of matters.
    Mr. David Heath: I agree that contacts and dialogue between the countries of the Maghreb and Europe are vital. Might that prove a useful vehicle for persuading the kingdom of Morocco to comply with the United Nations referendum that is due in July 2000 on the future of Saharawi?
    Mr. Hain: As the hon. Gentleman is aware, both Morocco and others are committed to that UN policy. I had discussions with the Foreign Minister and, indeed, the Prime Minister on that policy when I visited Morocco only late last year.

    Sierra Leone
    Mr. Jonathan Shaw: If he will make a statement on the situation in Sierra Leone. [108538]
    The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Peter Hain): The Lome peace agreement offers the people of Sierra Leone the best prospect of lasting peace and security, after eight years of brutal conflict. We remain concerned, however, about the continued violations of the peace agreement. We are pressing all parties to honour their commitments.
    Mr. Shaw: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Does he agree that the situation in Sierra Leone remains extremely fragile, and that the Lome peace agreement offers the best possible opportunity for that country to restore stability, so that people may once again live in peace and harmony? What are our Government doing to ensure that the Lome agreement works? If it is not successful, should we not be fairly pessimistic about the consequences?
    Mr. Hain: I agree with my hon. Friend that the Lome peace agreement is very fragile. Last month, I visited Sierra Leone and was able to see at first hand the agreement taking root. There is now a United Nations peacekeeping force in Sierra Leone that Britain has supported. Indeed, we are providing more support than any other country outside Africa for the progression of that agreement. However, some of the individuals and parties to the agreement have still not fulfilled the full terms of the agreement which they signed. In particular, Foday Sankoh, leader of the RUF, is still not complying with the disarmament measures. I am concerned that he should return as soon as possible from Abidjan, which he recently visited, to carry through the full terms of that agreement.

    Austria (Bilateral Meetings)
    Mr. Jim Murphy: If he will make a statement on the UK's future bilateral relationship with the Austrian Government. [108541]
    The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Robin Cook): Britain fully supports the position of the 14 European Union countries which have announced that they will not hold bilateral meetings with Ministers in the new Austrian Government. Mr. Haider's appeal to xenophobia and racism is in flat conflict with the values of tolerance and mutual respect on which the European Union is founded. I also fully understand the grave offence to Jewish communities, including here in Britain, of Mr. Haider's statement that the Waffen SS were "decent men of character".
    Austria is entitled to exercise its full rights at meetings of the European Union, but, with regret, we cannot maintain our traditionally warm bilateral relationships while its Government includes people who reflect Mr. Haider's repugnant views.
    Mr. Murphy: I welcome that response. Is my right hon. Friend aware of Jörg Haider's description of the concentration camps where 6 million Jews were murdered as "punishment camps"? I also welcome the sanctions taken by the British Government and by our European Union partners against the Austrian Government. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, if necessary, further action will be taken, not against the Austrian people but against the Austrian coalition Government?
    Does my right hon. Friend share my sense of utter horror that, in the same month in which the British Government announced plans for a national holocaust memorial day, Austria formed a coalition involving a party that has an entirely different sense of history and of the holocaust?
    Mr. Cook: I was in Stockholm on that day, addressing the holocaust conference, and it was moving to see so many countries of Europe come together to make it clear that we have to be open and honest and face up to our past as a foundation for the future. I regret that Mr. Haider does not seem to recognise the importance of acknowledging what happened in the past if we are to ensure that it does not happen again in the future.
    As for our relations with Austria, the Austrian Government have issued a statement of full support for human rights. It is a very good piece of rhetoric and a wonderful statement. We shall now be watching very closely to ensure that they abide by those commitments.
    Sir Peter Tapsell: Does the right hon. Gentleman think that he should be disqualified from holding ministerial office now because of the very many foolish things that he said in the past when he was in opposition? Would it not be fairer and more democratic for him to be judged on his current record, disappointing though it has been so far?
    Mr. Cook: If the hon. Gentleman can produce any statement of xenophobia or racism made by me in the past, I shall happily resign.
    Mr. Ben Bradshaw: Has the Foreign Secretary had the chance to study the detailed programme and policies of Jörg Haider's Freedom party? If he has not, may I tell him that they are no more extreme those of the British Conservative party?
    Mr. Cook: I have to say that I am not aware of any hon. Member who has spoken of the SS in the terms that Mr. Haider has used. We should recognise that the consensus among the 14 member states has been built in the clear recognition that this is not a matter of political programme, but of values. Mr. Haider has rejected the values on which parliamentary democracy and the European Union are built.
    Mr. Eric Pickles: The Foreign Secretary talks about rhetoric. Does he realise that there is more than a whiff of armchair anti-racism about his attitude towards Mr. Haider who, with the Government's ethical foreign policy in tatters, is an easy target? If he wants to encourage Mr. Haider's policies in Austria, the best way is to continue the isolation.
    Mr. Cook: The polls do not support the hon. Gentleman's argument. Since the European Union's 14 member states took action, Mr. Haider's personal standing has dropped from 8 to 5 per cent. and his party's popularity has also dropped. Our action does not appear to be helping Mr. Haider, as the hon. Gentleman argues.

    East Timor
    Kali Mountford: If he will make a statement on the status of East Timor. [108542]
    The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. John Battle): East Timor was invaded by Indonesia in 1975. The United Nations never recognised Indonesia's annexation of East Timor. In the UN-organised ballot of 30 August 1999, the East Timorese voted by an overwhelming majority to reject the autonomy proposal put forward by the Indonesian Government and in so doing indicated their clear desire for independence. The subsequent violence led to the intervention of a peacekeeping force. Indonesia relinquished all claim to East Timor on 20 October. UNTAET—the United Nations Transitional Administration in East Timor—is now established and is carrying out its mandate to prepare East Timor for independence.
    Kali Mountford: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. In the midst of the international efforts to restore justice and human rights in East Timor, will he assure that House the Britain will continue to play an important role in the transition from UNTAET, and will he join me in congratulating our armed forces on their excellent work in the early days of the multilateral intervention?
    Mr. Battle: I am sure that the whole House would be happy to congratulate the armed forces on their excellent work on behalf of the international peacekeeping forces. Our Gurkhas were among the first to go to East Timor.

    765
    When I visited in January, the Australian General Cosgrove, who was in charge of the forces, singled out the Gurkhas for special praise for having helped to bring about a prompt peace.
    The transition from the peacekeeping force to the UN administrative authority is due to be completed by the end of February. We are happy to continue to play a leading role in the UN process, as we have done since the outset. The Department for International Development pledged a further £13 million over 13 years at the recent World Bank conference in Tokyo, and the Foreign Office has opened a staffed support office in Dili. We shall do all that we can to rebuild the newly emerging country that was so badly devastated in the conflict.
    Rev. Martin Smyth: I share the Minister's hopes for the development of the new state in Timor and the speedy return of those in West Timor to their own land. Will he express his concern to the Government of Indonesia, now released from responsibility for East Timor, that they should exert discipline over their armed forces, which have sometimes perpetrated acts of terror against their citizens in other parts of Indonesia?
    Mr. Battle: The hon. Gentleman has frequently raised issues relating to the other islands that make up the huge complex that is Indonesia. As he knows, there was a change of Government in September. A civilian is now in charge of the armed forces. There has been a quiet revolution in Indonesia in the past few months. At the same time, the United Nations and Indonesia's national inquiry have reported on the activities of the military and are bringing them to heel. There will be trials to bring to book all those responsible for atrocities in East Timor. There are different causes for the conflicts in the other islands, but solutions will be found through democratic, peaceful means.

    Human Rights
    Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: In pursuing an ethical foreign policy what regard Her Majesty's Government have to a country's internal human rights record; and if he will make a statement. [108544]
    The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Peter Hain): We consistently promote British interests and pursue British values in our foreign policy by supporting democracy and human rights wherever we can and however we can.
    Mr. Llwyd: I thank the Minister for that reply, but in the light of the Government's ethical foreign policy, why are they so supportive of Turkey, given its disgraceful human rights record in relation to the Kurdish people? Why is it thought ethical and proper that the British taxpayer should stump up £220 million to sponsor the Ilisu dam project? Is that ethical and proper when 20,000 to 60,000 Kurds will be displaced by that awful state?
    Mr. Hain: We have not made any decision on the Ilisu dam project. We have consistently raised human rights
    766
    matters with Turkey and, indeed, securing advances on human rights is one of the conditions it has to meet as a basis for admission to the European Union.
    Angela Smith: Although I accept my hon. Friend's comments that we need to have good relations with other countries to promote human rights, will he consider one country with which we have a special relationship—the United States? It is still that country's practice to keep minors on death row until they are old enough to be executed. Can he assure me that he will make strong representations to representatives of the US Government about that?
    Mr. Hain: Unlike the previous Government, we have played a leading role in opposing the death penalty wherever it is used, and we will continue to do so in the various international forums in which we have an opportunity to raise the matter. I answer my hon. Friend's question in that context.
    Mr. Owen Paterson: What is ethical about selling jet parts to Zimbabwe so that President Mugabe can bomb the Congo for private gain?
    Mr. Hain: I find questions like that very interesting from the party which sold arms to Iraq, as the Scott report exposed, and whose Ministers misled the House over the matter. As I said earlier, we were fulfilling a contractual obligation on Hawk jets sold by a Conservative Government, including two Hawk jets operating in the Congo and a few spares for them. We have also made it clear that we have tightened our policy on arms exports to such countries as Zimbabwe which are involved in the Congo conflict—a policy that the Conservative Government never got anywhere near adopting—and we deserve praise and credit for that.
    Dr. Phyllis Starkey: Does my hon. Friend agree that there are circumstances in which constructive engagement can encourage a country that has a poor record on human rights to improve that record? Does he agree that an example of that is Iran, where Britain's funding, bilaterally and through the United Nations International Drug Control Programme, for Iran's drug control agencies has helped to show the benefits of engagement with the west and has strengthened the more progressive forces in Iran, which is especially important given the upcoming election there?
    Mr. Hain: Yes. There is no point in having a detailed dialogue with some countries—for example, Burma, Iraq and the Yugoslav Republic—because there is no opportunity to do so. As my hon. Friend pointed out, we have recently had critical dialogue with Iran about, for example, the Jewish detainees and other issues. It is because we have supported the reform programme of President Khatami that we have had an audience on those issues and have been able to put our points of view. We have seen some results from that, and critical dialogue is a policy that we have successfully adopted and will continue to use with many countries with which we do not agree about every aspect of their government, policies or constitution.

    Burma
    Mr. Robert Syms: If he will make a statement on the UK's relationship with Burma. [108545]
    The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. John Battle): The Government are appalled by the human rights violations and lack of democracy in Burma, and we are at the forefront of international action on Burma. Our bilateral relations with the military regime reflect this. We take every opportunity to condemn the regime's disregard of human rights and to urge the regime to enter into dialogue with democratic leaders, including Aung San Suu Kyi—who was elected in 1990 with the National League for Democracy—and other ethnic minority leaders.
    Mr. Syms: There is no doubt that the Burmese regime is nasty. Apart from what it does to its own people, Burma
    768
    is the world's largest producer of illicit opium. Following the failure of the EU mission in July and the extension of sanctions in October, should not we this year redouble our efforts with the EU, the Americans and the Japanese to apply pressure for the release of Aung San Suu Kyi, to start Burma on the process towards the proper democracy that its people deserve?
    Mr. Battle: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. We are at the forefront of support for the European Union common position that was put in place, co-sponsoring United Nations resolutions on action in the International Labour Organisation, to combat forced labour. We do not encourage trade investment or tourism with Burma. It was this Government who announced on 19 June 1997 that we would not encourage United Kingdom companies to trade or invest in Burma. We will work within the European Union to do what we can to toughen the position and make it plain to the Burmese junta that it should enter into democratic negotiations with the democratically elected leadership.

Intergovernmental Conference White Paper
3.30 pm
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Robin Cook): With permission, Madam Speaker, I wish to make a statement on the Government's support for the enlargement of the European Union and our approach to the intergovernmental conference, which is necessary to prepare the European Union for almost double the present number of member states.
I am today publishing the White Paper "Reform for Enlargement", which sets out in detail the steps that the European Union must take to get ready for enlargement.
Today in Brussels, the Portuguese presidency is opening negotiations with six more countries. That brings to a total of 12 the countries currently in negotiation for entry into the European Union.
Throughout central and eastern Europe, countries that have only recently emerged from a centralised state and a command economy are making heroic efforts and taking painful decisions to prepare themselves for membership of the European Union. It is in their own interests to do so. The reforms that they need to compete successfully within the single market are also the changes that they need to give their people a prosperous economy. It is also in our interest that they face up to the conditions of membership, not only because they will be better trading partners for British exporters and investors, but because the reforms that they have to make are of direct benefit to us. For example, three separate countries, as a condition of membership, are now committed to the early closure of nuclear reactors that do not meet our standards of safety.
There is no better way in which we can guarantee security and stability throughout central Europe than by providing its countries with a clear perspective of membership of the European Union. Given the difficult and courageous decisions that the candidate countries have taken to prepare for entry, the European Union owes it to them to show the same determination to make the reforms necessary for enlargement.
It is because we recognise the importance of the European Union to Britain that we want it reformed in order that it may do its job better. We have long argued for a Commission that is run on merit, not on influence. We lobbied for Neil Kinnock to have responsibility for reform, and we strongly support the package of measures that he has produced, which fully confirms our confidence in him. It provides welcome steps to measure performance against targets, to improve financial management and contract procedures, and to ensure that staff are recruited and promoted on merit, not on national quotas.
Europe must also embrace economic reform to meet the challenge of competitiveness in a global age. Next month's special summit in Lisbon will be an important staging post in the process of creating in Europe a knowledge-based economy which promotes opportunities for innovation. Britain will be pressing at that summit for commitments to remove obstacles to electronic commerce, to set targets for lifelong learning, and to match the lowest world prices for access to the internet.
We welcome the opportunity of enlargement for institutional reform. For the United Kingdom, the most pressing of these reforms is to increase the share of our
770
vote in the Council of Ministers. France, Germany and Britain contain a majority of the population of the European Union, but together have only a minority of the votes in the Council. After enlargement, they will not even be a blocking minority. We will be seeking a fairer voting system in the Council of Ministers that gives more democratic recognition to the population of Britain.
The second institutional reform required by enlargement is a limit on the growth of the Commission. If all 12 countries were to join the European Union under the present rules, we would have more than 30 commissioners. It would be a challenge for such a large Commission to function efficiently as a single cohesive body—nor is it easy to see what jobs they could all do.
As a first step in containing the size of the Commission, we are prepared to consider that the larger countries should retain only one commissioner. That would enable the smaller countries to retain their own commissioners, at least through the first wave of enlargement. However, I stress that we see these two measures as a package. The larger member states cannot be expected to give up their second commissioners if they are not given a larger weight of votes in the Council of Ministers.
The third area for institutional reform is the balance between unanimity and majority voting. There will be double the risk of decisions being blocked if there are twice as many countries round the table with a veto. Those decisions that are blocked may well be in Britain's national interest and may concern matters on which we want agreement.
The White Paper repeats our commitment that unanimity must remain in cases such as treaty amendments, border controls, taxation, social security, defence and revenue-raising. More than 80 per cent. of legislative decisions in the Council of Ministers are already outside the veto as a result of the massive expansion of majority voting under the previous Government. There is therefore little room for further expansion of majority voting, but we are prepared to consider it in cases in which it might be in Britain's interest. For instance, it would be in our interest to reform the sluggish procedures of the European Court of Justice, but it would not be in our interest if any other country round the table could veto reform of its rules of procedure.
I do not underrate the difficult decisions and tough negotiations that will be essential before we can complete enlargement of the European Union. But the prize is great. It is the final burying of the division of Europe between east and west, which has scarred the continent for half a century. The prize is the reunion of Europe. The result will be an EU that stretches from Portugal to Poland. We will have a single market of 500 million consumers with a combined gross domestic product of £5,000 billion—the largest single market anywhere in the world.
That prospect offers exciting opportunities for our country. Those who would put at risk Britain's standing in such a powerful union are a danger to our national interests. We have no doubt that, faced with the prospect of a wider united Europe, Britain's place is playing a leading part in it and shaping its direction. The Government understand how important it is for Britain to make a success of our membership of the European Union. It is crucial to our trade, prosperity and quality of life. The majority of our exports go to existing members of the European Union. [Interruption.] The right

771
hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) and the hon. Members for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) and for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) do not want to hear the facts about why Europe is important to their constituents. That is why their constituents will not entrust the Opposition with office.
Some 100,000 people in Britain work at any given time in Europe, where their professional skills are recognised. In the past year alone, more than 40,000 new jobs were created in Britain by inward investors, who came here because they could sell from here to the whole of Europe. Those are the gains to the people of Britain of membership of the European Union. The gains will be even greater in the wider Europe created by enlargement. At some time over the next few years, each of the 12 applicant countries will become members of the European Union. The Government want them to remember Britain as an advocate of enlargement, and want to be regarded as their natural ally when those 12 new members join us at the Council tables of Europe.
That is why the Government recognise that it is in the national interest of Britain to be both a leading advocate of enlargement and a leading partner in a reformed and reunited Europe.
Mr. Francis Maude: I thank the Foreign Secretary for making this statement on a matter of the utmost importance. Will he confirm that the House will have an early opportunity to debate these crucial issues in Government time?
It is absolutely right that enlargement should happen, but I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that it is equally inevitable that an enlarged European Union must undergo serious changes. The EU has today reached a fork in the road. Down one track lies flexibility, the creation of a modern and flexible Europe and a common-sense answer to the challenges of the global economy and the reality of a diverse Europe. Britain has an historic opportunity to chart such a route, and to lead Europe along it.
The second route—
Mr. Andy King: Lead or leave?
Mr. Maude: The hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. King) may talk about leaving Europe, but of the Foreign Secretary and me, only one of us has ever stood for that. It was the Foreign Secretary, and he said so repeatedly. Few Members of the House have been more anti-European in their time than he has.
The second route at the fork is the familiar federalist walk, step by step, inexorably towards the single European super-state. What else did Romano Prodi mean just a few days ago, when he said that "step by step", the Commission was behaving like a "growing Government"? With the talk of a European army, a European Government, a single legal area, a European prosecutor, and no role for the national veto, there can be little doubt that, step by step, the destination is a single European super-state.
Has not the White Paper simply ducked what really matters—the fact that in a bigger European Union, within a fast-changing world, the one-size-fits-all model of inexorable integration has had its day?
772
Why has the Foreign Secretary not ruled out the further extension of the loss of the veto in areas already identified by the Commission, which include measures on discrimination, transport, social policy, the environment, structural and cohesion funds, the common commercial policy, culture and industrial policy? Those are all areas in which an extension of the loss of the veto is proposed. Loss of each one of those vetoes would enable yet more laws to be imposed on Britain, with the House of Commons having no right to decide on them.
The Foreign Secretary says that he will consider such matters case by case. We know what that means. It means, step by step, the creation of the single European super-state. Does not his failure to rule out losing the veto mean that we are discussing not a White Paper, but a white flag?
Let the right hon. Gentleman answer these questions. Will he now rule out further loss of the British veto, so that further legislation cannot be imposed on Britain against our will? Will he reject the development of an EU defence identity outside NATO, which risks undermining NATO? Will he guarantee that the charter of fundamental human rights will never be incorporated in the treaty or made legally enforceable? [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] I note that there is a desire to extend the ambit of the European Union yet further.
Will the Foreign Secretary tell the House whether he, like Mr. Prodi's new Commission, is aiming at
"a new kind of global governance to manage the global economy",
based—however incredible it may seem—on
"Europe's model of integration"?
What a failure of vision by the Government, to give up the historic chance to lead Britain and Europe towards a braver future, where nation co-operates with nation in concord and friendship. Why are the Government so locked in the past and trapped by the dogma of rigid uniformity and relentless integration? Britain deserves better than that.
Mr. Cook: If I understood the right hon. Gentleman's opening remarks correctly, he welcomes the Government's support for enlargement, which, if I caught him aright, he described as right and inevitable. I am glad that that is common ground between those on the two Front Benches.
I ask the right hon. Gentleman for the third time: will he now ditch his party's policy of vetoing the enlargement treaty if the Opposition do not get their way in it? Three times I have given him the opportunity, and three times he has refused to do it, so we can only conclude that it is a question of not of the white flag, but of the white van, in which that policy is still alive and still a threat to the 12 countries of central and eastern Europe.
It is a piece of brass neck for the right hon. Gentleman, of all people, to demand that I should rule out any extension of majority voting. He is the man who, as a Minister, signed the Maastricht treaty—[Interruption.]— no wonder he is smiling. That treaty conceded majority voting in 30 different cases—on education, on health and safety, on public health and on freedom of movement. After that record, how does he have the nerve to posture as the champion of the veto?

773
The right hon. Gentleman should be proud that he is the champion of majority voting. I will share his words with the House. He said:
"The number of times that we are in the minority and are out-voted is tiny."—[Official Report, 11 June 1990; Vol. 174, c. 103.]
He was right at that time; he should have the courage to stand by his principles. We shall look carefully, on a case-by-case basis, at where majority voting would lift a block on reform. I may disappoint the right hon. Gentleman, but I cannot hope to match his all-time record of conceding the veto 30 times with one signature.
From the right hon. Gentleman's response, it is plain that the Tory party does not welcome anything that anyone else wants to discuss in the negotiations, and that anything the Tories propose will not be welcomed by anyone else. That is a recipe for isolation.
After three years in opposition, the Tories have still not grasped how much they damaged our national interest by isolating Britain in Europe. As long as they refuse to learn that lesson, the people of Britain will give them many more years in opposition to learn it.
Mr. Giles Radice: I welcome my right hon. Friend's support for enlargement. It will be in the interests not only of the new entrants, but of existing members, including the United Kingdom. I also welcome my right hon. Friend's support for sensible institutional reform. Does he agree that it is good that his White Paper concentrates on the real issues, rather than raising the foolish spectre of the veto, which the Conservatives say they are prepared to use to block enlargement? They said that at their last party conference.
Mr. Cook: I agree with my right hon. Friend in his welcome for the process of enlargement: I appreciatg the fact that he has focused on the issues that are before the House.
The House—and perhaps people in some quarters of our press—should try to throw their minds forward to what Europe will look like 10 years from now. It will be a Europe of 27, perhaps even 28, member states. It will be the largest single market in the world. That will be an immense opportunity for Britain, but only if we are wholehearted in making the best of our membership.
Mr. Menzies Campbell: I welcome the White Paper, which builds on the joint declaration made by the Foreign Secretary and myself during the past fortnight. Let me take the three issues with which the IGC is likely to be concerned. Is it not in the interests of the UK that there should be proposals on the balance of voting in the Council that are for the benefit of the UK? Is it not also true that it will benefit the whole of the European Union if the Commission is both cohesive and effective? Finally, on voting on a case-by-case basis, is it not common sense to examine a proposal on its merits, and to determine whether to support it depending on whether or not it is in the interests of the people of the UK to do so?
The right hon. Gentleman was right to raise the question of enlargement as though it was one of obligation upon those of us who are members of the EU. It would be a tragedy for Europe, and a betrayal of the applicant countries—such as Estonia and Slovenia, which are trying
774
to provide a foundation for the democracy that they have so recently won—if their applications for membership of the EU became pawns in the anti-European game currently being played by the British Conservatives.
Mr. Cook: I agree with the last point made by the right hon. and learned Gentleman. I welcome the fact that the Joint Consultative Committee was able to produce a document setting out a joint policy on that issue. I can see from the negotiations in the EU that other countries benefit from the strength of the consensus in their nations on the commitment to Europe and to enlargement. I regret that we cannot achieve an all-party consensus in the House. However, I welcome the fact that it is not only the Labour party that is concerned with that matter and that we have allies in other parties.
I agree entirely that the three points made by the right hon. and learned Gentleman are also three issues of reform that will benefit Britain. It cannot be in Britain's interest not to go positively into an intergovernmental conference that could give Britain a greater weight of votes. It cannot be in Britain's interest not to go into that conference seeking a reformed, coherent, credible Commission. We welcome the opportunity for reform at this conference. We support Europe, we believe that Britain's place is in Europe but we want to ensure that we reform that Europe.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: In his opening statement, the Foreign Secretary took some pride in the conditions that have been imposed, including the closure of three nuclear power stations. If Koslodui in Bulgaria was closed, who would pay for the replacement? The Bulgarians have few other sources of power. And which were the two other stations to which the Foreign Secretary was referring?
Given that the Danube is poisoned, and that it is blocked at Novi Sad, what is the financial obligation to an applicant country—in this case, Bulgaria?
Mr. Cook: First, the three countries concerned are Lithuania, Slovakia and Bulgaria. Secondly, the European Union is providing very large sums of money to help the applicant countries in their preparation and in meeting the conditions that we are setting for membership. Yesterday, the Portuguese presidency and the Commission informed Bulgaria and others that, now that they have entered negotiations, they can expect that sum of financial help to be doubled.
On the blockage of the Danube, yesterday at the General Affairs Council we considered the Danube commission's proposals. I very much hope that that will lead the way forward for the unblocking of the Danube, and we are willing to help with that process. We have been unwilling, rightly—I do not think that the House would wish us to do so—to submit to the blackmail of President Milosevic that we reconstruct his country as part of the price of lifting the blockage in the Danube. The Government of Bulgaria stood shoulder to shoulder with us during the conflict in Kosovo, and that is one of the debts that we owe to them in the enlargement process.
Mr. Michael Colvin: I wonder whether it is evidence of the Government's offhand attitude to the rural economy and agriculture that there was no mention in the

775
Foreign Secretary's statement of the common agricultural policy. Can he confirm that, at the moment, the common agricultural policy takes up nearly half the European Union's budget, and that the addition of Poland alone would almost double expenditure on the CAP? Is it really practical to think in terms of another 12 members without fundamental reform of the CAP?
Mr. Cook: My statement today did not mention agriculture because it is not a matter that will be before the intergovernmental conference—although at Berlin we did of course consider the reform of the budget of the European Union, both in relation to agriculture and in relation to structural funds. It is well known that we did not secure as much reform as we would have wished. Nevertheless, we have reduced prices in the European Union's agriculture policy, to an extent that will save the average British family of four £65 in any one year.
We need to make further progress and are determined to do so, but I would rebut the hon. Gentleman's assertion that cost stands in the way of enlargement. If he looks carefully at the proposals for enlargement, he will see that there is no commitment to direct payment for farmers in Poland or any other applicant country.
Mr. Donald Anderson: Surely the opening of the European Union to the new democracies of eastern and central Europe will be seen historically as an investment in democracy in our interests—just as earlier enlargements entrenched democracy in the Iberian peninsula and in Greece. Does my right hon. Friend hope, at the IGC, to see proposals for increased democratic control of EU institutions, including closer linkages between national Parliaments and those institutions? As we are talking about democracy, what will be the mechanisms for consulting the applicant countries about their views on the shape of the new Europe?
Mr. Cook: My hon. Friend makes an important strategic point about the need to support the new democracies of central and eastern Europe by embracing them within the family of nations of the European Union. I believe that one reason why we have had so much stability in central and eastern Europe is precisely that we hold out to them the prospect of membership of the European Union, on conditions that they respect borders but do not make borders into barriers. Already, throughout the applicant countries, major steps have been taken to improve the status and rights of ethnic minorities because that is a condition of membership of the European Union.
My hon. Friend also makes one or two valuable points about the importance of increasing transparency within the European Union. Britain has been at the forefront of that argument. We shall continue to be so. As my hon. Friend knows, we are encouraging closer ties between Scrutiny Committees and the European Parliament.
We will continue to do all that we can to keep the European applicant countries involved in any discussions about the future shape of Europe. That is why we had at dinner last night a discussion at which we reviewed the major strategic issues facing Europe, and we have shared our views with the applicant countries.
Mr. Ian Taylor: My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition said recently and
776
rightly that we are committed to membership of the European Union and, therefore, we must make a success of it. Enthusiasm for that point of view is, I am sure, shared by my colleagues who were humming the European anthem during the Foreign Secretary's presentation of the White Paper.
The Foreign Secretary is right to say that, if we are to make a success of the European Union, there are some things that need to be streamlined. We need a more streamlined Commission, a more sensible voting system in which qualified majority voting could be extended outside the core areas that he listed, and a more sensible weighting of votes in relation to population.
However, will the right hon. Gentleman address one item of flexibility that is being discussed not only in this country, but on the continent? What does he understand by potential flexibility? Under the Amsterdam treaty, members were restrained from moving ahead faster if they wished to use the institutions of the European Union to do so. What does he think the negotiations around flexibility will involve, because a few of the new entrants will move at different speeds? That fact could be accommodated by transitional arrangements rather than treaty changes.
Mr. Cook: I am not sure that I entirely share the hon. Gentleman's confidence that his colleagues were hymning the success of the European Union: I sometimes get the impression that nothing would suit them better or make them happier than to see to its failure, despite the immense damage that that would do to this country.
I welcome the hon. Gentleman's agreement to the three main proposals in the White Paper and our three main priorities. On enhanced co-operation, a number of countries wish to improve the procedures that can trigger enhanced co-operation. We are not entirely convinced that that needs to be a priority for this intergovernmental conference, given that the procedures were instituted only three years ago. However, we shall listen to the debate and consider whether it will be practical to make such changes.
Mr. Frank Cook: Will my right hon. Friend give his assessment of the prospect of developing European security and defence policies and of their effect on existing resources and relationships in NATO?
Mr. Robin Cook: The proposal for the European security initiative, in which Britain played a leading part when we started, produces the headline goal that we agreed to in Helsinki. European countries should develop the capacity to put into the field a core strength of service men—50,000 or 60,000—within 60 days and to support them in the field for at least one year. One reason for our adopting that target is our experience in Kosovo and the importance of our being able to provide such a peacekeeping mission.
I stress to my hon. Friend that that increased resource will be available to NATO in the same way as it will be available to the European Union. Should NATO decide to carry out a peacekeeping exercise, it could call on that force just as well as the European Union. Therefore,

777
our proposals do not in any way weaken or undermine NATO: on the contrary, they make available to it a new resource that would otherwise not exist.
Mr. Michael Fallon: Why should welcome enlargement and desirable institutional reform necessarily involve more integration?
Mr. Cook: I have set out to the House this afternoon our three main priorities: increased votes for Britain in the Council of Ministers; an improved Commission that is streamlined; and, where it is appropriate and in Britain's interest, an agreement to majority voting. I do not honestly see in any of those a step to integration which the House should reject as a matter of principle. They are all important if we are to make enlargement work. The hon. Gentleman should be frank: is he in favour of enlargement, or is he not?
Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: Has my right hon. Friend noticed the dismay among young people at the flat-earth policy of the Opposition towards Europe, and their failure to recognise that the European Union has been a great vehicle for conflict resolution and is a ratchet and guarantor of democracy? Will my right hon. Friend stand firm during the negotiations in ensuring that there is no Europe a la carte? Although legitimate transitional arrangements are needed, flexibility could be the prescription for the dissolution of that which has been built up to guarantee democracy in Europe and to act as a force for good, for cohesion and for conflict resolution.
Mr. Cook rose—
Mr. Mackinlay: Will my right hon. Friend also tell us what he is going to do about Gibraltar in the negotiations?
Mr. Cook: I should have anticipated that my hon. Friend would mention Gibraltar. We continue to pursue Gibraltar's interests in several different forums within the EU. In particular, we are seeking a way to implement the ruling that the people of Gibraltar should have a vote in European elections, but we are doing so through the common statute of the EU, not through the IGC.
I can reassure my hon. Friend on his other point. What is interesting about the Conservatives' demand for a pick-and-mix Europe is that that demand is not being made by any of the applicant countries. They all want to be full members of the EU, to play their full part in it and to accept their full obligations. Transitional periods may be required for some of the countries, but unlike the Conservative party, they know why they need to be full members and what benefits they will get from that.
Mr. Michael Howard: Are there no circumstances in which the Government would veto the treaty of Nice?
Mr. Cook: If the treaty is produced by the time of Nice, it will be produced only because all member states, including Britain, have agreed to it.
Mr. John McFall: Does the Secretary of State agree that there is a still a lack of clarity from Opposition Front-Bench Members about their attitude to
778
enlargement? Does he agree that there are compelling political, social, environmental and trade reasons for enlargement and that western help and technology will be of great benefit to those countries, not least because of nuclear reactors such as the one at Koslodui in Bulgaria?
Mr. Cook: My hon. Friend makes an important point. One should remember that the improvements in nuclear safety in central Europe are improvements in our safety, so we stand to gain. I share my hon. Friends' disappointment at the comments that we have heard from Conservative Members. So far we have heard a lot of criticism of the Government's position at the IGC, and many new demands, but very little support for enlargement. I have to warn Opposition Members that what they have been saying in the House will sink like a lead balloon in a dozen capitals of countries in central and eastern which are trying hard to get into the EU.
Mr. John D. Taylor: How many of the 12 applicant countries have said that it is their ambition eventually to have the euro as their currency? Will the principle of free movement of persons within the European Union apply to the applicant countries, and will the Foreign Secretary therefore welcome the free movement of Turks into Greece, Germany and Cyprus?
Mr. Cook: The principle of freedom of movement will certainly apply to all applicant countries when they succeed in becoming members. We have already said that negotiations with Turkey cannot commence until it conforms with the Copenhagen criteria on democracy, human rights and treatment of ethnic minorities. Turkey is therefore not one of the 12 that are currently in negotiations.
It is understood by most of the applicant countries that, realistically, they are unlikely to join the euro at the time of joining the EU, but many of them have their sights set on that eventual goal.
Mr. Michael Connarty: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the countries that are applying will be very happy with Britain's approach to the number of commissioners and understand why there must be reweighting of voting in Council to ensure that smaller countries, which may be in the majority, will never be able to outvote the countries that have the majority in terms of population?
Mr. Cook: My hon. Friend touches on the very fair bargain that we are offering to smaller countries within the EU and those that are applying for membership; namely, that they may retain their commissioner, at any rate through the first wave of enlargement, but that we in turn need to have a fairer weighting of voting within the Council of Ministers. That is a reasonable bargain which has something in it for all the present members, and I hope that we can achieve that package in the negotiations.
Mr. David Curry: Does the Foreign Secretary recall that the greatest motive for the advance of British interests in Europe has been qualified majority voting? If he intends to move towards a system in the Council of Ministers in which the votes are more

779
proportional to population, will he contemplate a situation in which the big four members of the EU no longer enjoy the same number of votes?
Mr. Cook: At present, we would prefer that the existing broad banding be retained; that would mean that all four larger countries would remain in the same band. However, additional weight needs to be given to the votes of the four countries within that band. The right hon. Gentleman refers to votes being proportional to population: we seek an outcome that is more proportional, but we do not seek to disturb the principle that all member states are equal, so votes should not be strictly proportional to population. We do, however, require that fair recognition be given to the size of our population so that we do not find ourselves in the absurd position in which three of the four largest countries do not even constitute a blocking minority.
Dr. Phyllis Starkey: Does my right hon. Friend share my amazement at the false dichotomy proposed by the Opposition spokesman—that the choice is between a super-flexible Europe and a super-federalist Europe? Will he confirm that the Conservatives are the only advocates of those two models and that there is no way in which the IGC will bring either of those two models into being?
Mr. Cook: The limited remit for the IGC will certainly not create a European centralised integrated federal state. While travelling in Europe and meeting leaders of other European nations, I find no appetite for subordinating their nation to any grand federal European integrated state. President Chirac recently said that he believed not in a united states of Europe but in a united Europe of states, and Chancellor Schröder said that the nation state would continue to be at the centre of the hopes and aspirations of the peoples of Europe. We are very comfortable with those statements—we share that vision of the future of Europe.
Mr. John Townend: Is the right hon. Gentleman not at all worried that he is a leading member of a Government who are progressively turning the House of Commons into nothing more than a glorified county council? He failed to answer the question previously, so I shall repeat it: does he think that the IGC will result in more integration? If he does, is that in line with the Labour party's policy of creating a political union—a Europe of the regions? Finally, why did he not mention fishing? The fishing industry is on its knees because of the failure of the common fisheries policy. Why does the right hon. Gentleman not use the opportunity to negotiate a better deal for our fishing industry?
Mr. Cook: I did not mention fishing because it is not on the agenda of the intergovernmental conference. However, it is fair to say that successive Governments have had to wrestle with the extremely poor deal that the Conservative Government obtained on joining the common fisheries policy.
On the question of integration, I can only repeat the three main priorities that we have set out: more votes for Britain, a more sensible Commission, and a case-by-case
780
approach to accept majority voting only when it is in our interests. If the hon. Gentleman chooses to describe that as integration, he is free to do so, but let us not try to frighten the public by dangling bogeymen in front of them.
Mr. Bill Rammell: Is it not true that, without some change in decision-making procedures, enlargement of the European Union will not be possible? Is it not also true that QMV currently serves our national interests well, given that we have lost only three of the last 393 votes carried out under QMV? Is it not true that changes in the rules of procedure of the European Court of Justice that could be achieved under QMV would be likely to bring about a speedier resolution to our dispute with France over the beef ban? Is it not about time that we in this country had a grown-up debate about such issues, instead of constantly trying to pretend that Britain loses out under any changes in voting procedure, which is far from the truth?
Mr. Cook: What is impressive about the Conservatives is their lack of confidence in Britain's ability to win a majority vote. In the past two years, we have been outvoted only five times; in the same period, Italy has been outvoted three times as often and Germany four times as often. If unanimity had applied on those occasions, Italy and Germany would have been able to veto decisions that were in our interests. The fact is that, on balance, majority voting has served Britain's interests.
Mr. William Cash: Does the Foreign Secretary accept that the Minister of State, the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz), recently said of flexibility that the French would not stand for it? Now that they have changed their position, does he accept that flexibility will now not only be on the agenda but is likely to be accompanied by the removal of the veto in that respect, as the European Commission has proposed? Will he assure the House that the Government will insist on retaining the veto in respect of flexibility and that they will renegotiate those provisions?
Mr. Cook: The hon. Gentleman's proposal, as I understand it, is in conflict with the views expressed by the previous shadow Foreign Secretary in his last speech. He said that Britain would not wish to stand in the way of other countries which wanted to pursue flexibility. His sudden disappearance suggests that perhaps his view did not entirely find favour with the Conservative party. We wait to discover whether it remains Conservative Front-Bench policy.
Flexibility is not a pick-and-mix charter for opt-outs. The flexibility that other member states propose means the enhanced co-operation of a tighter group. We agreed to such a model at Amsterdam. It has never been used. It is hard to understand why a provision that has not been used already needs amendment.
Mr. Mike Gapes: What would happen if the British Government ruled out the single currency for ever and also blocked enlargement so that the potential 12 additional members of the European Union were not included in it? What would happen to relations between this country and the rest of the continent if such a policy was pursued by a Government led by white-van man?
Mr. Cook: My hon. Friend makes his case through his question. There is no point in this country remaining a

781
member state of the European Union if we, like Conservative Members, are half-hearted about it. A halfhearted Britain in the European Union would secure only half a national interest. If we are to remain a member of the European Union—and we are committed to that—the only rational strategy is to be a full member playing fully to ensure full benefit for Britain.
Sir David Madel: Will the Foreign Secretary be more specific about Cyprus? I think he said that on joining the European Union, an applicant country must accede to free movement of peoples and capital. Does that mean that if Cyprus signs and joins, the division of the island is over, but if the division continues, Cyprus cannot join?
Mr. Cook: That is not our policy. I have long argued from the Dispatch Box that Cyprus's application for membership of the European Union must be judged on its merits. It would assist that process if the division of the island was settled, and the people of the Republic of Cyprus want that to happen. However, it must not be a condition of membership. Freedom of movement between the Republic of Cyprus and the occupied northern sector would apply only if Turkey simultaneously joined the European Union.
Mr. Crispin Blunt: What does the Foreign Secretary envisage as the end state of European political integration?
Mr. Cook: I have already told the House that we share the vision of other European leaders and that we shall continue to move towards a united Europe of states, not a united states of Europe.
Mr. Alasdair Morgan: Does the Foreign Secretary agree that one of the eventual consequences of enlargement will be the diminution of the amount of cash available in the United Kingdom for agrimonetary compensation and structural funds? Is it not therefore essential that we do not lose out on the money that is currently available because of the Government's reluctance to contribute genuine additional match funding?
Mr. Cook: We debated those issues in Berlin. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will welcome the deal that Britain secured whereby the highlands and islands continue to receive exactly the same amount of money as they received when they were an objective 1 area.
Mr. James Paice: The Foreign Secretary is right that enlargement requires institutional reform, and I look forward to the enlargement about which he speaks. He was also right that retention of the veto could mean that reforms in Britain's interest might not occur. However, is not the reverse also true? Extension of qualified majority voting could mean that Britain would have to accept changes that would not be in our interest. Which is more important?
Mr. Cook: I have already made clear the subjects on which we do not accept an extension of qualified majority voting. They are: border controls; taxation and social security; revenue raising; treaty amendments; and defence. We will retain the veto on those matters for
782
precisely the reasons that the hon. Gentleman mentioned. I welcome the hon. Gentleman's recognition, which is not shared by some of his hon. Friends, that retaining the British veto means retaining the veto for everybody else, and leaving our interests subject to it.
Mr. Graham Brady: Will the Foreign Secretary undertake to reject any treaty that does not accord France, Britain and Germany at least that blocking minority vote of which he spoke?
Mr. Cook: If we do not achieve the increase in weighting in the Council, there will be no change to the Commission. If there is no change in the size of the Commission and no change in weighting in the Council of Ministers, it is impossible for the European Union to proceed. That is clearly set out in the protocol to the Amsterdam treaty.
Mr. John Wilkinson: Does the Foreign Secretary realise the importance to Britain's economic interests of our sovereign right to negotiate international air service agreements, particularly as Heathrow is a premier gateway to Europe for those who cross the Atlantic? Can he assure the House that he will not relinquish our veto in transport matters?
Mr. Cook: I fully understand the importance of the air service agreement to Britain and regularly raise it bilaterally with countries that I visit. I assure the hon. Gentleman that I wish to retain the freedom to do so.
Dr. Julian Lewis: In my customary consensual way on these issues, may I ask the Foreign Secretary about systems of proportional representation, which he supports? Given the overwhelming opposition to such systems in the Labour and Conservative parties, will he guarantee that any veto that would prevent Europe from imposing on this country a proportional electoral system for which we had not voted ourselves is not among the many vetoes that he may be considering giving up?
Mr. Cook: I welcome the hon. Gentleman's attempt at consensus-building, although he will have to go a little further next time to secure it. I am aware of no such proposal and plainly would not welcome it. No European Union country—
Dr. Lewis: Would the Foreign Secretary veto it?
Mr. Cook: I am not even aware of the proposal. It would be my firm view that every nation should set its own electoral system.
Mr. Owen Paterson: Mr. Arne Otter of the Estonian Youth Council recently wrote to me. [Interruption.] Labour Members laugh, but they have mentioned Estonia and new applicant states. The letter says that the
"thinking of most Estonians is that an empire is an empire … The people sitting both in Moscow and in Brussels are not familiar … with the situation in small countries … it is usually impossible to make decisions that were good for small and for big."

783
Does not the Foreign Secretary think that many applicant countries cannot absorb the full acquis communautaire in one hit and that a more flexible approach would be sensible?
Mr. Cook: I have good relations with the Estonian Foreign Minister, but I confess that I have not received a letter from Mr. Arne Otter. The bulk of the population of Estonia strongly supports its application for membership of the European Union. Indeed, the Estonian Government have taken heroic steps to meet the conditions, particularly in their treatment of the Russian-speaking ethnic minority. In those circumstances, in which Estonia is working hard for membership, we have to work equally hard to make it possible for it to join.

Child Abuse (North Wales)
4.18 pm
The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Paul Murphy): With permission, I should like to make a statement about the report of the tribunal of inquiry into the abuse of children in care in the former county council areas of Clwyd and Gwynedd since 1974. Copies of the tribunal's report are available from the Vote Office.
The report includes the testimony of many people who made allegations of physical and sexual abuse and gives an insight into the appalling suffering that they endured as children. It is a tragedy that such treatment should have been meted out to children in care.
The background to the inquiry is complex. Allegations about poor treatment of children in north Wales emerged in 1986. One result was an intensive investigation by the North Wales police in 1991, which resulted in a number of convictions. However, speculation continued that the physical and sexual abuse of children in care in the former Clwyd and Gwynedd was on a much greater scale. In 1996, when Clwyd county council—on legal advice—did not publish a report that it had commissioned, there was increasing concern in north Wales and in the House and renewed speculation in the media, leading to calls for a public inquiry.
The then Secretary of State for Wales, the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague), informed the House on 17 June 1996 that there would be a judicial inquiry, under the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act 1921. Given what has emerged, I think the House will applaud his decision. Sir Ronald Waterhouse was appointed as chairman, with Margaret Clough and Morris le Fleming as the other members.
The tribunal sat for 201 days between January 1997 and April 1998; 264 witnesses gave oral evidence, and 311 submitted written evidence. The work of the tribunal was difficult and harrowing. I place on record our gratitude to the tribunal for the work it has done and our deep admiration of the courage of the many complainants who were willing to relive their childhood experiences.
The report records the testimony of the witnesses in detail and with great sensitivity. Recounting past events will have been distressing to some, and I have made arrangements for the services of the Bridge Child Care Development Service, which provided a witness support team throughout the proceedings, to be available again from today to witnesses and their relatives or partners for a period of up to six months.
In its report the tribunal has named many people: alleged abusers, convicted abusers, local government officers and elected members of local authorities and Welsh Office officials. It has not named complainants or some alleged abusers. The tribunal set out its policy on the naming of names, and did so in the knowledge that its report would have the absolute privilege afforded by the Parliamentary Papers Act 1840.
The tribunal has also confronted the serious questions that arise about the management and safeguarding of children in care. There are 95 conclusions. Those relating to the abuse of children are that there was widespread sexual abuse of boys, and to a lesser extent of girls, in local authority and privately run children's residential establishments and schools, and in an NHS psychiatric unit

785
in Clwyd, between 1974 and 1990; that there was no evidence of persistent sexual abuse in children's residential establishments in Gwynedd; that many children in children's residential homes were subjected to physical abuse; that sexual and physical abuse also occurred in a small number of foster homes in Gwynedd; and that
"there was no evidence presented to the Tribunal or to the North Wales Police to establish that there was a wide ranging conspiracy involving prominent persons and others with the objective of sexual activity with children in care".
However, the tribunal also says:
"During the period under review there was a paedophile ring in the Wrexham and Chester areas in the sense that there were a number of male persons, many of them known to each other, who were engaged in paedophile activities and were targeting young men in their middle teens. The evidence does not establish that they were solely or mainly interested in persons in care, but such youngsters were particularly vulnerable to their approaches."
On the role of the police, the local authorities, the Welsh Office and central Government, broadly the tribunal concludes that, with few exceptions, the police carried out investigations properly; that standards of care and of education in children' s residential establishments were deficient; and that failures in the care system were widespread at all levels—including local authorities, the Welsh Office and central Government—embracing staff recruitment, supervision and management; qualifications and training; complaints and investigation procedures; registration and inspection; and policy making, implementation and monitoring by local authorities and by the Government.
There are 72 recommendations.
On the detection of, and response to, abuse, the tribunal recommends that an independent children's commissioner for Wales should be appointed and that every social services authority, not only in Wales, should be required to appoint an appropriately qualified or experienced children's complaints officer.
There are recommendations on advocacy services, complaints procedures and whistleblowers; on assessment and care planning; on inter-agency working when abuse is suspected; on the recruitment and training of staff and foster carers; on inspections and regulation of private residential schools and all forms of children's residential care; on common standards of care; and on support for young people leaving care.
The tribunal makes recommendations on the expertise required in social services management, on the responsibilities of local authority members for monitoring services to children, on the need for a wide-ranging review of children's services in Wales, on the monitoring of residential and fostering services across Wales, and on the appointment of an advisory council for children's services in Wales. Many recommendations are specific to Wales, and the National Assembly will receive a copy of the report today for the first time.
A number of the recommendations have wider implications. We have already put significant new work in hand to secure real improvements in the standards of care that we expect for children living away from home. As the tribunal recognises, there have been many far-reaching changes over the past decade, in particular those flowing from the changed perceptions introduced by the Children Act 1989.
More recently, we have taken a number of important steps to raise the quality of care for children in response to "People Like Us", the report by Sir William Utting of
786
the review of safeguards for children living away from home, which was commissioned at the same time as the inquiry. The Protection of Children Act 1999 will create a statutory register of individuals deemed unsuitable to work with children. Regulated child-care providers will be required to check the names of all whom they propose to employ in posts involving regular contact with children against the statutory lists kept by the Department of Health and the Department for Education and Employment.
The Care Standards Bill will introduce improved arrangements in England and Wales for the independent regulation and inspection of local authority, voluntary and private sector services on an evenhanded basis. They will cover the inspection of all children's homes, including those with fewer than four children, fostering agencies, voluntary adoption agencies and residential family centres, and welfare arrangements involving schools. The Bill will also establish new care councils for England and Wales, which will provide enforceable codes of conduct and practice for all social care employees. They will set standards and regulate the work force, helping to ensure that staff receive the training and qualifications that they need.
The Children (Leaving Care) Bill will establish extensive new support arrangements to ensure that young people over 16 leaving care will continue to be supported until they are ready and able to stand on their own. A duty will be placed on local authorities to assess and meet needs, and to keep in touch with care leavers. Our plans for more general youth support—through the Connections programme that has just been launched in England, and a broadly similar scheme for Wales—will offer children in care, and others, a range of support in education, careers, housing and personal relationship issues.
The Government have launched major new programmes—"children first" in Wales, and "quality protects" in England—to improve the management and delivery of children's social services. That will include a distinct role for local councillors. There is revised guidance on inter-agency working to safeguard and promote the welfare of children. The revised paper "Working Together" was issued in England in December 1999, and will be issued in Wales in March.
The tribunal's report adds impetus to this programme for change, but also makes significant new recommendations. We will be looking hard at them to see how they complement changes that we are planning—or are already implementing—or whether a change of direction or emphasis is needed. At the top of the list is the tribunal's call for the appointment of a children's commissioner for Wales. The National Assembly is already working on detailed proposals for such an appointment, and we shall be considering how best to proceed.
Our key concern now must be to satisfy ourselves as far as we can that people who have abused children are not in a position to do so now. Those named in the report who are still working in one of the successor local authorities in north Wales have been traced and risk-assessed. Given the time span covered by the report, however, there are a number of individuals against whom findings have been made in the report who are no longer working for one of the successor authorities, and whose current whereabouts are unknown. We are working

787
together to establish their current whereabouts, and to ensure that they do not now pose a risk to children or other vulnerable groups.
In order to achieve that, the Government are taking additional immediate action. We are today extending the consultancy index to permit the inclusion of names in the list otherwise than following a referral by an employer. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health will announce today that a number of individuals named in the report who have been convicted of offences against children, or against whom the tribunal has made a finding of having harmed children, or of being unsuitable to work with children, are to be included on the extended index temporarily, with immediate effect. That is an interim measure pending representations by those individuals, which will be carefully considered by the Secretary of State before deciding whether they should be included on the extended index permanently.
We are taking immediate steps to establish the current whereabouts of individuals named in the report who have been convicted of offences against children, or against whom findings of having harmed children, or of being unsuitable to work with children, have been made by the tribunal, but whose current whereabouts are unknown.
Today, the Department of Health and the National Assembly have written to all chief executives of health authorities and local authorities in England and in Wales asking them to check their employment records immediately to verify whether such individuals whose whereabouts are unknown are currently working with children, or with other vulnerable groups within their authorities. If such individuals are found to be working with any authority, that authority will be required to inform the Department of Health in England, or the National Assembly of that fact and of the action that the authority proposes to take.
The report is being sent to all local authorities, police authorities, health authorities, NHS trusts, voluntary sector bodies, area child protection committees and other bodies that have a key role in the protection of children. That will enable checks to be made where appropriate. To ensure that the messages in the report are widely read, greater numbers of a summary report are being issued.
The programme of action that we have already put in train is a demanding one for all levels of Government. We are determined to see it through and to use the report as a warning of the constant need for vigilance. The Secretary of State will direct the Government's work to drive through the programme, with advice from the ministerial task group on children's safeguards, which includes local government, the voluntary sector and young people themselves.
Sir Ronald's report catalogues deeds of appalling mistreatment and wickedness, of sexual, physical and emotional abuse, and of the total abuse of trust. To those whose lives have been shattered, to the families of those who have died and to all decent-thinking people, of course, we all say "sorry", but sorry is not enough. We are determined that the report will lead to a society where young people can be cared for in safety and where they can truly enjoy their childhood—just as most of us in the House were able to do.
Nigel Evans: I thank the Secretary of State for Wales for his courtesy in providing me with
788
an advance copy of the report and statement. It is, rightly, a weighty report. Our thanks must go to Sir Ronald Waterhouse and to his team for providing us with such a thorough report, which is required reading for all bodies and organisations that deal with child-care provision away from home.
It is time to reflect on the report, to look carefully at its 72 recommendations, to take on board the reasons why it was set up by my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) in 1996 when he was Secretary of State for Wales, and to act with speed and determination.
Our thoughts are clearly with the victims who are at the centre of the report. It makes chilling reading. It has already been described as the greatest scandal to hit the modern welfare state. It contains descriptions of horrendous abuse, physical and sexual, over 20 years involving hundreds of children, the most vulnerable young people in our society, in many homes. It leaves one filled with many emotions and feelings. The main one for me is a sense of betrayal. Our system has betrayed the very people who needed our help most; it not only failed them, and failed to deliver for them and to live up to their expectations and our intentions: it betrayed them.
We do not look for a knee-jerk reaction to produce a short-term fix for what are long-term deficiencies and decay. It is the system that has let down our children, and it is the system that must be addressed. As the Secretary of State himself has acknowledged, the system—notably by means of the Children Act 1989 and other measures—is being addressed. Nevertheless, we must remember that not only the depravity of the acts that we are considering, but the utter scale of the abuse condemn the system that allowed such abuse.
This major inquiry followed many internal investigations into child abuse in north Wales, including a report by John Jollins. Sadly, however, on legal advice, that report was not made public. There was also a major police investigation, in 1991, that resulted in eight prosecutions and six convictions.
Subsequent to that inquiry and the non-publication of reports, my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks initiated the judicial review. At the same time, the then Secretary of State for Health, my right hon. Friend the Member for Charnwood (Mr. Dorrell), established his review—which the Secretary of State for Wales mentioned—under Sir William Utting, of safeguards for children living away from home.
Today's headlines will report and centre on the call for an independent commissioner for children and for children's complaint officers in each local authority. Although due consideration must be given to those recommendations—especially considering the backing that they have received from various voluntary organisations—all the recommendations should be considered carefully. Each of the recommendations should play an important role in building a strong fabric of detection and of protection for our children. I therefore have a number of questions about the recommendations.
Will the Secretary of State tell the House in what time scale he expects the Government to consider the report before they are able to provide their response? I appreciate that measures are being considered by the House now—Sir Ronald himself refers to that fact—but with today's

789
publication of the report, we should know what time scale the Government envisage for consideration of and consultation on the recommendations.
The Secretary of State stated that counselling facilities will be available for six months to victims and their families, provided by the Bridge Child Care Development Service. We welcome that provision. However, will he give an assurance that he would be prepared to revisit the matter of counselling in the light of requests from those receiving help, with the possibility of extending the time for which counselling is available?
One of the report's recommendations is to examine the availability and adequacy of fostering provision. Will the Secretary of State give an assurance that such an examination will be made? My hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) has established his own commission on the provision of fostering and adoption, which is being chaired by my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr. Davis). Both fostering and adoption are vital to providing greater stability and security within a family atmosphere, and both can play an important role in child-care provision.
What role does the Secretary of State envisage for charitable bodies such as Barnardos, the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children and others in developing the Government's policy on child care? Those organisations have tremendous expertise. What additional role does he envisage them playing in addressing the issues?
After the publicity that the report will receive, it is likely that other victims will wish to come forward. Will the Secretary of State assure the House that sufficient measures will be put in place not only to cope with further complaints as they arise, but to encourage former victims to come forward? One of the reasons given by victims for not complaining at the time, or soon afterwards, was their sense of guilt and shame. Will the Secretary of State assure the victims that there is no guilt or shame for them, but that their evidence in coming forward will help further to root out abuses that still exist in the system? Will he also make public the best course for them in making their complaints?
The Secretary of State has stated that he will assist in helping to track down the people named in the report, but who have since moved on and whose location we do not yet know. Will he say how many people he believes fall into that category? In his requests for local authorities and other bodies to check their employee records, will he include a time limit in which those checks are to be made, to ensure that everyone is clear about the urgency of the situation?
Will the Secretary of State discuss with his colleagues in Government the need for fresh guidelines to deal with deficiencies in the system, so that internal inquiries, such as the Jollins inquiry, are made in such a manner that they can be properly published and acted on?
The Government's response to the Utting report states that children have a right to be protected against abuse. That is a provision of the United Nations convention on the rights of the child, which the United Kingdom has ratified. We cannot guarantee that abuse will never occur, but particularly for children living away from home, the Government have a responsibility to put all practicable safeguards in place to prevent it, to uncover it when it occurs and to deal severely with those responsible.
790
Conservative Members fully endorse those aims. We shall work with the Government to bring about excellence in child-care provision throughout the country and to ensure that the horrendous and appalling acts of abuse that have stained and scarred so many lives in this country, particularly in north Wales, will never happen again.
Mr. Murphy: I agree with everything that the hon. Gentleman has said, particularly his comments on the victims of such terrible acts. I agree that we do not want knee-jerk reactions to such an important and sensitive report.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the time scale. We hope that matters will be dealt with as soon as possible. The Ministry working group will meet next week. We shall revisit the issue of counselling victims and others after six months if it is felt that there is a need. I entirely agree with him on fostering provision. The National Assembly for Wales and the Department of Health will be dealing with that. I also agree that charitable bodies play a hugely important role, working closely with the Department and the National Assembly. If others have complaints, they should be listened to seriously and the method by which they are able to do that should be made public. I also agree that no guilt or shame should attach to such complaints.
Approximately 200 people are named in the report, although not all are associated with abuse. Some of them needed to be named so that they could be exonerated. Twenty-five people have been convicted. A number have died. The report makes findings against 11 people—either that they have harmed children or that they are unsuitable to work with children. Information in the report brings into question the suitability to work with children of a further 30 to 40 people, but in relation to a wide variety of incidents of differing gravity. The letters to local authorities and health authorities requesting the information required by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health and the National Assembly have been sent today. We shall require a response by 5 pm on Thursday this week.
Mr. Martyn Jones: As my right hon. Friend knows, many of the private homes involved in the tragedy are in my constituency. Will he assure me and the residents of north Wales that all the alleged abusers and all those named by the victims—including those not named in the report—will be subject to investigation and prosecution if necessary?
Mr. Murphy: Yes, I think that I made that clear. My hon. Friend has played an important role as a north Wales Member of Parliament in watching the events closely. He represents his constituency well on these matters. We are asking every local authority and health authority in England and Wales to inquire as to whether anyone named in the report is working for them. If they are, the authority must report to the Department of Health or the National Assembly by Thursday. In addition, the report will be widely available to all sorts of authorities—including police authorities, health authorities, local education authorities and social services authorities—as well as in libraries. Everyone who needs to see the report will be able to do so. Employers will be able to read it and take appropriate action.
Mr. Richard Livsey: I thank the Secretary of State for doing me the courtesy of giving

791
me a prior viewing of the report. That was very valuable. We endorse the congratulations to Sir Ronald Waterhouse on the very thorough conduct of his inquiry and report. The investigation has exposed a shocking catalogue of child abuse that is a massive tragedy for the victims who have been abused, and was a betrayal of children's trust.
We accept the report and its 72 recommendations, especially the recommendations for an independent children's commissioner for Wales—for which the Liberal Democrats in the National Assembly have pressed especially hard—and a children's complaints officer. We need to strengthen investigative powers and the complaints procedure, as well as to provide sufficient qualified staff and training, which are especially important. We also need advocates for children.
Will the Secretary of State ensure that the names of unnamed abusers in the report will appear on the register of known abusers? Will he clarify the situation of NHS-registered homes? Page 50 of the report mentions the Gwynfa NHS psychiatric unit in Upper Colwyn, where staff were suspended but their case could not be properly addressed by the tribunal. That is a problem that crosses the responsibilities of police authorities. Will the Secretary of State authorise compensation for those victims whose lives have been ruined by abuse in establishments in north Wales?
Mr. Murphy: I endorse the hon. Member's views on the tribunal. The three members worked unbelievably hard over a long time and had to listen to some terrible things. When hon. Members read the report in detail, they will see how well written it is and how many recommendations it makes that should be considered very seriously. I also wish to mention Sir Ronald Hadfield, who was the adviser to the tribunal on police matters and provided useful and important advice.
The hon. Gentleman asked whether unnamed abusers would be put on the register. I refer him to the policy on naming names that the tribunal describes in its report. The members thought carefully about what they should do, because they wanted to identify those persons who have already been subject to relevant court proceedings; individuals against whom a significant number of complaints had been made, with the tribunal's assessment of them; other persons who figured prominently in the evidence, whether they had been the subject of substantial complaints or not; a limited number of persons who should have been identified to exonerate them after rumours about them had circulated; and persons who had not been the subject of allegations of abuse but who were in positions of responsibility and whose acts and omissions were relevant to the tribunal's full terms of reference—including council officials and police officers—and who had not had the benefit of any anonymity ruling by the tribunal. That covers many people, and those who are covered by it should be named and, therefore, identified in the way that I described earlier.
Mr. Gareth Thomas: I endorse my right hon. Friend's expression of gratitude to Sir Ronald Waterhouse and his team for their valuable work. The priority now has to be to prevent any recurrence of that systematic abuse. In that connection, how do the
792
Government intend to proceed through primary legislation? My right hon. Friend has referred already to two Bills that will be before the House shortly, but do the Government intend to amend those Bills to take on board the recommendations in the report?
With specific reference to the children's commissioner for Wales, is it my right hon. Friend's understanding that primary legislation will be required to achieve statutory authority for that role? What assurances can he give, especially to cash-strapped local authorities, that reform programmes will be properly resourced?
Mr. Murphy: I thank my hon. Friend, who represents a north Wales constituency, and has a particular interest in the findings of the report. As he knows, primary legislation for Wales on social services is a matter for this House, and he is right to point to the various relevant Bills going through Parliament, particularly the Care Standards Bill.
My hon. Friend will also be aware that a children's commissioner for Wales is a manifesto commitment of our party, which has the widespread support of other parties in the National Assembly for Wales. The Assembly has been considering the matter in its committees over a matter of months. I have been in close contact with the Assembly's First Secretary and Health Secretary. We are currently studying the implications of a legislative vehicle for a children's commissioner. However, my hon. Friend may rest assured that we will give it priority.
Mr. David Davis: I join the Secretary of State in his condemnation of the evil people who undertook these grotesque actions against just about the most vulnerable children in our society. However, we should not allow that condemnation to be used to tarnish the reputation of social workers who commit their lives and their efforts to supporting those young children.
I welcome the thrust of the 72 proposals, although obviously we have not read all of them yet. I welcome particularly the fact that they reinforce the "quality protects" initiative and the Care Standards Bill, now in the House of Lords.
All these matters interact in a complex way. The balance of adoption, fostering and care is difficult to get right, and more than one Government have struggled with it. Will we have an opportunity to debate the implications of this, not just for the homes in Wales, but for those in the other parts of our kingdom? Such a debate should allow us to cover the whole range of adoption, fostering and care, because these issues clearly deserve our detailed attention and understanding.
Mr. Murphy: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for those comments. I agree with what he says. I particularly agree with his view that we must not tar all social workers with the same brush. There are many thousands of social workers who are currently working in the field and have done so over the decades to which the report refers, and who contribute tremendously to the well-being and protection of young children. We strongly support those people.
I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that the significance of the report of the tribunal is so enormous that it is extremely important for the House to debate it

793
as soon as possible. I, of course, cannot determine when that will be, but I should have thought that it has to be fairly soon. In addition, it should deal not only with Wales but with the entire country.
Mr. Chris Ruane: My right hon. Friend mentioned the involvement of council officers and elected members of the old Clwyd county council. I find that particularly disturbing. Was that a significant factor in the abuse of these young people?
Mr. Murphy: My hon. Friend is another who represents a north Wales constituency. When he reads the report, which I know that he will do with great interest, he will see that so far as the local authorities were concerned, and the officials and elected members therein, the problem was that they simply did not listen to the children—or, indeed, the adults—who were complaining about what they thought were difficulties. There was a lack of decent management, a lack of decent guidance and a lack of direction over a period of 20 years. The report names a number of council officials throughout north Wales who really should have done their job better. That is not, in any sense, to say that they were necessarily involved in the abuse of children—it was more a case of not doing their job well enough.
The report makes an excellent recommendation that elected members who choose to sit on social services committees should take their duties very seriously and visit residential homes in their local authority areas. In the past, it would seem from the report, such visits were very perfunctory. The councillors did not discover what they should have discovered. There is an important role for elected councillors, throughout England and Wales, and I know my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health and his colleagues are also dealing with the matter.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Speaker: Order. A number of hon. Members wish to ask questions on the statement, but the main business of the House is yet to begin and must start within the next hour. I should be obliged if hon. Members put one question briskly, and if the Minister replied briskly, so that I may call as many hon. Members as possible. I know that there is deep interest in the matter.
Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: I add my congratulations to Sir Ronald Waterhouse and his colleagues. I welcome the report, as many of us have campaigned for many years for a children's commissioner. The complaints officer will also be an excellent forward move. Will the Secretary of State be amenable to assisting Voices from Care and Children in Wales to advance amendments to the Children (Leaving Care) Bill, on which they have already lobbied Parliament? Their sensible amendments would ensure that the voice of young people was heard.
May I also thank the Secretary of State—I may be doing this in the wrong order—for extending me the courtesy of a preview of the report earlier today?
Mr. Murphy: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who represents a north Wales constituency. I am sure that
794
any representations made by organisations such as those to which he has referred will be taken seriously by my ministerial colleagues.
Ms Julie Morgan: Does my right hon. Friend agree that those who fought hard to have an inquiry set up should be congratulated? In particular, Councillors Malcolm King and Dennis Parry and the care worker Alison Taylor deserve our praise. It was extremely difficult to get the issues into the open.
Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the great tragedies of this matter has been that young people who had to leave home—for whatever reason—ended up in much worse situations? They were supposed to be taken to places of safety, but they were not. I welcome my right hon. Friend's general apology, but would ask for arrangements to be made for apologies to be given to young people who have survived into adulthood. Sadly, many have died. Some of the children came from south Wales, and they have said that no one has ever said sorry to them.
Mr. Murphy: I agree with all that my hon. Friend said about the important role played by members of local authorities and others in getting the tribunal set up. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Wales is, as I speak, in north Wales, where I hope he may have the opportunity to say sorry in the area where all the abuse occurred.
Mr. Lembit Öpik: Given the seniority of some of those involved in abuse, it seems likely that it could have spread further across Wales than we have yet established. Does the Minister have a plan that will allow us to break through the veil of secrecy and to find out whether other parts of Wales had similar horrendous catalogues that have not yet come to light?
Mr. Murphy: Many inquiries—32, I think—are being conducted in England and Wales. One large inquiry is happening in my own county, Gwent. The results of the tribunal report will ensure that we are even more vigilant.
Mr. Win Griffiths: I join everybody else in congratulating the team that produced the Waterhouse report. We have not yet taken in all its implications, but the House will surely put its full weight behind any proposals made by my right hon. Friend and the Government, particularly on the children's commissioner. May I plead for significant work on developing skills among both those in social work and those who want to do it? I ask, too, for more support for those people.
As well as focusing on child abuse, which is close to being endemic despite the good work of many social workers, we need to provide a great deal more family support.
Mr. Murphy: I am grateful to my hon. Friend who, as a former Minister in the Welsh Office, is conscious of many of the issues discussed today. I agree that we must make every effort to recruit and train more qualified staff. Too many staff are still unqualified. I know that the training support programme in Wales for 2000–01 is attempting to address these important issues.
Mr. Paul Stinchcombe: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, in a previous existence, I was one

795
of the barristers instructed by Clwyd county council to advise whether the council could publish its own, earlier report into this appalling and tragic scandal? Is my right hon. Friend also aware that had the council published, its insurance company could immediately have argued that its insurance policies were thereby vitiated? Does he agree that action should be taken so that insurance companies no longer have the right of veto over matters of such signal and painful importance?
Mr. Murphy: I am, of course, aware of my hon. Friend's previous existence and of his interest in the report published today. The question whether insurance can affect the publication of certain reports resulting from inquiries is important. When my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister and the National Assembly for Wales see the report of the proceedings of the House, I am sure that they will take account of my hon. Friend's remarks and consider future activity in that regard.
Mrs. Betty Williams: As a former member of Gwynedd council and chair of social services, I welcome with great emotion my right hon. Friend's statement, and look forward to working with our colleagues at the National Assembly for Wales. Does my right hon. Friend agree that when the commissioner is appointed, it is important that he or she should work in partnership with colleagues in other parts of the United Kingdom, as abuse does not have convenient boundaries? That is where we failed in the past, and we must make sure that we do not fail in the future.
I know that my colleagues at the Welsh Assembly will understand the point that it is important that advocates should be able to communicate with children and young people, and in Wales it is important that advocates should be bilingual. When children are placed in a vulnerable situation, they find it difficult to express themselves after the experiences that they have gone through, so it is imperative that there be sufficient numbers of suitably trained advocates who can communicate in the language of the child's or the young person's choice.
Mr. Murphy: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who also represents a Gwynedd constituency. I agree that abusers do not recognise national boundaries, and that there must be the greatest co-operation between any children's commissioner for Wales and any counterpart in England. My hon. Friend's points about the need for the use of Welsh in advocacy are well taken.
Mr. Jon Owen Jones: Does my right hon. Friend agree that what he said today amounts to the most profound statement of failure of the state in its duty of care to the most vulnerable in our society? It is a failure of local government, central Government and society. In the 1970s and 1980s I was a teacher, and I sometimes taught children who were in care homes. I wonder whether I spent sufficient time talking to those children. The report reveals a failure of society as a whole. I approve of the proposal to set up a children's commissioner; I agree with many of my colleagues' comments about that.
May I make one criticism, however? The report, which was commissioned by the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague), has taken almost four
796
years to come before Parliament. Would it not have been possible to issue interim proposals rather sooner? I know that the report is comprehensive, but it has taken a long time. Its recommendations should be implemented as soon as possible.
Mr. Murphy: As a former Minister in the Welsh Office with responsibility for health, my hon. Friend will know that these matters are especially difficult and sensitive. When he sees the size of the report, he will realise that the amount of time taken to produce it was necessary in order to get it right. However, I take the general thrust of his points. It is most important to overcome the difficulties outlined in the report.
Mr. Alan Williams: Is it not staggering that, after so much evil over such a long period, so few people admit to awareness of it? Will the Secretary of State confirm that the present statutory provisions do not include the vetting of volunteers? Is he satisfied that the inquiries that he has set up will not be impeded by existence of that loophole?
Mr. Murphy: I agree with my right hon. Friend's point about volunteers. Paedophiles will find their way into many different occupations and jobs; they will not confine themselves to those that we have discussed today. As a longstanding Member of the House, my right hon. Friend knows how important it will be to consider carefully the recommendations of the report; that is what the Government will do.
Mrs. Llin Golding: This is yet another damning indictment of our failure to protect our young people. As a trustee of the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, I welcome the recommendation for a children's commissioner. However, evil knows no boundaries. Will my right hon. Friend speak to other members of the Government about the appointment of a children's commissioner for all our children?
Mr. Murphy: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. In England, there are some differences in the way we deal with these matters. As she will be aware, the relevant Bill will include a commitment to a children's rights official. We need some time to consider the implications for administration in the report, but she can rest assured that all 72 recommendations will be treated very seriously indeed—not only by the Welsh Assembly but by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health and his colleagues.
Mr. Hilton Dawson: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the report will strengthen the Government's intention fundamentally to reform the entire care system throughout the United Kingdom? Will he also confirm that the children's commissioner will provide a service for all children? Does he agree that there is great strength of feeling throughout the House as to the need for linked offices—for a children's commissioner for all children in England, Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales?
Mr. Murphy: I agree with my hon. Friend. However, as he is aware, there is devolution throughout the UK,

797
so it is for the Administrations in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales to decide how they will react to the report. I have no doubt that they will all agree on the need to treat the recommendations seriously. As I said, there will be provision for the appointment of a children's rights commissioner in England in a relevant Bill. I am sure that our Scottish and Northern Ireland counterparts will consider the report seriously.
Mr. Frank Cook: I must first declare an interest in that I am a founding trustee and director of the Lucy Faithfull Foundation—an organisation that, over 10 years, has rapidly established an international reputation for leading therapeutic techniques for dealing with victims and with perpetrators.
I can hardly welcome the report, but I can register satisfaction that at least it has been produced. We feel relief, but we felt similar relief on the publication of similar reports before. I remember the Cleveland child abuse inquiry, conducted by Lord Justice Butler-Sloss. The report of that inquiry contained more recommendations than this report. However, the recommendations were implemented with great selectivity—driven largely by availability of Treasury funds.
Will my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Wales and for Health and their ministerial teams institute monitoring, as called for by other colleagues today, throughout all the nations in the United Kingdom, to trawl the previous inquiries of this kind and pick up recommendations that have been discarded in the past? That would ensure that we have a comprehensive programme which should be constantly monitored to ensure that it is effective not only in the United Kingdom but against those characters who leave the United Kingdom to practice their scandalous procedures elsewhere, and those who visit the nation from outside.
Mr. Murphy: My hon. Friend is right to say that it is very important to treat all the recommendations with the seriousness that they deserve, but I should remind him that many of the recommendations in the report were anticipated in the drafting of the two relevant Bills before the House; that several measures have been implemented in the past few years, including "quality protects" and "children first"; and that we are in the middle of the biggest overhaul ever of ways in which we can deal with children's safety.
Ms Debra Shipley: This is a very important report and I wholeheartedly welcome the Minister's response. However, in his response he drew on the Protection of Children Act 1999 several times, and I feel that it is my duty to point out that there is a major loophole in the Act, concerning volunteers. At the moment, the 1999 Act only allows for the vetting of
798
volunteers—it does not require it. If we do not shut this door when we know that it is open, it will be an avenue for abuse. I call on the Minister to consider that as a matter of urgency. None of the measures introduced by the Care Standards Bill or any of the other measures coming before the House in the foreseeable future close off that avenue, which is still open.
Mr. Murphy: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who pioneered the Protection of Children Bill in the House and will be thanked by generations to come for what she has done. However, on the vetting of volunteers—a matter which my right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) also mentioned—we do understand the point that my hon. Friend is making and we will examine the matter.
Mr. John McFall: The Secretary of State expressed it aptly when he said that what had happened was a total abuse of power and that sorry was not enough. Does he consider that these principles should be extended to other fields, such as educational and residential settings; that active child protection policies should be pursued; that a complaints procedure should be instituted; and that designated teachers and senior officers should be responsible for reporting at least yearly, thereby transforming their passive role into an active one?
Mr. Murphy: I agree with my hon. Friend and I believe that education departments, whether they be in England or in Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland in the devolved Administrations, will take a very close interest in the tribunal's report. We already have the Department for Education and Employment measures, List 99 and others, which are very important, but in addition there must be close liaison between the social services departments and education departments of local authorities.

BILL PRESENTED
  GENETICALLY MODIFIED FOOD AND PRODUCER LIABILITY
  Mr. Alan Simpson, supported by Mr. Tony Benn, Audrey Wise, Mr. Norman Baker, Mr. John McDonnell, Mrs. Alice Mahon, Mr. Llew Smith, Mr. Robert Marshall-Andrews, Mr. David Chaytor, Mr. Jeremy Corbyn, Mrs. Maria Fyfe and Dr. Ian Gibson presented a Bill to make further provision with respect to the safety of and liability for the deliberate release or marketing of genetically modified organisms and genetically modified food; to establish a genetically modified organism compensation fund; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 10 March, and to be printed [Bill 68].

Marine Wildlife Protection
5.13 pm
Mrs. Helen Brinton: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to enable local authorities to prohibit the use of motorised marine leisure vessels in coastal areas for the purposes of protecting marine wildlife and promoting safety; and to make it an offence recklessly or intentionally to disturb marine wildlife.
The Bill would give local authorities power to designate any coastal marine area within its jurisdiction as a motorised marine leisure vessels free zone on a temporary or permanent basis. Such vessels would be defined as "motorised water craft used for leisure purposes" and include mechanically powered pleasure craft propelled by water jet—what are commonly known as jetskis or, more generically, wetbikes.
Local authority byelaws would also provide for fixed penalty notices with fines not exceeding £1,000 for each offence. Such fixed penalty notices would be issued by an appropriate local authority officer, who would have the power to require a suspected offender to give their name and address, and it would be an offence not to do so.
The Bill would also amend the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 to make it an offence intentionally or recklessly to disturb any cetacean—dolphins, porpoises and whales—in any location; any basking shark; or any sea bird in a breeding, moulting, roosting or feeding area where the birds congregate.
Under United Kingdom criminal law, a person is reckless if he or she commits an act that involves an obvious and serious risk of harmful consequence and either fails to give any thought to the possibility of there being any such risk or, having recognised that some risk is involved, none the less goes on to take it. That is an important concept, because it is usually very difficult to prove intentionality in the marine environment. Indeed, the main intention of most offenders is unlikely to be to cause injury to marine life.
I become involved with the issue last summer when I was contacted by The Sunday Times in my capacity as chair of the all-party group for wildlife protection. Since 1997, the newspaper has campaigned for the introduction of controls on the use of wetbikes. The campaign calls for legislation to bring in a minimum age for wetbike use, compulsory education, registration and insurance, zoning away from beaches and a complete ban in national parks and other sensitive areas. I was convinced of the importance of the campaign.
Wetbikes are capable of speeds of more than 65 mph, can easily be operated by inexperienced people and are particularly dangerous in that, if the motor is turned off, it is impossible to steer them. As a result, there have been horrific accidents involving riders, passengers and other water users.
Wetbikes are not covered by the same legislation as small boats and there is a tradition of minimal regulation of private pleasure craft. Local authorities can introduce byelaws and some councils, in particular Gwynedd in north Wales, have used their powers to the utmost to secure safer controls on wetbike use. However, at best, they are just piecemeal solutions.
The Sunday Times campaign has enjoyed widespread support. I have received many almost entirely supportive letters from people all over the United Kingdom and,
800
indeed, from other countries. Some letters have concentrated on human safety and others on the impact on the environment and on wildlife in particular. There are serious issues of noise, and of pollution because of unburned fuel which affects humans and the natural environment as well as wildlife species.
On 11 November 1997, my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, West (Mr. Thomas) obtained leave to introduce a Bill to regulate the use of wetbikes. My Bill uses a more general definition—motorised marine leisure vessels—to cover the development of newer personal watercraft. Someone whom I talked to suggested that mini-hovercraft were not too fanciful a possibility. Rigid inflatable boats, such as those used by scuba divers, already sometimes cause problems.
Perhaps because of my involvement in the campaign for wildlife reform more generally, I was approached by the Whale and Dolphin Conservation Society. Its concerns, naturally enough, focus on the effects of uncontrolled wetbikes and similar craft on marine mammals.
In the United Kingdom, the main species affected is a type of dolphin, but even they are far from common and their numbers may well be in decline. There are only two or three places where they are regularly found together, with occasional sightings along the south-west coast. Many people, including me, have never seen them in our coastal waters. That may be why harassment of them is so common when they appear. They have long been reputed to seek out contact with humans and to enjoy jumping the waves created by boats. They can swim very fast. However, unfortunately for them, even the fastest can achieve a mere 35 mph, and that in short bursts. They most certainly cannot outpace wetbikes and other fast-moving craft. Unlike some other wildlife species, they cannot retaliate and protect themselves. As far as I know, they are not aggressive at all.
Tomorrow, I am delighted to be hosting a reception in the Jubilee Room for the Whale and Dolphin Conservation Society where it will launch a report entitled "Chasing Dolphins". The reception is supported by The Sunday Times and the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, because marine birds would, as I said earlier, be covered by my Bill. I do not want to pre-empt the report, but I shall say simply that it documents many cases of prolonged harassment and resulting injury to cetaceans and basking sharks around Britain.
The report makes very distressing reading. One of those reporting an incident involving a number of speedboats writes:
"How would you feel if you saw five big trucks driving repeatedly at a herd of deer where there is no cover and mothers with young are frantically trying to escape?"
The WDCS and many other wildlife groups, which have come together in the Wildlife and Countryside Link to campaign for new wildlife laws, eagerly await the publication of the Government's countryside and access Bill later this month, as do many Members of both Houses. We were elated when it was included in the Queen's Speech. Many Members of both Houses have asked questions and engaged in debates, and many hon. Members from all parties signed the early-day motion tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Bradley).
It is possible that the Government's Bill will include measures to promote marine conservation, but it is likely to concentrate on terrestrial wildlife protection,

801
particularly for wildlife found on sites of special scientific interest. In any case, it will be a very large Bill, and no Bill can do everything.
The Government have signalled their intention to introduce new marine legislation at some future date. In October 1998, they accepted the recommendations of the working party on the review of byelaw powers for the coast. This January, the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr. Hill), who is the Shipping Minister, announced a welcome number of voluntary measures, comprising a code of conduct for all types of recreational craft including wetbikes.
The need for the measures proposed in my Bill, however, is urgent. The incidence of harassment is increasing, as is the use of small, fast personal watercraft. Yet there has never been a prosecution for such harassment in this country. There must be zones known to be important to wildlife where it can be free from such harassment. The concept of recklessness is an essential element in the control of harassment because it is extremely difficult, in the marine context, to prove that any disturbance is deliberate. It is necessary to extend enforcement powers to locally designated officers other than the police and to give them the appropriate sanctions.
I hope that my Bill will be acceptable to the House and that its proposals, in some form, become part of UK legislation in future.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mrs. Helen Brinton, Mr. Peter Bottomley, Mr. David Drew, Mr. Lindsay Hoyle, Jane Griffiths, Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones, Mr. Paul Keetch, Mr. David Lepper, Mr. Tim Loughton, Mr. Alan Simpson, Mr. Andrew Stunell and Ms Joan Walley.

Marine Wildlife Protection
  MARINE WILDLIFE PROTECTION BILL
  Mrs. Helen Brinton accordingly presented a Bill to enable local authorities to prohibit the use of motorised marine leisure vessels in coastal areas for the purposes of protecting marine wildlife and promoting safety; and to make it an offence recklessly or intentionally to disturb marine wildlife: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be a read a Second time on Friday 7 April, and to be printed [Bill 69].
Orders of the Day

  Postal Services Bill
  [Relevant documents: The Twelfth Report from the Trade and Industry Committee, Session 1998–99, on the 1999 Post Office White Paper, HC 94, and the Government's response thereto, HC 50 of Session 1999–2000.]
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Before I call the Secretary of State, I say to the House that Madam Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition. I remind the House that there is a 10-minute limit on all Back-Bench speeches in the debate.
  5.23 pm
  The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Stephen Byers): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  Mr. Peter Bottomley: Resign!
  Mr. Byers: I thank the hon. Gentleman. That is my usual welcome to the Dispatch Box.
  As hon. Members will know, the Government are committed to the modernisation and reform of public services, and the Bill is part of our programme for ensuring that the country has a postal service that is fit for the 21st century. It will establish a modern Post Office that is able to grow as a significant global player and to meet the enormous challenges now arising in the rapidly changing national and international markets. It will provide a firm basis for competition in the postal services market and a better deal for consumers, including the socially disadvantaged.
  Mr. David Chidgey: When he mentioned competition, the Secretary of State triggered in my mind a thought that I should like to put to him. He will be aware that the Benefits Agency contract with the Post Office will expire in a number of years and that, after that, the Post Office will have to compete for that contract. He will also be aware that many sub-post offices rely on that contract for their viability: nearly half the sub-post offices in my constituency derive 40 per cent. of their income from it. Will he guarantee that the Horizon project, which is essential to the modernisation of our post offices, will have been implemented and will be operating effectively before the Benefits Agency contract is relinquished?
  Mr. Byers: I am delighted to have been able to trigger a thought in the hon. Gentleman's mind—that is pretty good going. If the Government have not done so, I welcome the opportunity to make it clear that we expect Horizon to be fully operational in all post offices by 2001. I shall give details later in my speech of the measures that we want to introduce in the Post Office network. That is a matter of concern to right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House, so it is right that we devote some time to debating the Government's policies to support the network of post offices.
  The Bill will ensure that we have a strong Post Office that is better able to serve all its customers in all parts of the country. We believe that our proposal is important,

  803
  because it shows that we value the Post Office. We have tabled a package of reforms, of which the Bill is only one part, that will maintain and improve postal services in this country and enable the business to become a world player. Under the Bill, the Post Office will enjoy commercial freedom, while remaining in public ownership. That model has operated successfully elsewhere: Sweden and Denmark have shown that it is possible to give a post office commercial freedom, while keeping it in the public sector, increasing competition and guaranteeing a universal service.
  The Bill completes the implementation of the package of reforms set out in the Government White Paper on Post Office reform which I published in July last year. The Bill has been widely welcomed, as was the White Paper. The chairman of the Post Office, Neville Bain, said:
  "For the first time we are being given the commercial freedoms which are vital if the Post Office is to achieve its ambition to be one of the world's top distribution companies. It gives us a springboard to meet and beat the growing competition all around us."
  The postal users watchdog said that the Bill provided consumers with
  "a real avenue of redress for any failure in service",
  and it welcomed the emphasis on increased competition and choice. The Communication Workers Union hailed the Bill as
  "a victory for common sense."
  Mr. Alasdair Morgan: The Minister mentions the watchdog, but can he explain the logic behind the abolition of the Post Office Users Council for Scotland and the creation of a UK-wide consumers council? I accept that the Post Office is a reserved matter, but such an arrangement seems to fly in the face of devolution.
  Mr. Byers: I understand that concern. Within the UK-wide structure, there will be a specific committee to deal with Scotland. I hope that that goes some way to meeting concerns raised about the postal service in Scotland. That committee will be powerful within the overall umbrella of the new UK-wide consumers watchdog. When the hon. Gentleman has had the opportunity to examine our proposals, I hope that he will agree that mechanisms will be in place guaranteeing that consumers in Scotland and in the regions of England and Wales are able to express their views on the quality of postal services provided.
  The Bill has four main objectives. It will give the Post Office the scope to modernise and run a fully commercial business in the 21st century. It will achieve that by converting it from a statutory corporation to a public limited company, with ownership remaining with the Crown. That will complement the greater financial flexibility that we intend to give the Post Office.
  The measure will promote competition by establishing a regulator, which will reduce the part of the market that is reserved largely as a monopoly for the Post Office. The reserved area will be reduced and opened to competitors to the extent that the universal service obligation will continue to be fulfilled.
  The Bill will put consumers first by establishing a new independent regulator and a new consumer council. Both will have strong powers to protect and promote the
  804
  interests of those who use postal services. The Bill will reinforce the Government's commitment to a modern counters network, which will ensure reasonable access to the counter services offered by the Post Office.
  Part I creates a new regulator, which will be known as the Postal Services Commission. The commission's duty will be to ensure a universal postal service and to look after consumers' interests.
  Mr. David Drew: Will my right hon. Friend comment on one of the most difficult issues: the potential closure of sub-post offices? It is believed that local communities' ability to oppose such closures is insufficient. Can the new regulator beef up the procedures?
  Mr. Byers: My hon. Friend makes an important point. I shall tackle in detail the new procedures that we want to establish for the network. It is convenient to close sub-post offices because there are no access criteria for judging such a decision. The new access criteria that we intend to establish for the first time are important because they will constitute a benchmark against which such decisions can be measured. They will be established when the performance and innovation unit of the Cabinet Office produces its report sometime after Easter.
  In a matter of months, we shall produce access criteria for the first time. The Conservative party did nothing about such criteria in 19 years of office. That is the record of Opposition Members. Most people will be prepared to wait a few months for access criteria.
  Mr. Oliver Letwin rose—
  Mr. Peter Bottomley rose—
  Mr. Byers: I must make progress.
  Mr. Bottomley: Will the Secretary of State give way on the point that he is making?
  Mr. Byers: No, no, no. I must make progress because there is a 10-minute restriction on Back-Bench speeches and I want to allow Back-Bench Members to contribute to the debate.
  Mr. Bottomley rose—
  Mr. Byers: If the hon. Gentleman catches my eye when I specifically deal with the counters network, I shall give way to him. I shall address access criteria later, and I shall be more than willing to give way to him then.
  The Postal Services Commission will be responsible for a new licensing regime for postal services in the reserved area. It will regulate prices, enforce high standards and improve choice through greater licensed competition. The Post Office will initially be licensed to operate in what is currently its monopoly area. However, others will be able to apply for licenses to carry out services in that reserved area. That process is described in part II.
  As well as being able to promote regulated competition, the Commission will be able to propose reductions in the scope of the reserved market area. By introducing competition in that way, we will stimulate greater innovation and lower prices, and promote better services

  805
  for customers. When competition does not provide effective protection of consumer interests, the Bill will give the regulator new duties and powers to promote consumer interests, regulate prices and ensure a high standard of service to all users.
  Part I makes it the new regulator's duty to ensure provision of the universal service at a uniform tariff. That will provide for the first time in law that the cost of a stamp will be the same anywhere in the United Kingdom, regardless of the distance of delivery.
  The Post Office will be required to provide the universal service through a licence condition. The service will include daily delivery to all addresses at an affordable, uniform tariff.
  Part III provides further protection for consumers through the replacement of the Post Office Users National Council. We shall create a new Consumer Council for Postal Services. It will be given the same powers as the new consumer councils that are being established in the energy and telecoms markets—including wider access to relevant information from the Post Office—to enable it to do its job effectively. For the first time, there will be a single national body for postal users. In that national framework, the Bill also requires the consumer council to set up separate committees for Wales, for Scotland and for Northern Ireland and allows for regional committees to be established for England. I believe that those measures will give consumers the powerful voice that they have lacked for so many years.
  Mr. Letwin: If that array of new councils and the Secretary of State's access criteria show that a non-viable rural post office should not be closed, will he subsidise it?
  Mr. Byers: There is a question of definition of viability but, in Committee, the Government will consider very closely the need to include a provision that would enable a subsidy to be provided where it is appropriate to do so. Indeed, there will be a Government amendment to that effect. [Horn. MEMBERS: "Ah!"] Hon. Members should not jump to the conclusion that—
  Mr. Tony Baldry rose—
  Mr. Byers: May I explain? I shall give way later. We should not jump to the conclusion that we should always look for a subsidy from central Government. Other public organisations such as local authorities may want to invest if they think it appropriate to provide a subsidy but, as we are introducing a Bill that we would like to think will be on the statute book for a good number of years, it is sensible to cover all possibilities. At some time in the future, we may want to consider a subsidy to maintain a post office and the Bill is a suitable vehicle for providing that opportunity. We shall introduce an amendment in Committee to provide for that possibility.
  Mr. Baldry rose—
  Mrs. Angela Browning rose—
  Mr. Byers: I have a choice between a pro-European and an anti-European. I always prefer to give way to a pro-European.
  Mrs. Browning rose—
  Mr. Byers: The anti-Europeans will have their chance. I may describe the hon. Lady as many things, but pro-European is not one of them. I give way to the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry).
  Mr. Baldry: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for giving way, although I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) would have made the point more elegantly than I. It would be useful for those of us who are keen to sit on the Committee to know how many months we shall have to set aside. His introductory remarks gave the impression that the Bill is a done deal, but now he talks about Government amendments. May we have a sweepstake on how many will be introduced and a prize for every time that more than 100 are agreed to? Will the Committee sit until Easter, Whitsun or the summer recess, and of which year?
  Mr. Byers: As I know how many Government amendments are likely to be tabled, I would happily enter a sweepstake. I could do with the money. I was addressing the serious question of a subsidy. [Interruption.] I want to address the serious point. If the Opposition are against an amendment that would provide the opportunity to make a subsidy, so be it, but I happen to think that the Bill will be better if we cover that eventuality. I have thought about that since its introduction and the Government are prepared to provide such an opportunity. As it seems likely that we shall receive a report from the performance and innovation unit of the Cabinet Office while we are considering the Bill, we should be able to reflect on its recommendations. After consideration, that is what we intend to do. If the Opposition want to play games, so be it, but it will go down badly if they are seen to oppose an amendment—[Interruption.] We can tell from those comments that Conservative Members do not support an amendment that would allow a subsidy to be introduced. I regret that.
  Mr. Peter Bottomley: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Secretary of State is discussing the reaction of other Members to an amendment that has not been tabled. The convention of the House is that amendments should be tabled. When he tables that Government amendment, will he also table the other amendments and new clauses that are needed because the Government have changed their mind since printing the Bill.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order. It is more a matter for debate.
  Mr. Byers: The report of this debate will be read by many people who have a real interest in the Post Office network. They will read with interest that when I replied to a specific point about a subsidy hon. Members opposite did not want us to proceed in the way that I described. That is the implication of what they are saying. They are playing games.
  I shall bring forward an amendment that secures the possibility of providing a subsidy. If Opposition Members do not agree with that, so be it. They can raise the matter in Committee and deal with it then. We intend to adopt that measure because we believe that it is a suitable course

  807
  of action to ensure that we can protect the network. In 19 years, the Opposition did not provide such an opportunity, but we intend to do precisely that.
  Mrs. Browning rose—
  Mr. John Bercow rose—
  Mr. Byers: The hon. Gentleman's Front-Bench spokesperson also wishes to intervene and, as both are anti-Europeans, I give way to the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning)
  Mrs. Browning: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. My original intervention was totally in accord with that of my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry), who asked exactly what I was going to ask but, in his response to my hon. Friend, the Secretary of State said that he knew how many amendments would be tabled. That is contrary to what the Minister for Energy and Competitiveness in Europe told us. If the right hon. Gentleman knows how many new clauses he will table, will he kindly share that information with the House now?
  Mr. Byers: I do not know what comments my right hon. Friend has made. The hon. Lady might like to tell me when my right hon. Friend said that. We shall table amendments in Committee. There will be a number—[Interruption.] Opposition Members who have been in government know that the Government table amendments at the Committee stage. That will happen, and there will be a number. Some of us will try to have a serious debate about the matter. The Opposition may not want to debate a serious issue, which is about the Post Office network, and instead are trying to pursue this point. I shall continue to give them rope, and they will continue to hang themselves. I give way to the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow).
  Mr. Bercow: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. I confirm that I believe in national self-government.
  What guarantee can the Secretary of State offer to Bruce and Yaeko Spilker, who run the post office in Station road, Marsh Gibbon, OX6 OHN, in my Buckingham constituency, where over 1,000 people have signed a petition in protest against the Government's plans for compulsory payment of benefits into bank accounts from 2003? In reflecting upon the question of a subsidy, will he confirm that he has no intention of discriminating between post offices, depending on whether they are in Conservative, Labour or Liberal Democrat constituencies?
  Mr. Byers: I can confirm that that will not be a factor. It will be a matter at looking at the viability of individual post offices and deciding accordingly.
  When I come on to address issues in relation to the Post Office network, I hope that I shall be able to answer the specific question.
  Dr. Vincent Cable: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Byers: I intend to give way once more, and then I want to make progress because I want Back Benchers to be able to take part fully in the debate.
  Dr. Cable: Following the Secretary of State's very helpful indication on accepting the principle of subsidies, can he now give an approximate upper limit to the annual amount that will be forthcoming in relation to the £400 million loss of income?
  Mr. Byers: No, I cannot, but what is crucial is a recognition that local post offices are a vital part of local communities. Over the last decade they have been in decline, as people's life styles and buying habits have changed.
  The network of post offices has never been static. However, the Government must acknowledge the important community and social role played by post offices, and should provide new opportunities to individual post offices. That is why, for the first time, under provisions in the Bill the Government will issue access criteria for Post Office Counters to ensure reasonable access to those services, particularly in rural areas and areas of social deprivation.
  The regulator and the consumer council will monitor the network closely against those criteria, and will advise the Government on the accessibility of public post offices. Access criteria will also provide a fundamental reinforcement of the public's right to appeal against individual closures. Rather than considering an appeal in a vacuum, the consumer council will be able to consider it against tangible access criteria, and will be able, through the regulator, to take up cases with the Post Office to ensure that those criteria are being met and will continue to be met. This underlines the Government's commitment to a nationwide network of post offices—a commitment that we are also implementing by giving the Post Office more commercial freedom, thus enabling post offices to offer new services and win new customers.
  Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Mr. Byers: No. I want to make progress and deal with the important question of automated credit transfer.
  Concerns have been expressed about the impact of ACT on the network, but the Government remain committed to its introduction, both because an increasing number of new benefit recipients choose that method of payment and because it is more secure and more cost-effective than existing paper-based systems. The average cost per transaction by ACT is 1p; the cost of an order book counterfoil is 49p, and the cost of a giro cheque is 79p. Moreover, we estimate that we should save about £200 million a year by reducing the amount of fraud and theft associated with order books and giro cheques.
  For the avoidance of doubt, however, I can confirm that there will be no change in the existing methods of paying benefits before 2003. Between 2003 and 2005, the Benefits Agency will progressively withdraw the existing paper-based methods of paying benefits. The normal system will then involve payment into a bank account.

  809
  We recognise that, for some benefit recipients, payment into a conventional bank or building society account may not be appropriate or desirable. We have therefore given a commitment that all recipients who wish to do so can continue to gain access to their benefits in cash at post offices both before and after the change to ACT-based methods.
  Mr. Peter Bottomley: Has the Secretary of State any estimate of how much less money will be paid to sub-post offices as a result of the changes?
  Mr. Byers: The hon. Gentleman is confusing two separate contractual arrangements—Benefits Agency payments to the bankers automated clearing system and transactions between the bank and the Post Office. Those contractual relationships will remain in place. If the hon. Gentleman disagrees with that, I shall be happy to allow him to intervene again, but I think he will find that our arrangements will give benefit recipients a genuine choice: if they wish to continue to receive cash, they will be entitled to do so, and that will not change following the transition to ACT.
  Mr. Bottomley: Mine was not a trick question, nor was it confused. I merely asked what estimate of the change in sub-post office income was available to the Secretary of State.
  Mr. Byers: We should consider the hon. Gentleman's question in the round, in the context of the extra facilities that post offices will be able to offer as a result of the measures that we intend to introduce. That is one of the reasons for delaying the move to ACT until 2003. The Post Office network will be in a stronger position to ensure that, if the move results in a loss—and I am not convinced that that will be necessary—it can establish other facilities ensuring that customers continue to go into post offices, either to obtain benefits or to make purchases.
  Mr. Jonathan Shaw: The Secretary of State's assurances about cash payments are welcome, but can he deal with a couple of points made to me by sub-postmasters about recent communications from their organisation? Will holders of bank accounts who choose to have their benefits paid in cash at a post office be able to receive it in that form?
  Can my right hon. Friend also assure us that Crown post offices are safe under the Government? Sadly, two splendid buildings in the Medway towns were closed under the previous Government and the replacements are completely unsatisfactory. I should like that reassurance, too.
  Mr. Byers: I can reassure my hon. Friend on Crown post offices. A minimum standard is now provided to protect the Crown post office network. On his important point about an individual who has a bank account, but who chooses to have cash paid at the post office, that person will still be able to do that between now and 2003. He will still be able to do that between then and 2005 as we move towards ACT, and he will still be able to do that after 2005.
  The important point is that the individual benefit recipient will have a genuine choice. If he chooses to have his benefit paid in cash at the post office, he will continue
  810
  to be able to do that. That is the position. He will be able to do that because an arrangement will be put in place between banks and the Post Office to ensure that that facility is available.
  Mrs. Browning: For absolute clarity, will the Secretary of State confirm that if benefit recipients—people without a bank account—choose after 2003 to have their benefit paid in cash, that will be paid to them, without any cost to them, through a transferral from the bank to the post office? How will they receive the money? At the moment, they have books, which are being discarded, which we fully understand. Can he talk us through the procedure by which those people can exercise the option that he has described?
  Mr. Byers: I know that there are some people—I will not associate the hon. Lady with it—who are trying to misinterpret the Government's position. I say this in direct answer to her question. There are two categories: there are those people who have bank accounts at the moment and those who choose not to have a bank account. We are working on an arrangement with the banks that will cover those who presently are unbanked, so that they will be able to get their benefit at a post office in full, with no deduction. Let us be clear: they will get the full benefit in cash at a post office.
  For those people who have bank accounts, there will be an arrangement to ensure that the money is paid into the bank account. There will then be a facility to withdraw that money at a post office in cash, again with no reduction from the benefit payment. That is the situation that we are putting in place. It is simple. That is the position that will apply. There will be arrangements through Horizon to ensure that the individuals on the automated network will be able to secure that position.
  Mr. John MacGregor rose—
  Sir Peter Tapsell rose—
  Mr. Byers: I give way to the right hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. MacGregor) first. He is a former Chief Secretary to the Treasury, so I must give way.
  Mr. MacGregor: I fully recognise that the Secretary of State is talking about 2003 and later, but is he aware that rural sub-post offices currently fear what will happen in 2003? Many have invested lifetime savings or have heavy borrowings. They are therefore taking decisions now and are concerned about what the position will be. They do not think that the options that he is giving will be adequate. Therefore, the crucial issue is what alternative services they can provide, to which he has just referred. Can he say something about the sort of alternative services that he thinks they will be able to provide and which will replace the lost income?
  Mr. Byers: The right hon. Gentleman makes an important point. I want to come on to the alternative services that we might be able to offer through the network. The Post Office network system is a classic example of a public-private partnership. It is something that we should treasure and value. We need to put in place policies that will help to promote that. We have some ideas and I want to reflect on those, but may I address the wider point?

  811
  What has concerned me in the whole debate is that there are people who misunderstand the Government's intentions. We have a responsibility to make clear exactly what we intend as a result of going to a system of ACT. I know that there are many worries among people who have invested much of their own money in the post office and are wondering what will happen. We need to do more to explain to them exactly what Government policy is and what our proposals are. If the message is that we need to get that over more clearly, we will need to reflect on that.
  Mrs. Linda Gilroy: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Byers: I want to come to the right hon. Gentleman's point about alternative services, but before doing so I give way to my hon. Friend.
  Mrs. Gilroy: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the Treasury is investing £500 million in bringing ACT to post offices? Does he agree that the Treasury, which is known for its prudence, is hardly likely to do that if it is going to shut down a large number of post offices?
  Mr. Byers: It is true that around £500 million is being invested by the Government in the Horizon network to automate fully the Post Office network. That is where the investment is being made. That is a tangible demonstration of our commitment towards the Post Office network, but I address again the point about the costs and the different contractual relationships.
  There is an issue about the cost to the Government being just 1p when we move to ACT. The reason is because the Benefits Agency pays a fee of around 1p to what is called the BACS system, which is owned jointly by the banks, for the transfer of the payment into the recipient's bank account. There is no contractual relationship as such between the Benefits Agency and the Post Office for such a transaction. Equally, that will be the position after the introduction of ACT.
  What concerns many sub-postmasters and mistresses is what will happen to the financial relationship that they have at the moment with many banks for providing a cash withdrawal system. Many of those contractual relationships are already in place. I understand that sub- postmasters and mistresses are paid in many cases in excess of 17p per transaction on a range of transactions carried out by the Post Office on an agency basis for the banks.
  Nothing that we are proposing should alter those arrangements. Indeed, there is an argument to say that there will be even more transactions because of the way we intend to develop the system through ACT, so there is no question but that the present contractual relationships between the banks and sub-postmasters and mistresses will remain in place. They will be able to get payment for the transactions that take place, which they carry out on an agency basis for the banks themselves. That will remain in place. Nothing that we are proposing will affect that.
  Mrs. Browning: Just for clarity, the press release that was issued by the Minister for Competitiveness on 11 February states:
  "Under the new system to be introduced by the Benefits Agency in 2003, sub-post offices can expect to get about the same amount for each over-the-counter cash transaction."
  What does that mean?
  Mr. Byers: I will say it a bit more slowly this time, so that the hon. Lady can follow. The point that I was trying to make was that the 17p transaction fee that is paid to post offices on an agency basis for the work that they carry out for banks will remain in place. Nothing that we are proposing changes that contractual relationship. Indeed, in some contractual relationships, they receive more than 17p per transaction, so the benefits of receiving that income will still remain. It is different from the BACS system, which involves a relationship between the Benefits Agency and the banks. The 17p per transaction is a commercial relationship between the banks and the Post Office, where the Post Office acts as an agent for the bank and charges the bank accordingly. Nothing that we are proposing affects that commercial relationship.
  I regret the fact that some commentators who should know better seem to have confused the two and, indeed, are briefing people that it will suddenly drop to 1p per transaction. The 1p is the sum that the Benefits Agency pays the banks under the BACS system. That does not affect the contractual relationship—a distinct relationship—between the Post Office network and the banks themselves. The agency transaction that applies there will remain in place.
  Mr. Russell Brown: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Byers: I will give way once more and then I want to make some progress.
  Mr. Brown: Will my right hon. Friend clarify something for me and, I suspect, for others? If someone goes in with a benefit book for a cash transaction, the sub-postmaster or sub-postmistress will receive about I1p or 12p for that transaction. Is my right hon. Friend saying that, in future, if that person opens a bank account and receives cash from that account over a post office counter, that sub-postmaster or sub-postmistress could well receive 17p for the transaction? Is that what he is saying?
  Mr. Byers: That is a transaction arrangement between the Post Office and the bank and will be dealt with on an agency basis. It will be determined, as it is now, in commercial negotiation between the Post Office and the bank system. On average, the transaction fee is now 17p, if not more, for each transaction that is performed. There is nothing in the Bill or in the ACT arrangements that will change that contractual relationship.
  I should like to deal with the point raised by the right hon. Member for South Norfolk on the alternative services that might be provided through the Post Office network.
  Mr. McLoughlin: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Byers: No, I should like to make some progress. [HON. MEMBERS: "Give way."] As Conservative Members

  813
  know, I am generous to a fault in giving way. However, I should like to make some progress, as many Back Benchers would like to speak in the debate.
  We are investing half a billion pounds in equipping all post offices with a modern, on-line computer system that will enable them to provide a wider and better range of services. The Horizon platform will enable the Post Office to extend substantially its arrangements with banks and building societies, which should greatly extend the banking facilities available to customers generally, but especially in rural and some urban areas from which the banks themselves have withdrawn. The platform has the potential of reinstating banking services in rural communities.
  The Post Office is an under-utilised resource, and its services need to he enhanced and more widely advertised. The provision of 3,000 new cash machines at post offices across the country is an indication of the new opportunities that business is exploiting.
  I am sure that Labour Members will have heard the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan), on behalf of Conservative Members, say that his solution is to privatise the Post Office network—[Interruption.] That has gone on the record as being the policy that he wishes to pursue. However, it is interesting to note that when the issue has been debated, the public have rejected the option of privatisation—whether of the Royal Mail or of the Post Office—and the effect that privatisation would have on the rural network.
  The reality is that the Post Office network—which is, as I said, a very good example of a public-private partnership depends on having a network that is in public ownership. That is the reality of the situation. Privatisation is the preferred approach of the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton—[Interruption.] I am pleased that he agrees with my statement of his preferred approach. However, neither the Post Office network, nor sub-postmasters and mistresses, support that approach. Nevertheless, it is interesting to know his position on the issue.
  We can and will provide 3,000 new cash machines at post offices across the country.
  Mr. Gordon Prentice: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Byers: I should like to make some progress.
  People can now buy a lottery ticket from a post office and they can exchange foreign currency there. Over 4,000 post offices have national lottery on-line terminals, 1,500 of which are in rural areas. In the past 20 years, the number of post offices providing vehicle licences has doubled. Mobile telephone pre-payment cards are available from almost 5,000 post offices, and that number will rise to more than 6,500 by April 2000.
  We need to build on those types of facilities, and part of the modernising government agenda will ensure that we continue to do so. There is no doubt in my mind that our programme for the Post Office network will guarantee a future for the network, recognising the very important role that it plays in our communities.
  The Bill obviously offers much more on the Post Office. It provides a framework for modernisation of the Post Office so that it is able to deliver a world-class
  814
  service and compete with overseas competitors. The time has come to modernise the Post Office, to enable it to meet the challenges and opportunities of the changing market and of increased competition.
  Britain's Post Office has real achievements to its credit, and the Royal Mail is one of the country's most recognised and valued brands. However, to build on those achievements the Post Office will have to meet four major challenges: to respond to the growth of e-mail and other forms of electronic communication; to meet the challenges of the liberalisation of postal markets in Europe and elsewhere; to meet the growing competition for business consumers; and to adapt to the emergence of new business opportunities.
  The Post Office shares those challenges in common with Europe's other traditional postal service organisations. Change is occurring throughout Europe, and the pace is likely to accelerate. Already, the Post Office faces competition in the United Kingdom from overseas postal administrations and delivery companies, some of which are ahead of the game. The Bill will provide a framework to enable the Post Office to develop to its full potential, providing the greater commercial and financial freedom that it needs to compete effectively.
  The Bill will complete the reform package that we began last summer, giving the Post Office the flexibility it needs to modernise and to run a fully commercial business in the 21st century, but maintaining it within the public sector and delivering our promises on share disposals.
  Part IV of the Bill reinforces our manifesto commitments to give commercial freedom to the Post Office within the public sector. It will convert the Post Office into a public limited company that is able to be more responsive to market demands and to customer demands. A regulated, Government-owned plc is what the Bill proposes. The plc model is widely understood and clearly sets out the duties of directors to the company. It helps to establish the clear separation of the functions of ownership and of management. It also enables the Government to receive a proper dividend, rather than requiring the Post Office to build up cash deposits on its balance sheet.
  The Bill delivers our promise that there will be no sale of Post Office shares without primary legislation. The Bill prevents the Government from disposing of shares or share rights in the Post Office company unless parliamentary approval has been given under the set procedure which is clearly stated in the Bill. Primary legislation will be required to remove those restrictions, to allow a wider disposal of shares.
  The commercial future of the Post Office depends on its being able to compete effectively with other global players. The Post Office must therefore be equipped to develop its business, which may well involve forging alliances and commercial partnership with organisations that have complementary skills. We have to ensure that it has the freedom and commercial flexibility to do that, and the Bill achieves that objective. We have already acted to enable the Post Office to borrow at commercial rates for growth investments up to £75 million annually, without Government approval. Borrowing beyond that sum will still require Government approval. In recent years, an average of 80 per cent. of the Post Office's profits have gone to the Exchequer. The sum will be reduced to

  815
  50 per cent. this year, and to 40 per cent. in 2000–01. The Post Office will, therefore, have new finance to invest in the future.
  I am confident that the Bill will transform the Post Office into a more commercial organisation. It will enable the Post Office to realise its ambition to become a world-class distribution company. In the new global economy, we need a modern and competitive Post Office that can win new business, expand into new markets and create jobs and wealth in Britain. We also need to ensure standards of service and protection for disadvantaged groups and communities. The Bill does precisely that.
  The Bill provides for a Post Office with a modern commercial structure while keeping it within public ownership. It provides for strong consumer protection, wherever possible through competition, and ensures that the benefits of competitive, modern postal services are available to all. It provides the commercial freedoms that will enable our Post Office to become a major global player, while ensuring that we retain the important social obligations—including the counters network—that make the Post Office such an important part of the social fabric of our country.
  The Bill is forward looking. It creates a postal service that is fit for the 21st century, and I commend it to the House.
  6.9 pm
  Mrs. Angela Browning: I beg to move, To leave out from 'That' to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
  "this House declines to give a Second Reading to the Postal Services Bill because it introduces an unsatisfactory structure of ownership which falls short of granting full commercial freedom, introduces uncompetitive borrowing criteria and does not include provision for transparent accounting practices, imposes new burdens of regulation on private companies rather than encouraging competition and fails to introduce clear access criteria to protect the network of sub Post Offices."
  Last July, following the Secretary of State's statement on the Post Office White Paper, we debated many of the issues that have been raised again tonight. It is extraordinary that, seven months later, we should be presented with a Bill to which, we are already informed, there could be as many as 200 Government amendments. A pattern is emerging. A couple of weeks ago we gave a Second Reading to the Utilities Bill, which also came from the Department of Trade and Industry. It is an affront to the democratic process that the Government—particularly the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry—cannot arrange for the Bills announced in the Queen's Speech to be properly and thoroughly drafted before the House has an opportunity to debate and scrutinise them. The Secretary of State has told the House that he knows how many amendments he intends to table. If the right hon. Gentleman will not return to the Dispatch Box, I hope that the Minister for Competitiveness will tell the House the number. We have to judge the Government's proposals not by relying on the Bill that is printed, but by second-guessing errors and omissions that occur as a result of the way in which the Government bring their legislation before the House.
  In July, the Secretary of State told us with great pride that the postal privilege was to be reduced from £1 to 50p. Indeed, he laid a statutory instrument to that effect,
  816
  only to remove it after pressure from the Post Office unions in the run-up to the Labour party conference. The Bill has been surrounded by muddle and confusion from the time when the Government announced at least some of the detail that we might expect to find in it. Perhaps the Minister for Competitiveness was instrumental in that U-turn. Confusion helps no one, particularly the sub-post office network.
  We have had three debates on the Post Office since then, focusing particularly on sub-post offices. There has been muddle and confusion in much of what the Government have said. They have produced a hybrid structure of a Government-owned plc with a regulator and a consumer body. Despite all the cant and the language of competition, we know that the Government's proposal is a compromise. I have no doubt that the Secretary of State would have liked to privatise the Post Office, not least because the Government have shown that they are willing to accept the concept of privatisation. We expect the privatisation of the National Air Traffic Services shortly, and I am sure that that will not be the Government's only privatisation. Given that they have accepted the principle, it is extraordinary that, rather than proposing the confused structure that we are considering tonight, they have not grasped the opportunity to release the Post Office—particularly the postal services—to competition and allow it to compete and raise money on the open market.
  The Bill is ill prepared and sloppily drafted because the Government want to rush it through. A measure of such importance requires much more attention than that. Let me deal with some of the issues on which I hope the Secretary of State will be able to reassure us that he already has some details.
  Mr. Michael Connarty: Did I discern a policy among all the muddle? Was the hon. Lady saying that the Conservatives would privatise the postal services?
  Mrs. Browning: We shall look at the mess that we inherit from the Government. We support the principle and the need for the Post Office to compete globally, but we are dealing with a hybrid structure and we have no relevant experience to allow us to judge how it will proceed. Interestingly, the Secretary of State has tried, as ever, to allay Labour Members' fears by saying that the Government are not going to privatise fully because they do not intend to dispose of shares at this stage. He has said that primary legislation would be required to do that, but he has never given a guarantee that the Government have ruled it out. The hon. Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Connarty) might intervene on the Minister when he winds up to ask whether the Government intend to make it clear tonight that they will never dispose of shares in the new structure. We should be interested in that.
  Mr. Edward Leigh: Some of us have spent the best years of our lives, in and out of government, trying to privatise the Post Office. Will my hon. Friend confirm that it was the policy of my right hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) when he was the President of the Board of Trade—and that it is still the policy of those on the Conservative Front Bench—to privatise the Royal Mail?
  Mrs. Browning: We shall be very enthusiastic to do so, but we shall give the Post Office full freedom while

  817
  setting minimum standards for universal delivery of letters and support for the sub-post office network. We already have a good track record on privatisation. We have protected services but freed up industries to the marketplace. I am pleased that the Government seek to emulate that, although they are being a little timid. That formula has been advocated and copied around the world.
  Mrs. Gilroy: If such protection was offered, why did one in five sub-post offices in the network close while the Conservatives were in government?
  Mrs. Browning: I do not know how many sub-post offices the hon. Lady has in her constituency. I have about 60. There are many reasons why sub-post offices have closed. Some that were combined with the general store in a village have closed because of competition from supermarkets. If the hon. Lady was aware of what happens in rural communities—a subject on which the Labour party is not knowledgeable—she would know that many factors have affected the viability of post offices, including demographic changes. People tend to go away from villages to work, so they are not always there during post office opening hours. That has also affected post offices that rely for their income on the trade of the general village store or the sale of other goods. There has been a natural decline in post offices as a result of social changes. When the Conservatives left office in 1997, we left in place a system which recognised that post offices would need to be automated with computers to improve their income. Having said that they will produce the computers, the Government are now saying that post offices must depend solely on computers to make up the loss of the £400 million-worth of income that they currently receive from benefits.
  Mr. Bercow: Does my hon. Friend agree that, to brief herself adequately, the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mrs. Gilroy) need do no more than consult her hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Mrs. Organ) who is sitting next to her, who has eloquently denounced the Government's proposals for compulsory payments into bank accounts? Is it not important that we should hear the hon. Lady's criticisms of the Government during the debate?
  Mrs. Browning: As usual, my hon. Friend is correct. I recall visiting one of the excellent sub-post offices in his constituency in September. The same concerns were voiced there as in the two dozen other sub-post offices around the country that I have visited. Sub-postmasters are concerned because the Government have taken a significant amount of the income that they previously enjoyed and told them that they must not only catch up with the competition from supermarkets and elsewhere but find the means to make up the drop in income. That is why many have told stories similar to that which I heard from the sub-postmistress to whom I spoke in Liverton, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) last Friday. Having looked at the projected income for the next three or four years, her bank manager has advised her not to risk borrowing another £15,000 to expand the shop by opening up what was once a store room. That is how fragile sub-post offices are as a result of the Government's policies.
  Mr. Charles Wardle: Does my hon. Friend agree that what she has just described is likely to put between 9,000 and 10,000 sub-post offices on the margin financially?
  Mrs. Browning: My hon. Friend has struck on the right amount, because some 50 per cent. of the sub-post offices will be affected—all of them private businesses. Many of them are owned by people who have sunk retirement capital from other jobs into them only to find that—at a time in their lives when they thought they were building up a nest egg for retirement—the bank managers see them as risky business.
  Mr. David Borrow: If advances in technology mean that the payment of benefits is cheaper and more efficient through the automated credit transfer system, and if that leaves post offices vulnerable, is maintaining an antiquated system the best way to subsidise post offices, or should it be done through a direct clearly accountable subsidy, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State suggests?
  Mrs. Browning: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the excellent speech made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley) in a debate on this subject in Westminster Hall in January. My right hon. Friend clearly spelled out the Conservative policy when we left office, and explained why we thought it was worth putting £400 million-worth of taxpayers' money into supporting the sub-post office network. We recognised that sub-post offices fulfil an important social function in communities—and the hon. Gentleman may be disappointed to discover that Ministers do not recognise that.
  We agreed to introduce computerisation because of the problems of fraud associated with benefit books, which would have led to the use of swipe cards and, ultimately, of smart cards. Computers clearly have benefits in allowing small post offices to provide additional services. However, the difference between new Labour and the Conservative party is that my right hon. Friend, who served both as Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and as Secretary of State for Social Security, looked at both sides of the issue and made a value judgment, which was that we were prepared to spend taxpayers' money to sustain vulnerable communities.
  Mr. Martin O'Neill: In the event of the Post Office being privatised, does the hon. Lady envisage that a privately owned company would subsidise a retail network that it did not own to the tune of £400 million a year?
  Mrs. Browning: Any policy that the Conservative party puts forward will be based on what we inherit, and I cannot second-guess what that will be. I shall certainly not speculate now on what might be in the Conservative manifesto, or a policy of the next Conservative Government. Labour Back Benchers seem to be interested in whether and how we would privatise the Royal Mail. If they are so nervous, they should seek a guarantee from the Secretary of State that the Bill is not a precursor to

  819
  full privatisation. The Government should guarantee to their worried Back Benchers that they will never dispose of the shares that they will create and own under the Bill.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mrs. Browning: I shall give way to the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mrs. Gilroy) once more, because she is from Devon, and I should like to think that the people of Devon can feel that they are represented by somebody who understands the Post Office problem.
  Mrs. Gilroy: I spent some of my younger years in Ottery St. Mary and I am fully aware of the challenges faced by rural areas, as well as by deprived areas. If we were unfortunate enough to have a Conservative Government in future, would they give the guarantees on access that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has given tonight? My right hon. Friend said that there will be robust criteria to protect the post office network in the future. Would the hon. Lady uphold them?
  Mrs. Browning: I have explained fully the Conservatives' concern about the Bill, and that we would wish to examine what we inherited from new Labour. However, if the hon. Lady thinks that she has received any guarantees from the Secretary of State about access, she must have better hearing than I have. It is true that the right hon. Gentleman mentioned the subject, but he did not give any guarantees. Perhaps if she catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the hon. Lady might like to press the issue, because we would be interested in the actual nature of the access guarantees. As I understand it, they have not yet been worked out and they await a Cabinet Office report.
  Mr. Letwin: Does my hon. Friend agree that, having decided to deprive the rural and other marginal post offices of a large sum of money in an attempt to save money, the Secretary of State has discovered that he is not going to save that money, and—having not saved the money—is going to subsidise them to make up the difference, the result being that those post offices get less money at more expense to him?
  Mrs. Browning: That was beautifully and succinctly put, as I would expect from my hon. Friend and neighbour. He raises an important point: the smash-and-grab raid by the Treasury to save £400 million from the social security budget seems to be rapidly diminishing because the Government will have to shore up other aspects of the Post Office—on some of which we have not yet heard the details—to save their face. It will be interesting to see the balance sheet when everything is done and dusted. My instinct is that little saving will made overall, although the £400 million will have been redistributed. It will not necessarily go through the accounts of the sub-postmasters, who regard it as an essential part of their income.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mrs. Browning: I have been generous in giving way and I shall now make some progress.
  820
  I hope that the Minister will be able to provide the answers to some important points when he winds up. The powers of the Secretary of State, especially in the financing of the Post Office, are important. I note that the Bill mentions
  "loans to the Post Office company or any of its subsidiaries."
  Why have the Government used the word "any" rather than "relevant"? The Bill also provides for privileged loans, which could distort the market for other private sector companies, and we shall want to examine those provisions—including the interest rate for any such loans—carefully in Committee. The Secretary of State said that such loans would be at commercial rates, and I hope that we may take him at his word, as there could be distortion of the market if preferential loans were made through borrowing facilities made available by the Government which put the Post Office in a more favourable position than other operators.
  The Secretary of State will have the powers to extinguish certain liabilities of the Post Office or "any of its subsidiaries". Why does the Secretary of State believe that "any" of the subsidiaries should be eligible, as opposed to the "relevant" subsidiaries outlined elsewhere in the Bill? The limit on the loans that will be available to the Post Office is to be increased from £1.2 billion to £5 billion. That will provide reasonable access to the national loans fund for commercial acquisition. Can the Minister identify how that threshold was reached? Why was the sum of £5 billion chosen?
  The Government have allowed the Post Office to spend a sum of money without permission, but when it comes to loans that require the sanction of the Secretary of State, we have the bizarre prospect of a Minister who claims that he wants to take politics out of competition policy authorising loans that could affect the market and give one company a competitive edge over another. How will the Government square that facility with their declared position on competition policy and the Secretary of State's desire not to make political decisions about competitive issues between companies?
  The Bill contains provisions for far too much involvement by the Secretary of State, and he has created a confused structure. Why does the definition of "relevant subsidiary" vary throughout the Bill? Should not the definition in clause 52(8) apply throughout? We are concerned about that.
  Another disappointment is the Government's failure to identify clear accounting procedures so that transparency is guaranteed. We shall be seeking a lot more information about how public money and public risk are to be analysed in a transparent and accountable way. Perhaps that information will be contained in the 200 or more amendments yet to be tabled. In any event, we shall certainly expect the proposals to be tabled before the Bill is considered in Committee, so that they receive full and proper scrutiny.
  European Union countries and others exclude public corporations from their primary measures of public accounts. If the Government insist that the Post Office is not self-financing—which they do, because they have not allowed it the full freedom of the marketplace through privatisation—the accounting procedures and borrowing rules are important. We assume, because of Government ownership, that it will be financed out of public funds. Will the Secretary of State confirm that? Will he also say how those finances are to be presented?

  821
  How does the Secretary of State balance the threshold of the borrowing for the Post Office with the possibility that the investment required would not generate the required return? Is the £5 billion ceiling designed to ensure that the return would be guaranteed in any commercial situation? Could the limit prevent investment that was economically justified? If not, the Post Office would have difficulty in meeting the Government's targets.
  If the Post Office owes the Government money via the national loans fund, the Government will have to borrow from the private sector to maintain their net borrowing or net debt repayment. In that case, why not let the Post Office borrow from the private sector in the first place through full privatisation? Will future Post Office borrowing be included in the primary measure of public sector borrowing?
  We shall want to scrutinise many aspects of the Bill in Committee. I hope that, from what he has heard tonight, the Secretary of State will recognise that the Bill contains much that is confusing. It includes words such as "modernise", "commercialism" and "competitiveness", but it does not really set the Royal Mail free to take its place in a global marketplace, despite what the Secretary of State says.
  The area of greatest confusion concerns the sub-post offices, which were discussed at the beginning of my speech. It is no longer acceptable for any Minister, including the Prime Minister, to dash around the country making statements and saying things simply to assuage public concern, particularly among the sub-postmasters. In the summer recess, the Secretary of State rushed into print, saying how the combination of Camelot and the Post Office in the new national lottery bid was going to be the answer for rural post offices. He must know by now—he clearly did not know then—that the procedures for installing a lottery terminal require a considerable number of transactions to be made a week. I believe that the minimum number is 3,000 a week, which is beyond many of the smallest and most vulnerable sub-post offices, which will not therefore benefit from the installation of a lottery terminal. In my, very rural, constituency, I occasionally have to fight to save a terminal in a small outlet where the number of transactions has dropped to between 1,500 and 2,000 a week. National lottery terminals are not the answer, and it is misleading for Ministers to make people think that they are.
  Only last week, the west country saw the now rather infamous visit of the Prime Minister, who told people in the rural areas that we had never had it so good. On that visit, the Prime Minister told people in the west country that they would receive 3,000 cash dispensers, and that that would be the answer for post offices. That has nothing to do with the Government—it concerns a commercial transaction between post offices and banks. In some of the most fragile of my rural post offices, and in other areas where they operate from clapboard buildings, I cannot imagine a cash dispenser being installed: it would be the first target for ram-raiders. The Government need to get real.
  I hope that we shall be given a commitment tonight that we will have more responsible statements, from the Prime Minister downwards. There is grave concern about the future of the sub-post office network. There is grave
  822
  concern among vulnerable, frail, elderly people about having access to a post office that will continue to provide the services that they have been used to receiving.
  We need to know, before the Division tonight, what else the Bill will contain. Whatever it is, we have been denied the opportunity to debate it this evening.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. I remind the House that a 10-minute rule applies to Back-Bench speeches.
  6.36 pm
  Miss Geraldine Smith: I am particularly pleased to have the opportunity to contribute to the debate. Not only do I represent a constituency in which a significant proportion of the population depends heavily on the service provided by post offices, but before being elected to the House in May 1997, I spent the whole of my adult life working in the postal industry. In my capacity as a Member of Parliament representing Morecambe and Lunesdale, and also as a former Post Office employee and trade union representative, I warmly welcome many of the measures in the Bill.
  I welcome in particular the conversion of the Post Office from a statutory corporation to a public limited company owned by the Crown. That will provide the stability and commercial freedom that the Post Office needs to expand and compete in the global market place, and it will curtail political interference in its affairs. The measures are long overdue, and will no doubt be warmly welcomed by all who work in the industry.
  I pay tribute to all the men and women who work for the Post Office and who, despite the continuous changes, reorganisations and uncertainty over their future, have continued to raise productivity, provide an excellent service to their customers, and play their part in ensuring that the Post Office is a profitable organisation that can compare favourably with any postal business anywhere in the world. The Bill, and the prospect of stability that it brings, is therefore most welcome.
  I have however a couple of areas of concern about the Bill. Clause 56 sets out the procedure to be followed to obtain the approval of Parliament to make share issues or disposals that would otherwise be prohibited by clauses 54 and 55. It appears that the main criterion to be met before a motion to dispose of the public's stake in the Post Office is brought before the House is that the Post Office should persuade the Secretary of State that it is in the company's commercial interest for him to do so.
  Bearing in mind the importance of the Post Office to the economy of this country and the essential role that it plays in the fabric of our society, I believe that the Secretary of State should have a wider obligation than that of simply considering the company's commercial interest. I am of the opinion that prior to any such motion being brought before the House, the Secretary of State must be convinced that the disposal of shares is in the national interest. I believe too that that should be reflected in the Bill. I hope that my right hon. Friend will consider this point, and I will listen with interest to his response.
  Opening up the reserved area to competition is also a matter of concern. The Bill enshrines, for the first time, a universal service obligation and a universal tariff, and I welcome those measures. However, we must be aware

  823
  that provision of that service will require the Post Office to subsidise high-cost, low-revenue services from the income generated by the most profitable areas. Any operator granted a licence in the reserved area must, therefore, face the same service and price obligations to prevent them from cherry-picking the most profitable areas.
  Closures of rural and sub-post offices, and the threat posed by the conversion of benefit payments from order books or giro cheques to automated credit transfer in 2003, are also matters of concern. Closure of post offices is by no means a new phenomenon; about 200—1 per cent. of the network—have closed in each of the past 20 years. There are many reasons for closure, but one of the most common, particularly in rural areas, is that the Post Office cannot find anyone to keep them open because of the low income offered.
  The village of Wray in my constituency is in that situation at present. The post office is up for sale, but no buyer can be found. Clearly, positive action is needed or that problem will continue, and ACT conversion will rapidly accelerate it. Rural post offices are not the only ones that will be affected by ACT, as those in the most deprived areas of towns and cities will be hardest hit because those areas host the largest number of benefit claimants. The west end sub-post office in Morecambe is a good example, because benefit payments constitute the vast majority of transactions carried out there. If revenue from that work is lost and not replaced, the office will undoubtedly close.
  Mr. Bercow: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Miss Smith: I am sorry, but I do not have time.
  Even at this early stage, local residents are sufficiently concerned to have started a campaign to save the local post office. I accept that it would be foolish to argue against the ACT conversion programme, because its benefit to the Exchequer and its usefulness in combating fraud are plain for all to see. However, the Government must do all they can to mitigate the system's impact on post offices.
  The Horizon project, which will see post offices automated by 2001, will undoubtedly help to attract banking and financial services to post offices. However, I do not believe that that will compensate for the loss of revenue arising from implementation of ACT. The banking industry itself has experienced a sharp decline in demand for similar services.
  I do not offer a universal panacea that would overcome all the problems of post office closure, but I believe that many of them could be avoided if we imaginatively combined the different services that post offices provide. The universal letter guarantee ensures some postal activity in all areas, and it is invariably supplemented by parcel deliveries. When added to the Post Office Counters part of post office work, that can produce an economically manageable level of activity.
  Before any post office is closed, the Post Office should have a duty to examine the possibility of establishing a combined operation. In addition, the Post Office's findings should be made known through existing
  824
  consultative arrangements. Will the Minister consider what I have said? I shall be extremely interested in his response.
  I firmly believe that the Bill takes a huge step in the right direction. I look forward to its passage through the House. Having worked in the Post Office during the 18 years the Tories were in power, I feel that we have little to learn from them, and I dread to think what the Post Office would be like if they ever returned to power.
  6.45 pm
  Mr. Peter Lilley: I apologise for being unable to stay for the wind-up speeches, because I had entered into another commitment before the date of this debate was changed. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) on effectively dissecting a badly drafted Bill and on demolishing an even more poorly briefed Secretary of State, who gave one of the most inadequate explanations of a Bill that the House has ever heard.
  I had hoped to offer some support to the Secretary of State and his Bill. When the White Paper was published, I said that it merited at least one cheer from the Conservatives. I believed that the process initiated by the White Paper would lead inexorably to full privatisation of the Post Office, which would be in the interests of customers, taxpayers, the economy and the employees of the Post Office, who, under a Conservative Government, would be able to become shareholders in their own enterprise.
  Having read the Bill, however, I must reduce my applause to, at most, half a cheer. I still believe that it will ultimately lead to privatisation. However, the obstacles that have been erected to pander to the left wing of the Labour party and the trades union movement will slow the process, prolong the agony and uncertainty and mean that the Post Office misses many of the glittering prizes that would be available if it were in the vanguard of enterprise.
  The Government said that they aimed to modernise the Post Office. The Bill, however, is a "make us modern, but not yet" measure. It deals with a massive, important and rapidly changing industry. That industry needs the dynamo of competition and enterprise if it is to maximise benefits to this country. However, the industry also impinges on certain social priorities, which must be satisfied.
  The Government have acknowledged three main social objectives, which they inherited from the Conservatives. The first is the universal service obligation to deliver to every address at a uniform cost. The second is the universal delivery of benefits, not least to those who cannot afford to travel long distances to pick up their money. The third is the need to maintain a nationwide network of sub-post offices.
  The universal service obligation can readily be met by regulation. We can make universal provision a licence condition and prevent exploitation of any partial monopoly by turning on the tap of competition. The regulatory function does not require the continuation of state ownership. Indeed, if the state owns the company that it regulates, there is an inevitable conflict of interest. The Treasury will want higher prices, but the regulator will want them down at more competitive levels. That is

  825
  inherent in state ownership. Only privatisation can bring about a separation of regulation and ownership, which results in better regulation.
  Moreover, state ownership can lead to unfair competition through access to cheap borrowing. Avoiding that will mean restricting the Post Office's rights to borrow and to diversify, but those things are essential if it is to take advantage of the rapidly changing world of e-commerce and e-mail.
  Above all, the Bill will inhibit international mergers, takeovers and alliances. Indeed, it is clear from the opposition within the Labour party that Labour's main bogey is the threat of international involvement in our Post Office, or its involvement overseas. No group is more xenophobic than the Labour party. Mr. Haider could take lessons from it. By contrast, the Conservatives believe that free trade and free investment maintain and build links between countries, and those links are both to the social and economic good.
  The second and third social obligations—to deliver benefits and to maintain a nationwide network of sub-post offices—have until now been met simultaneously. The Department of Social Security contracts with Post Office Counters Ltd. on condition that the latter maintains a nationwide network of post offices through which benefits can be delivered.
  The Government now claim that they can deliver benefits through the banks instead, and save large sums of money. They say that they will save £400 million without hurting anyone, as if that money will come out of thin air. If the Treasury gains £400 million, somebody loses £400 million, and the losers will mainly be the post offices, which will lose a third of their direct income.
  When I was Secretary of State for Social Security, I received clear advice that a move to compulsory payment of benefits into bank accounts would destroy the network of sub-post offices as we know it. The only way to avoid such a catastrophe would be to introduce a subsidy, which of course would absorb a large part of the savings that the move was intended to make. The net effect would be minimal savings and maximum inconvenience for pensioners, disabled people, young mothers and those on income support.
  When I recently challenged the Secretary of State for Social Security to confirm that he had received similar advice, he refused to answer. He side-stepped the question and went off into auto-rant about my wishing to privatise the sub-post office network—apparently unaware, as was the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry today, that it is already privately run, owned and managed.
  I want the Minister or the Secretary of State to confirm today that the Government received advice similar to that which I received—that without subsidy, post office closures will accelerate. Can he explain why there was no provision in the Bill as originally drafted for such a subsidy? Can he confirm that because the Government have met pressure on their own Benches as well as from ours, they will agree to subsidise the network?
  Is the Secretary of State aware that even if he paid the post offices a subsidy equal to the money that they will lose as a result of the cancellation of the contract from the DSS, he would not undo all the damage that he will have done to the network? Paying the subsidy direct to post offices will not bring the customers back into those
  826
  shops. It was those customers coming to claim the benefits who spent some of that money in the shops and gave them a significant proportion of their revenues.
  Mr. Drew: On that point—
  Mr. Lilley: I am sorry, I cannot give way, but doubtless the hon. Gentleman will confirm that point when he speaks.
  Can the Minister confirm that the announcement that has already been made has caused many sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses to sell up and get out? Can he confirm the estimate of the Post Office National Users Council that the rate of closures has almost trebled since that announcement, and will reach 500 in the year due to finish in a month's time? Can he confirm, too, the figures which show that it is not just rural but urban post offices that are among the most vulnerable?
  After today's extraordinary performance, we are left with a confused and confusing response to the key questions about how the new proposals will work. Above all, what will happen to those who do not have bank accounts at present—up to 20 per cent. of the recipients of benefits? Will banks be forced to set up shadow accounts for them, through which the money will be paid in order to get it to the sub-post office and then to them? How much will that cost the taxpayer? Certainly not a penny each—apparently, more like 17 times that sum on the figures given, but one suspects even more than that.
  Will people who have to open a new account—for example, mothers who want to have child benefit paid into it—be forced to pay bank charges? Will they receive any compensation for that? Can the Minister guarantee that there will be no withdrawal charges imposed by banks in future for the use of access machines? Where the access criteria show that there is more than a minimal provision of post offices in an area, will the Post Office be free to close those that the access criteria show to be superfluous?
  In short, the Bill shows that the Government are determined to exclude private enterprise from the part of the Post Office's operations where it could do most good, and to undermine private enterprise in the area where it already—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.
  6.55 pm
  Mr. Michael Connarty: I am grateful to be called in this important debate. This is a positive day for the Post Office and postal services.
  I listened in amazement to some of the contributions from the Opposition. It seems to have passed them by that many of their Front-Bench colleagues in the previous Government were swept out of office and out of this place with the assistance of the Stand By Your Post campaign. They were so blatantly determined to privatise the Post Office that even petitions signed by 10,000, 12,000 or 15,000 people in their own constituencies were ignored, because of the dogma and ideology that drove them on. If they continue with the commitment that they gave from the Front Bench to be the party of privatisation on the terms that they previously put to the British people, they will remain on the Opposition Benches for a long time.

  827
  Alongside my hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Miss Smith) and the person who is now the Minister for Competitiveness, my hon. Friend the Member for Hull, West and Hessle (Mr. Johnson), I took part with pride in the Stand By Your Post campaign. People were angered by the Conservatives' attempt to privatise the Post Office, clearly for the profit of some of their friends in the City, and no doubt some of their friends who thought that they would be senior management in the privatised Post Office. The Conservatives ignored the fact that people did not want the Post Office privatised. People still do not want the Post Office privatised, and they will oppose any future moves towards privatisation.
  The people stood by their Post. This Government, in opposition and now, have stood by the Post. The Bill underlines the depth of their commitment to an integrated Post Office Counters and Post Office distribution service. The service will be modernised by the Bill, which will give the Post Office a chance to invest its hard-earned profits.
  I remind the House that the previous Government took £1 billion over three years from the Post Office through the external financing limit—a way of robbing the Post Office's efforts in order to finance the Government's poor policies, which were costing the country so much.
  The Bill will allow the Post Office to compete, but the Post Office would probably be better able to compete if it did not have such a low capital borrowing limit—£75 million. That limit should be reconsidered, as it may not allow the Post Office to compete at the right level. The Post Office will be able to compete externally and within the United Kingdom. I look forward to it becoming a worldwide and world-class distribution company.
  The Bill will benefit the consumer. Universal provision is frequently taken for granted, but if the Conservatives had had their way in government, universal provision would have gone. Scotland always invents "west" questions. There was a West Lothian question in connection with devolution, and a Western Isles question in connection with postal services, which was never answered by the Conservatives while they were in government.
  It was obvious that, with a privatised postal service, it would never be possible to have the same standard of first-class post delivery to the Western Isles as to West Bromwich or some parts of west London. That is dealt with by the Bill, which states that there will be universal provision in all the glens, valleys, islands and the mainland of this country. That is important.
  Another notable aspect of the Bill is clause 30, which guarantees the service for the blind. I remember the trauma experienced by those who provided books for the blind. Being in large print, such books obviously make very large parcels. They used to go free, and still do, through the postal services, but that was threatened by the Conservatives' privatisation policies. Now it is guaranteed that the books will be delivered as a free service to people who are blind or partially sighted.
  There will be a consumer council for postal services. I am glad that the hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Morgan) referred to the provision of a
  828
  Scottish committee in a universal UK service council, because that underlines what we are doing. This is a British Bill in a British Parliament for everyone in Britain.
  The Bill should not be interfered with by people who want to break up the UK and deliver parochial services in Scotland. That would not be good enough—if they ever had the power to do so—because an independent Scotland would not have the finances to provide a proper service for the people of Scotland. Every economist knows that. The only people who are deluded enough not to believe it are members of the Scottish National party, who attend the Chamber sporadically—one a day. [Interruption.] I think that the First Minister is running Scotland—the Opposition in the Scottish Parliament are not.
  Mr. Letwin rose—
  Mr. Connarty: I am sorry, but none of us has time to take interventions.
  I look forward to the debates in Committee on licences, penalties and access criteria. I hope that those debates will clearly define access criteria and how they are to be applied. It is important that there are good definitions so that the public know what type of service they will receive. Such definitions were not provided during 19 years of Conservative Government.
  We need to discuss the use and scale of the proposed penalties. It is important that people know how they are to be applied. At present, there is no limit on penalties—according to the clauses that I have read—and that is a problem.
  The measure offers a real opportunity to put computers into the sub-post office network. I am a member of the Select Committee on Information. I make visits throughout Europe and hear people talking about the information age and its services to democracy. I have an image of Conservative Members walking along like the man with the red flag—a blue one in their case—in front of the first internal combustion vehicle. They are walking in front of the information age waving their flag, saying "We want to take political advantage of this—go as fast as we go." It is about time that they realised that this modern Labour Government are about to run them over.
  The post office network will be changed into a modern, technological part of e-commerce. That will make the service viable. If postmasters are not capable of making those changes, they will miss the best opportunity that they will ever be given—£500 million to put computers into post offices. That will give them the chance to move up and move on—to leave behind the old rubber stamp and wooden grille image of the sub-post office. It is time to put that aside.
  I welcome the possibility of subsidy for social reasons. In my constituency, we have lost a sub-post office in a village that is so small that little is viable. However, if the post office gets its act together, it can reconnect with the commuter society that has left it behind. People often live in large villages—as I do—and commute to the towns. It is time that sub-post offices showed that they can he of use to that commuter society—those people who live in dormitory villages outside the major conurbations. It is important that post offices develop new services.
  What level of computer training will be given? We must make our sub-postmasters competent and capable to enter the information age, in the same way as we are making our children computer literate.

  829
  I support the Bill for what it is not—and for what it is and will be. It is not privatisation. If we are to sell shares, it is important to hold debates in the House and to take into account the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale. It is good that the business will be viable, but there is more to the matter than that. We need to consider how it will affect the public interest.
  The Bill is good for the postal business; it is good for the consumers, users, distributors and recipients of the service. I support the Bill for what it could be; I hope to discuss that, if I am selected to serve on the Standing Committee. The Bill will be good for the staff—the stakeholders who work in the enterprise. They stood side by side with Labour Members and put the Conservatives out of government. The fact that postal workers realised that their contribution provided the Treasury with £1 billion—through the external financing limit—was a major factor in the loss of many Conservative seats. Their contribution should be respected in the eventual formation of the new company.
  I look forward to clarification, and even to amendments, so that we can create an empowered and motivated postal service—from the bottom to the top; from the post worker, to the manager and to the consumer. I look forward to the Bill being passed.
  7.4 pm
  Dr. Vincent Cable: First, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I must make my excuses as I shall not be in the Chamber for the winding-up speeches. The Government and the Rugby Football Union propose to convert the Twickenham ground into a world-standard athletics stadium. There are hundreds—perhaps—thousands of people in a public hall waiting to hear what I am going to do about that. [HON. MEMBERS: "Stop it."] That is good advice.
  The Bill has some positive elements. I subscribe to the idea of greater commercial freedom, on which there are some limited provisions. There is some advance in making more explicit the public service obligation. The strengthening of the consumer protection element—through the consumer council—is positive.
  However, there is a large negative aspect. As the debate has progressed, it has become painfully evident that there is a large gap—the doubt surrounding the whole Post Office network. Although the Minister is working hard on the development of ideas about subsidies and alternative forms of payment, most of us are far from satisfied as to how those will work.
  I shall concentrate on another aspect of the Bill—what has been called the hybrid system of ownership, and how that will work. In principle, it must be right that the Post Office will be given much greater commercial freedom—in order to face more competition and to cope with e-commerce and technological change. However, I am concerned about the limits.
  The borrowing limit of £75 million a year is small when it is set against the challenges facing the Post Office. The managing director said that he wants to raise about £3 billion, over eight years, for acquisitions and major investments. Simple arithmetic suggests that only 20 per cent. of that could come from annual Government borrowing—even if it were fully used.
  830
  How is the money to be raised? The Post Office could come back to Parliament, but most of us would find it difficult to imagine being called back during the summer recess to make a quick decision over a major business acquisition. That would not be a suitable means to deal with such a matter.
  In practice, the money will have to be raised from the capital markets. In that case, the balance sheet and the cash flow of the Post Office will have to be healthy. I am worried that the underlying financial position of the Post Office is weak. The Government have made a useful concession through the major advance of lifting the Treasury payment and replacing it with a dividend. Assuming that profits continue at their present rates, that would be a gain of about £125 million a year. Of course, the Post Office has to earn the profits, but that measure would provide a positive flow into the organisation and it is to be welcomed.
  However, on the other side of the account is the £400 million loss from automated credit transfers—a matter that has been raised many times. Furthermore, if the regulator presses ahead with the imposition of reductions in reserved business—the reduction of the monopoly from £1 to 50p, as the Government proposed some time ago—the loss has been estimated at about £100 million. We could debate the amount, but it will be another loss.
  The Post Office will lose the £100 million that it would have received from the Horizon project. There is then the problem of gilts, which are on the assets side of the balance sheet at present. After financial restructuring, the Post Office will lose the £110 million interest income from those gilts. I may have misunderstood that matter; perhaps the gilts can be deployed in other, more profitable ways. However, my understanding is that, with restructuring, that money will be lost to the Post Office. That is a substantial loss of income.
  Yesterday, I was told that a large hole had been discovered in the Post Office pension fund; that amounts to a substantial sum—£500 million. That hole will have to be filled over the next 10 years. It is difficult to understand why the pension fund is in that position when equity markets are booming. However, if that information is correct, the Post Office will have to find an additional £50 million a year to plug that hole.
  Mr. Letwin: I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman is surprised. Is he not aware of the Government's £5 billion raid on pension funds through the advance corporation tax dividend tax credit system, and is he not aware that that may be one of the major causes?
  Dr. Cable: It may be a contributory factor, but I understand that the position is considerably worse than was expected even by the actuaries looking at the impact of advance corporation tax. I should be grateful if the Minister would confirm how serious the problem is and tell us how it will be dealt with. If we add up these various losses of income, we are talking about £600 million or £700 million, which accounts for almost all the profits of the Post Office. If that is true, the benefits of the dividend payment will not be realised, and it is a substantial loss to the Post Office. The Post Office will be in a much weaker position from the point of view both of income and of its balance sheet.

  831
  If that happens, what will be the consequences? One of the consequences, which we have been discussing at length, would be the emergence of considerable pressures to cut unprofitable parts of the network. Another consequence, which is already evident, would be that the Post Office would be forced to raise its prices. If it raises its prices, it has the universal service obligation, and inevitably prices will have to rise in the competitive parts of the business. The Post Office will lose business; demand will fall. We are already witnessing a decline in demand for many of the letter services. That will aggravate a vicious spiral within the Post Office commercial operations.
  The question that I wish to pose is: how secure is the financial position of the Post Office? The Government are taking what is, in those circumstances, the fairly high-risk strategy of pushing the Post Office into the capital markets with its plc status. There may well be ways of reversing that process, and I may have added to the story elements that are not valid, but I should be grateful for reassurance. It is important that we have that.
  It is important that we also have some reassurance that the management team that will meet this challenge is composed of people who can handle what is potentially a very difficult financial position.
  It slightly worries me that I have never heard any discussion, on the future of the Post Office, about how to treat its one major asset—its door-to-door delivery service—as an asset rather than an obligation. It is not a parliamentarian's job to tell the Post Office how to do its business, but it seems to me that, in a world of e-commerce, in which there will be an enormous amount of logistic business, with goods being delivered to doors, the Post Office, with its system of storages, its lorries and so on, has a tremendous advantage. However, I have seen no statement of a vision about how the Post Office intends to move into that market. It would be reassuring, especially given the question-marks hanging over Post Office financing, to know how that long-term business future is to be secured.
  Mr. Letwin: The hon. Gentleman is making some serious points. Does he agree that one of the problems with the Government's rather muddled approach is the fact that the Post Office is being sent to the capital markets but not the equity markets, and that the flexibility that the equity markets would offer under privatisation will not be available to it to make up the deficiencies that he is bringing to light?
  Dr. Cable: That is factually correct and there are two ways of dealing with the hybrid situation. One is to advance towards privatisation; there are genuine problems with that and I am not advocating it. The other is to explore in much more depth the option that has been canvassed within the Government, given the current status of the Post Office—to try to turn the public corporation into a genuinely independent entity with much more of a commercial capacity to operate. It is a hybrid situation; one could go one way or the other. There is the BBC direction—the independent publicly owned corporation—or the privatisation route. Obviously, Conservatives will advocate privatisation, but I should like to hear a proper debate of the other option, which gets us away from the weaknesses of the hybrid solution.
  832
  I shall now briefly discuss the network problems, which have been mentioned. The right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley), the former Secretary of State, spoke to that subject very well. When we last debated the Post Office, some of us were accused of scaremongering when we said that a very large number of post office branches might close.
  I was struck by a quotation from the managing director of the Post Office in the press on 30 January, to the effect that, unless the branch network could be subsidised, he would expect up to 8,000 branches to have to close. That was not an alarmist politician; that was someone running the system. As the former Secretary of State pointed out, branches are already closing. He quoted the possibility of 500 closures during this financial year. There have already been 329 in the first nine months of this year.
  Mr. Mike Hancock: May I draw to the attention of my hon. Friend and the House the position in my constituency, which is one of the most densely populated in the country, with 89,000 electors living in a very small area? There are 22 sub-post offices, of which 15 depend for 50 per cent. of their business on benefit payments in one form or another. All of them are doomed to extinction, with no chance of diversifying because they are already in competition in the high streets in Portsmouth, South.
  May I also raise with my hon. Friend -the fact that the right hon. Member—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman's intervention is far too long. It is not an opportunity to make a speech.
  Dr. Cable: My hon. Friend's intervention helpfully reminds us that the worries about the Post Office network are widely dispersed. They are prevalent in rural areas, especially rural Wales—which is the worst affected—rural Scotland and Cornwall, but they are also prevalent in inner-city areas.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Alan Johnson): As I recognise that the hon. Gentleman will be in a scrum later this evening, may I take up the point about a quote by the managing director? It was a quote, not by the managing director, but by the chief executive of the Post Office. The leader of the Liberal Democrats said at Prime Minister's questions:
  The chief executive officer of the Post Office predicts that, if the Postal Services Bill is passed, a further 8,000 post offices will close.—[Official Report, 2 February 2000; Vol. 343, c. 1036.]
  That was absolutely inaccurate and wrong, and I believe that the chief executive of the Post Office will be informing the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Inverness, West (Mr. Kennedy) about that. As for the accurate quote from the newspaper, the chief executive has made it clear that he was setting out to the journalists the available options, and saying that there would be a danger to the network if we could not provide new work or provide a subsidy.
  Dr. Cable: I am sure that we are grateful for the clarification and I am sure that The Observer, which printed that quotation, will feel suitably contrite.

  833
  However, I am glad that the Minister has mentioned that exchange in Prime Minister's Question Time because, when the leader of my party challenged the Prime Minister on that point, he raised the specific issue of a subsidy. I do not have the words with me, but it was something to the effect that subsidies were the kind of silly idea that the Liberal Democrats would come up with. I am glad that, in the past two weeks, the Government have advanced to accepting that subsidy is a necessary element in the picture. Naturally, I would want to press the Secretary of State, but he was unwilling to give way today.
  The fundamental issue is whether the subsidy will be a relatively small amount, doled out to a handful of cases that fail to meet the access criteria, or whether we are talking about the £400 million lost income, and whether the bulk of that lost income will now be recycled back into the Post Office. I believe that hon. Members from all parties must persist in asking that key question, which has never been answered.
  There are many technical issues in the Bill, but tonight we are dealing with the key issues. I should like to discuss the role of the consumer council. The Bill takes a step forward in giving the consumer council more authority, but there is a considerable oddity in that the consumer council will not be allowed to engage in activities to protect consumers outside the remit of the regulator. Therefore, competitive market activities such as registered mail are not subject to consumer protection in the same way as other activities. Equally, the consumer council would be severely constrained in what it can say critically about operators in the market—commercial as well as the Post Office itself. Therefore, there are big question-marks hanging over how far the commitment to consumer protection is followed through in the legislation.
  There are positive elements the Bill; I do not want to be churlish about it. We shall certainly support those elements when they are discussed in Committee. However, big question marks remain over the network, the underlying financial position of the Post Office and the disciplines to which it will now be subjected.
  7.19 pm
  Mr. Martin O'Neill: I would not say that the speech by the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) was characteristically gloomy, but the glass seemed to be more half empty than half full in his eyes. When he was discussing the various charges, he did not take proper account of what one would expect to be the improvement in the fortunes of the Post Office as a consequence of its foreign acquisitions in the past 12 to 15 months. The Post Office's international aspect will become increasingly important. It will develop through foreign activities and it will retain its markets if it smartens up its act.
  I hope that we shall be able to find the money to help the network. Taking £400 million out of it always meant that there would be difficulties. Not all the difficulties relate to the nature of the arrangements. The future of many small post offices, especially in rural areas, has been left hanging by a thread. Other post offices in urban or deprived areas have lost many of the transactions that make up the main element of their revenue because of the fall in unemployment. A consequence of the improvement in the employment situation and the reduction in the number of people receiving benefits has been a change in the fortunes of the postal network. Many of the difficulties are not related to the alleged decline in the economy.
  834
  The absence of anything constructive from the Conservatives has been significant. They say that they do not know—
  Mr. Alan Duncan: Where has the hon. Gentleman been?
  Mr. O'Neill: I have listened to speeches for a long time and I well remember that in 1992, when the hon. Gentleman was still somewhat inebriated by his election to Parliament, the Conservatives were elected to end the Post Office's monopoly. There was no talk of privatisation then; they came to power committed to ending the monopoly.
  When the hon. Gentleman winds up, perhaps he will tell us whether the Conservative party will end the monopoly. In the Netherlands, the model is one of privatisation, but on the basis of a monopoly. In contrast, in Sweden, the post office is still state owned, but it is state ownership with competition. I believe that competition in postal services is desirable and I want the regulator to consider that. I do not want to rehearse all the arguments on that point, but I wish to make my position clear.
  I am happy with the balance of the proposals. Over several years, my colleagues on the Select Committee on Trade and Industry have examined the issues. When the Minister was a trade union officer and came before us, we used to complain about the way in which the Post Office was run, the poor industrial relations and its absence of commercial awareness and sensitivity. In many respects, our criticisms have been met by the unions and by the management. Recent industrial relations agreements have removed many of the concerns that we expressed and we have the prospect of the management introducing substantial changes with the guaranteed co-operation of the unions.
  We were not prepared to support Government investment in the Post Office when there was no guarantee that that investment would be realised because of the obduracy at times of certain sections of the work force. I foresee the disappearance of such obduracy and I am pleased that the Post Office will have access to funds.
  We would have heard different arguments if the Post Office were to be given even greater access to borrowing facilities. People would have said that the Government were too free with their money. It is only correct that a business of this character must be flexible in its operation while having the opportunity to borrow. However, it should borrow not on the basis of soft loans, but on the basis of realistic market rates. That is the suggestion being made.
  I would like to ask my hon. Friend the Minister about the arrangements for the sale of shares. An interpretation of clauses 54 to 56 suggests that the meaning of the term relevant subsidiaries is vague. Does it refer to the core United Kingdom business or does it include other businesses and services? Does it mean that the sale of businesses, such as German Parcel and other foreign acquisitions, of services, such as catering, or of equities in Post Office Counters would be subject to the discipline of a parliamentary debate? That point is critical. I know that it may be explored in Committee, but it would help to have the matter resolved now. The vagueness and inadequacy of the definitions in clauses 54 to 56 suggest that certain share deals could be transacted without proper parliamentary scrutiny.

  835
  It is important that we afford the Post Office the opportunity, if appropriate, to sell off parts of its business. However, that must be subject to proper scrutiny. That would also help us to work through the financial difficulties that the hon. Member for Twickenham explained so lucidly. To carry with them everyone who supports the deal, the Government should make the position clear beyond peradventure at the earliest possible opportunity. We do not want people to be unduly suspicious about the disposal of assets.
  I am also somewhat concerned about the Crown Post Office network. It is not clear whether it would be subsidised by anything other than the Post Office. There are a number of towns in which the Crown post office is central to the commercial life of the town. For example, I know what problems would result if the post office in Alloa, the main town in my constituency, were in danger. A large proportion of its work is the paying of benefits. There are 600 Crown post offices, so we need clarity on this issue, too. If one retail outlet can be the flagship for the postal network, it is the Crown Post Office. It has access to funds and the deals that might be struck. I hope that those funds can then percolate through the system to smaller rural post offices.
  I have repeatedly said in the House in debates on the Post Office that one of the most exciting developments is to bring the retail services of the Post Office on-line as soon as possible. In particular, it should take advantage of the opportunities afforded by e-commerce in all its forms. We hear much pious talk about having on-line computer facilities available in libraries. Frankly, many of the people who are excluded from the e-commerce revolution never go into libraries, but they go into the post office or the shop at the end of the street. They have just as much right to have access to e-commerce even if they do not have computers or interactive television. Even if it is only a question of putting on a bet, they should be entitled to do that if the appropriate facilities are there.
  This is a substantial Bill. It needs fine tuning, but it is ridiculous for the Tories to rant on about the need for amendments. I give the Bill unqualified support. It has been the subject of years of consultation and discussion and I am pleased that my hon. Friend the Minister will reply to the debate, because so much of the Bill is due to his authorship and support.
  7.29 pm
  Mr. Simon Thomas: I am delighted to have the opportunity to speak on the Bill, which is of great interest to my constituents. During the Ceredigion by-election that sent me to the House, the future of rural post offices weighed heavily on the minds of the voters and it was one of the issues that was raised most often on the doorsteps. As I visited nearly all the sub-post offices in my constituency, I was approached several times to sign the petition to save our post offices. I can assure the Minister, who may receive the petition, that I signed it only once.
  As this is my first address to the House, I should like to take a few moments to explain why the Bill is so vital to us in Ceredigion. Hon. Members will know that the constituency is rural; indeed, only three towns have a population of more than 2,000. Given that Ceredigion's
  836
  total population is more than 70,000, hon. Members will appreciate not only the rural nature of the constituency, but the extreme sparsity of the population.
  Ceredigion is, however, one of the most dynamic, changing areas in Wales. We have the fastest growing population of any Welsh county and are second only to Cardiff in gross, rather than percentage, population growth. That growth is realised, on the whole, by net in-migration. As many as 1,200 people move into our county each year. They bring energy, fresh ideas and often a vision of how they want to live their lives. I claim to know that because I am one of them. One in three of the electorate were born outside Ceredigion, which is notable for a rural area.
  That leaves us with a rather unbalanced population. It is older than average for Wales, due to the number of people who retire into the area and the number of young people who leave in search of more productive pastures. Although the large number of in-migrants invigorates many small rural communities, it has affected the position of the Welsh language. Even so, 60 per cent. of my constituents are Welsh speaking and the language can be heard on every high street and in every school, mart and workplace.
  The small family farm remains the cornerstone of the economic and social bulwark of Welsh culture in Ceredigion. I hope that the House is already familiar with and sympathetic to the current farming crisis. If not, the by-election results should serve as a reminder. I emphasise only that low farming incomes have fallen three years in succession to as little as £4,500 a year, which must support two or three generations on one farm. The strong pound means that farming and tourism in Ceredigion are under siege. That economic context has given us objective 1 status.
  That situation is a real threat to our future because traditional farmers and the increasing number of organic farmers are the main guardians of our environment, which is tremendously captivating and beautiful and gives the county a huge advantage, albeit yet not fully realised, in tourism. Much of our coastline is a heritage coast and we have numerous sites of special scientific interest, particularly wetlands, as one might expect in Wales. Perhaps the most singular environment is Cardigan bay itself, much of which is now designated a special area of conservation and is home to Britain's only resident population of the bottle-nosed porpoise. I know that hon. Members will be interested in that, given that we have been discussing jet skis.
  The final part of the Ceredigion jigsaw is the public sector, which consists of local government, our two universities and an excellent general hospital at Bronglais, which we are all determined to retain and enhance. In an economy that is more dependent than the UK average on the public sector, the current policy of keeping public spending below 40 per cent. of gross domestic product has a disproportionate effect. It leads to frustration in our schools, hospitals and universities. Despite that, I am pleased to say that our local education authority achieved the best GCSE and A-level results in Wales last year.
  Such a diverse and dynamic mix of people demanded a very special Member. I am delighted to take this opportunity to pay tribute to my predecessor, Cynog Dafis. Hon. Members may recall that Mr. Dafis was elected with the biggest swing in the 1992 election as a

  837
  joint Plaid Cymru-Green MP. Until last year, he was the only Member elected on a Green ticket to a UK legislative body.
  Cynog Dafis quickly became respected in the House for his work on green and rural issues. He held office in Praseg—the all-party group on renewable and sustainable energy—and Globe UK. He was awarded the title of greenest MP, and I like to think that having been here for one week, I too hold that title, albeit in a different sense. Cynog Dafis also promoted three important Bills: the Home Energy Conservation Act 1997, the Road Traffic Reduction Act 1997 and the Road Traffic Reduction (United Kingdom Targets) Act 1998—targets still to be met, of course.
  In Ceredigion, Cynog Dafis was seen as having helped to create a vision of a sustainable future which a wide spectrum of opinion could share. I am sure that hon. Members will want to join me in wishing Cynog "lwc dda" in our National Assembly. His greatest accolade must be the affection and respect in which he was and still is held in Ceredigion. His leadership and personal qualities endeared not only himself but Plaid Cymru, the party that he represented, to the people of Ceredigion. If I cannot fill his shoes, I can at least try to walk in his footsteps.
  It is that context that makes the Bill important to my constituency. Eighteen years of free market economic policies has done little for rural services. Shops, surgeries, buses, pubs, dentists and banks have gone. It is unfortunate that policies have not substantially changed. The Bill, and attendant policies such as automated credit transfer, could undermine our last strong rural service: the post office. Nevertheless, I congratulate the Secretary of State and the Minister on trying to find a way forward for the Post Office that will allow it to remain in public ownership and to compete internationally. The drawback is that this brave new world of commercial freedom seems to have few safeguards for the rural post office.
  The introduction of ACT is of particular concern. Some 44 of the 73 post offices in my constituency derive over 40 per cent. of their direct income from benefit payments, so that does not account for the income that they derive from people coming into the shop. A Government-driven move to impose ACT would be highly injurious to those post offices and would have a huge knock-on effect on the services that they provide.
  I am concerned that the Government want the majority of benefit payments to be made by ACT after 2003. I therefore urge the Minister to read the performance and innovation unit's forthcoming study on the future of the network and consider how post offices could contribute to the Government's laudable aims of combating social exclusion and achieving joined-up government. It may well transpire that rural post offices can demonstrate the need for cross-subsidisation in recognition of the other services that they perform. The only warning that I would sound is that local government should not be expected to pick up the tab and savings from ACT should be utilised. I welcome the Secretary of State' s earlier remarks on that.
  These days a west Wales post office is like a corn store in the wild west. It sells everything and performs vital tasks such as delivering coal, gas and prescriptions to older people. It often sells many locally produced goods, and my hon. Friend the Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) is looking particularly well on the
  838
  honey that he has consumed as part of the campaign. That pattern of social support builds local communities, helps to reduce reliance on private cars and keeps resources in the local economy. I ask the House to consider whether the Bill and ACT will help or hinder the performance of that valuable service.
  I ask the Minister to look again at certain elements of the Bill. Will he give the House an assurance that the £1 monopoly will remain? Will he make it crystal clear that the Government are not seeking to privatise the service by the back door? I suggest that the way to do so is to reconsider clause 56 and to set a limit for share disposal. The Bill should make provision for the National Assembly of Wales to appoint a representative to the Postal Services Commission, because there would then be a far better balance on the commission. The Bill should make similar provision for the so-called regional committee of the Consumer Council for Postal Services to have devolved responsibilities in Wales and to report to the National Assembly on Welsh matters. The hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Morgan) made a similar point in an intervention.
  Those are some of the safeguards that could at least ensure that rural interests are represented in the new-look postal services, and I ask the House to support my suggestions to show that it does consider rural and Welsh interests.
  7.38 pm
  Mr. Sam Galbraith: I very much enjoyed the maiden speech by the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas), which was splendid in content and extremely well delivered. I was particularly attracted by his description of his constituency. I have travelled extensively in Wales, and as a youngster I spent many a day there climbing. It is a country to which I have always returned with affection. The hon. Gentleman is fortunate to represent such a fine part of the British isles.
  I was also pleased by the hon. Gentleman's remarks about his predecessor. I worked with Cynog Dafis in Committees in the House. We did not take similar views, but his were always respected and given with honesty and decency. I know that the hon. Gentleman will continue with that tradition, and I am sure that he will become as much of an asset to the House as his predecessor was.
  I also enjoyed the speech of the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley). I could see the pain of a man who has been a Minister and gone through many agonising considerations during the daily grind of decision making. The only problem is that he got the decisions wrong, especially in respect of ACT, which appears to be the focus of the debate.
  The right hon. Gentleman also got wrong the compliments he paid to the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning). It is not that she made a bad speech—she made her usual sparky start, but her speech deteriorated into one more suited to Committee than to Second Reading. The especially bad part of her speech was the beginning, when she railed, ranted and raved about the Government having to make amendments to the Bill, which she appears to believe is disgraceful. The hon. Lady is trying to rewrite history. She and other Conservative Members will remember Bills introduced by the Conservative Government to which not several

  839
  amendments, but page after page of amendments had to be made, not only in Committee but in the other place and on Report. We would end up with a Bill that was completely different from the one with which we had started. Let us have no more hypocrisy on that subject.
  The hon. Lady also criticised the Bill for being, in her words, a hybrid Bill. I happen to think that one of the Bill's strengths is that it enshrines the value of partnership, whereby the efficiency and effectiveness of the private sector is merged with the true values and relationships of the public sector. If we create a true public-private partnership, we and all our constituents will get a much better system and much better provision of service.
  Like my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Connarty), I pay tribute to those who have worked in the various branches of this nation's postal service, especially those who look after me locally—not merely through the service they provide to my house and my constituency, but through the consideration and the time that they have given to me. I want those people and their values, and the service that they provide to me and many others, to be maintained. The Bill is the way to achieve that.
  The position of the people I have described would be threatened by a decision to maintain the status quo—that cannot be the way forward. Like all of us, they know that the world is changing and that we cannot pretend that progress does not exist. Such an attitude would pose a threat both to postal workers and to sub-post offices—a subject I shall come to shortly. We are witnessing many changese—commerce, e-mail, globalisation and interaction between sectors—even in small matters: for example, I notice how many things that once came to me via the Post Office are now brought by other service providers. The notion that the Post Office cannot compete in such services threatens the whole ethos of the Post Office.
  We should not be afraid of change, and we must not pretend that we can hold it back. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said that he bore the scars of trying to make changes in the public sector; I bear a few of those myself. Resistance is always dressed up in some sort of pretence, always false—for example, that profits will be put before patients, or that safety standards will be compromised. We should not stand against the tide that is approaching the Post Office, otherwise we shall again be proved wrong.
  We must embrace change and modernise. We must stop talking about the producer, the system and the structure and start to talk about the service provided and the outputs produced by those who are involved in the work. That is what service is all about, and the great advantage of the Bill is that, by marrying the values of the public sector with the efficiency and effectiveness of the private sector, we can deliver a much better service.
  I understand the reason why many of us are concerned about sub-post offices. Sub-post offices fall into two categories: urban, like those familiar to my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Mr. Roy) and many others, and rural.
  Mr. Nigel Evans: Oh, "And rural"! That means a Tory gain.
  Mr. Galbraith: The two sorts are different, they have different problems and may require different solutions.
  Mr. Frank Roy: There are certainly two basic types of sub-post offices. In my constituency, 88 per cent. of post offices rely on the Benefits Agency for almost 50 per cent. of their business—a huge proportion of any business. Does my hon. Friend accept the guarantees that we have heard Ministers give repeatedly, namely, that all claimants will still be able to claim and collect their money from the post office in future? Does he agree that that is the way forward: to change, but to guarantee a future for the post offices and benefits claimants?
  Mr. Galbraith: I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend. The way not to guarantee that future would be to stop the advance of ACT; to do that would be detrimental and would lead to the destruction of many more post offices. We cannot have a system that has to be propped up and that will probably change any way because the world is changing. More and more people will want to take advantage of ACT, so if we try to build a system that is protected from ACT, we shall not only do a disservice to those who want ACT and all the benefits it carries, but threaten the very sub-post offices we are trying to protect. If post offices do not change, they will come to be seen as bulwarks against progress—blasts from the past maintaining an out-of-date system in dingy offices, using inkwells and quills to process transactions. We must find ways to bring post offices into the new century.
  The same applies to rural post offices. I object to the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) implying that Labour Members do not know anything about rural areas. My constituency contains rural areas—not comfortable ones, either. In the Western Isles, there is a problem with service provision because of the vast distances that have to be covered before deliveries can be made. In such areas, we must consider the services that are already provided and look for ways to enhance them. I have travelled extensively in such areas and I know that, sometimes, it is not a post office that is wanted, but a bank. Perhaps we should look for ways in which banking and other services can be provided. In some villages, the post office and the shop are separate. Is it not time we considered how to integrate such services?
  I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for calling me to speak. I welcome the Bill, which represents a major advance for the Post Office and those who work in it. More important, it will improve the service provided, not only to those of us who live in urban areas, but to those who live in rural areas throughout the country.
  7.48 pm
  Mr. Tony Baldry: I am sure that all Conservative Members welcome the maiden speech of the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas). His was an interesting and enjoyable contribution, and we look forward to hearing him speak on many occasions in future.
  Two fundamental concerns arise from the Government's proposals as set out in the Bill. The first is that they represent the second-best solution for the Post

  841
  Office. I am a member of the Select Committee on Trade and Industry, which is chaired by the hon. Member for Ochil (Mr. O'Neill). In the past three years, it has held innumerable sittings during which we have considered the subject of the Post Office. It has produced three extensive reports, covering every aspect of the issue. In each report, its members have been unanimous in stressing that the solution for the Post Office is to make it an independent publicly owned company. How can a company that is 100 per cent. state owned be remotely independent?
  I welcome the Post Office being granted plc status and being freer to compete in a highly competitive marketplace. However, I do not welcome 100 per cent. retention of public ownership. The Post Office will still be subject to Treasury control, which is unfair. How can the Post Office compete effectively in the marketplace without being fully privatised? How can it compete on a level playing field with the rest of Europe, especially with Dutch and German post offices, without selling at least 51 per cent. of shares? The Bill simply will not give the Post Office the full freedom to manoeuvre that it needs to tackle such obstacles.
  Indeed, it is absurd that the Government do not allow meaningful competition or recognise that there is an alternative to state control. Privatisation works: it has been one of the striking success stories of the past 20 years. It brought about dramatic improvements in the former public sector utilities by removing the dead hand of state control, and subjecting companies to the fresh wind of competition and the discipline of the markets. Privatisation has created a substantial improvement in customer services and a substantial reduction in prices.
  It is clear that the Government have not fully privatised the Post Office simply because of pressure from the Post Office unions. The general secretary of the Communication Workers Union has already said that he is unhappy because possible share swaps might mean that some of the Post Office ends up out of Government hands. It is no wonder that no shares were sold.
  Even if the Post Office issued shares to acquire other companies under the Government's proposals, it might be able to do so only after Parliament had voted on the issue. The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry told the House last year that the Government would not seek to dispose of Post Office shares without further primary legislation. I appreciate that we are considering a sensitive issue, but the Post Office has been put in a crazy position.
  The Select Committee on Trade and Industry has examined the problems of the Bill and the potential hampering of the Post Office's competitiveness. It is again patently obvious that by not being fully privatised, the Post Office will be precluded from effectively competing. That is yet another obstacle to effective competitiveness with our fellow European countries.
  The Bill constitutes an example of competitive constraint. It would help if the Government did not blur the lines on when primary legislation was required. The possibility of seeking a resolution of both Houses is confined to cases when the Post Office, the Department of Trade and Industry and the Treasury agree that that is a good idea. However, the Bill places no restriction on limited sale.
  The Government did not give the Trade and Industry Committee an adequate explanation when questioned on the issue. Is there any limit to how much can be sold as
  842
  long as it is part of a joint venture? If not, how does that fulfil the Secretary of State's undertaking for only limited sales without primary legislation? Nothing in the Bill would prevent a sale of majority holdings.
  We have also already witnessed the adverse effects of union interference on customer service. Despite reducing the postal privilege for letters and packages from £1 to 50p last year, the Government reversed their policy under pressure from the Post Office unions in the run-up to the 1999 Labour party conference.
  The Government state that the new regulator will determine the rate at which postal privilege is set. That worried many witnesses who appeared before the Trade and Industry Committee, which recommended that the Bill sorted out postal privileges. However, it remains unclear which privileges, if any, have been dropped. It would be helpful if the Government could inform us of the various privileges enjoyed by the Post Office that have been abolished, and if any have been added. Doubtless we shall learn more about that when we consider the 300 or more amendments that we shall table as the Bill proceeds.
  There are also anxieties among the Periodical Publishers Association. It represents the magazine publishing industry, which is worth around £250 million each year to the Post Office. The PPA estimates that the Post Office costs approximately 30 per cent. more than the best-of-class comparisons. Its members are naturally worried about how fairly the Post Office will treat the industry and about the Post Office's commitment. The PPA believes that the new commission should introduce transparent benchmarking against best-of-class comparisons to provide a more competitive service. That benchmarking might be better all round if the Post Office faced the full winds of competition.
  The Post Office will be allowed to borrow only a derisory £75 million. As The Daily Telegraph pointed out last year, that figure will not increase. The Trade and Industry Committee found that worrying. Our report on the Government's White Paper stated that
  "it is questionable how far either new borrowing facilities at commercial rates or the Treasury foregoing the excessive level of dividend previously taken can be fairly represented as 'providing' vast sums of extra money for the Post Office."
  The requirement for ministerial approval is also wholly inadequate for a company with a turnover of £7 billion.
  The half measures in the Bill simply do not fully enhance the competitiveness of the Post Office. To compete internationally, it is imperative that the Post Office be able to make deals, alliances and acquisitions across the world, such as those that the German and Dutch post offices make. Again, I stress that the 100 per cent. state control that the measure proposes will make it impossible for the Post Office to act with the necessary vigour and decisiveness. Surely it is better for consumers to let the Post Office take full advantage of the fresh winds of competition. The Government have fundamentally failed to do that through the measure. They are failing the Post Office and consumers.
  My second anxiety is the uncertainty about the future of sub-post offices and village post offices after the sudden and somewhat reckless abandonment of the Horizon project. I represent a large rural constituency and there is considerable concern among my constituents that they may lose their local post offices. It is foolish of the Government not to incorporate the network in the Bill. Conservative Members recognised the real need and

  843
  genuine concerns of many people and the potentially harmful consequences that would occur without Horizon. As the Trade and Industry Committee stated in its report on the system:
  "this was recognised to be the only way to ensure the future survival and prosperity of the post office network."
  The Government's decision not to provide for the scheme in the Bill will threaten the future of the 19,000 sub-post offices, which rely for 40 per cent. of their income on administering benefits. The omission amounts to yet another Government attack on the fabric of rural Britain and on the livelihoods of people there.
  It is no good the Government using soothing words of reassurance to those who rely on the Post Office network that they will not suffer and that postmasters and mistresses will be able to compensate for their loss of income. Many people are simply not prepared for or do not want a new system forced on them.
  The Government also mislead by presenting an image of great floods of people opting for ACT. According to Department of Social Security figures, only 34 per cent. choose to have benefits paid by ACT. In our report on the Horizon project last year, the Trade and Industry Committee found that few pensioners opt for ACT; fewer than one in 10 income support recipients choose ACT; and fewer than one in three new benefit recipients opt for ACT. Indeed, the report states that
  "the fact remains that, for a variety of reasons, most new benefit recipients still opt for cash in hand from a post office … this choice must be respected in action as well as paper."
  However, that will not happen simply because the Government have decided not to progress with Horizon and have not included similar provisions for the Post Office network in the Bill. It is a shabby piece of work by the Treasury, which has put pressure on the Department of Trade and Industry, in the belief that a massive saving can be made. That does the Government no credit. It is a double blow to many people in rural areas. A recent survey in the Financial Times revealed that only 5 per cent. of parishes have bank or building society branches.
  The Bill is a bad measure. It is a hashed compromise to placate the trade unions and a genuine threat to sub-post offices and village post offices throughout the United Kingdom.
  7.58 pm
  Dr. George Turner: My constituency, like that of the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry), is large and rural. Approximately half my constituents live in the market town of King's Lynn, and the others are divided between some 64 parishes. Much of my constituency is sparsely populated, and in many villages my constituents depend on access to the village post office.
  I have a long-standing interest in village post offices. My grandmother ran a rural post office in a village of a few hundred people. As well as bringing up her nine children, she worked hard in the post office. I also appreciated from an early age the benefits that the rural post office can bring to a village community. In those days, a village of a few hundred people had two or three shops, two pubs and a post office. Today, such villages have no shops, no post office and no pubs.
  844
  In my 30 years in Norfolk, I have seen an undramatic but steady decline in the rural post office network's ability to deliver. Despite the public regularly expressing their support for post offices and regularly protesting when one closes, no Government in recent decades have taken the actions necessary to halt that decline. I believe that the Bill offers that very opportunity, which is why it has my strong support.
  My local newspaper, the Lynn News and Citizen, is proud of its campaigning on behalf of its readers and has chosen today to launch its campaign to save our post offices. I hope that all its readers will not only sign the petition to show their support for the post offices in north-west Norfolk but will do more than that—use their local post offices. It is not enough for people to wear their hearts on their sleeves and say that they support post offices if they drive past them in their cars and do not take advantage of the services that they provide. I hope and understand from the assurances that have been given from the Front Bench that pensioners will feel reassured that they will be able to continue to congregate in post offices to collect their money in cash and experience the social intercourse that post offices provide in many villages.
  My fear is that if those who seek to protect post offices frighten the public, they will take other action even though there is no need to do so. People should not be frightened into opening bank accounts if they do not want to. In the absence of Government action, however, about 50 per cent. of new pensioners and those who receive child benefit are taking that option. We simply cannot sit there like Canute and try to hold back the tide of progress. The Bill's strength is that it seeks to protect by modernising and looking ahead rather than by turning back the clock.
  If we are to make progress, we must recognise not only the strength of public support for post offices, but the post offices' weaknesses. My grandmother has been dead for 35 years, but if she was able to go into many of the rural post offices in my constituency, she would feel at home almost immediately. She would probably recognise the paperwork—and certainly its style—and that very fact speaks volumes about lack of investment, which is one of the major problems of today's Post Office Counters. Governments of all colours are to blame for that, but we must recognise in particular that, although the previous Government talked about investment, which was needed desperately, they never delivered. I welcome the present Government's clear intention to ensure that substantial sums are invested in every post office in my constituency and throughout the United Kingdom so that they have the base not only to deliver the services that they currently deliver but to move into providing Government services and to take over the provision of services from which the commercial sector has run away.
  I recently complained in the House about the closure of the last bank in Heacham, which has 5,000 inhabitants and is the largest village in my constituency. Why did it close? There was a clear failure of the commercial marketplace. None of the banks had enough customers, they argued, to justify their presence, but hon. Members should remember that 5,000 people live in Heacham and that pensioners want access to cash and counter facilities. That represents a clear opportunity for a rejuvenated post office in Heacham to take custom and provide a service. I was sad that the local post office was not proactive in

  845
  advertising its services when the banks in Heacham were closing, but I understand that Ministers are seeking such opportunities through the policy unit and hope that they will be delivered in the months ahead.
  Post offices are crying out for investment, and I hope that it is delivered. Having used them most of my life, I know that the model of my childhood—which involved a friendly face, a helping hand with the paperwork if necessary and guidance from those who ran the post office—is not always what we find in the public sector. Over the years, I found that an element of the Post Office, mainly on the Royal Mail side, sometimes displayed the worst aspects of the public service. The attitude was, "We're doing you a great favour by being here. You should take what service we deliver and be grateful for it," but that encourages those who see "privatise, privatise, privatise" as a solution.
  Unless we face up to the problem, we shall strengthen that voice so it is important to address the ills of the monopoly. That is why I welcome the clear commitment to put into law a standard of access to postal services and access to post office counters. If we set up a regulatory system that looks not only to the maintenance of services but to their improvement—both are included in the Bill—we shall be doing more than merely paying lip service to making such improvements, and my constituents will be truly grateful for what the Bill delivers.
  Delivery is important. In my one of my villages, for example, Mr. Pitcher, who runs a small transport operation in Walpole St. Andrew, employs 16 people, but does not receive his one delivery until the afternoon. Next door to him, Mr. Atkin employs nine people in a business of the size that hon. Members would expect to find in a small village. He has 80 customers to serve, but the times of his deliveries vary from 10.30 am and 2.40 pm. When we talked about the Post Office, he said to me, "If I ran my business like they do I would be out of business within a week."
  Those issues need to be addressed and I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will assure me that the standard of service that my rural constituents can expect will certainly not deteriorate and that they will have a substantial opportunity to see them improved. That improvement will be achieved by the Bill.
  8.8 pm
  Mr. Richard Page: I have a degree of sympathy for the poor Minister for Competitiveness, who has to sum up tonight and deal with the Bill in Committee. I say that because this is a sad and miserable little Bill. It is badly drafted, as has already been admitted, and will be subject to thousands of amendments. [Interruption.] Hon. Members may think I am joking, but I am prepared to bet that we get into four figures before the Committee stage is out.
  The Minister has an unenviable job, as he has to face two ways at once. He snaps his head to the left, turns to the neanderthals of old Labour and says, "Don't worry comrades." They still like to be called comrades. They are nodding their heads in agreement; that is what I like to see. The hon. Gentleman says, "The Post Office will still be under state control; we'll own 100 per cent; don't worry—the lunchtime directive is alive and well and living in government."
  846
  Then, quick as a flash, he will turn to the right and say "Don't worry. This is a golden opportunity to set the Post Office free to get out into those markets and to succeed in world competition. Look at the borrowing abilities that we are pushing into the Post Office."
  The reality is that it is a poor and staggering, faltering step, instead of a bold stride towards commercial freedom.
  I have noticed in this debate an enthusiasm by Government supporters to try to rewrite history. When we were in government we wanted to do a BT on the Post Office. I remember all the comments that were made when we set BT free—about the telephone boxes that would be closed, about the cherry picking that would happen. We were told that prices would go up. What was the truth? The telephone boxes are more accessible and more operative than ever before. Prices have come down and a welter of new services has become available.
  We wanted to do that for the Post Office, but when we suggested it the Labour party did not say, "We should like to see some form of liberalisation": instead, it went into a flat spin and opposed everything that we suggested.
  This is why I have only partial sympathy for the Under-Secretary: a very clever campaign was run; a public relations company put forward a number of messages and persuaded 12 to 15 alleged Government supporters, most of whom have now lost their seats, to say that the proposals would ruin the rural post offices.
  It was only later that I discovered from a television documentary that the union itself was the funder behind the campaign, though it kept a very low profile. It was very well done. I congratulate the Under-Secretary. He did it brilliantly. He undoubtedly had an involvement in his previous life. If he wishes to deny it, I should be only too delighted to hear him do it at the Dispatch Box.
  One thing that must be said from the Conservative Benches is that it is marvellous that the Government are taking the first step towards privatisation with the establishment of a plc. As someone who has moved an organisation from the public sector into the private sector, I regard this as one of the main hurdles to overcome. Therefore, I must say thank you to the Government for it.
  The neanderthals may look at the proposals with alarm, and in the debate so far one or two have put down markers about the possible sale or swapping of shares. That is only to be expected.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley) made a very powerful speech in the 10 minutes available. He rightly called the Secretary of State's speech a poor performance. It was policy being made on the hoof—so typical of this Government. It comes under the heading of, "It seemed a good idea at the time".
  What is wrong is to lay huge worries and concerns on the whole of our sub-post office network by talking about ACT without looking at the other side of the equation. Now the Secretary of State is scrambling around trying to fill the financial black hole created for the sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses, when that work should have been done first. I hope that the Under-Secretary will say that the Government are undertaking an in-depth study to see just how the new equipment can be used to generate revenue for the sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses. The quicker that is done, the better.
  There must be more than lovely words. The proposals must be costed. It must be possible to tell the sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses, "It will mean a

  847
  revenue of X to compensate for what you will lose." As a number of hon. Members have commented—and not only from the Conservative Benches—that worry is being created in the minds of the sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses, whose livelihoods are at stake. Not everybody grasps the fact that the sub-post offices are privately owned, and as they are privately owned they could go down.
  The Government are destroying the value of the sub-post offices. Who wants to buy a sub-post office when he or she can see perhaps 40 per cent. of its revenue disappearing out of the window? The quicker the Under-Secretary, who understands these matters, says, "We have calculated that there will be an increase to every sub-postmaster through using this new equipment," the better.
  Most of these matters will be raised in Committee, and that is only right. But I must express slight concern about the amount of money that the Post Office is allowed to borrow in its own right. We have only to see the sums of money that it has been necessary for post offices throughout the world to expend in order to consolidate their networks to see what the real world is about. It is not a matter of £75 million or even hundreds of millions: I think that we are into the billions.
  When TNT was bought by the Dutch post office the cost was 2 billion Australian dollars. That was quite a few years ago, and I wonder what the figure would be if it were inflation-counted.
  What did Deutsche Post pay for a quarter of DHL? It did not get that for £75 million. As we know, although it is terribly secret, and we must not say anything about it, the Post Office was given permission to expend some £300 million to buy German Parcel. The proof of the pudding will be in the eating, when we see how much money is made available by this Government in order for our Post Office to stand a chance against huge and savage competition.
  I should have liked to move into the whole area of possible subsidies for sub-post offices, where the Secretary of State seemed again to be making policy on the hoof. I can only say that the Committee stage should be interesting. It will be a very long slog. As all Oppositions should, we look to clean up the Government's act and ultimately to produce a viable Bill for the future of the Post Office.
  8.17 pm
  Mr. Tony Colman: I welcome the Bill, which gives us for the first time a framework for postal services in the United Kingdom.
  I should like to start by praising the staff who look after all the sub-post offices in Putney. I would particularly draw attention to the Danebury avenue sub-post office in Roehampton, and congratulate the work of Mrs. Valerie Cooper and Mrs. Linda Doran there. It is in a shopping centre which 10 years ago had five banks. Three years ago it had none. One of the reasons why I welcome the proposals for payment of benefits through bank accounts and the introduction of banking services through post offices is that areas like Roehampton, which has some 12,000 people living in it, will at last regain access to mainstream banking.
  848
  It is important to recognise the great advantages to many who are socially excluded because they cannot have contact with banks. There are great benefits if they have bank accounts: they can enjoy discounts for direct debits and can negotiate cheaper loans and overdrafts than would be available through other sources. There are many positive elements.
  It is very important to pick up what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said in opening, which is that we must ensure that where sub-post offices are undermined by the movement to payment of benefits through bank accounts, a subsidy should be available to them. The problem is not simply in rural post offices. It applies in all areas where the banks have moved out.
  Having praised the sub-post offices, I move on to talk about the bane of my life, which is the postal delivery service in Putney. There are three key issues in Putney. One is the local health economy. The second is aircraft noise. But the one that produces by far the greatest postbag relates to the postal service, which over the last two and a half years has got worse. I first raised the matter in the House on 7 December 1998, when my right hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson), then Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, announced his proposals for opening up the possibilities for the Post Office to move into the wider remit afforded by the Bill. However, the various assurances that I have had following various meetings have come to naught.
  Before the debate, I asked the Clerks whether I could spend the remaining seven minutes of my speech reading out letters of complaint about postal services in Putney. I was told that that would not be possible; but I must make it clear that I could fill one hundred times ten minutes with such complaints, which have become more and more vociferous. In Putney, Christmas cards have been delivered only in the past two weeks. The situation is beyond a joke, and has been so for quite a long time.
  Giros sent by the Department of Social Security on 10 December arrived on 5 January. Bills from credit and charge companies arrive late, and customers incur late-payment penalties. Local vicars receive written confirmation of funerals the day after they have been conducted. Apparently, until November most complaints in one area concerned the fact that there was only one delivery—and that arrived at 11 am or later. This month, there had been a further deterioration. In many streets, there was no delivery at all on one or two days of the week.
  This information comes from Judith Chegwidden, of the Putney Society, who adds that the pattern in her own street this week is a common experience for many other residents. She says that on Thursday the post arrived after 3 pm, and that that was the only delivery of the day. Most of the mail had taken at least 48 hours to be delivered. There was no delivery on Friday, and on the Saturday morning, at about 8.30 am, a man who was clearly a stranger to the area, with no uniform, was seen struggling along with an overflowing trolley.
  Mrs. Chegwidden further informs me that a delivery was received, followed by a period during which residents redelivered items that had not reached their correct target. I do not agree with the comment that followed, but it is important to establish the strength of feeling in Putney. That comment was:
  "This sort of chaotic service is just not acceptable. The Royal Mail faces competition from electronic mail and from companies such as TNT, and the Royal Mail will rapidly lose customers".

  849
  Businesses in Putney are suffering too. KWP Media says:
  "We are getting to a situation where no deliveries were made during the middle of January."
  Apparently, a neighbour knocked on the door two weeks ago and reported a huge delivery of between 5 and 7 kg, which
  "included all the papers we were missing as a business"—
  cheques, statements, invoices, and a reminder from the Inland Revenue sent in the middle of December to mind the deadline for a partnership tax declaration; worst of all, there was a VAT demand posted by Customs and Excise around 10 December, with a deadline of 31 January, which arrived in February.
  That is not acceptable. It is clear that the management of the Putney postal sorting office is appalling. I have had apologies from John Roberts, chief executive of the Post Office, who has said that he is dealing with it. Indeed, I have had three such apologies, and I want to ensure that the matter is brought to the attention of the House. I have asked the Post Office to ensure that compensation is available to those who have suffered as a result of the present ludicrous state of affairs. That is currently being dealt with by the chief executive, and I look forward to hearing from him.
  During their 18 years in office, the Tories did nothing to ensure that there was a universal service obligation, or any basis for compensation; and there was no accountability. The Bill provides for an independent regulator with a postal services commission. That establishes a basis for the setting of quality standards, for investigation and for the imposing of mandatory penalties for breach of licence conditions. I am disappointed to note that there is no mention in the Bill of compensation to consumers for the concerns of my constituents in Putney. I hope that the Minister will explain how individual consumers and businesses will be able to secure compensation if the universal service obligation is broken, as it has been so flagrantly in Putney over the past two years.
  POUNC will now have beefed-up responsibilities under its new name of the Consumer Council for Postal Services. I look forward to the establishment of a committee for London with teeth, which will be able to "get in amongst" the management of the Putney sorting office to ensure that the matter is dealt with. Let me also say in passing that I support the POUNC proposal to refer to the Secretary of State the increases of up to 10 per cent. in Royal Mail charges that have been introduced this week.
  I am not pleased to draw to the House's attention the lamentable performance of the postal services in Putney. I am extremely worried about the fact that the management seem continually to blame the trade unions. This has gone on far too long. The Bill gives power to the Secretary of State, the regulator and the users' council, at last, to take action.
  8.26 pm
  Mr. Nigel Evans: My credentials for a contribution to a debate on the Post Office are good. About four years ago, there was an Adjournment debate on the future of the Post Office. It was one of those debates that take place when the business of the House finishes early: rather than continuing for the usual half an hour, it continued for some time, and I spoke in it.
  850
  The major difference between four years ago and now is that those who sit on the Government Benches now were sitting on our Benches then, and accusing us of doing exactly what they are trying to do in regard to part of the Bill today. We were accused of ensuring that people's benefits were paid through their bank accounts, and it was said that that would be the death knell for post offices throughout the country. I remember the debate as clearly as though it was yesterday; it seems that a lot can happen in four years.
  I represent a rural constituency, containing 30 or so villages. It is very similar to the constituency of the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas), whom I congratulate on his maiden speech. He said he felt that he was one of the greenest Members in the House. He is not sitting on his Bench, so I think he has learned a lot in a short space of time. Anyway, I think I, in my rural constituency, face problems similar to those that he faces in his.
  The Secretary of State said that he wanted a world-class Post Office. We all want a world-class Post Office, but we will not have one if many of the branches that we enjoy in villages and small towns are closed. The "world-class" Post Office will be available to a much smaller group of people.
  The Post Office is vital. Like many of my right hon. and hon. Friends, I have visited many post offices, particularly as I knew that the Second Reading debate was coming up. I have spoken to many postmasters and postmistresses. I have also spoken to customers of those post offices.
  I run a small retail business in Swansea. I know how tight some of the margins on which we operate are. A number of small businesses have gone under, irrespective of the fact they do not have post offices in the shop; so there is a lot of pressure on small businesses generally anyway, with whole businesses going under.
  If we visit post offices—the small rural businesses—and look at some of the other items that they sell, we realise that the service that they offer is vital; that is particularly true of small rural villages. It struck me that, if those businesses close, or if a major proportion of the local post office disappears, there will be problems. One postmaster told me that, if he lost much of the business from the post office, it would not be worth his while being there.
  Many such people open their premises early in the morning and close late at night. The post office is important to them because it acts as a magnet for customers coming in and buying other items. If a big chunk of their business disappears, they will think that it is not worth their while being there in the first place. It will not be profitable for them. It will not be profitable for them to sell the other items because, on their own, they will not make enough money. Those places will close.
  One postmaster told me about another aspect: what will happen if the footfall factor decreases. When customers walk into a post office, present their giro or benefit book and receive the cash there and then, they spend some of that money immediately in the post office. They could spend some of it to pay their electricity bill, gas bill or bill for another utility. The post office receives some money as a commission on that service.
  Those people may also spend some of their money—they have cash in their hand and happen to be there—on some of the other items that the post office sells. It could

  851
  be greetings cards, detergents, or a number of other items. Some post offices in our constituencies are small businesses. As my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Hertfordshire (Mr. Page) said, they are privately owned businesses. They are there to make a profit. Their customers will buy one or two other items.
  If the money is paid direct into people's bank accounts and it is no longer necessary for them to go into the post office once a week, we will find—it is the fear of the postmaster—that they will pay their electricity bill through the post. They will look for other ways to pay their other utility bills. The footfall in the post office will disappear, in other words.
  That will threaten not only the post office. Some villages contain two or three shops: a butcher's that is already under pressure, and perhaps one other small shop—a grocer or newsagent. Because the footfall has disappeared from the post office, it will disappear from other small shops in the village. All of a sudden, not just the post office, but a number of other smaller enterprises and shops in the village are threatened. That is why I ask the Government to think again about these proposals.
  We are told by the Secretary of State not to worry—3,000 post offices will have cash machines. Can the Minister for Competitiveness guarantee that post offices in West Bradford, Chatbum, Chipping, Boltonby-Bowland, Slaidburn and Downham—all relatively small villages—will get cash machines? I doubt it. Only 3,000 post offices out of 18,700 will get the cash machines. It will all be done, I assure the Minister, on a commercial basis.
  Since the Government came to power, 486 post offices have already disappeared. With the threat of what is ill thought out legislation—its ramifications have not been properly thought through—other post offices will close, too.
  This does not mean that I do not believe in, as the hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Galbraith) called it, taking the Post Office into the 21st century and having to commercialise. That is absolutely right. [Interruption.] I hope that we shall consider various ways of ensuring that post offices are able to survive.
  What other banking facilities are post offices able to provide? In my short time as the Member for Ribble Valley, I—like the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Colman)—have seen banks close in my villages. Perhaps the closures are one avenue that post offices might explore in seeking extra business. The national lottery provides another possibility for more business, although smaller rural post offices may not be able commercially to sustain a lottery machine. Nevertheless—my goodness me—the lottery is supposed to be about good causes, and the survival of post offices in rural villages is a very good cause. I should hope that we will consider that possibility to support our post offices.
  E-commerce and e-mail are another possibility. In some smaller villages, an internet cafe would not be sustainable, and small rural post offices could perhaps provide internet services. I ask Ministers to consider that possibility too.
  Ministers should also take on board the fact that the Bill's provisions could threaten the viability of selling post offices. [Interruption.] Many small, privately owned
  852
  post offices were bought by people who had other careers, took early retirement and invested in a post office, as a nest egg for when they retire for good—[Interruption.] The Government, in their ill thought through legislation, are putting at risk the nest egg of many people who have put money aside, but will not be able to sell their post office.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. Before I call the next hon. Member, I should tell the House that I have heard an awful lot of sedentary comment, some from people who are still hoping to catch my eye. They may fail.
  8.36 pm
  Mr. David Borrow: I am pleased to speak in support of the Bill, particularly after the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) who, four years ago—when I was leader of the council in Preston—represented part of my council ward. How things change in four years!
  I welcome the fact that the Bill will give greater commercial freedom to the Post Office. However, we all have to recognise that the Post Office is not a single entity, and that its success depends on a public-private partnership to provide not only a UK-wide delivery service, but a UK-wide network of post offices from which postal services can be purchased. I should like to concentrate my remarks on that postal network.
  Since 1970, 6,000 United Kingdom post offices have closed. We now have slightly fewer than 18,000 post offices. One of the primary arguments in today's debate has been about the importance to sub-post offices of income from benefits transactions. Probably 8,000 sub-post offices rely on benefits transactions for more than 40 per cent. of their income. Some 34 per cent. of benefits payments are made through the automated credit transfer system, but, among new recipients of pensions and child benefit, the percentage is 50 per cent. and rising. Moreover, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ochil (Mr. O'Neill) said, the reducing number of unemployed people is causing a reduction in the number of benefits claimants.
  If we project the percentages into the years ahead, it becomes clear that we cannot sustain a Post Office network comprising 18,000 post offices that rely for their survival largely on benefits transactions. The Government will have to take the crucial decision on the network size that they will be able to maintain and on the mechanism by which the network can be maintained. The status quo is not an option. We cannot continue to allow the steady reduction in the number of post offices, the closure of which is determined solely by the mechanisms of market forces and of a steady increase in the number of benefits recipients receiving payment by ACT, with consequently reduced payments particularly to sub-post offices.
  We also have to get away from the myth that only sub-post offices are at risk from the changes. One of the most interesting statistics provided by the Library reveals that, of the constituencies with a large number of post offices at risk, most are located in the most deprived urban areas. I think that all the sub-post offices in the Liverpool, Walton constituency depend on benefit payments for more than 40 per cent. of their income.

  853
  We need to ask what sort of post office network we want and work out what we have to do to achieve that. Last Friday, I held a constituency surgery in the small village of Rufford. After spending three hours dealing with individual cases, I walked out of the surgery room to find a crowd of 20 people in the village hall waiting to speak to me about the future of the post office. Three quarters of an hour later, a number of clear messages had come out of the meeting.
  First, those who relied on the post office wanted to continue to be able to receive their benefits in cash there. The method—a receipt book or some other means—was not important to them. What mattered was that they should be able to get cash at the post office. Secondly, if they received cash through a bank machine or similar system, they did not want to have to pay bank charges. Thirdly, a significant number of recipients of benefits do not have bank accounts or are unbankable. The Government need to ensure that everybody who receives benefit has an account through which the money can be paid and that it can be received through the post office system. Fourthly, any system that is totally dependent on ACT needs to cater for the many pensions and other benefits that are not claimed in person, but are paid through the post office by somebody else on behalf of the recipient.
  The final concern is that Rufford is a small village with no bank and the nearest alternative post office is several miles away. If a computer-driven system crashes or there is no money in the cash machine, what happens to the pensioners or people on benefit? We all know the problems caused by a giro not arriving. In some ways, the ACT system can be better for claimants, because it is safer than relying on a giro, which can be mislaid or misdelivered or, for many people in houses in multiple occupation, can go astray completely. There are distinct advantages to the ACT system.
  How do we build a system that delivers what recipients want? That is where sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses come in. We have to ensure that their businesses are viable. The Government must specify the size of network that is required in their advice to the regulator. They must ensure that the Post Office is proactive in delivering that network. Alternative sources of income must also be available to replace the money from the benefit system. We should not subsidise private businesses through the benefit system when there is a cheaper and more fraud-resistant system. If we are to subsidise the sub-post office network, it must be done through a direct subsidy so that our purpose is clear.
  There are other sources of income for sub-post offices. We need to consider the idea of a Government gateway. Lancashire county council has worked with BT to develop a number of computer terminals in rural areas that give access to information. I see a lot of scope for a gateway in sub-post offices that gives access to information such as public transport timetables and details of neighbourhood watch schemes, and allows people to purchase tickets, pay fines and perform other interactive functions. Some 28 million people a week use the post office network, which potentially means business worth £8 billion.
  We must ensure that the benefit system is run efficiently and is as free from fraud as possible. In the next few months, by the time that the Bill goes to the other place, the Government need to be clear about what
  854
  they have to do to ensure that the sub-post office network continues to deliver the services that our constituents need and deserve.
  8.46 pm
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien: From the outset, one of the Government's prime stated intentions in bringing forward the Bill is repeatedly proclaimed to be to give the Post Office more commercial freedom and the ability to compete. It is the genuineness of that intent that I wish to examine.
  In all walks of life, but above all in business, true competition can exist only if it is on equal terms. If that is so, consumers will get the service that they want at a value that they are prepared to pay. It is the leaders of those businesses who take the strategic, financial, human resource and day-to-day operational executive and management decisions that make a business an effective and successful competitor. In making those decisions, the board of a company—especially a public limited company, where the directors' functions are executive and their accountability is measured by performance judged by a broadly spread ownership—has daily to evaluate risk and decide courses of action in the best interests of the business as a whole.
  If the Post Office is to compete on equal terms with its international competitors, which it must, its board of directors need the full scope and authority of real commercial freedom to evaluate the risks and opportunities. That is all basic common sense to anyone with any experience of having responsibility for an independent international business, especially one with plc status. It is therefore a mystery to me why the Government have stopped woefully short of granting the Post Office that full commercial freedom, despite the stealthy cloak of plc status.
  I am bound to ask, in trying to understand the Government's intent, while retaining 100 per cent. ownership instead of selling at least 51 per cent. of the shares: what are the Government afraid of? Are they concerned that we do not, after all, have the most efficient postal service in the world, ready to take on all comers? Or are the Government, in their habitual style-over-substance way, sending a message to the Post Office's customers, competitors and the financial markets that they do not have the confidence in the senior management on the back of whose commercial judgment the Government are proposing to lend money to the new plc, potentially at below average commercial rates?
  No, it is none of those. I fear that the only possible conclusion is that the Government have been got at by the unions. And is it any surprise that the Government have no understanding of how commercial risk is judged and the conditions for success achieved in the boardrooms of UK plc? As I scan the Government Benches, I wonder how many Labour Members have ever served in a boardroom, let alone in the boardroom of a fully independent UK public company. If they had, they would know that one cannot evaluate risk and take commercial decisions in the best interests of the company when at the same time one has to look over one's shoulder at the crushing hand of Government.
  The Bill, an unholy compromise, a halfway house and half-hearted measure, will be like the difference between what we should have—a skilled, competitive risk-judging

  855
  high diver prepared to take the plunge—and what we are presented with in this Bill—the instant thrill-seeking, headline-grabbing bungee jumper, secure in the knowledge that he can always bounce back into the arms of Government. So much for the Government's genuine intent to release the Post Office from their clutches into the real, competitive, commercial, international world of the future.
  The Government's strategy on postal reform can be summarised in two words—compromise and uncertainty. It is a compromise between old Labour unionism and new Labour spin. It contains nothing to placate the fear and uncertainty over the future of the Post Office network, but plenty to serve the interests of the unions.
  As I study the Bill, I simply cannot find the logic—the glue that binds the whole policy together. I cannot see a clear-cut business strategy that will take our Post Office forward so that it can adapt, compete and continue to be great in the future. Instead, we have the Secretary of State's spin. He has promised modernisation but, in fact, his trumpeted plan of modernisation is based on a failed idea from the previous century—that of the state owning all the shares in a key industry. I dare say that many Labour Members must be thinking, "If only this were the sort of modernisation that the Secretary of State would talk of in the context of the utilities."
  The Government have, I admit, recognised the need for the Post Office to be competitive. Last July, during the statement on the White Paper, the Secretary of State said that the proposals for Post Office reform were
  "good news for the Post Office's millions of customers, who will benefit from improved services from a new, modernised Post Office and from greater competition for postal services."—[Official Report, 8 July 1999; Vol.334; c.1175]
  If the Secretary of State recognises that millions of consumers will benefit from greater competition, why not maximise that competition instead of limiting it, thereby limiting the benefit to the consumer? For if the plc structure proposed for the Post Office stands for anything under this Government it is, I suggest, "politically limited competitiveness".
  Certainly, the limitations on competitiveness are clear to see. In addition to the fundamental flaw that I have already mentioned regarding the socialist approach to share ownership, borrowing will be underwritten by the taxpayer, the long-standing privileges enjoyed by the Post Office will remain, there is no evidence that cross-subsidies will be avoided through greater transparency, and the £1 limit on the reserved area remains.
  So we are forced back to consideration of the Bill's genuine intent. The shape of the Bill has been driven by a compromise with the unions. The Government have guaranteed that actual privatisation would require new primary legislation. When the Secretary of State gave his assurance of primary legislation for any wholesale public share offering, the Communication Workers Union stated:
  "We attach great significance to these public assurances which guarantee that, of itself, plc status does not take the Post Office any nearer privatisation and any share disposal would require a full-scale Act of Parliament with comprehensive political debate during which we would obviously lobby and put our case."
  That is a statement of union backing for a union-driven fudge, if ever there was one. It is also clear evidence that, under new Labour, appeasing the unions comes before
  856
  pleasing the consumer. It is the consumers who would benefit most from the Post Office enjoying full competitiveness and commercial freedom, as a truly independent public limited company, untied from the nanny state. They are not getting that under this Government.
  As I said, the Bill is about compromise and uncertainty. It does nothing to address the uncertainty hanging over the future of the Post Office network. Post offices, small, medium and large—such as the ones in Tilston, Tarporley, Winsford, Audlem and Sandiway in my constituency, and especially the small, rural and suburban community sub-post offices—fear for their future. It is not just in my constituency—it is the same all across the country. There is great uncertainty. The only certainty is that the Government's decision to scrap the Horizon swipe card plan poses the biggest threat.
  The National Federation of Sub-postmasters has estimated that 40,000 sub-post office staff will lose their jobs. Against all the Government's words stating their commitment to social inclusion, the overall result of this measure will be a massive increase in social exclusion. And the Secretary of State's answer to the uncertainty over the future of the networks is posters. There is little chance that those posters will tell the truth. If they did, they would say, "Your post office is not safe in Labour's hands, and we have no intention of rethinking our scrapping of the policy that could have preserved the network."
  Overall, the Government's strategy for the Post Office is a combination of political fudge and economic uncertainty. The Secretary of State has consistently stated his support for greater competition in the wider economy to improve services and drive the best bargain for the consumer. Yet he is introducing a Bill in which competition is kept to a minimum to keep the unions happy. The Bill does not address any of the major questions hanging over the future of the Post Office.
  We shall have to work hard in Committee on the many new clauses and amendments that the Secretary of State has told us about. He knows what they are, but we are not allowed to know because that would go against his spin. My recent experience on the Standing Committee that considered the Freedom of Information Bill tells me that we shall argue a lot with the Government, who will put up a lot of straight bats. We may even receive some courteous rebuffs for our improving amendments. Ministers will read out hastily scribbled rebuttals handed to them by officials. They are never minded to let the benefits of a hard-won democratic procedure improve a Bill for fear that that would be interpreted as meaning that their original thinking was wrong, or even not 100 per cent. perfect.
  The Government should listen. There is little political benefit for the Opposition in improving Government Bills in Committee, far from the public gaze. Yet, in good faith, again and again, we shall try to do so, because we are determined to pass good law, even if, as Opposition Members, we disagree with the underlying policy. Many battles await us in Committee.
  8.56 pm
  Mrs. Diana Organ: The Bill has been long awaited. For years, the Post Office had to put up with Tory dither, delay and indecision coupled with continual

  857
  threats to break it up and privatise it. That remains Tory policy. The Post Office was not allowed to prepare for the challenges ahead. Labour, on the other hand, is keeping its manifesto commitment to modernise the Post Office by giving it commercial freedom within a public sector framework.
  The Post Office has welcomed our wide-ranging Bill, as have the Communication Workers Union, the Country Landowners Association and Action with Communities in Rural England. There is much in the Bill that will be welcomed by the 29 million people who use the Post Office every week. For the first time, service provision by a nationwide network and a universal service obligation are being enshrined in law. To ensure that that happens, we are introducing a new regulator and the Postal Services Commission to promote consumer interests.
  People in rural areas who are concerned by sub-post office closures will be able to call on the regulator to consider the full impact on customers when there is any future closure proposal. The Postal Services Commission will have to have regard for the interests of the disabled, the chronically sick, pensioners, those on low incomes and those who live in rural areas. The Bill gives the Secretary of State the power to direct the Postal Services Commission to impose a licence condition requiring the provision of free postal services to the blind, thus ensuring the continuity of free articles for the blind. All that is to be welcomed.
  For the first time, there will be a right to access, with the Government issuing criteria to ensure that everyone may have reasonable access to Post Office Counters services. Individuals will be able to appeal to the regulator on the provision of postal services in their rural areas.
  Together with the 250,000 people who have signed petitions highlighting concern about the future of local rural post offices, I hope that the Bill will deliver a framework to ensure the maintenance of a strong post office network. However, I seek some strengthening of that framework. We need to arrest the continuing decline in the number of rural post offices. We must specify what an acceptable network means, and we must safeguard vulnerable post offices that give much to the local community. We need to fund the network, and, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said, that may mean subsidy.
  At present, 43 per cent. of rural parishes have no rural post office. The network in rural areas has reduced from 9,700 in 1994 to 8,900 at present. The Tories let the continual fall in the network go on year in and year out. The Labour Government are addressing decline. We need to build up the network. When, as often happens, a post office is linked to a village shop, it is an essential facility offering access to a vast range of services.
  Such post offices are fragile. As the 12th report of the Select Committee on Trade and Industry noted:
  "Given the fragility of the network … it is time for the Government to consider whether it should continue to rely on income generated from a range of postal and other services to maintain a national network which it regards as necessary for broader social and economic objectives; or whether it should accept that the network is a national asset—as recently demonstrated by its role in providing more or less instant passport renewal services—which may require an appropriate level of national financial support."
  858
  Services such as those suggested in the Select Committee report would greatly strengthen the framework outlined in the Bill. I welcome the comments of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State suggesting that a possible subsidy may be considered in Committee.
  We can overcome the vulnerability of post offices through diversity. In Suffolk, one rural post office is situated in a local pub. In Herefordshire and Worcester, 20 sub-post offices are located in village halls. The range of services could be extended. We should allow rural sub-post offices to become the centre for a wide range of services, financial and otherwise.
  Why should not rural sub-post offices offer insurance, in addition to the holiday insurance that they are now allowed to offer customers? They could issue smart payment cards and Quantum cards for electricity, gas and water, and mobile phone prepayment cards. They could issue passport forms, vehicle licence forms, motor tax forms and other local services required in rural areas.
  I am glad that we will ensure that people can pick up their benefit in cash across a post office counter. The hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) commented on my earlier concerns, but I am now aware of the Government's commitment to that.
  We can allow post offices to become future banking centres for rural areas. There are already agency arrangements with the three major banks. That is important, as 91 per cent. of villages have no banking facility.
  The report to the British Bankers Association by Elaine Kempson of the university of Bristol showed that 15 per cent. of rural businesses are more than four miles away from a local branch. That creates particular difficulties for small retailers and the self-employed. Furthermore, 15 per cent. of the rural population have no local branch. That is especially difficult for people who are over 80 or disabled, and for women with young children. The report found that agency arrangements with post offices would be acceptable to those groups. That extra business would bring more footfall into rural post offices, giving them greater strength.
  The Horizon project to computerise 18,000 post offices by 2001 will give them modern, on-line IT systems and give the network the capacity to re-introduce banking facilities in the rural areas from which banks have withdrawn them.
  With my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew), I have written to our hon. Friend the Minister, inviting him to Gloucestershire to meet postmasters and discuss the possibility of running a pilot of the Horizon project, to monitor and evaluate the services that it can deliver and see whether it can effectively provide electronic government.
  The Bill will allow the Post Office to borrow up to £75 million at commercial rates in each of the next five years. That will give it a vast amount of investment, which is necessary to allow it to compete on a global and national scale. There will be major new business opportunities as e-commerce expands. More and more consumer purchases are made on the internet.
  As we move into the realms of mass food retailing through the internet, with Tesco rolling out a nationwide service, there will be huge opportunities for large-scale nationwide distributors. Only Parcelforce can meet that requirement. It is the only carrier with complete coverage across the UK, but it needs the provisions of the Bill to enable it to enter the future market competitively.

  859
  The Bill will provide a framework for modernisation, allow the Post Office to be competitive and remain a world-class service, and give a better deal to consumers in rural areas.
  9.4 pm
  Mr. Mike Hancock: First, I offer good wishes and congratulations to the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas) on his excellent maiden speech. I also pay a generous tribute to his predecessor in that constituency.
  I am sorry that I cannot do the same for our colleague, the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Colman). He painted a depressing picture of the postal service in Putney. The only glimmer of hope was that the 29 million other people who use the service every week have a much better service than the inhabitants of Putney.
  However, Putney may be where ministerial mail goes. When it leaves Ministers' offices, it hovers for several months over Putney and then descends on the House of Commons. I hope Ministers will not grab that as yet another excuse for the long delays in replying to letters from hon. Members, although I am sure that some of them will enthusiastically grasp at that excuse to defend the indefensible.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) spelt out his strong reservations as to the financial consequences of the measure. The hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Mrs. Organ) mentioned that the £75 million available for borrowing would permit great scope for modernisation and development. Nothing could be further from the truth. One has only to visit one's main sorting office—if one is lucky enough to have one—to find out that the cost of the technology to speed up sorting runs is more than £1 million. It would cost that amount to get new technology into sorting offices—let alone the development and business opportunities outside.
  There are several flaws in the Bill. However, all that we have heard from the Conservative Opposition is that they have not learned any lessons. The only alternative that they offer is privatisation. That is where they were going during the previous Parliament, but they backed off. My predecessor as Member of Parliament for Portsmouth, South resigned from the Conservative Government in disgust at the fact that they had backed away from privatisation, but it did not save him his seat.
  It has been pointed out that many Tory Members lost their seats at the last election because they stuck rigidly to the line that the Post Office needed to be privatised and they wanted to carry that out. Today, Conservative Members are harking back to what was seen, even at that time, to be a lost cause. The Conservatives backed off then because the public do not want privatisation.
  Consumers have not said that they want the wholesale sell-off of the Post Office. The overwhelming majority of people believe that the Post Office offers an excellent service where it is needed. Deliveries are usually on time, although obviously there are occasions when things go wrong. However, as the representative of a large constituency of 89,000 voters, I receive few complaints about the service. I have nothing but high regard for the job done by postal workers in sometimes difficult circumstances. I am proud to be close to the organisation in my city.
  860
  Much has been said about the plight of rural post offices. I draw the attention of hon. Members, once again, to the plight of the urban post office. The distance between the sea and the northern boundary of my constituency is a little more than two miles; from east to west, the distance is probably less than three miles. More than 100,000 people live in that area—89,000 voters. There are 22 sub-post offices, 15 of which would have an even greater cloud looming over them if the changes in the payment system go ahead, and people take them up as the Government will, I am sure, encourage them to do. Why make changes, if they do not actively encourage people to make use of them?
  The problem faced by 15 of those 22 sub-post offices is that 50 per cent. of their trade comes from benefit claims. Many have no alternative; they cannot diversify. They have tried to do so, but some businesses have already gone down the tube because supermarkets have expanded.
  Banking was offered to post offices—the installation of cash dispensers. A postmaster came to see me last week with a letter about the 3,000 machines that would be available. He and his family have run a post office in the heart of the area for more than 30 years. He applied for that service, but there was no indication of how the choices would be made. Will there be any weighting in favour of the installation of those machines in sub-post offices? Or will it be as predicted by the sub-postmasters, who all believe that the machines will go to the highest bidder, or the one with the greatest number of customers passing through the door—the local supermarket? It would be very difficult for local post offices to compete with the supermarkets.
  The closure of any one of those sub-post offices will pose serious problems for many people whose only active meeting of other people, except for the occasional person who knocks at their door, takes place on the journey to that sub-post office. It does not matter that they are not too far from neighbours, and probably relatives. For many people, that journey to the post office is their trip to the outside world. On the way they may visit the library or pay other bills, but the post office is the main reason that many of them still make a journey out of the home.
  It is easy to ignore the situation in an urban population and say that that is not an issue because if the Government close 10 sub-post offices, 12 will remain in that very small area; but people will have to make difficult journeys, sometimes without public transport, across very major roads, in densely populated streets full of cars, which are double parked in most instances. It is a real nightmare. That is why thousands and thousands of people have already signed petitions to save post offices in my constituency and many other urban constituencies.
  Tonight we need to hear from the Minister some clarification about the possibility of subsidies. We need to hear who will choose from the 22 post offices in Portsmouth, South those that are seen to be viable and eligible for a subsidy, and we need to know what will happen to those who do not pass the harm test satisfactorily and consequently are not chosen.
  The right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley) did not mention the fact that he served in the Government who closed down the Crown offices. I remember that, when I was previously a Member of Parliament, they closed thousands of them throughout

  861
  the country. In Portsmouth, at least half a dozen were closed. We were all told, "Do not worry; jobs will be saved and we shall find alternative locations, or other people will take on those offices." Five of the six are now housing. All six no longer serve as post offices. There was nothing but crocodile tears. We were told, "It will not be a problem. Do not worry. You are over-hyping the argument."
  Now the boot is on the other foot. A Labour Government are in power, and they are saying that they intend to do something that appears to threaten the viability of the sub-post office network, whether rural or urban. Answers are expected and needed—not 18 months from now, not when the Bill has passed through the House and the other place, but tonight or very soon after tonight. The livelihood of thousands of people throughout the country is on the line, and so are the understanding and commitment of the people who use those post offices. They want to hear a clear message from the Government tonight.
  I do not envy the Minister's task in piloting this very complex Bill through its stages. Some Members have said that the Bill is a step in the right direction. My only fear is that it is a step in the direction in which the Conservatives wanted to take us, and that, if ever they were back, it would open the door to allow them to do what they did more easily the next time than they did it the last time.
  9.13 pm
  Mr. Lindsay Hoyle: Obviously, the debate is very important and many hon. Members on both sides of the House have taken part. There seems to be an interesting discrepancy between the views of the various members of the Opposition Front-Bench team. The hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) said that she did not want to commit herself to privatisation, and that we must wait and see what the Conservatives would be saying at the next general election; but the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) was bouncing up and down saying, "Privatise, privatise, privatise." It is always very interesting to note the variation in the messages that are communicated by the Opposition.
  We should be talking about the future of the Post Office, which is very important. I welcome what we are achieving, or hope to achieve—a greater and better universal Post Office. I hope that we can take on the rest of the world and that we can continue to be proud of the Post Office. The Post Office has a proud history and we want it to expand and to have the freedom to allow that to take place.
  People shout that we should fully privatise the Post Office, but they then ask about sub-postmasters and postmistresses. They want the best of both worlds, but they are not facing up to reality. For 18 years, 40 sub-post offices closed every week. No matter what they say, the previous Government did not bat an eyelid. We take the future of rural post offices seriously, so much so that we believe that there must be an alternative approach. We cannot allow them to wither on the vine as previously happened.
  We should recognise that we now live in a plastic society. There are no two ways about that. New pensioners will use a post office less, because their pensions will be paid directly into their bank accounts.
  862
  We must grasp the nettle and ensure that the Post Office can provide alternative services. We must give it a viable future and that must be done through new technology. That is the new gateway for its benefit and its future.
  I am in contact with the owners of rural and urban post offices in my constituency. They are important and they recognise that they need a future. The future is not to do nothing, but to give them an alternative, and that alternative will come from new technology. We need new rural and urban banking facilities, and we want post offices to be able to offer a full range of services. They will be offered because we are willing to take up the challenge of new technology to provide a future for a Post Office of which we all can be proud.
  We shall stop what the previous Government allowed to happen—post offices withered away and not one Conservative Member who supported the previous Government for 18 years was even bothered. They might shed crocodile tears now, but that is all that they can do. In reality, they do not care. They say, "Privatise, privatise", but they do not say what would happen if they privatised the Post Office. That is a worry.
  Perhaps the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton will be willing to tell us how privatisation would help sub-postmasters and mistresses. We all know that it would not help them in the slightest—far from it. It would make their futures totally uncertain, but would do nothing about their problems. We recognise that the problems exist and that they must be addressed. However, talking about them will not help. We want a Bill that will help the Post Office in general—the new universal Post Office—and that will give a viable future to the rural and urban post offices that would have closed, as they did under the previous Government.
  I want the Bill to enable the Post Office to provide new enhanced services. What is wrong with small urban villages of 8,000 to 10,000 people having a second delivery? That does not take place at present, but I hope that not only will we maintain the service that we have now, but that it will be improved by a double delivery. People should expect that. We should not say that deliveries should be made before 2.30 pm. Instead, we should say that people will have a first delivery before 10 am and a second delivery before 5 pm. We should be pushing the service forward and enhancing it.
  I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will take my points on board and that he will say that the Bill will lead to an enhanced service that we will all welcome. I know that the Government take seriously the future of the Post Office, and urban and rural post offices in particular. They have been allowed to close, but that should not have happened. We do not want it to happen again; we want a Post Office of which we can be proud.
  I am constantly in touch with the post offices in my constituency. I want to ensure that they have a viable future, and the Government will ensure that through the use of new technology and alternative services.
  9.19 pm
  Mr. Oliver Letwin: A good deal of concern has been expressed in this debate, as in three previous debates in this Session, about rural post offices and small post offices in general. We are dealing primarily not with a party political issue, but with a Government who are over-dominated by their Chancellor of the Exchequer. We all understand the problem.

  863
  The Chancellor and his officials communicated to the Department of Social Security the great apercu that they had come across 15 or 20 years earlier and of which they have been repeatedly notifying the Secretary of State for Social Security for all that time, which is that the Government could save an enormous amount of money if only they would pay benefits through the banks.
  In previous years, we have had, without an announcement, the introduction of something that I believe is now popularly called joined-up government. Under this present joined-up Government there is, alas, no joined-up government, and the Department of Social Security said yes to the Chancellor's proposal without checking what the effects would be, and reported to the poor old Minister's Department of Trade and Industry, saying "Jolly D. The Chancellor has said this and what the Chancellor says rules in this Government. Let it happen."
  The poor old Minister and his Secretary of State got to work and started to make all the discoveries that people had made many years earlier, but which the Government had not been told about by the Treasury officials who now run things. They discovered, of course, that the massive saving had a few disadvantages. First, it was admitted in an earlier debate that the Government would have to subsidise the banks to get them to open accounts for people who should not have a bank account because the banks do not want them and the people themselves do not want a bank account.
  It was then discovered that the people for whom the Government thought it would be nice if they could collect their cash through the post offices unfortunately would not have that option because there would be no post offices. They then came up with the whiz-bang solution, which is, as we now discover, to subsidise rural post offices and outlying post offices in towns and cities. Two of the net advantages of the idea were therefore to be a huge extra subsidy to the banks and a huge extra subsidy to post offices, but the Government discovered that that would not do because we still could not be sure that people would be able to get their cash, because the post offices would not be there.
  The Prime Minister went on a tour to the south-west and said that he would put cash tills outside all the post offices. He happened not to notice that when there is a cash till outside a post office, people do not go into the post office, so they do not use the post office, so they will not have payments made into the post office, so the post office will not remain open. Now the Prime Minister will put 3,000 cash tills in other places in rural areas—we know not where and he knows not where—and of course we have no idea whatsoever how people will use the cash tills because they will not be bank account holders so they will not have any reason to use a cash till.
  I could go on. I fear that what I am trying to describe is a right muddle. It is a muddle not because Ministers are evil or ill-intentioned or even because they are Labour Ministers, but because they have made a right mess of things by coming up with a policy that a certain set of officials has been promulgating for a long while but which has never worked and will not work now and will have to be got rid of sooner or later.
  It will have to be got rid of sooner rather than later because there is a huge movement against the proposals in the countryside and increasingly in towns and cities.
  864
  Hundreds of thousands of people are signing petitions. There is a cross-party group, of which I am proud to be a member, which takes in Members from all three parties represented in England. The fact is that the Government will give way.
  Once the Government have given way, we need to know what we need. I regret to say that the Secretary of State gave a lamentable performance earlier, and he revealed that he has not the slightest idea of what we need. It is simple and clear: we need a mechanism by which small post offices will be able to compete with the banks and deliver, sensibly and rationally, at low cost, benefits to the people who need them without their having to hold a bank account, without having to subsidise the rural post offices and without the collapse of village society that is otherwise entailed. That is within our grasp.
  We need an intermission. The arrangements will not be introduced by 2003; they could well be in place by 2005 and 2006. Technological problems have been encountered, but it is perfectly understood in principle how the task can be done. We must provide the average small post office with the electronic means to deliver benefits in the way that the Secretary of State for Social Security wants them to be delivered, and this poor old Minister would like them delivered, to keep open the network of post offices. That is perfectly doable if it is done slightly later.
  What is the remedy? The Secretaries of State for Trade and Industry and for Social Security must summon up their courage and remind themselves that they are not wholly in the hands of the almighty Chancellor of the Exchequer. They must go, if necessary on bended knee, up the stairs of the Treasury and say to the Chancellor, "Oh Chancellor, you are three years too early. Just give us a little intermission to install the technology in the post offices and there will be a miracle. You will not have to subsidise the banks. You will not have to subsidise the rural post offices. It is true that you will not save £400 million; you will save much more." I think that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, terrifying though he is—like my colleagues on the Treasury Opposition Front Bench team, I know just how awesome the right hon. Gentleman is at the Dispatch Box, and I have no doubt the same is true of him in his office—will turn out to be rational.
  The Government will thus find a way to get off the awful hook. From the point of view of my colleagues and me, that is politically highly regrettable, as we stand to gain seat after seat in rural areas from the Government's awful mess. If we were cynical, we would desist from speaking a word about it and our friends on the Liberal Democrats Benches would be equally silent, because we all know that one of the best ways to encourage people to vote for us is to allow Ministers to pursue a lunatic policy. Nevertheless, I hope that Ministers will take the opportunity to go to the Chancellor, that they will win the debate and that they will not pursue the policy.
  The reason why that is the right course of action is that it is in the interests of no party in the House to allow the widespread destruction of village communities that will ensue from the Government's proposals being implemented. It is in no one's interests if the hundreds of thousands of people who are benefit recipients find themselves in increasing social difficulty. We have a common interest as politicians in telling the officials at the Treasury to get back into the box.
  9.26 pm
  Mr. Alan Duncan: We have had a lively debate. Such is the enthusiasm of hon. Members on both sides of the House that the number who wanted to speak reduced us to a 10-minute rule.
  Having studied the Bill in detail, the best we can say is that it is better than nothing but not as good as it could have been. At its worst, it is a timid and potentially deceitful Bill—deceitful in respect of the structure chosen and the consequences that Ministers claim will arise from it.
  The fact is that the proposed structure is not a full public limited company. As my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) said, it is a hybrid structure that is full of conflicts and contradictions. It enjoys the pretence of commercial freedom, but the relationship that the Post Office will be compelled to have with the Government will continue to be more akin to that of a nationalised industry than to that of a freely owned company operating in the open market; it will always look to the Government for permission to act.
  The financial disciplines applying to the company will be contradictory. It will operate in an artificial climate of financial discipline: there will be no openly quoted share price, which would otherwise govern its financial strictures; nor will it borrow in quite the same way as other plcs in the open market. At its worst, the result could be a sort of mini-National Enterprise Board, like that of the 1970s.
  Let us imagine that, in a great venture, having been seized with the sort of vision for which every hon. Member who has spoken today has asked, the Post Office decides to enter into a share swap with another communications company, perhaps an overseas company. Some shares from the 100 per cent. Government-owned company are given to that overseas company and some shares from that company are given in return. The end result, lo and behold, is the British Government publicly owning shares in a foreign communications company.
  Such a bizarre structure cannot endure. It would be absurd if one Minister in one office at the DTI had to decide whether or not the Post Office could borrow money, while another Minister in the office next door—behind the Chinese wall—decided whether or not to refer some merger to the Competition Commission. The structure is untenable—a crazy pretence.
  The Bill is designed to deceive. I do not believe that the Government are intent on keeping the structure in the same form as it is created. Either old Labour will build it up until it resembles the National Enterprise Board that I described, or new Labour will do what it always does—go a long way against the wishes of Labour Members and take a dramatic step towards privatisation. I believe that the latter is more likely. My hon. Friend the Member for South-West Hertfordshire (Mr. Page) lampooned that duplicity well in his contribution.
  There is massive suspicion about the future of the Post Office network. Although Labour Members have done their best to disguise it, many of them share our anxiety. The root of our concern is the future of the Post Office network in rural and urban communities after the introduction of automated credit transfer. The Secretary of State said that there would be no deductions from those who subsequently draw money in cash after the introduction of ACT. I welcome that statement as far as it went; however, it does not tackle our anxieties.
  866
  Last year, my hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr. Gibb) asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry
  what fee will be paid by the Department of Social Security to sub post offices for administering cash benefit payments under the arrangements applicable from 2003".
  He received the following reply:
  The contractual arrangements between the Benefits Agency and Post Office Counters Ltd. are commercially confidential, as are the contractual arrangements between Post Office Counters Ltd. and certain retail banks under which customers of those banks can access their accounts at post offices.—[Official Report, 26 July 1999; Vol. 336, c. 93W.]
  That directly contradicts the Secretary of State's comments today.
  The right hon. Gentleman did not fully answer a question that initially received no answer. He let a tiny patch of daylight into the magic and trickery without giving a full answer. As my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing, West (Mr. Bottomley) rightly said, what matters is the future of the income of the network of post offices, which rely so much on the payment of benefits. To that question, answer came there none. If there is no adequate post office income, from where can people get their cash? The Secretary of State's guarantee that there will be no deductions from money that is paid in cash is not a guarantee to protect the Post Office network
  Mr. Connarty: Earlier, Conservative Members gave a clear commitment that they would privatise the Post Office. What guarantee would a privatised scheme give to sub-post offices? A commercial free market gives no guarantees to any enterprise.
  Mr. Duncan: The hon. Gentleman shows that he does not understand the kernel of the issue. My right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley) dealt with that point in his speech. If the hon. Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Connarty) was not prepared to listen to my right hon. Friend, I pity him.
  There is much suspicion about the alleged savings that introducing ACT will make on fraud. Community post offices know who their customers are. Fraud tends to be caused by the mistaken issue of a book, not by the transfer of cash to the book holder.
  I shall dwell briefly on the speech that my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden, the former Secretary of State for Social Security, made. When in government, he had an impeccable track record of designing a system that would have protected the rural network. He openly described the way in which it would have worked. He made a devastating critique of the Bill's structure and said that its philosophy was, "make us modern, but not yet." He also said that the universal service obligation can be fulfilled through regulation; it does not require state ownership. That is the answer to the question of the hon. Member for Falkirk, East.
  My right hon. Friend explained the conflict between commercial and Treasury priorities, which will permanently bedevil the structure for which the Bill provides. He was open when he said that as Secretary of State for Social Security, he was advised that the introduction of ACT would destroy community post offices and lead to minimum savings and maximum disruption.

  867
  On the back of that and his experience in government, my right hon. Friend asked the Minister whether he had received similar advice or any guidance that might in any way match what he was told. I hope that the Minister replies, as the answer is bound to be yes; but that is part of the deceit of the Bill and of Government policy, which are designed to destroy the Post Office network without admitting what will happen. Government policy is already destroying many post offices: the value of their business is plummeting because of the doubt and the danger that they face. My right hon. Friend undertook a forensic dissection of the likely new payment arrangements and the Minister will have to answer many questions in Committee.
  The hon. Member for Falkirk, East recalled the Stand By Your Post campaign in his constituency and stood by it, but he should reconsider his view as he supports a Government who are ratting on that campaign and causing untold damage to our network. The hon. Member for Ochil (Mr. O'Neill) wants the Post Office to be able to have an international vision. I agree, but it will be able to have such a vision and act on it only if it has genuine commercial freedom, not the fake commercial freedom in the Bill.
  May I divert for a moment to pay my compliments to the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas)? Like hon. Members on both sides of the House, I congratulate him on the quality and the generosity of his maiden speech, which was confident, amusing and took us on a vivid tour of his constituency, with all its rural quality. He and I can find common ground in that we represent constituencies of fields, not concrete. Perhaps we can find further common ground in taking pleasure in new Labour coming fourth in his by-election.
  I listened closely to the contributions of the hon. Members for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Galbraith), for North-West Norfolk (Dr. Turner), for Putney (Mr. Colman), for South Ribble (Mr. Borrow) and for Forest of Dean (Mrs. Organ), who hopes that her constituency can be part of a trial of much of what a future Post Office might do. However, she was offered a trial in Gloucestershire before—the pathfinder trial—only for it to be cancelled by the Labour Government as soon as it was announced.
  Conservative Members brought a lot of experience to the debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry) put a clear case for the benefits of privatisation and my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Hertfordshire added his experience from his days as a Minister. If we are fortunate, he might be selected to serve on the Committee so that he can bring that experience more greatly to bear.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans)—the first phase of a Ribble double this evening—went to the heart of the debate to explain the value of small post offices to local communities, which we all want to protect, and the possible consequences of the Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury (Mr. O'Brien) said that the Post Office needs genuine commercial freedom if it is to thrive and that the existing plc stands for "politically limited competitiveness". I agree with him. My hon. Friend the Member for West
  868
  Dorset (Mr. Letwin) was cogent and convincing as always, but his remarks were difficult to take in on this occasion as he was rather quick.
  The House is aware of a depressing aspect of the Bill: we are debating its principles on Second Reading and considering a detailed text of 93 clauses even though we know that a massive number of amendments will be tabled. That has already happened with the Utilities Bill and it is fast becoming a pattern. In his opening remarks, the Secretary of State said, "I know the number of amendments we plan to table", but he has not made them available to the House. A massive raft of amendments that will make dramatic changes are already in the pipeline, but they are not before us to help us to decide whether we agree with the Bill's principles.
  Whereas we all accept that a number of amendments are bound to be put down in Committee—after all, that is what the process is for—to have them ready now, before Second Reading, and for the right hon. Gentleman not to come absolutely clean about them is disrespectful of the process in which we are all engaged.
  We on this side of the House want proper commercial freedom for the Post Office. We want it to be able to thrive in a world of increasing competition and global corporate competition. We want to see it free to enter into those sorts of relationships into which genuine plcs are free to enter.
  The structure before us is a mess. It is a pretence of a structure. It will not give the managers the freedom and initiative to do what they really want to do, to build up their businesses.
  We also want to defend rural post offices, which undoubtedly are under threat. We value them. If the Government really were honest about this, they would have accelerated the process of designing the access criteria so that at this stage we could see what is planned to protect the rural network that the Government say they wish to defend. In the absence of those access criteria, the suspicion that we have in so many areas will grow.
  There are many things that we could debate further about whether the Post Office should become a bank. However, at this stage, on Second Reading, we see before us a Bill which is a hotchpotch hybrid. It does not give the commercial freedom to the Post Office that the Government pretend. Our reasoned amendment gives all the reasons for our wishing to criticise what is in the Bill. I hope that, if the Bill goes as far as Committee, we shall manage to improve it.
  9.42 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Alan Johnson): All the self-preening pontification of Opposition Members cannot disguise their total lack of credibility on this issue. If I was being kind about their stewardship of the Post Office—[[Interruption.] There are members of the previous regime sitting on the Conservative Benches. We do not want to upset them unduly. If I was being kind, I would call their stewardship maladroit. If I was being unkind, I would say that Postman Pat's black and white cat would have provided better stewardship of the Post Office over the term of the previous Government.
  Let me take hon. Members opposite through this issue—it will not take long. This is a "Hitchhiker's Guide" to the previous Government's policy on the

  869
  Post Office. First, in July 1992 they announced that they would split away Parcelforce and sell it off. Then they announced, two weeks later, that they were going to review the rest of the business. Then they announced that they could not split Parcelforce away from Royal Mail, because that would be detrimental, so they would bring it back again. Then they announced that they would split Post Office Counters away from the Post Office business and keep Royal Mail and Parcelforce together as a privatised part of the Post Office—so there would be that small public sector minnow called "Counters" split away from all the synergies, all the cross-fertilisation in terms of work and finance, that it received from the rest of the business.
  The Government spent £1,613,002.28—I am grateful to Hansard for telling me this—of taxpayers' money on consultancy fees to go out to consultation on a Green Paper that said they would privatise Royal Mail and Parcelforce and keep Post Office Counters in the public sector. I am told that receiving 200 replies to a Green Paper is doing well. They had 15,400 responses, only 60 of which were in favour of their proposals.
  I have not ended the "Hitchhiker's Guide" yet. Then the Conservative Government said that they would reduce the external financing limits to half the Post Office's forecast post-tax profits in the autumn, something that we are doing in the Bill: 50 per cent. this year, reduced to 40 per cent. next year. They said they would make progress on that in the autumn. That autumn they hiked the EFL to 300 per cent. of that year's Post Office profits. The reason why a first-class stamp costs 26p is that the Post Office was forced to respond by increasing the tariff four years ago.
  After all that, the Conservatives ended their term of office with a miserable little paragraph in their 1997 manifesto saying that, if elected, they would sell off Parcelforce and review the status of the rest of the business—right back to where they were in July 1992.
  The pity of all that is that the solution was there all along. The solution was staring them in the face. The hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) said that the Conservatives were enthusiastic about privatising the Post Office; well, we are enthusiastic about the Conservatives standing at the next election on that basis.
  The right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley) said that the Post Office network was already in the private sector. I have heard that myth before, and it is ludicrous. The Post Office network—Post Office Counters Ltd.—is driven and financed from the centre, from a publicly owned Post Office network. The private business is a public-private partnership, but private businessmen come into the business on the basis of a network 10,000 of whose constituents make a loss, and have to be cross-subsidised to the tune of £30 million a year from the rest of the network. They can do nothing about that because the system is socially necessary, although not always commercially viable.
  The right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden said—I thought this a bit rich—that the Post Office had missed the glittering prizes that would have belonged to it if it had been in the vanguard and not in the rear. After all the Conservatives' maladroit handling of the Post Office, the answer was staring them in the face all along. It was the Select Committee on Trade and Industry in 1995, under a Conservative majority, that rejected the
  870
  argument that the only way to commercial freedom was through privatisation; there was a public sector solution. The Committee said:
  "We recommend that the Government introduce legislation to convert the Post Office … into a 100 per cent. government-owned plc … in the knowledge that the future sale of any of the Government's shares in Post Office plc would be subject to parliamentary approval."
  An earlier speaker suggested that there was no enthusiasm among Labour Members, or among the Post Office work force, for anything other than the status quo. That is not true. We always argued that the Post Office needed commercial and financial freedom, but we rejected the dogmatic approach of the then Government and argued that our approach would provide a solution.
  Arrangements were introduced in 1995. The Post Office has been under permanent review for the past eight years, and has suffered as a consequence. All our rivals in Europe have gained ground; we could have been much further forward. Conservative Members are talking out of the back of their collective lorries. Their record demonstrates that we need no lectures from them.
  The other great myth that has featured in the debate—the other issue that I believe needs to be addressed—is the argument that we are debating the future of the Post Office network in relation to problems experienced in the transfer to ACT, and the fears raised in that regard. Let us be clear—the Bill has been welcomed by everyone, including the National Federation of Sub-Postmasters, the Mail Users Association, POUNC and others. They see it as a way of underpinning the viability of the Post Office Counters network.
  The problem for the last Government, and the problem that the Opposition have now, is that they never found a solution to privatisation of the Post Office that did not involve breaking it up—and breaking it up, and making a split with counters, provides no viable solution, even under the measures that they have proposed.
  The Bill is good news for the whole Post Office, including the counters network. The introduction of access criteria is a positive advantage for the network. However, we need to deal again with the issues that were raised in the debate about whether or not the network is condemned to decline. I thought that the hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin)—perhaps I can ruin his career as well—made a good speech, which should have been a speech from the Front Bench. If the argument is just about timing, all the scare stories that are going around will be removed.
  On the position in relation to the Post Office Counters network, Conservative Members cannot continue to say that they have found a solution through the benefit payments card. By the time we came to office, that solution was already curling at the edges. They had to reconfigure it themselves before we even came to office. We found a private finance initiative where the financier was the same as the developer. The project had overrun by three years and was vastly overspent. As the Select Committee on Trade and Industry has rightly said, it was blighted from the start.
  We had a choice. One was to continue to watch decline turn to crisis and crisis turn to collapse, leaving it as someone's else problem down the road. The network has shrunk by 20 per cent. in 20 years. Under the previous Government between 1990 and 1997, 10 per cent. of the rural network closed. It was gradually seeping away.

  871
  There is no question that any responsible Government would fail to recognise, first, that people were going to move to ACT as a safe, secure system of paying people's benefits; and secondly, that it needed to be planned on the back of an automated Post Office network, which is what the Horizon platform is all about.
  I understand the concerns that have been expressed by sub-postmasters, sub-postmistresses and their communities. We understand that fully. We ask: where is the winning post? If it is a Government commitment to a national Post Office network, we have given it. If it is a Government commitment to modernise that network, we have given it. If it is a Government commitment on choice—the general secretary of the National Federation of Sub-Postmasters, a very astute trade union leader, said:
  "All we are asking for is choice"—
  the choice is there. We will ensure that anyone who wishes to draw their payments in cash across the post office counter will continue to be able to do so. We will not force people to open bank accounts. We will not dilute their benefits through bank charges and so on.
  We have given those assurances, but the argument sometimes creeps in, particularly from those who are whipping up the furore that will undermine the Post Office network, in favour of the status quo—that we should force people to queue up for benefits and should not give them the option of having them paid into their bank account
  Therefore, we have given all the assurances in terms of the Post Office network. We admit that, at this stage, not every answer is in place. That is why the migration will not be completed until 2005. That is why we have said that we will approach the issue through a performance and innovation unit study that was commissioned last year, which will look at the whole network and its contribution to the Government's aims and objectives.
  Mr. Page: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Johnson: No, I do not have time to give way.
  By having the debate and by putting a spotlight on the Post Office network, we have demonstrated for probably the first time that the Post Office network is under-utilised and not properly promoted. There are enormous opportunities in the network. A trial is being operated in Cornwall, where 270 rural post offices provide banking services for Barclays. We are putting bank machines into rural post offices, an initiative which has been greatly welcomed by the local communities. Yes, people do draw from their accounts and then go into the post office and spend their money.
  Mrs. Browning: Will the Minister clarify what he means by "we" when he says, "We are putting bank machines into post offices"? We have a clear written answer that says it is not "we"—the Government; it is a commercial transaction between banks and post offices.
  Mr. Johnson: The fact that I spent 30 years in the Post Office makes me talk about it in that sense, but the Government are encouraging the Post Office. We sit with
  872
  the National Federation of Sub-Postmasters and with the Post Office on the Horizon working group to find ways, in partnership, of utilising that invaluable, crucial network.
  Many other opportunities are available. We have the opportunity, in modernising government, to make the Post Office network the gateway for on-line services by 2008. We also have the opportunity to reintroduce banking into rural areas that lost their banks many years ago. As I said, the Post Office network will not be well served by opposing Second Reading. It is crucial that the Bill should be passed to underpin the Post Office network.
  I should like to reply to a couple of the speeches that have been made in the debate. The hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton asked about the Post Office's ability to borrow—which she described as a hidden subsidy—from the national loans fund. It is not a subsidy. As the White Paper made clear, the Post Office will be charged commercial rates by the national loans fund. Moreover, if we had allowed the Post Office to borrow commercially on the open market, lenders might have expected the Government to act as lender of last resort or as the guarantor of loans. We are therefore ensuring a level playing field in borrowing.
  The hon. Lady also mentioned the £5 billion indebtedness limit. The British Telecommunications Act 1981 introduced a £1.7 billion indebtedness limit. We have merely brought up to date that figure and included it in legislation that is meant to last for many years.
  I do not have time to reply to the many effective and eloquent speeches made by Labour Members or to the speeches made by Opposition Members, but I should like to mention the maiden speech of the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas). The other week, we had a mouse in the Chamber. Today, thanks to his speech, the House was treated to a description of a bottle-nosed porpoise. He also painted a very vivid picture of his constituency.
  As it was the hon. Gentleman's maiden speech, I shall respond very quickly to the three issues that he raised. He asked whether the £1 monopoly would be safe. The £ 1 monopoly will be there as long as it protects universal service at a uniform tariff, which we believe should be low enough to protect competition while protecting that very important principle.
  The hon. Gentleman asked whether we are trying to privatise by the back door. The answer is no. He asked whether there should be a Welsh council, separate from the consumer council, for postal services. There is a national postal service and we need one consumers representative with regional and country committees spread around the United Kingdom. The hon. Gentleman made a very important contribution to the debate and an eloquent maiden speech.
  I should also reply to the very important point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Ochil (Mr. O'Neill), who is the Chairman of the Trade and Industry Select Committee, on the sale of shares in relevant subsidiaries. The Bill will protect the universal service part of the Post Office—Parcelforce, Royal Mail and Post Office Counters—from any future share sales without the matter requiring primary legislation. We do not think that such provision is necessary for Post Office subsidiaries—such as German Parcel, which the Post Office only recently purchased. We are therefore saying that there is a clear

  873
  difference between the main, universal Post Office services and the Post Office's subsidiaries, such as German Parcel.
  This has been a good debate. We are modernising the Post Office. It was a Labour Government who, in 1969, took the Post Office out of the civil service and made it a public corporation. We are now modernising it so that it is able to face the new challenges of the 21st century.
  We can be proud of the United Kingdom Post Office. We have provided the blueprint for postal services around the world. The Bill will preserve those cherished services while ensuring that a publicly owned Post Office is able to compete effectively in the communications market of the 21st century.
  Question put, That the amendment be made:—
  The House divided: Ayes 115, Noes 374.

  Division No. 74]

  [9.59 pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Amess, David

  Hunter, Andrew

  Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

  Jack, Rt Hon Michael

  Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Baldry, Tony

  Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Beggs, Roy

  Bercow, John

  Key, Robert

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

  Blunt, Crispin

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Body, Sir Richard

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Brady, Graham

  Lansley, Andrew

  Brazier, Julian

  Letwin, Oliver

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Lidington, David

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Burns, Simon

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Butterfill, John

  Loughton, Tim

  Cash, William

  Luff, Peter

  Chope, Christopher

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Clappison, James

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

  MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Maples, John

  Clifton—Brown, Geoffrey

  Maude, Rt Hon Francis

  Collins, Tim

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

  Colvin, Michael

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Cran, James

  Moss, Malcolm

  Curry, Rt Hon David

  Norman, Archie

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

  O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

  Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

  Page, Richard

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  Paice, James

  Duncan, Alan

  Paterson, Owen

  Evans, Nigel

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Fallon, Michael

  Randall, John

  Forth, Rt Hon Eric

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Fox, Dr Liam

  Robertson, Laurence

  Fraser, Christopher

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Gale, Roger

  Ruffley, David

  Garnier, Edward

  St Aubyn, Nick

  Gibb, Nick

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Gill, Christopher

  Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Shepherd, Richard

  Gray, James

  Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

  Greenway, John

  Soames, Nicholas

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Hammond, Philip

  Spring, Richard

  Hawkins, Nick

  Steen, Anthony

  Heald, Oliver

  Streeter, Gary

  Heathcoat—Amory, Rt Hon David

  Swayne, Desmond

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

  Syms, Robert

  Horam, John

  Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

  874

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

  Townend, John

  Wilkinson, John

  Tredinnick, David

  Wilshire, David

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Yeo, Tim

  Viggers, Peter

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Wardle, Charles

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Waterson, Nigel

  Mr. Peter Atkinson and

  Whitney, Sir Raymond

  Mr. Stephen Day.

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

  Ainger, Nick

  Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Ainsworth, Robert (Covtry NE)

  Alexander, Douglas

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Allan, Richard

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Allen, Graham

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Clelland, David

  Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

  Coaker, Vernon

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Ashton, Joe

  Cohen, Harry

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Coleman, Iain

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Colman, Tony

  Austin, John

  Connarty, Michael

  Baker, Norman

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Ballard, Jackie

  Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)

  Banks, Tony

  Corbett, Robin

  Barnes, Harry

  Cotter, Brian

  Barron, Kevin

  Cousins, Jim

  Battle, John

  Cox, Tom

  Bayley, Hugh

  Cranston, Ross

  Beard, Nigel

  Crausby, David

  Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

  Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

  Berth, Rt Hon A J

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Bell, Martin (Tatton)

  Cummings, John

  Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov"try S)

  Benton, Joe

  Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Dalyell, Tam

  Berry, Roger

  Darvill, Keith

  Best, Harold

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Blackman, Liz

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Davidson, Ian

  Blizzard, Bob

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Borrow, David

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

  Bradley, Keith (Withington)

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Dawson, Hilton

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Denham, John

  Brake, Tom

  Dismore, Andrew

  Brand, Dr Peter

  Dobbin, Jim

  Breed, Colin

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Brinton, Mrs Helen

  Doran, Frank

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Dowd, Jim

  Browne, Desmond

  Drew, David

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Burden, Richard

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Burgon, Colin

  Edwards, Huw

  Burnett, John

  Efford, Clive

  Burstow, Paul

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Butler, Mrs Christine

  Ennis, Jeff

  Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

  Etherington, Bill

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Fearn, Ronnie

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Field, Rt Hon Frank

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Fisher, Mark

  Campbell—Savours, Dale

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Cann, Jamie

  Fitzsimons, Lorna

  Caplin, Ivor

  Flint, Caroline

  Casale, Roger

  Flynn, Paul

  Caton, Martin

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Cawsey, Ian

  Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Foulkes, George

  Chidgey, David

  Fyfe, Maria

  Clapham, Michael

  Galbraith, Sam

  875

  Galloway, George

  Lepper, David

  Gapes, Mike

  Leslie, Christopher

  Gardiner, Barry

  Levitt, Tom

  George, Andrew (St Ives)

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  Gilroy, Mrs Linda

  Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  Livsey, Richard

  Goggins, Paul

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Love, Andrew

  Gordon, Mrs Eileen

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Grocott, Bruce

  Macdonald, Calum

  Grogan, John

  McDonnell, John

  Gunnell, John

  McFall, John

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  McIsaac, Shona

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

  Hancock, Mike

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Hanson, David

  Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert

  Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

  McNamara, Kevin

  Harris, Dr Evan

  McNulty, Tony

  Harvey, Nick

  MacShane, Denis

  Healey, John

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

  McWalter, Tony

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  McWilliam, John

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Heppell, John

  Mallaber, Judy

  Hesford, Stephen

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Hewitt, Ms Patricia

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

  Hill, Keith

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Hinchliffe, David

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Hoey, Kate

  Marshall—Andrews, Robert

  Hood, Jimmy

  Martlew, Eric

  Hope, Phil

  Maxton, John

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Merron, Gillian

  Howells, Dr Kim

  Michie, Bill (Shef"ld Heeley)

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

  Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

  Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Miller, Andrew

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Mitchell, Austin

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Moffatt, Laura

  Hurst, Alan

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Hutton, John

  Moore, Michael

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Moran, Ms Margaret

  Illsley, Eric

  Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

  Jamieson, David

  Morley, Elliot

  Jenkins, Brian

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

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

  Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Morris, Rt Hon Sir John (Aberavon)

  Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

  Mountford, Kali

  Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

  Mudie, George

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Mullin, Chris

  Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Oaten, Mark

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  O'Hara, Eddie

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  O'Neill, Martin

  Kemp, Fraser

  Öpik, Lembit

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

  Organ, Mrs Diana

  Pearson, Ian

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Pendry, Tom

  Kidney, David

  Perham, Ms Linda

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Pickthall, Colin

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Pike, Peter L

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Plaskitt, James

  Kumar, Dr Ashok

  Pollard, Kerry

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Pond, Chris

  Laxton, Bob

  Pope, Greg

  876

  Pound, Stephen

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Powell, Sir Raymond

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Stunell, Andrew

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Purchase, Ken

  Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce

  Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Radice, Rt Hon Giles

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Rammell, Bill

  Temple—Morris, Peter

  Rapson, Syd

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Raynsford, Nick

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

  Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

  Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

  Timms, Stephen

  Rendel, David

  Tipping, Paddy

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov"try NW)

  Todd, Mark

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Tonge, Dr Jenny

  Rogers, Allan

  Trickett, Jon

  Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff

  Truswell, Paul

  Rooney, Terry

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'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)

  Tynan, Bill

  Sanders, Adrian

  Vis, Dr Rudi

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Ward, Ms Claire

  Sawford, Phil

  Watts, David

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Webb, Steve

  Shaw, Jonathan

  Welsh, Andrew

  Sheerman, Barry

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Shipley, Ms Debra

  Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

  Singh, Marsha

  Skinner, Dennis

  Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

  Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

  Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Willis, Phil

  Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

  Wills, Michael

  Winnick, David

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Wise, Audrey

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

  Woodward, Shaun

  Snape, Peter

  Woolas, Phil

  Southworth, Ms Helen

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Squire, Ms Rachel

  Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Stevenson, George

  Mr. Don Touhig and

  Stewart, David (Inverness E)

  Mr. Clive Betts.

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Main Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 62 (Amendment on Second or Third Reading):—
  The House divided: Ayes 331, Noes 155.

  Division No. 75]

  [10.15 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Austin, John

  Ainger, Nick

  Banks, Tony

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Barnes, Harry

  Alexander, Douglas

  Barron, Kevin

  Allen, Graham

  Battle, John

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Bayley, Hugh

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

  Beard, Nigel

  Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

  Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

  Ashton, Joe

  Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Bennett, Andrew F

  877

  Benton, Joe

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Berry, Roger

  Edwards, Huw

  Best, Harold

  Efford, Clive

  Blackman, Liz

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Ennis, Jeff

  Blizzard, Bob

  Etherington, Bill

  Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

  Field, Rt Hon Frank

  Borrow, David

  Fisher, Mark

  Bradley, Keith (Withington)

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Fitzsimons, Lorna

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Flint, Caroline

  Brinton, Mrs Helen

  Flynn, Paul

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

  Browne, Desmond

  Foulkes, George

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Fyfe, Maria

  Burden, Richard

  Galbraith, Sam

  Burgon, Colin

  Galloway, George

  Butler, Mrs Christine

  Gapes, Mike

  Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

  Gardiner, Barry

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Gilroy, Mrs Linda

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  Campbell—Savours, Dale

  Goggins, Paul

  Cann, Jamie

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Caplin, Ivor

  Gordon, Mrs Eileen

  Casale, Roger

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Caton, Martin

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Cawsey, Ian

  Griffiths, Win (Bridend)

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Grocott, Bruce

  Clapham, Michael

  Grogan, John

  Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

  Gunnell, John

  Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

  Hanson, David

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Healey, John

  Clelland, David

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  Coaker, Vernon

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Heppell, John

  Cohen, Harry

  Hesford, Stephen

  Coleman, Iain

  Hewitt, Ms Patricia

  Colman, Tony

  Hill, Keith

  Connarty, Michael

  Hinchliffe, David

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Hoey, Kate

  Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)

  Hood, Jimmy

  Corbett, Robin

  Hope, Phil

  Cousins, Jim

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Cox, Tom

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Cranston, Ross

  Howells, Dr Kim

  Crausby, David

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

  Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Cummings, John

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)

  Hurst, Alan

  Hutton, John

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov"try S)

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Curtis—Thomas, Mrs Claire

  Illsley, Eric

  Dalyell, Tam

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Darvill, Keith

  Jamieson, David

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Jenkins, Brian

  Davidson, Ian

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

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

  Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

  Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

  Dawson, Hilton

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Denham, John

  Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

  Dismore, Andrew

  Dobbin, Jim

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Doran, Frank

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Dowd, Jim

  Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa

  Drew, David

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  878

  Kemp, Fraser

  Pound, Stephen

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Powell, Sir Raymond

  Kidney, David

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Kumar, Dr Ashok

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Purchase, Ken

  Laxton, Bob

  Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce

  Lepper, David

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Leslie, Christopher

  Radice, Rt Hon Giles

  Levitt, Tom

  Rammell, Bill

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Rapson, Syd

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  Raynsford, Nick

  Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

  Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

  Love, Andrew

  Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

  McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Rogers, Allan

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff

  Macdonald, Calum

  Rooney, Terry

  McDonnell, John

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  McFall, John

  Rowlands, Ted

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Roy, Frank

  McIsaac, Shona

  Ruane, Chris

  McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

  Ruddock, Joan

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  McNamara, Kevin

  Salter, Martin

  McNulty, Tony

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  MacShane, Denis

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Sawford, Phil

  McWalter, Tony

  Sedgemore, Brian

  McWilliam, John

  Shaw, Jonathan

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Sheerman, Barry

  Mallaber, Judy

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Shipley, Ms Debra

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Singh, Marsha

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Marshall—Andrews, Robert

  Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

  Martlew, Eric

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Maxton, John

  Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

  Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

  Merron, Gillian

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Michie, Bill (Shef"ld Heeley)

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

  Snape, Peter

  Miller, Andrew

  Southworth, Ms Helen

  Mitchell, Austin

  Squire, Ms Rachel

  Moffatt, Laura

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Moran, Ms Margaret

  Stevenson, George

  Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

  Stewart, David (Inverness E)

  Morley, Elliot

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

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

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  Morris, Rt Hon Sir John (Aberavon)

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Mountford, Kali

  Mudie, George

  Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

  Mullin, Chris

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Temple—Morris, Peter

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Timms, Stephen

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Tipping, Paddy

  O'Hara, Eddie

  Todd, Mark

  O'Neill, Martin

  Trickett, Jon

  Organ, Mrs Diana

  Truswell, Paul

  Pearson, Ian

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Pendry, Tom

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  Perham, Ms Linda

  Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

  Pickthall, Colin

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Pike, Peter L

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Plaskitt, James

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Pollard, Kerry

  Tynan, Bill

  Pond, Chris

  Vis, Dr Rudi

  Pope, Greg

  Walley, Ms Joan

  879

  Ward, Ms Claire

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Watts, David

  Wise, Audrey

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Woodward, Shaun

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Woolas, Phil

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

  Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

  Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Wills, Michael

  Mr. Clive Belts and

  Winnick, David

  Mr. Don Touhig.

  NOES

  Allan, Richard

  Gray, James

  Amess, David

  Greenway, John

  Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

  Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

  Hammond, Philip

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Hancock, Mike

  Baker, Norman

  Harris, Dr Evan

  Baldly, Tony

  Harvey, Nick

  Ballard, Jackie

  Hawkins, Nick

  Beggs, Roy

  Heald, Oliver

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

  Bell, Martin (Tatton)

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

  Bercow, John

  Horam, John

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Blunt, Crispin

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Body, Sir Richard

  Hunter, Andrew

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Jack, Rt Hon Michael

  Brady, Graham

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Brake, Tom

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Brand, Dr Peter

  Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Brazier, Julian

  Breed, Colin

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

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Key, Robert

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

  Burnett, John

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Burns, Simon

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Burstow, Paul

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Butterfill, John

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Cash, William

  Lansley, Andrew

  Chidgey, David

  Letwin, Oliver

  Chope, Christopher

  Lidington, David

  Clappison, James

  Livsey, Richard

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Loughton, Tim

  Clifton—Brown, Geoffrey

  Luff, Peter

  Collins, Tim

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Colvin, Michael

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Cotter, Brian

  MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

  Cran, James

  Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert

  Curry, Rt Hon David

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Maples, John

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

  Maude, Rt Hon Francis

  Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Duncan, Alan

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

  Evans, Nigel

  Moore, Michael

  Fallon, Michael

  Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)

  Fearn, Ronnie

  Moss, Malcolm

  Forth, Rt Hon Eric

  Norman, Archie

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Oaten, Mark

  Fox, Dr Liam

  O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

  Fraser, Christopher

  Öpik, Lembit

  Garnier, Edward

  Paice, James

  George, Andrew (St Ives)

  Paterson, Owen

  Gibb, Nick

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Gill, Christopher

  Randall, John

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  880

  Rendel, David

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Robertson, Laurence

  Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Tonge, Dr Jenny

  Ross, William (E Lond'y)

  Townend, John

  Ruffley, David

  Tredinnick, David

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Tyler, Paul

  St Aubyn, Nick

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Sanders, Adrian

  Wardle, Charles

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Waterson, Nigel

  Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

  Webb, Steve

  Shepherd, Richard

  Welsh, Andrew

  Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

  Whitney, Sir Raymond

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

  Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

  Soames, Nicholas

  Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Wilkinson, John

  Spring, Richard

  Willis, Phil

  Steen, Anthony

  Wilshire, David

  Streeter, Gary

  Yeo, Tim

  Stunell, Andrew

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Swayne, Desmond

  Syms, Robert

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

  Mr. Stephen Day and

  Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strangford)

  Mr. Peter Atkinson.

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Bill read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee, pursuant to Standing Order No. 63 (Committal of Bills).

POSTAL SERVICES 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 Postal Services Bill, it is expedient to authorise—
(1) the payment out of money provided by Parliament of—

(a) any expenditure incurred by a Minister of the Crown or government department in consequence of the Act; and

(b) any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable out of money so provided under any other enactment;

(2) the payment out of the National Loans Fund of sums required by the Secretary of State for making loans to the Post Office company or any of its subsidiaries;
(3) the extinguishment of liabilities of the Post Office company or any of its subsidiaries by order of the Secretary of State;
(4) the payment out of the National Loans Fund or the Consolidated Fund of any increase attributable to the Act in the sums so payable under any other enactment.—[Mr. Clelland.]
Question agreed to.

POSTAL SERVICES BILL [WAYS AND MEANS]
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 52(1)(a),
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Postal Services Bill, it is expedient to authorise—

(1) the inclusion in licences granted under the Act of provisions requiring payments to be made;

(2) payments into the Consolidated Fund or the National Loans Fund.—[Mr. Clelland.]

Question agreed to.

London Government
10.28 pm
Mr. Bernard Jenkin: I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Greater London Authority Elections Rules 2000 (S.1. 2000, No. 208), dated 1st February 2000, a copy of which was laid before this House on 8th February, be annulled.
We are dealing with two consecutive orders. The first is detailed above; the second is the Greater London Authority (Election Expenses) Order 2000. They are related in the matter that we want to pursue: our fundamental objection that neither order provides for free mailings for candidates in the forthcoming London elections. We object to both orders, in order to apply as much pressure as possible on the Government to change their mind. I shall raise specific concerns about expenses during the debate on the second order.
We are joined in our objections by every party except the Labour party. The House will have noted that the motion is in the name of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition and that of the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Inverness, West (Mr. Kennedy), the leader of the Liberal Democrats; it is a prayer in joint names.
We are genuinely mystified as to why the Government have got themselves into this situation, finding themselves defending a lonely position in glorious isolation—a position that is in fact indefensible. Tonight's is something of a phoney war, because the real battle will be fought in the other place next week, when these orders come before their Lordships; and the Government, if they maintain their present position, will lose both orders in the upper House. If that happens, it will be the first time the upper House has defeated secondary legislation since 1968, when the issue of Rhodesian sanctions was being debated more than 30 years ago.
The Government cannot possibly sustain their present position. No doubt we shall be accused of wrecking—I hear the echo from the Labour Bench already—but there is plenty of time to put these matters right on the basis of compromise. We shall be accused of being irresponsible, but we are in fact taking a constructive approach. Last night in the other place, the official Opposition tabled a constructive amendment to the Representation of the People Bill, providing for mandatory free mailings in London elections.
The Government should already be aware of the weakness of their case and the strength of the arguments against it. I hope that the Minister who replies to tonight's debate will not simply read out the rather weak speech delivered by Lord Bassam of Brighton.
No doubt we shall be told that the upper House has no legitimacy to sustain the argument that we are pursuing tonight, but the upper House is doing no more than pursuing what has become known as the Jay doctrine—the doctrine enunciated by Baroness Jay of Paddington, who explained that the upper House is more legitimate as a result of the recent reforms,
"because its members have earned their places, and"
it is
"therefore more effective in playing its part in our bicameral constitution."
Those are her words, not ours, and that is why the upper House feels able to exercise its authority in that way.
882
Let us first place on record the importance of the mayoral and Greater London Authority elections. These are exceptional elections. There will be 5.1 million voters voting in the election for the mayor of London. There are 350,000 electors per super-constituency, and the only way the candidates can get information to their voters in this extraordinary and unique city is by way of the free mailing. If there is not a free mailing, millions of ordinary voters will have absolutely no direct contact with their constituency candidates.
Our position, as set out in the amendment to the Representation of the People Bill tabled in the other place last night, is that there should be one free mailing for each mayoral candidate and one free mailing for each of the candidates in the super-constituencies. We propose that the mailing of the mayoral candidate and the mailing of a super-constituency candidate should be able to endorse one set of list candidates. We need to amend the spending limits in the second order to reflect the availability of the free mailing.
At the time of the passage of the Bill that became the Greater London Authority Act 1999, there was every expectation that free mailings would be available. At no point was it ever suggested that the precedent set by Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland would not be followed.
Since the Royal Assent to the 1999 Act on 11 November there has been ample time for the Government to conduct a proper and open consultation, but they delayed more than a month before writing to the other parties to suggest what their proposals might be. It was on 15 December that the Under"Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, the hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Hill), wrote to us in solemn tones about the GLA's unique position in the electoral processes of this nation, and told us that the election would be treated in the same way as any other local authority election as far as free mailings were concerned.
Every political party except the Labour party responded in the strongest terms to that consultation. The letter from the Conservative party said:
"Like every other political party involved in the London elections, we have strong objections to many of your proposals. Each of the innovations that Labour is proposing seems purpose made to disadvantage the smaller and less well financed and organised parties."
The absence of free mailing is at the top of that list.
Mr. Simon Hughes: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there is another strong reason why our case should be followed? We are putting through the House—it was in another place yesterday—the Representation of the People Bill, which is designed to increase voter turnout and to engage more people in elections. That is the Government's declared objective. Yet every piece of evidence suggests that, if we do not allow the electorate to receive literature through a free mailing, voting numbers will go down and the first London election will have a lower turnout. The credibility of campaigns will be under threat both this year and thereafter.
Mr. Jenkin: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. It is extraordinary that the Minister got up to the strangest antics in Trafalgar square—he let off balloons and tried

883
to dance a rap for the benefit of the cameras—but will not pursue the most obvious course to increase the turnout in these important elections by allowing voters to receive information directly from the candidates.
We have an extraordinary and unprecedented situation. It is customary for election arrangements to be dealt with as a matter of consensus, but we have finished up with the governing party imposing its will without regard to the views of any other party and in an unfair, undemocratic and dictatorial fashion.
Ms Diane Abbott: Some Labour Members find it regrettable that it should be left to Her Majesty's Opposition to defend democratic processes. None the less, does the hon. Gentleman not agree that many inner London constituencies, in particular, have endemic problems with low turnouts, and that anything that is calculated to make that turnout even lower is not in the best interests of a successful launch for the new Greater London Authority?
Mr. Jenkin: I totally concur with the hon. Lady. That is why it is all the more mystifying that the party that says that it is desperately worried about low turnouts should shoot itself in the foot and discredit one of its own prized constitutional reforms. The Government's actions seem tailor-made to reducing turnout and interest in the election. The process that they have chosen seems designed to create the very apathy that they say they are against.
The orders are particularly unfair to the smaller parties. Higher spending limits with no free mailing—that implies that one has to raise one's own funding for mailshotscan suit only the largest and best financed parties. We know that money is little object for one particular party, but the provision is extremely unfair on smaller and less well funded parties.
Three principle arguments were advanced by Lord Bassam of Brighton last night. First, he said that it will simply be a local election and that the precedent is set by elections to the Greater London council. In fact, that is not the precedent. The GLA will have a completely different electoral system and constituencies are very much larger. However, the key point relates to the mayoral election. There will be 5.1 million voters in a single constituency and they will take part in a single election.
It would be unprecedented if there were no free mailing to enable the mayoral candidates to communicate with those 5.1 million voters. That electorate is substantially larger than the Scottish, Welsh or Northern Ireland electorates. What phoney distinction are the Government trying to make to justify the fact that those electorates are entitled to free mailings while London is not?
If these are local elections, why do the candidates have to make large deposits? We have deposits in parliamentary elections, European elections and elections for the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly and the Northern Ireland Assembly because those elections are important, so they also have free mailings. The Government cannot have it both ways and demand deposits from candidates without providing free mailings.
The second argument concerns cost. I am afraid that if there is to be a Greater London Authority and a mayor, a certain amount of expense will be involved in making sure
884
that the elections to the mayoralty and the Assembly are free and fair, and if the Government were not prepared to meet those costs, they should have thought of that before starting the process of reform.
I hope that the Minister will not come up with the ludicrous, scaremongering, Treasury-type costings of between £30 million and £35 million for those free mailings. That is utterly absurd. The Government are living in cloud cuckoo land if they think that such figures are realistic. If free mailings would be such bad value for money for Londoners, why were they such good value in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland? That is completely inconsistent.
The Government's third argument against free mailings is becoming known as the curry house argument, because they say that the free mailings would somehow be abused by people who run curry houses, so leaflets trying to sell curries would be circulated rather than election addresses. That, too, is totally ludicrous. First, as was pointed out in the debate in the other place last night, the Post Office has to vet leaflets for election free mailings, and if it is not satisfied that the information is bona fide, the leaflet falls at the first fence.
Secondly, if such abuse is so serious, why has there been no such abuse in parliamentary elections, European elections or Welsh, Scottish or Northern Ireland elections?
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Mr. Nick Raynsford): Because of the size of the electorate.
Mr. Jenkin: But the size of European constituencies is considerable, and the list mailings for the Scottish, Welsh and Northern Ireland elections covered large electorates. The hon. Gentleman is living on a different planet. He is making it up because he is in a corner and does not know what else to say.
In any case, the curry house argument does not stand up because the curry house would have to print the leaflets, pay the deposit and pay for the envelopes, which would be a considerable outlay. A free mailing is not a free ride, as the hon. Gentleman seems to think, but it gives small parties a chance to communicate with electors who would not otherwise receive a thing. There are vast swathes of London where, to the shame of us all, there is precious little political activity and no large parties are able to canvass actively. The electorate consists of many single households, many people who are ex-directory and many people who are out at all hours and who would never have direct contact with the representatives of any of the candidates.
It is also an exaggeration to suggest that there might be a large number of mayoral candidates—it was mentioned in the upper House that there might be 20 candidates—all using the free post facility.
The purpose of this debate is to send the Government a strong, clear signal. As I said earlier, there is a joint prayer from the two main opposition parties in the House against the Government's position. All the other, smaller parties support our action. Ours is not a wrecking manoeuvre; we have set out constructive proposals in the other place. Tonight's debate is a dress rehearsal for what will happen in the upper House if the Government do not see sense. The Government will lose the vote in the upper House, not because of the Conservatives, but because they will be opposed by peers of all parties represented there.

885
Some of their colleagues in the upper House and in House of Commons are extremely unhappy with the Government's decision.
To threaten the electoral process is not the right way forward. All we ask is for dialogue, compromise, consensus and reason—all of which are sadly lacking at present. We could ascribe to the Government all sorts of motives for their behaviour, but that is not our purpose in pursuing the matter tonight. We want a reasonable solution. We want the orders ultimately to obtain consent, so that the elections can proceed in an orderly manner. It is in the Government's gift to ensure that that happens.
10.46 pm
Ms Diane Abbott: The hour is late, but as a London Member of Parliament I would be remiss in my responsibilities to my constituents if I did not put the interests of London electors on the record this evening. For nearly 20 years, I have been, first, a local government councillor and now a Member of Parliament for an inner London constituency. I know only too well the problems with election turnout in inner cities—the problems with getting people out to vote and making them aware of the real issues on which elections are fought.
We have created a brand new political structure; we face the first ever election for a mayor for London. It is astonishing to some of us that the Government seriously propose not to have a free post in the election. It might technically be just another local authority election, but Ministers know full well that it is not the same. The number of people involved and the significance of the mayoralty mean that it is more than a local authority election. Ministers cannot get away with that argument.
If the House of Lords knocks the issue back to the Commons, Ministers should not argue that it is just another example of the peers versus the people. In fact, it will be the Government versus the people. It cannot be in the interests of my constituents or of the other electors of London that candidates should have no access to free mailing. Many of my constituents do not read a daily newspaper or watch "Newsnight" and other-political programmes. They expect to receive their mailshot from the political parties—indeed, they look forward to it, because it enables them to learn about the issues.
The proposal is ill thought out and the justifications that Ministers have offered do not stand up to examination. The idea that the mailshot can be used to publicise hairdressers and restaurants is utterly absurd. For the sake of short-term advantage, Ministers appear willing to play fast and loose with my constituents' access to information. I shall support the Government in the Lobby tonight, but I was anxious to put my remarks on the record. Members of the other place should be in no doubt that, even at this late stage, many London Members of Parliament and thousands of London electors are looking to the Government to change their mind.
Mr. Michael Jack: Will the hon. Lady tell me what short-term advantage she thinks Ministers will gain from the proposal?
Ms Abbott: The question of currying favour with the Treasury is always alive in the eyes of Ministers. However, let me put a wholly speculative proposition to
886
the House: let us imagine that there was an independent candidate who had led in the polls for the past two years; and let us imagine that the Government were frightened that that independent would attempt to run, albeit without the benefit of the funds available to major parties. It would be extremely convenient for the Government if that independent candidate were deprived of a free post and had to raise the money from his own sources—but that is a wholly speculative suggestion and I shall not detain the House by exploring it.
We are considering an important issue: the London electorate's right to gain access to information about the mayoralty. To put it as politely as I can, every single aspect of the mayoral campaign, from the original decision to go for a directly elected mayor onwards, has not been managed as well as it might have been and has tended to discredit the Government. It is with great regret that I say that to the House tonight.
10.51 pm
Mr. Edward Davey: The hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) put her finger on it when she exposed the Government's motivation for their treatment of the issue of free mailing. I hope that the hon. Lady will not support the Government in the Lobby, and that she will at least abstain to send a signal to some of her colleagues on the Labour Benches in another place. Many of them share her anxieties.
The Government's problem stems from their approach to the mayor and the Greater London Authority. From the beginning, they have been confused about whether the new form of government was regional, city or local government. The Government claim tonight that it is local government and that therefore there is no need for free mailing. However, that has not always been the Government's position. On Second Reading of the Greater London Authority Bill, my hon. Friend the Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) asked the Deputy Prime Minister:
"Will the proposal in the Bill be the first of England's regional governments or merely another form of local government?"
The Deputy Prime Minister gave a clear reply in his characteristic style:
"The proposed authority is not similar to any local government authority as we know it. It will be a new type of city government, with a city executive and an elected mayor … Therefore, it is fair to say that it is not the normal local government structure."—[[Official Report,] 14 December 1998; Vol. 322, c. 624.]
The Deputy Prime Minister said that the proposed authority was not a form of local government.
Mr. Raynsford: It is city government.
Mr. Davey: If the Government believe that, they should establish a new system of rules for electing city governments. As was said yesterday in another place, anxiety exists that, if other cities get mayors and hold elections, the expense may grow. Surely the way round that is to produce a new set of election rules and a new, specially designed process for city government. The Government should not try to create a hybrid form. That has got them into their mess.

887
The Minister's comments in Committee on amendments that paved the way for the statutory instrument show that the Government are in a mess. He said:
"The amendments modify the usual local election provisions when that is necessary as a result of the proposed new electoral system."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 28 January 1999; c. 76.]
In Committee, the Minister admitted that the GLA was not like local government and that the election rules had to be amended.
Mr. Jenkin: Scotland has a Parliament and Wales and Northern Ireland have Assemblies. Are not the London elections akin to national or regional elections, not local government elections, and should not London be treated with the same respect?
Mr. Davey: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. The Government have been schizophrenic about whether the authority constitutes local or regional government. Consequently, they have not been able to deal with the matter consistently. That is principally why we are here tonight, although there are other reasons, to which the hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington referred.
As the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) said, the difference between the GLA and local elections lies in the rules, which are set out in the statutory instrument. There are significant differences between the rules for the GLA and local elections in terms of personal expense limits and deposits. If GLA elections are so similar to local elections, why do we need the order and 100 pages of new rules? The Government's argument stands no test, as the size of the electorate shows: is the Minister suggesting that one of more than 5 million is similar to that of an ordinary council ward? That is patent nonsense.
We must return to why the free post was introduced by the Labour party by Act of Parliament in 1948. It rightly saw the need for equality in the way in which people and parties fought elections to ensure that candidates had a fair crack of the whip. In Committee, the Minister for Housing and Planning said:
"Our objective will be to set expenses limits that are realistic and allow candidates to campaign properly and without incurring technical problems. At the same time, we do not want to give unfair advantage to those with large financial resources."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 28 January 1999; c. 80.]
If that was his intention, why is he not proposing a free post tonight? That is clearly the way to ensure equality between candidates, and he is hoist by his own petard.
As the hon. Member for North Essex said, the free post is needed more than ever in London so that candidates can communicate with their electorate, because many people live in blocks of flats and residential developments with entry phones and locked gates. They are difficult to enter. Liberal Democrat Members are often teased for delivering the "Focus" newsletter around their constituencies, but I can vouch for the fact that it is difficult for anyone who is not a Post Office official to gain access to many houses in my constituency. It is important that the candidates have that chance and surely that need is even greater in this election.
The electorate are likely to be relatively confused about what is going on as the GLA is wholly new and not at all like the Greater London council, as Ministers have argued
888
many times, and there will be three new electoral systems. If the voters need information about any election, surely it is this one, and that information would enable them to understand what on earth is going on. However, the Minister is not prepared to allow them to have it and that is an absolute and utter disgrace.
Spurious arguments were made in the other place last night in defence of the Government's position, but the hon. Member for North Essex demolished them and I do not intend to cover the same ground. However, it was said that the issue of free mailing was not raised in Committee. That is factually incorrect. The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) questioned the Minister for Housing and Planning:
"Does he not envisage at least one free mailing, as is allowed in normal parliamentary elections?"
The Minister replied:
"The right hon. Gentleman raised the different issue of whether a free mailshot should apply, as in parliamentary elections, or whether it should not, as in local government elections. Perhaps he has raised one more issue."—[Off cial Report, Standing Committee A, 28 January 1999; c. 79.]
What sort of response is that? It shows that he was aware of the issue as he answered the question, but he was clearly hiding and not coming forward.
As one reads the Committee Hansard with the benefit of hindsight, it becomes increasingly evident that Ministers always intended not to provide a free post, but did not have the guts to tell us. I questioned the Minister on that very issue:
"As concern has been expressed that private companies will nominate candidates for the mayoral position, and use the free post for free advertising. On 26 October 1998, The Guardian reported that Ministers were concerned about such abuse of the free post and the electoral process … The report was written by David Hencke."
His article said that Ministers sent a memorandum to the Neill committee about that. I went on:
"It is not good enough for Ministers not to take this opportunity to clarify their thoughts and give us all an indication of when and how they will deal with the specific difficulty that arises from this unique election process."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 28 January 1999; c. 91.]
In other words, the issue was fully raised and Ministers had the chance to explain their position, and they did not. Again, the arguments put forward in the debate last night in the other place are shown to be inadequate.
Mr. Simon Hughes: Having also watched and listened to the debate in the other place, I should like to add that there is one other argument. The Minister in the other place speculated that it might cost about £30 million. Do Ministers not realise that already polling cards are delivered, and will be delivered, and that one could perfectly reasonably combine the polling card delivery with the free post delivery, and perfectly reasonably combine the information from all the candidates in one or two mailings? Ministers are inventing figures to undermine an argument that everybody else accepts.
Mr. Davey: My hon. Friend is exactly right. Ministers and other Labour Members may shake their heads and say that it is a ludicrous suggestion, but they should talk to the Electoral Reform Society, which says that this is done in other countries. Indeed, it is done on the continent and in the United States of America for elections for mayors of cities. If exactly that process can be applied elsewhere,

889
are Ministers saying that they run such an incompetent administration that they are not able to do it? That would be the logic if they said that they could not. On the issue of whether the free post is too expensive, the Government really have no grounds for their position.
Finally, I should like to address what happens if the statutory instrument falls. It may not fall tonight, but we are fairly sure that it will fall when it comes before the other place. Who will be to blame for the elections for the Greater London Authority not going ahead? The Government and their spin doctors will, of course, try to blame the Opposition parties, but the people of London will not believe them. The people of London see a Government with a majority of 179, a Government who put forward this new authority in their manifesto, who went to a referendum on it. They are expecting the Government to deliver the election, and they are very well aware that the Government have a few internal problems over the issue. They will suspect, quite rightly, that the Government backed down because there were such internal problems and divisions in their own party.
The idea that the Government will be able to blame the Opposition parties just will not wash. The reality is that the Opposition parties, throughout the process of setting up this new authority, have been very constructive. There has been an attempt to achieve consensus about the form of the new authority and over the electoral system. Indeed, the Government have been active in trying to achieve that consensus in many of their constitutional reforms, through setting up commissions, having cross-party working parties and so on. When it comes to the grubby issue of whether they are prepared to put their money where their mouth is and allow people to contest the election on a fair basis, they do not seek consensus; they just go with what suits the Labour party. That is a democratic outrage, and we shall be supporting the Conservative party tonight in the Lobby.
11.4 pm
Mr. John McDonnell: To preface what I shall say, I have campaigned in every general election and every local election in London Ace the abolition of the GLC in 1986, and the central plank of our campaign in all of them has been a policy programme based upon the restoration of democratic strategic government in the capital city.
Like my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, who described himself as a foot soldier in the party during that period, I have knocked on doors, delivered leaflets, spoken from soapboxes and run street stalls. All the way through, we have been arguing that what distinguishes us from the Conservative party is our commitment to democracy. Therefore, I am somewhat saddened by what has happened tonight and recently, because some incompetent bungle or tactical manoeuvre has now presented us with a situation in which the Tory party, which abolished democratic strategic government in this capital, can present itself as the defender of a democratic process by which candidates can communicate with the electorate. There is an irony there somewhere, that the party has moved on so much.
Let me say this to my own side. We can play games with party rules; we can manipulate selections—I suppose that that is all part of the political process—but I think that we interfere with the democratic process at all our
890
perils. It is one thing to sort out selections; it is another to undermine a basic freedom that we established as a party in 1948.
It is worth remembering the arguments that our Government—a Labour Government—advanced in 1948 for the establishment of a free post. First, they argued that elections should be based on an informed choice by electors. The free post would allow candidates to set out directly to electors the policies on which they wanted to determine their votes. They also argued strongly that it would overcome the problem of any one party's having a monopoly of resources, either financial or in terms of ownership of the media. They reserved it to large-scale elections; they left it to local volunteers at local elections to be able to contact each House.
I feel that the arguments in defence of the Government's position have opened us up almost to ridicule, certainly in the other place and now, I think, among the public. We have discussed some of those arguments, but the one about scale is overwhelming. We have a 5.1 million electorate for the mayor here; in Scotland there was a 4 million electorate, in Wales one of 2.2 million and in Northern Ireland one of one of 1.2 million, and they all had free posts. This is not like some by-election in Ambridge; this is a major election.
There is another argument about the status of the capital. This election will have implications for every Londoner but, because this is the capital, it will also have implications for the whole country. We are the gateway to the country; we are a major resource of the country; we are the ambassador for the rest of the country throughout the world.
We have heard an argument about cost. A mail-out to each household would cost £420,000. Even the figures presented by a Minister in the other place do not "stack up", but I do not think that there is a cost to democracy. If we carry the argument to its logical conclusion, why have five-yearly elections? Why not have them once every 10 years? That would be cheaper. Why not have a Prime Minister for life? That would be much cheaper altogether.
If we want to be more creative, let us look at some of the proposals presented by the electoral registration officers. They suggest a ballot standardising election addresses, and one delivery for all that are used elsewhere. The arguments about abuse of the system have been dealt with adequately, in the other House and here. The material is already vetted by the Post Office. There are already powers for intervention to prevent abuse of candidatures. It is noticeable that we argue that this is a local government election, and at the same time introduce a deposit as though it were a national election. We cannot have it both ways.
The weakest argument that I have heard so far is that a direct free post is not needed because the media will cover the election so intensely that candidates will have no problem in putting their policies across. Such faith in the fairness, balance and competence of the British media is touching. The gentle objectivity of The Sun, and the philosophical jesuitical balance of the debate in the Murdoch media empire, will of course be accepted by all candidates.
Mr. Tom Brake: Is the hon. Gentleman's experience the same as mine? Does he

891
think that, in many cases, the addressed free post will be the only delivery that multi-occupancy houses will receive during the election campaign? That very group of people are probably least likely to vote in an election.
Mr. McDonnell: I rarely have the same life experiences as a Liberal Democrat, but in that respect I do.
It is largely because of the bias, prejudice and, at times, bigotry of the media that the free post was introduced to give a candidate at least one opportunity to communicate directly, in an untrammelled way, with the electorate.
The arguments against the free post for the elections have been demonstrated in both Houses to be specious. The debate goes beyond the normal knockabout of party politics. A healthy democracy is founded on a ferocious and combative debate on policy issues, and on principles; but there must be a general consensus about the procedures on which that debate is based. That is why election orders such as this are usually agreed on a consensual basis.
That manipulation undermines that consensual approach, but, more important for me and for many of my colleagues, I think, it sets a precedent. A more ruthless Government may pray it in aid for more serious curtailments of democratic processes. By denying candidates the free post, we edge towards the American system, whereby democratic participation for candidatures is available only to those who can afford it. In that way, politics and candidatures become almost a commodity. When we have a commodity, people can be bought.
It is a mistaken act. We need to think again about it and to come back with a compromise formula before it goes to the other place.
11.10 pm
Mr. John Wilkinson: Thank God for old Labour. It is striking that it is new Labour which is Leninist now. It is new Labour for which the end justifies the means. The end is the imposition on London of the Prime Minister's preferred candidate. It does not matter if democracy is sacrificed in the process.
As usual, the hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) spoke with intellect on her side. The sad thing was that force majeure is against her. I am sure that her natural courage would have induced her to vote against the order, but the Labour party now deselects individuals who vote against the party line on a three-line whip. The hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) admitted as much in the early stages of the Greater London Authority Bill.
The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. McDonnell), who is a political neighbour and whom I know well, is one of the foremost experts on local government in the House of Commons. He knows more about local government in London than me. I defer to him on many matters. When he speaks as eloquently as he does, I take note, but he, too, does not have the courage of his convictions. I do not think that he is prepared to take on the Labour leadership and to say that it should not foist what is an ill-begotten idea on London—that London is so unimportant that it does not merit a free post.
As Londoners, we know that it is we who have subsidised the free post for the Assembly election in Northern Ireland, the Assembly election in Wales and the
892
parliamentary election in Scotland, yet, although we have the biggest electorate, we are led to suppose that we are not important enough to merit a free post, even though we have perhaps the most complicated system of them all.
In my constituency in outer London, the areas to be covered are huge. Harefield ward in rural Middlesex is as big as the whole of the Islington borough. This is just one ward. To ensure that every elector is informed about the programme of the candidates, it is our democratic duty to ensure that each and every elector receives an election address.
The electors have to be informed not only about the respective programme of the candidates, but about the system. With the mayoralty, there is the question of the double vote—how the second vote should be exercised. The mayoral candidate might want to give advice on that.
Mr. Jenkin: Has my hon. Friend noticed how the Government are not shy about putting out their own information? I have no doubt that London voters will be deluged by publicity at public expense to educate the masses about the great new assembly and mayoralty that is being created, but the Government do not want voters to receive information from other parties. There is something deeply unsavoury about that whole aspect.
Mr. Wilkinson: It is not only unsavoury, but dishonest. The Government insisted all through the passage of the Greater London Authority Act 1999 that one of the merits of proportional representation would be to ensure the inclusion of representatives of smaller parties. Smaller parties are important for London, as they represent perhaps different communities and ideologies. If the assembly is to be a working democracy, it is crucial that they should have a chance. Clearly, they will not have a genuine chance if there is no free post.
The hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington, with her candour and her charm, let the cat out o the bag. She did not name the feline specimen to whom she was referring, but it is a specimen red in tooth and claw, the hon. Member for Brent, East whom at all costs—but at zero cost to the electors—the governing party wishes to keep from office.
Nevertheless, I suspect that—having fraudulently put a double question in the referendum, then having tried to rig the ballot for the Labour candidacy, and now having sought to do away with the traditional democratic process of a free mailshot to all electors—they will get their come-uppance, which I suspect will be that the Labour candidate will not win the mayoralty on 4 May. That will be wonderful news.
11.16 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Keith Hill): Rather unusually among the speakers in this debate, I intend to speak to the issue that we are debating. We are not debating the Greater London Authority (Election Expenses) Order 2000—on which it might be possible to hang a discussion of the issue of free mailshots—but the

893
Greater London Authority Elections Rules 2000, which are about organisation of the election. If the rules were to be annulled, there would be no London elections at all.
Mr. Eric Forth: Good.
Mr. Hill: Opposition Members say good. Perhaps the prayer is part of a deep-laid plot to stop the elections.
The Greater London Authority Act 1999, approved by the House at the end of the previous Session, provides for the establishment of a Greater London Authority consisting of mayor and a London assembly. Section 4 and schedule 2 to the Act specify the voting systems for electing the authority, and schedule 3 amends section 36 of the Representation of the People Act 1983, so that rules can be made for the new elections. We are debating those rules today.
Those rules make possible the election of the Greater London Authority—which is a manifesto commitment. I also remind the House that the Greater London Authority was the subject of a London-wide referendum in 1998, which resulted in a clear yes vote from the people of London. The Greater London Authority was also the subject of legislation that was passed by both Houses and that, in November 1999, gained Royal Assent. That legislation specified the date of the election—May 4—in section 3. There can be no doubt that Parliament was clear about the date of the election. Without the election rules, there can be no election.
We have heard today that the Opposition's intention is to annul the rules, if not in this place, then in another place. They are attempting to do so not because there is anything wrong with the rules—which have been consulted upon widely, and are widely precedented—but because of an entirely extraneous issue that is not relevant to the rules at all: the Opposition's desire to have free mailshots. That desire is nothing to do with this order at all, and the Opposition's action is virtually unprecedented in the history of Parliament. It is incredible.
My noble Friend Lord Bassam, the Home Office Minister, made it quite clear in the debate in another place on the Representation of the People Bill why there would be no free mailshots for GLA elections. The GLA elections are local elections, and those do not have mailshots. Moreover, the cost of mailshots would be not only astronomical, but uncontrollable. The fact is that 20 mayoral candidates alone could spend £15 million, and there would be a real risk of abuse by frivolous candidates.
The GLA is a small streamlined authority with a budget of £35 million, and expenditure of £15 million to £20 million on mailshots would be quite disproportionate.
Mr. Brake rose—
Mr. Hill: I dare say that the hon. Gentleman would like to talk about the composite free mailing—an issue beloved of the Liberal Democrats, but not so enthusiastically endorsed by the Conservatives. However, the issue is not so straightforward. There are innumerable technical difficulties, possibly including statutory issues.
The electoral registration officers have made representations to the Home Office, saying that the task of producing a composite free mailing would undermine their independent role in the elections. The Liberal
894
Democrats may not like that, but it is the truth. If the electoral registration officers do not organise the composite free mailing, who would be acceptable to the British National party and the Liberal Democrats, who would have to share and agree the delivery process? [Interruption.]
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. I am hearing an awful lot of noise from below the Gangway.
Mr. Malcolm Bruce: Yes.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman says yes, but I say no. There should not be any noise.
Mr. Hill: I am grateful for your support, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but they cannot shout me down.
The rules are not even about mailshots. They are about the details of the election. I shall explain some of those details in the hope that Opposition Members will understand that they are technical and uncontroversial.
Mr. Jenkin: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Hill: No, I shall not. There were seven speakers in the 46 minutes of debate before I rose to speak. It is my responsibility to respond with an explanation of the Government's position and, importantly, of the contents of the order.
The people of London would not understand what the Opposition were up to if the election were jeopardised over such an issue. Election rules instruct returning officers on the practical details of setting up the election, running the poll and counting the votes. They do not deal with how much money candidates or parties may spend in advancing their cause. That is covered by the order that will be the subject of our next debate.
Members of Parliament are only too well acquainted with the parliamentary election rules, which govern their entry here. Many of us also have personal experience of the workings of the principal area rules that govern election to large local authorities. The rules before the House, for the new Greater London Authority, are based solidly on the local election rules with which we are all familiar. They vary only in ways made necessary by the different voting system or some other factor special to this election.
The rules are a sizeable document, running to over 100 pages, so I am sure that hon. Members will forgive me if I pause to explain their relatively simple structure. There will be three elected elements to the Greater London Authority: constituency members of the London Assembly; London members of the Assembly; and the mayor. Each is elected according to a different system. Not surprisingly, schedules 1, 2 and 3 of the rules are three freestanding sets of rules for enabling each of those elements of the authority to be elected. Schedule 4 modifies those three sets of rules when all three elections happen at the same time—once every four years when there is an ordinary election of the whole authority. Schedule 5 revises the wording of normal electoral forms for the new election and will not contain any surprises for those used to electoral law.

895
However, schedule 6 contains something different. For the first time in a British election, we have rules enabling the votes to be counted electronically instead of by a large staff of people. Schedules 7 and 8 modify the election rules when a GLA election is combined with a local authority election or with a parliamentary election. The latter combination would require amendments to the Representation of the People Regulations 1986, which will be effected by an order under section 405 of the Greater London Authority Act, and which I shall lay before the House shortly.
Mr. Edward Davey: What do the Government intend to do when the other place votes these statutory instruments down?
Mr. Hill: It would be an act of the grossest irresponsibility for an unelected Chamber to seek to dictate electoral practice to the elected House and we would resist it.
Mr. Simon Hughes: Answer the question.
Mr. Hill: I have answered the question.
Mr. Jenkin: The Minister is not addressing the debate we have had this evening. Will he now put away his brief? We know what is in the rules and they are of only tangential relevance to the question that is preoccupying the House—how can he possibly justify denying the usual democratic process of a free mailing for candidates in the greater London elections? He should address that point rather than just read out what has been typed up by civil servants.
Mr. Hill: There is no point in the hon. Gentleman trying to tack on to an order relating to the election rules the wider considerations of free mailshots. There is no power in the Greater London Authority Act 1999 to introduce such mailshots.
Ms Abbott: My hon. Friend has argued that he does not have to meet the detailed arguments that were put in the debate, under your supervision, Mr. Deputy Speaker, about the question of a free mailshot. He says that the rules say nothing about the free mailshot, but the Opposition will vote against them tonight because they say nothing about the free mailshot. Will my hon. Friend now answer the arguments that have been put tonight?
Mr. Hill: What I find astonishing about this whole process is that there were several clauses and schedules—which were dense, detailed and lengthy—in the GLA legislation that dealt with electoral procedures and rules, but the Opposition totally failed to raise the issue in any serious way during the protracted hours of debate on the matter.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Hill: I must continue, because it is my duty to report on the contents of the rules to the House.
Mr. Jenkin: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Hill: No, it would be wrong for me to do so at this point. I have spoken about the innovatory content of the
896
rules in the introduction of electronic counting. On May
4 this year, the votes in a British election will for the first time be counted not by people, but by electronic scanners. I think that that is something that the House will want to take note of and applaud.
The rules also set the scale of deposits and signatures that candidates for all three elections have to provide in support of their nomination. The rules propose that each mayoral candidate will be required to pay a deposit of £10,000 and to gather 330 signatures—10 from each London local authority—in support of their candidacy. Assembly candidates will not have to collect signatures, but those contesting constituencies will have to pay a deposit of £1,000, and parties and independent candidates wishing to contest London-wide seats will have to pay a £5,000 deposit.
The mayoral deposit will be forfeit if a candidate fails to obtain 5 per cent. of the vote. A candidate for a constituency seat in the Assembly would also have to gain 5 per cent. of the vote or forfeit their deposit, and a party or independent candidate contesting the London-wide seats would have to get 2.5 per cent. of the vote or forfeit their deposit.
The rules that are before us now have been crafted with care to ensure that the poll can be democratically conducted under proper conditions of fairness and secrecy and with a proper balance between the interests of voters and candidates. A number of matters have been touched on in the debate which, while of interest in themselves, are not actually part of the content of the rules. For instance, they do not, and could not, include a power to provide free mailshots, to prescribe candidates' expenses or to give directions about how any publicity is handled.
The rules are purely and simply about controlling the way in which the GLA election is run so that everyone involved knows clearly what may and may not be done and what the terms of the contest are. They follow the traditional pattern, and often the traditional wording, of our other sets of election rules. There are no surprises. Both the main Opposition parties represented in the House have been kept informed of the proposed content of the rules while they were in draft. The rules are the right ones for the GLA election. That election, which the House has earlier determined on, cannot proceed without the rules and I invite the House to approve them.
It being half-past Eleven o'clock, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Standing Order No. 17 (Delegated Legislation (negative procedure)).
The House divided: Ayes 102, Noes 296.

Division No. 76]

[11.29 pm

AYES

Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

Allan, Richard

Burnett, John

Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

Burns, Simon

Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

Burstow, Paul

Ballard, Jackie

Cable, Dr Vincent

Beith, Rt Hon A J

Cash, William

Body, Sir Richard

Chidgey, David

Brady, Graham

Chope, Christopher

Brake, Tom

Collins, Tim

Brand, Dr Peter

Cotter, Brian

Brazier, Julian

Curry, Rt Hon David

Breed, Colin

Davey, Edward (Kingston)

Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

Browning, Mrs Angela

Fearn, Ronnie

897

Forth, Rt Hon Eric

Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

Foster, Don (Bath)

Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)

Fox, Dr Liam

Moss, Malcolm

Gale, Roger

Norman, Archie

Garnier, Edward

Oaten, Mark

George, Andrew (St Ives)

O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

Gill, Christopher

Öpik, Lembit

Gray, James

Paice, James

Hammond, Philip

Paterson, Owen

Hancock, Mike

Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

Harris, Dr Evan

Randall, John

Hawkins, Nick

Rendel, David

Heald, Oliver

Robertson, Laurence

Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

Roe. Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

Russell, Bob (Colchester)

Horam, John

Sanders, Adrian

Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

Sayeed, Jonathan

Hunter, Andrew

Shepherd, Richard

Jack, Rt Hon Michael

Soames, Nicholas

Jenkin, Bernard

Spring, Richard

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

Steen, Anthony

Stunell, Andrew

Key, Robert

Swayne, Desmond

King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

Syms, Robert

Kirkbride, Miss Julie

Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

Kirkwood, Archy

Tonge, Dr Jenny

Townend, John

Lait, Mrs Jacqui

Tredinnick, David

Lidington, David

Tyler, Paul

Livsey, Richard

Tyrie, Andrew

Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

Webb, Steve

Llwyd, Elfyn

Welsh, Andrew

Loughton, Tim

Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

MacGregor, Rt Hon John

Wilkinson, John

McIntosh, Miss Anne

Willis, Phil

MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

Young, Rt Hon Sir George

Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert

McLoughlin, Patrick

Tellers for the Ayes:

Maples, John

Mr. Peter Atkinson and

May, Mrs Theresa

Sir Robert Smith.

NOES

Abbott, Ms Diane

Burgon, Colin

Ainger, Nick

Butler, Mrs Christine

Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

Alexander, Douglas

Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

Allen, Graham

Campbell—Savours, Dale

Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

Cann, Jamie

Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

Caplin, Ivor

Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

Casale, Roger

Atherton, Ms Candy

Caton, Martin

Atkins, Charlotte

Cawsey, Ian

Austin, John

Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

Banks, Tony

Clapham, Michael

Barnes, Harry

Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

Barron, Kevin

Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

Battle, John

Bayley, Hugh

Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)

Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

Bermingham, Gerald

Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

Berry, Roger

Clelland, David

Best, Harold

Coaker, Vernon

Betts, Clive

Coffey, Ms Ann

Blackman, Liz

Cohen, Harry

Blears, Ms Hazel

Coleman, Iain

Blizzard, Bob

Colman, Tony

Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

Connarty, Michael

Borrow, David

Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

Bradley, Keith (Withington)

Corbett, Robin

Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

Cousins, Jim

Bradshaw, Ben

Cox, Tom

Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

Cranston, Ross

Browne, Desmond

Crausby, David

Buck, Ms Karen

Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

Burden, Richard

Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

898

Cummings, John

Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)

Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh"ton SW)

Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

Dalyell, Tam

Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa

Darvill, Keith

Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

Kemp, Fraser

Davidson, Ian

Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

Kidney, David

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

Kilfoyle, Peter

King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

Dawson, Hilton

Kumar, Dr Ashok

Denham, John

Ladyman, Dr Stephen

Dismore, Andrew

Laxton, Bob

Dobbin, Jim

Lepper, David

Donohoe, Brian H

Leslie, Christopher

Doran, Frank

Levitt, Tom

Dowd, Jim

Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

Drew, David

Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

Linton, Martin

Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

Love, Andrew

Edwards, Huw

McAvoy, Thomas

Efford, Clive

McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)

Ellman, Mrs Louise

Ennis, Jeff

McDonagh, Siobhain

Etherington, Bill

Macdonald, Calum

Fisher, Mark

McDonnell, John

Fitzsimons, Lorna

McFall, John

Flint, Caroline

McIsaac, Shona

Flynn, Paul

McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

Mackinlay, Andrew

Foulkes, George

McNamara, Kevin

Fyfe, Maria

McNulty, Tony

Gapes, Mike

MacShane, Denis

Gardiner, Barry

Mactaggart, Fiona

Gerrard, Neil

McWalter, Tony

Gibson, Dr Ian

McWilliam, John

Gilroy, Mrs Linda

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Goggins, Paul

Mallaber, Judy

Gordon, Mrs Eileen

Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

Marshall, David (Shettleston)

Griffilhs, Win (Bridgend)

Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

Grogan, John

Marshall—Andrews, Robert

Hain, Peter

Martlew, Eric

Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

Maxton, John

Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

Meale, Alan

Hanson, David

Merron, Gillian

Healey, John

Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

Hepburn, Stephen

Miller, Andrew

Heppell, John

Mitchell, Austin

Hesford, Stephen

Moffatt, Laura

Hill, Keith

Moonie, Dr Lewis

Hinchliffe, David

Moran, Ms Margaret

Hodge, Ms Margaret

Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

Hoey, Kate

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

Hood, Jimmy

Hope, Phil

Mountford, Kali

Hopkins, Kelvin

Mudie, George

Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

Mullin, Chris

Hoyle, Lindsay

Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

Humble, Mrs Joan

Naysmith, Dr Doug

Hurst, Alan

O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

Hutton, John

O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

Iddon, Dr Brian

O'Hara, Eddie

Illsley, Eric

O'Neill, Martin

Jamieson, David

Organ, Mrs Diana

Jenkins, Brian

Pearson, Ian

Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

Pendry, Tom

Perham, Ms Linda

Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

Pickthall, Colin

Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

Pike, Peter L

899

Plaskitt, James

Stevenson, George

Pollard, Kerry

Stewart, David (Inverness E)

Pond, Chris

Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

Pope, Greg

Stinchcombe, Paul

Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

Primarolo, Dawn

Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

Prosser, Gwyn

Taylor, David (NW Leics)

Purchase, Ken

Temple—Morris, Peter

Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce

Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

Quinn, Lawrie

Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

Radice, Rt Hon Giles

Timms, Stephen

Rammell, Bill

Tipping, Paddy

Rapson, Syd

Todd, Mark

Raynsford, Nick

Touhig, Don

Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

Trickett, Jon

Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

Truswell, Paul

Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff

Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

Rooney Terry

Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

Rowlands, Ted

Turner, Neil (Wigan)

Roy Frank

Twigg, Derek (Halton)

Ruane, Chris

Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

Ruddock, Joan

Tynan, Bill

Russell Ms Christine (Chester)

Vis, Dr Rudi

Salter, Martin

Walley, Ms Joan

Sarwar, Mohammad

Ward, Ms Claire

Watts, David

Savidge, Malcolm

Whitehead, Dr Alan

Sawford, Phil

Wicks, Malcolm

Sedgemore, Brian

Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

Sheerman, Barry

Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

Shipley, Ms Debra

Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

Wills, Michael

Singh, Marsha

Winnick, David

Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

Smith, Angela (Basildon)

Wise, Audrey

Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

Woodward, Shaun

Smith, John (Glamorgan)

Woolas, Phil

Snape, Peter

Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

Southworth, Ms Helen

Squire, Ms Rachel

Tellers for the Noes:

Starkey, Dr Phyllis

Mrs. Anne McGuire and

Steinberg, Gerry

Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe.

Question accordingly negatived.

London Government
11.41 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Keith Hill): I beg to move,
That the draft Greater London Authority (Election Expenses) Order 2000, which was laid before this House on 3rd February, be approved.
The draft Greater London Authority (Election Expenses) order prescribes the maximum amount of election expenses of candidates and their agents, and third parties, in elections for the mayor of London and the London assembly. In my opinion, the draft order is compatible with the European convention on human rights.
There are separate limits for mayoral candidates, assembly constituency candidates, and parties and independent candidates contesting the Londonwide list, reflecting the Greater London Authority's unique structure and voting systems.
We need to prescribe limits to the spending of GLA election candidates and parties to ensure that the election is contested on as level a playing field as possible, and to prevent extravagant spending. We consulted political parties on our proposals in December 1999, and listened carefully to the points that they raised. The limits that we propose take account of the points made in the responses to the consultation.
The candidates' expenditure limits are £420,000 per mayoral candidate; £35,000 per candidate contesting an assembly constituency; and £330,000 per party or independent candidate contesting the Londonwide list.
Mr. Simon Hughes rose—
Mr. Hill: It is a little premature in the proceedings, but as I have rejected the hon. Gentleman in the past, let me embrace him now.
Mr. Hughes: The Minister properly received representations, as he said, and we are grateful that on the mayoral expense limit, he accepted in broad terms what my colleagues and I proposed. Can he tell us how many representations he received in favour of not having a freepost?
Mr. Hill: We received no representations in favour of not having a freepost, as the hon. Gentleman well knows. He was gracious enough to recognise that we listened carefully to the representations made, and we reduced the level of election expenses precisely to the level suggested by the Liberal Democrats. The Government listen and respond to reasonable representations. It seems, however, that on this occasion the Liberal Democrats are the party of no compromise and no surrender, which is not a good precedent.
I emphasise that we have significantly reduced the mayoral and Londonwide list limits from the levels that we originally proposed, which were £990,000 and £495,000 respectively, because parties considered them too high, and likely to put smaller parties at a significant disadvantage.
Mr. Bernard Jenkin: Why did the Minister think that £990,000 was initially the correct

901
figure, and then accept representations from the Liberal Democrats and us to reduce it substantially on the basis that there should be a free mailing instead? Why did he accept that there should be a reduction in the spending limit, but not provide for the free mailing? Is there not some inconsistency in accepting only one half of the representation? What is the point of that?
Mr. Hill: I do not know how many more times I have to explain this matter to the hon. Gentleman, or in how many more ways I can put it—there are no powers in the Greater London Authority Act 1999 to secure the free mailshot on which he and other hon. Members dwelt at such length during our earlier proceedings.
We have calculated the limits using the most appropriate comparator from other expense limit regimes. The mayoral and Londonwide list limits are broadly derived from the amount of £30,000 per parliamentary constituency used in the Political Parties, Elections, and Referendums Bill as the building block for calculating the national spending limits for political parties. The assembly constituency limit is broadly equivalent to the sum of parliamentary constituency limits within an assembly constituency area. The limits are enough to enable candidates and parties to fight effective campaigns either London wide or at constituency level, while not allowing their spending to become unacceptably high.
When the order comes into force, GLA candidates and parties will not be permitted to spend in excess of the limits on their election expenses. Election expenses are defined in the Representation of the People Act 1983 as expenses incurred
"whether before, during or after an election, on account of or in respect of the conduct or management of the election".
Spending by GLA candidates or their agents before 14 December 1999—the date when the relevant provisions in the Greater London Authority Act were commenced—will not, in our view, count towards the limit.
Article 2 of the order prescribes the maximum expenditure that a person other than a candidate, his agent or persons authorised in writing by the agent—that, is a third party—may incur at such elections. The limits are set at £25,000 per third party supporting or opposing mayoral candidates; £25,000 per third party supporting or opposing Londonwide list candidates, including independents; and £1,800 per third party supporting or opposing an assembly constituency candidate.
Those limits are calculated using the same formula that we intend to introduce, as an amendment to the Political Parties, Elections, and Referendums Bill, to limit third-party spending in local elections. I realise that the limits are high compared with the current £5 limit set out in the Representation of the People Act 1983. However, I believe that they are justified in the light of the Bowman judgment in the European Court of Human Rights—where the court ruled that the £5 limit constituted an unjustifiable restriction on freedom of expression—and because they ensure that third parties can adequately put across their case to the electorate.
The GLA Act does not entitle candidates in GLA elections to have an election address delivered free by the Post Office, and election mailshots are not, therefore, a matter for the order. GLA elections are classed as local
902
elections in section 17 of the GLA Act; that approach puts GLA election candidates on the same footing as local election candidates generally.
There is nothing new about Londonwide elections without free mailshots.
Mr. Paul Burstow: Will the Minister name one other local authority election in which deposits are required?
Mr. Hill: That is not relevant. The provisions in the order and in the Act are commensurate with elections in London.
Every four years, elections are held for each London borough council at the same time across the whole of London—exactly the same area and same electorate as the GLA—without free mailshots. During those elections, parties mount campaigns, without free mailshots, across the whole of London, exactly as they will for GLA elections.
In the White Paper, we made clear our concern to ensure that the election did not become a platform for frivolous candidates or publicity seekers, who could gain unfair access to public funds simply in an-attempt to promote either themselves or obscure causes. [Interruption.] Do I detect a note of envy in hon. Members' response? We have considered carefully whether there should be free mailshots for GLA elections. We decided against, for three reasons.
The first reason was the cost. The total cost to the public purse of a free mailshot would be very significant. The total could be well over £10 million and possibly as much as £20 million, depending on the number of candidates.
Sir Robert Smith rose—
Mr. Hill: Such costs would be disproportionate to the GLA's proposed budget of some £35 million and would be equivalent to more than £3 for every council tax payer in London—almost twice as much as London council tax payers will contribute to the costs of the mayor and assembly.
Mrs. Jacqui Lait rose—
Sir Robert Smith rose—
Mr. Hill: The public would, rightly, be extremely critical if large sums of public money were spent on free mailshots—especially if that encouraged frivolous candidates—instead of on the vital issues that concern Londoners.
Mrs. Lait: I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman has left me extremely confused because, although he said that there were no powers in the Act in respect of mailshots, he has just explained that the Government considered carefully whether there should be mailshots within the Act. Will he please at least make it clear at what point the Government decided that mailshots were not appropriate because this was a local government election?
Mr. Hill: The hon. Lady will be aware that there are other routes to achieving the objective that she evidently

903
seeks, but it is absolutely the case that there are no powers within the 1999 Act, and to that extent all the representations about free mailshots, especially in connection with these orders, are entirely otiose.
Mr. Jenkin: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Hill: No; I will not. I must make progress. I have allowed the hon. Gentleman in once. I have been very generous to other Members—perhaps excessively so—and I know that many in the Chamber await with bated breath the continuation of my remarks.
Sir Robert Smith rose—
Mr. Hill: Our second consideration in opposing free mailshots was the related issue of precedent. GLA elections are classed as local elections and will be run broadly under local election rules. Candidates in local elections do not receive a free mailing, and to allow GLA candidates a free mailing would set a precedent for local elections generally, and for elections of directly elected mayors in particular. That would take the public subsidy of political material to previously unimagined levels.
Thirdly, we took into account the risk of abuse by unscrupulous candidates. For the cost of a £10,000 deposit, a mayoral candidate could get a free Londonwide mailing worth up to £750,000 if sent to each London elector. The risk is real. There has been at least one media report of an individual planning to back a mayoral candidate's campaign as a way of promoting his business. To allow such candidates a free election mailing would make a mockery of the democratic process.
We have heard much from the Opposition parties about their concern—
Mr. John Wilkinson: Will the hon. Gentleman allow me?
Mr. Hill: First let me finish the sentence, for the benefit of the consecutive order of my remarks. We have heard much from the Opposition parties about their concern at the lack of a free mailshot, and I suspect that we are about to hear more.
Mr. Wilkinson: Is not the purpose of a deposit to eliminate frivolous candidates, and are not mayoral candidates required to pay a £10,000 deposit? Furthermore, who is the Minister to decide which candidate is frivolous or not? Is that not a wholly fascist notion? Should he not be ashamed of himself?
Mr. Tony Banks: That is not what the hon. Gentleman said about General Pinochet.
Mr. Hill: Do I hear a cry of "General Pinochet"? I do not want to pursue that particular road.
The concept of the frivolous candidate is common parlance in discussions about electoral practice and electoral procedure. The Government are not making a judgment about the frivolity of candidates, but I have to tell the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) that we know that there is adequate evidence that there are
904
such candidates available. [HoN. MEMBERS: "Name them."] I will name them. In the aftermath of the recent Kensington and Chelsea by-election, a gentleman by the name of Sam Rosen, who was the sponsor of a candidate in the election who rejoiced in the name of Lisa Lovebuckett, declared that the advantages to his business of sponsoring that candidate had been so enormous that he was perfectly prepared to pay a deposit for the GLA elections so that he could advertise his business. If he is prepared to do that without the benefit of a free mailshot, the scope for such commercial candidatures is endless. It is a serious consideration and a proper one for the Government to take into account.
I am somewhat surprised about the concern that Opposition Members have expressed about free mailshots.
Mr. Paul Flynn: Will the Minister explain whether his comments will apply to future parliamentary elections?
Mr. Hill: To the extent that there is already the well-established convention of deposits, the practices already apply. We do not have to think about the future; that is current reality. However, I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that thought.
Mr. John Greenway: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Hill: No, for the sake of other hon. Members who wish to participate in the debate, I need to make progress.
Free mailshots are not a matter for the election expenses order, and primary legislation would be needed to provide mailshots at the public expense in such elections. We did not include provision for free mailshots in the Greater London Authority Act 1999 for the reasons that I have just described. The Act was scrutinised at length both in this House and in the other place. Hon Members in the opposition parties had ample opportunity to table amendments to provide for free mailshots, but they did not. If this were really an issue of such great concern, that would have been sheer political incompetence.
I understand the concern raised that the lack of free mailing could favour the richer parties. That is precisely why we have adjusted the election expenses limit downwards by a substantial amount to help level the playing field. That was done to help the smaller parties and independent candidates, and was a direct response to points made to us in the consultation. The limits will allow candidates and parties to put their message across to the electorate. They will allow parties with both a mayoral candidate and a Londonwide list, or independent candidates who stand both for mayor and as a Londonwide assembly member, to send a mailshot to every household in London if they wish.
I reject the Conservative party's accusation that the proposal is ballot rigging. That is an absurd suggestion. I have made it quite clear why there will not be free mailshots. For an outlay of £10,000, a mayoral candidate could get a benefit worth up to £750,000: they would be queueing up at the door with their nomination papers and pound notes in their hands. The cost to the public purse would be open-ended and could add up to a sum equivalent to the first-year budget for the GLA itself—

905
£35 million. I do not think that spending public money on this scale on campaigning would be a priority for Londoners or, indeed, taxpayers elsewhere.
Then there is the scope for abuse. The GLA is all about reconnecting people with democracy at a local level. Frankly, a long list of frivolous, publicity-seeking candidates with campaigns subsidised by the taxpayer would simply alienate Londoners, and would risk damaging the public's perception of the new authority before it has even started. Finally, elections to the GLA are local elections that will be run under local rules that do not include a free mailing paid for by the Exchequer.
The limits provide for GLA elections to be as fair as possible while allowing candidates and parties the freedom to put their message across to the electorate. They take account of the GLA's unique structure and voting systems, and will allow parties with a mayoral candidate and Londonwide list to pay for a mailing to each London household.
11.59 pm
Mr. Bernard Jenkin: Rarely can the House have seen a Minister of the Crown treat matters of democracy and fairness with such contempt. I wish that the Minister could have sat here and seen the faces of his hon. Friends, because they told the true story of the mess that they think he is making. He has been deliberately churlish and obtuse in his denial of the strength of the arguments that hon. Members from both sides of the House have presented.
The Minister's behaviour is like that of a spoilt child who does not want anybody else to play with his toys. That is the basis on which he has conducted consultation. He has dictated his terms on the democratic process instead of genuinely listening to the case put before him. He might tonight command the votes of the House, but he does not command the hearts of Members who believe in real democracy.
The hon. Gentleman said the matter should have been raised during the passage of the Greater London Authority Act 1999, and that it was a matter of high political incompetence that amendments on the issue were not tabled then. I invite him to consider the Scotland Act 1998 and the Government of Wales Act 1998. I sat through all the proceedings on those Bills on the Floor of the House, but we never even discussed free mailings. It was taken as read that there would be free mailings. It is ludicrous to suggest that there are free mailings in elections at an important point of constitutional reform only if the Opposition raise the matter.
The first the opposition parties knew about there being no free mailings in the London elections was when the Minister's letter of consultation, dated 15 December, landed on our desks. We were required to do all the work in response to that letter in the run-up to Christmas. The Minister now generously describes that as consultation for which we should be unctuously grateful. It was said in the previous debate that there is no precedent for such matters being tackled without proper consensus. The hon. Gentleman has made the mistake of reading out the speech that was read out by Lord Bassam in the Upper House last night. That fully explains the hon. Gentleman's dusty brush-off by some of his colleagues tonight.
The Minister mentioned General Pinochet, who held a referendum and sought consensus on Chile's transition to democracy. General Pinochet and the hon. Gentleman are
906
ships that pass in the night: while General Pinochet brought Chile back to democracy, the hon. Gentleman is taking London away from democracy.
Mr. Banks: I do not know how old the hon. Gentleman was, or where he was, when his father, then the Secretary of State for the Environment, now a noble Lord, was abolishing the Greater London council, and we were on the other side of the House asking for a referendum that he never gave us. How dare the hon. Gentleman stand up and talk about referendums in the same breath as the fascist Pinochet?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Perhaps we should get back to the order before us.
Mr. Jenkin: I am very happy to get back to the order.
What we managed to do was get rid of the hon. Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks) and that was doing London a favour at the time.
Mr. Banks: I am still here, but the hon. Gentleman's father is not.
Mr. Jenkin: The hon. Gentleman should take a tablet and lie down in a dark room. He would feel much better.
As the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) pointed out, the Minister, in his letter of 15 December about the consultation for the proposals, talked at length about the comparability of these elections with Westminster, European, Scottish and Welsh elections.
In his letter, the Minister refers to the necessity of setting fair and reasonable expenditure limits on candidates,
"while not placing candidates without significant personal or party resources at a significant disadvantage."
Even though he has adjusted some of the spending limits, those who have substantial resources will still have a significant advantage over those who do not, and the absence of free mailing compounds that advantage in spades. The letter continues:
"We believe that a higher limit could encourage unscrupulous candidates or parties to spend excessively in seeking votes, putting other candidates with more limited means at a disadvantage."
Yet by maintaining higher spending limits instead of allowing free mailing to which voters think candidates should be entitled, the Minister is allowing unscrupulous candidates or parties to spend excessive sums chasing votes, thereby putting candidates with more limited means at a disadvantage. The most extraordinary feature of the letter of consultation is that it sets out the very disadvantages of the scheme that the Minister has finally proposed to the House, all on his own, without a single ounce of support from any other political party that will participate in the elections.
The reason why the Minister has put himself in that position is a mystery. There are only two possible explanations. The hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) alluded to one: the "stop Ken" campaign, bringing party factionalism into the very conduct and fairness of our democracy. Never has there been such an abuse of the responsibilities of office in the face of all the opposition parties. The other explanation, which I believe contains some truth, is that the Minister

907
and his Department have become caught between a rock and a hard place: the rock is the principle of democracy, which will be upheld by the other place when it votes on the orders next week; the hard place is the Treasury.
If the sort of arguments that have been deployed by the Minister this evening—the ridiculous, extreme, reductio ad absurdum arguments about excessive cost and the potential for abuse—apply to the London elections, they must apply to parliamentary elections. Whatever abuses may or may not occur in parliamentary elections, we tolerate them because we believe that democracy, openness and direct contact with voters are more important. In any case, were such abuses to occur, they could be dealt with by other legislative means—one of my colleagues has pointed out that we suspended an entire Assembly in 24 hours of legislating, so it cannot be beyond the wit of man to devise legislative means to provide free mailing for mayoral candidates and constituency candidates in the forthcoming London elections.
Mr. Roger Casale: I am following the hon. Gentleman's argument closely. However, I have to tell him that his democratic arguments are somewhat undermined by his calling in aid the unelected House of Lords, the Conservatives' abolition of the GLC and even General Pinochet.
Mr. Jenkin: The hon. Gentleman should bear in mind that the Labour Leader of the House of Lords, Baroness Jay, made clear her belief that the Upper House now has the legitimacy needed to deal with such matters. If she believes that the reforms forced through by the Labour party have given the upper House the necessary authority, it ill behoves the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Mr. Casale) to say that the other place should not interfere. According to his own lights, the Labour Government have enhanced the credentials of the Upper House.
Mr. Greenway: My hon. Friend might care to speculate on a point that I wanted to raise with the Minister but he would not give way. There is consensus between the Home Secretary, the House and the other place on the Representation of the People Bill, which will encourage voter participation in elections—yet the order does the opposite. Denying a free mailshot to all mayoral candidates will reduce participation in the mayoral elections.
Mr. Jenkin: My hon. Friend is right. The inconsistency in the Government's position is glaring, but it is for them, not me, to explain it. An amendment was discussed in the Upper House during proceedings on the Representation of the People Bill. It set out the exact way in which we want free mailings to be tackled. The Government will not only lose the orders next week, but if they want the amendment to be put to the vote on Report, they will also lose that vote.
The Government's position is inexplicable because it is impossible to understand how they can win. Ministers should return to their offices tomorrow morning, pick up the telephone and start organising a meeting so that we can sort out the problem in a proper, open, democratic and consensual fashion.
12.11 am
Ms Diane Abbott: I spoke in the earlier debate on related matters, so I wish to confine my remarks to the arguments that Ministers presented time and again tonight. They say that they will not allow a free mailshot because we are considering a local authority election, which is like any other. I shall give three reasons why it is not simply a local authority election.
First, the electorate numbers more than 5 million people. Secondly, as my hon. Friend the Minister knows, in most local elections in urban areas it is possible to organise the delivery of a mailshot through volunteer labour—I know that because I have worked in every local and general election since 1978. It will be almost impossible to organise the delivery of a mailshot through volunteer labour in Greater London.
Thirdly, in London many people live in houses and flats with entry phones and there are many houses in multiple occupation. Even if we were able to mobilise a co-ordinated army to cover London from Hillingdon to Croydon, many people would not receive their election address without the provision of a free mailshot.
Mr. Denis MacShane: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Ms Abbott: I am afraid not; it is late and my arguments address a specific point.
We all appreciate the energy with which the Minister has prosecuted the Government's case tonight. However, it is not intellectually sustainable to claim that the election is simply a local authority election like any other.
12.13 am
Mr. Edward Davey: Most of the Government's fairly weak arguments have been demolished in our two debates. I want to focus on one specific argument. The Government claim that the issue that we are discussing was not raised in Committee. Earlier, I quoted exchanges from our Committee proceedings which proved that the issue was debated then.
The Government said that they would consult widely to gain consensus on election limits. If the Minister is in doubt about that, I shall quote again an exchange that he and I had in Committee on 28 January 1999. I said:
"I believe that the Neill report and the White Paper say that the Government intend to hold consultations with the Association of London Government. Have those consultations started? It is important that we move ahead. If they have not started, will the Minister tell us when they will take place?"
The Minister replied:
"I have already given the Committee an absolute assurance that we will consult before we come forward with proposals. I have undertaken that those consultations will include both the hon. Gentleman's party and the principal Opposition party."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 28 January 1999; c. 84.]
The Committee considered the issue in that spirit, so does the Minister honestly think that sending a letter to various people on 15 December with a closing date of 4 January represents the consultations that he assured the Committee he would provide? if he does, that is nonsense and no one will believe him. It is an act of bad faith and if that is how the Government approach consultations on running elections in the capital city, the Minister should

909
hang his head in shame. We have a new electoral system, so a full and proper consultation on the rules and election expenses was required, but it took place during the Christmas and millennium celebrations. That is an absolute outrage.
Many people answered the consultation invitation and we only just managed to submit our replies. The Minister has already admitted that no one suggested that there should not be a mailshot, so taking this approach to the free post suggests that the Government have not listened to anybody. He says that expense limits have been reduced in line with Liberal Democrat proposals—he is right and we welcome that—but he failed to say that our reply linked reducing the high expenditure limits to the provision of a free mailshot. As usual, he tries to have his cake and eat it. Our submission states:
"An alternative to the high expenditure limits and lack of free mailshot could be solved by granting a free mailshot to all political parties and then deducting the cost of this from the expenditure limit of £990,000."
Mr. David Chidgey: So clear.
Mr. Davey: Yes, but still the Minister is trying to pull the wool over our eyes.
The Minister may win tonight's vote, but he and his colleagues will not win the vote in the other place and we all need to know what will happen then. Are the Government seriously saying that they will allow the elections not to take place? Without the two orders that we have debated tonight, they will not happen. That would be a matter of great regret, because we support the Government's general proposition that we need to return democracy to the capital city. The Liberal Democrats and the Labour party have argued that case for many years, ever since the Conservatives abolished the Greater London council. We have supported and worked with the Government, so it is a great shame that they are trying to reduce the democratic voice at the last minute.
Mr. Gerald Bermingham: I live in a block of flats in north London and have a vote in the GLA election. About 200 others also live there. I will know the candidates as I am a member of a political party, but how will the other residents know the candidates of the various competing political parties if those parties cannot carry out a mailshot? That is why I am a little worried about there being no mailshots.
Mr. Davey: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's intervention. Perhaps he joined the debate at a late stage—I am not sure, as I did not notice whether he was in his place earlier—but he is very welcome if he backs our case. If he has not realised it, the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats are arguing for a free post.
Mr. Simon Hughes: As are the hon. Gentleman's colleagues.
Mr. Davey: As my hon. Friend says, so are some Labour Members. Clearly they have another recruit to the cause, and we are glad that the hon. Gentleman sees the logic of our argument for democracy.
Mr. Simon Hughes: We are adding up the balance of supporters. Am I right in thinking that so far we have not
910
heard, apart from the Minister's, any speech in favour of the Government's proposition from any part of the House, including the Government's side?
Mr. Davey: My hon. Friend is absolutely right, as always. We wait in anticipation for some Labour Back Benchers to put their heads above the parapet and try to make the case for the Government, because the Minister clearly has not been able to do so.
Part of the Government's argument tonight has been about frivolous candidates—the idea that people will run for the position of mayor, have a free post and waste taxpayers' money. As a Conservative Member said earlier, it is outrageous that the Government are to decide who a frivolous candidate is. That is against all democratic principles in this country. We have seen for many years in parliamentary by-elections, and indeed in general elections, a variety of candidates from the less serious wing of British politics: the Monster Raving Loony party, for example. No one has questioned its right to free post. I have never seen in a Labour party manifesto or speech by a senior Minister a suggestion that free post should be taken away from such parties, and I hope I never shall.
The Minister makes a spurious point, and indeed goes against the whole theory behind this new form of government. The Government used to argue that, with the new position of mayor, non-political people would be encouraged to come into running the capital: that there would be independents. So if the Government wanted a system to encourage independent candidates, why are they trying to prevent them having the chance to put their case? Again, logic is against what the Government are trying to do in the order.
The Minister made a point with respect to third party expenses. We believe that the third party expense limits in article 2 are rather high. That third parties can spend up to £25,000 supporting a candidate for the mayor of London seems to me ridiculous. One might hypothesise that this was put in to enable various institutions—trade unions, for example—to support various candidates, but the Government might want to think again, given the way in which the unions seem to be stacking up behind certain candidates. Not only is it wrong in principle that the limits should be set so high, but it is also foolish in terms of what the Government are trying to do. Again, the Government seem to be incompetent even with regard to their own motivations.
Mr. Robert Syms: Is there not a danger with third party campaigns, particularly from particular pressure groups, that instead of a campaign in favour of a candidate there will be a campaign against candidates—negative campaigning, as the United States has at present?
Mr. Davey: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's intervention. He makes a very powerful point. We could see in the mayoral elections, if those third party expense limits stay as high as they are, a whole series of people running appallingly negative campaigns. And the Government will have permitted that in their rules.
If the Government were so worried about frivolous candidates, why did they not raise the matter in Committee? Why did they not ask Opposition parties to talk to them to find out how we could change the rules to

911
ensure that frivolous candidates could not stand? It could be done by raising the deposits, increasing the number of signatures needed for nominations, or tightening up the rules with respect to free post. The Post Office's rules and guidelines are already very tight. They prevent people from abusing free post for commercial purposes or asking for money. If the Government believe that the rules are not tight enough, why do they not ask us to join in reviewing those guidelines to see whether they can be made tighter still? I see the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) nodding in agreement. I am sure that we could arrange to tighten them up. Then the logic of their position—assuming there is any remaining logic—would certainly go.
It is bad enough when the Labour party tries to fix its own internal elections. It is outrageous when it tries to rig public elections.
12.25 am
Mr. Denis MacShane: My constituency is far from London, but never have I heard such metropolitan elitism from the Opposition parties. I have heard the unusual combination of a Conservative party pleading for a significant increase in public expenditure at the taxpayer's expense, and a Liberal Democrat party that is prepared to consign its own activists and members outside London to the hard electoral work of delivering leaflets through letter boxes—indeed, to tower blocks. My hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) seems to have left, but I assure her that it is difficult to get into some tower blocks in the north of England, not just those in east London.
Liberal Democrats have argued tonight that their poor, suffering activists must deliver leaflets in Sheffield or Manchester, but that in London they should all be able to sit on their sofas watching "EastEnders" while Her Majesty's postal workers do their political work for them. I consider that insulting, patronising and unworthy of a party with which, in many respects, my party is prepared to co-operate.
Mr. Simon Hughes: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. MacShane: I would prefer not to.
Assuming there are about 4 million voters in London—[HON. MEMBERS: "Five million."] The number is increasing by the minute. We are being asked to spend more than £1 million per candidate of my constituents' money because we are not confident that our parties are keen enough on their candidates, whoever they may be. Certainly, when the time comes, I will be out there delivering leaflets for my right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson), without demanding that money be spent. That is how elections are conducted at local level in this country.
The new shadow Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions is one of the richest Members of Parliament. It is extraordinary that he should encourage one of his junior satraps to increase public spending, when tomorrow his leader—the leader of the Conservative party—will be talking about tax promises, and cutting public expenditure. That is the
912
hypocrisy that we see tonight, in miniature. There are about 40 million voters in the country. If the same rule is applied to London as is being called for tonight, I assure the metropolitan chattering classes on the Opposition Benches—
Mr. Jenkin rose—
Mr. Simon Hughes rose—
Mr. Greenway rose—
Mr. MacShane: I will not give way. I am trying to finish my speech.
Let me assure those chattering classes that what they hear in the way of London Liberal Democrat and Tory arrogance tonight they will hear from Rotherham, Sheffield, Exeter and Scarborough tomorrow. I see many Members from other areas present. As I have said, there are some 40 million voters in the country. If we apply the London rule that in local government elections there is to be a free post, we are talking about between £5 and £6 million per main party candidate, which means £40 million or £50 million if the same principle is applied throughout the rest of England—I am not talking about Scotland and Wales. That is unacceptable.
I do not want public expenditure to be increased unnecessarily to support unreasonable causes. I will not vote to increase public expenditure in order to satisfy the laziness, inaction and unwillingness of Opposition parties to campaign effectively in the London election.
I ask the Minister to stand firm. I ask my hon. Friends not to vote for an increase in public expenditure and not to set an example that will demoralise party activists in the north of England—the heartlands of England. Every Tory and Liberal Democrat local party will be absolutely scandalised that the slovenly, lazy Conservative and Liberal Democrat parties in London want the taxpayer to pay for their post delivery, when the rest of us believe in British democracy and are prepared to deliver our leaflets so as to promote our policies and beliefs.
12.30 am
Mr. Peter Brooke: I apologise for my costume. I came straight to the House from the annual dinner of a national organisation. I have remained in the Chamber ever since.
As always, it is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane). He made much of the fact that Rotherham is a great distance from London and ignored the fact that Scotland and Wales are, too. We have already discussed the fact that the free mailshot does not appear in legislation relating to those countries.
The hon. Gentleman exaggerated massively the amount of money that the Government themselves think will be spent by each candidate in a free mailshot. Rotherham itself was never part of the Government's constitutional reforms.
Mr. Greenway: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Brooke: No. We are short of time. I apologise to my hon. Friend.

913
As ever, the Minister for Housing and Planning is sitting next to the Minister for London as his minder; he has done so consistently on other occasions. Towards the end of the Napoleonic wars, the great Napoleon wished to give a marshal's baton to General Lefebvre, one of the great old soldiers of the republic. He sent him to capture a major city in eastern Europe, accompanied by Marshal Oudinot.
Marshal Oudinot had already been wounded in the Napoleonic wars 33 times. Although he was only there with a watching brief, he managed to get wounded during that campaign, too. The Government's apprehensions that they will get wounded in the London elections bring the Minister for Housing and Planning to the House tonight.
The Minister has a powerful historical sense. He knows that, in 1906, the Tory party suffered its largest defeat in a general election this century, until the recent one. He knows that the first sign of the party's recovery was that, for the first time in 18 years since the London county council founded in 1889, it took the LCC the following year, in 1907.
The Minister further knows that, although the Labour Government had a majority of 150 in the general election of 1945, by 1949, although Herbert Morrison had held London for 15 years for Labour, the Conservatives had a majority of 120,000 votes in London at large. They got exactly the same number of seats. The one Liberal who was elected was prepared to vote for the Tories. It was not one of the finest moments in the history of the London Labour party. I have had to listen to a lot about the Greater London council since 1986, but the Labour party insisted on retaining control by fiddling the aldermanic vacancies.
Before the election, the Evening Standard said that the mayoralty of London was the Prime Minister's big idea and that, in that respect, it was going to march with Scotland and Wales. The Minister will remember it. We devoted a whole day to the governance of London on a Friday in June 1997. It was not the equivalent of discussing Rotherham. It was a major part of the Government's constitutional reforms.
I represent an inner-city seat. In the 1983 general election, it had the lowest turnout in the country. On the eve of 1987 general election, I told my agent that we were going to improve. We overtook eight seats. Six were inner-London seats, or on the periphery of inner London. In 1992, we moved up a further eight seats. Again, we overtook inner-city seats. In 1997, we moved up a further eight seats. Again, we overtook inner-city seats.
It is difficult to run elections in inner-city seats, whichever the city—I am not including Rotherham in my remarks. The consequence is that the mailshot is a matter of extreme importance. If the Prime Minister really does have a big idea about London and wants to make the mayoralty a success, he will accept the argument on the mailshot; otherwise, the turnout will be the same as it has been historically. That is, frankly, going to be a loss to everyone. The media attention to which the Minister for London referred is present in a general election, when we again have the problem of getting out the inner-city vote.
The Minister cited three reasons for the Government's position on the matter. He was not on the Committee, so he will not recall—as the Minister for Housing and Planning will—my telling the story of the Polish bishop who arrived in a parish in his diocese and said to the curate, "I am usually accustomed when visiting parishes
914
to be greeted by the sound of bells. Why am I not greeted by bells?" The curate said, "My lord, there are three reasons. The first is that there are no bells." "Pray go no further," said the bishop.
The Minister for London made the great mistake of going further, so that, having rested his argument on the principle that the Greater London Authority Act 1999 is local government legislation—to which my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mrs. Lait) referred—he then produced other reasons why the Government were not going to pursue the matter. In the process, he totally demolished his basic argument—he delivered an Exocet at it—about the local authority.
We know about the Scotland Act 1998 and the Government of Wales Act 1998 and the fact that they contained no provision for a free mailshot. We know, too, that—until the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Bill—the Government have made up the laws on referendums as they have gone along. In Committee, I accused the Minister for Housing and Planning of making up the Greater London Authority Act 1999 as we went along. I realise that consistency can be castigated as the hobgoblin of little minds, but there is no possible way in which, on the basis of how the Government have conducted their constitutional reform so far, the Minister can rest on the fact that the 1999 Act is local authority legislation and, therefore, that local government arrangements should apply.
Regardless, I say to the Minister, as I say to the House, that democracy is more important than all such issues.
12.37 am
Audrey Wise: I shall make a very short and plain statement. The debate has been conducted largely as though we were discussing a matter affecting only London, which may seem to be a reasonable conclusion as the order is about elections for the London assembly and the London mayor. However, the matter has a wider significance.
It is not true, as has been well established, that the London elections will be simply local government elections. It is not even true that the major problem is that it is hard work to run elections and difficult to canvass and to deliver. That is not really the essence of the matter at all, as that problem applies anywhere in the country and also in parliamentary elections. I have sat in the Chamber, through the previous debate and this one, asking myself over and over, "What arguments would Labour Members be adducing if we were facing a proposal from the Opposition—were they ever again in a position to do it, which I hope that they will not be—to abolish the free mailshot in parliamentary elections? How would we defend the free mailshot?"
I accept the free mailshot at general elections in my constituency. I would not dream of saying that we have plenty of workers, or that we rely on the fact that we shall have one leaflet delivered by post. We still organise as many people as we possibly can to deliver and to canvass, because one leaflet does not make an election. The issue is not about Labour Members or Liberal Democrat Members or anyone else being short of election workers: it is about providing a reasonable minimum standard so that everyone is able to deliver at least one leaflet. If they can do more than that, it will have to be down to their own efforts. As has already been pointed out, the leaflets and envelopes have to be paid for. It is not a free ride; it is simply a free delivery.

915
I worry a great deal about the possible implications for parliamentary elections. When my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane) was looking for people who might be affected, I was glad that his gaze passed over me and he did not say Preston. I would not have liked to be prayed in aid to that speech.
Never mind clever-clever passion and grandiloquence. When all is said and done, it is a pity that the Opposition have been handed a weapon to use against us. We have been reduced to saying "Yah-boo, you've done worse." Of course they have done worse. They abolished the Greater London council, which was a downright disgrace. However, we are not improving on that by what we are doing tonight. We are giving them a cover so that people can say "Oh well, none of the parties are really very good. None of them are much devoted to democracy." It is a pity to do that.
If we were to add up the cost of the parliamentary mailshots, how would we defend them? If cost is the true issue, it is shameful. I do not know what the true issue is, but the order is a mistake. We should not have handed the Opposition this weapon.
12.41 am
Mr. Michael Jack: We have heard some brave speeches from Labour Members this evening—three of them in defence of basic democratic rights. The Government have been promulgating so-called freedom of information, but the lack of a freepost will deny electors who seek the freedom to know who is standing in an election their right to know what is going on. If the best defence that the Government can put up is the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane), it says a great deal about the paucity of their arguments. All that he could do was rail against what he called lazy parties. I have always thought that he was a democrat, but he seems to have failed to take into account the position of vigorous smaller parties, or even good independents. They will find it difficult to get their message across, because they may well be crowded out by the more conventional methods of communication of the media. The electorate have a right to know who is standing in the elections.
When I had to defend difficult wickets as a Minister, I remember falling back on one of two strategies: the first was to laugh at the Opposition and the other was to pray in aid lots of technicalities in the hope of running out of time before having to defend the central issue. The Minister has done that this evening. He has illogically told the House that freeposts are not applicable in ordinary local government elections, and then gone on to tell us about the unique structure of the Greater London Authority and the special nature of the elections. He cannot have his cake and eat it. The electorate will expect a freepost to tell them what is going on. It is incredible that the Labour party is prepared to connive in denying people their basic rights to information.
What has happened in the Department? The civil servants will have given the Minister a brief. Options will have been put before him and factors will have been considered. I have no doubt that many of the arguments about comparability with other forms of election that my right hon. and hon. Friends have made will have been put to the Minister. I see him smiling, so I assume that that is
916
what happened. However, he turned round, for political reasons—I do not know what they are, because he has not engaged in the debate to tell us this evening—and said to the officials, "No, we are not having a free mailshot, so construct me some arguments that will enable me to make that point." He has not come up with any logical explanation to deal with the coherent arguments put forward by the hon. Members for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott), for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. McDonnell) and for Preston (Audrey Wise), and unless he does so, we will know that it was a political decision, and a shoddy one at that.
The decision marks a nasty turn in our electoral processes. We have seen the first manifestation of electoral censorship. The Minister turns his face from that, but we have heard all sorts of fallacious arguments about what sort of candidate will be able to get their message across. The Government's attitude breaks the cross-party consensus that had grown up on the way in which elections should be conducted in the United Kingdom, given an election that caters for such a large and diverse electorate. What will the ethnic minority groups think when the Labour party denies people information in their own languages about the candidates? As they say, "You ain't seen nothing yet."
Mr. Bermingham: Is the right hon. Gentleman saying that in any local government election at whatever level—whether for mayors in Liverpool or Birmingham or generally—there should be a free mailshot? If he is, I will understand his argument.
Mr. Jack: My argument addresses a unique occasion in our democratic process—the first election of a mayor for London. The Minister said that the election had a unique structure, and that is why I argue that candidates should have a free mailshot. The size, scale and diversity of London demand that that type of communication be made available, and the Government have advanced fallacious cost information to justify their position. What price democracy? Tonight, if the Government have their way, electoral censorship will arrive in this country and our democratic processes will be the worse for it.
12.47 am
Mr. Simon Hughes: I wish to add a brief word in support of the hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) and the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke), and on behalf of those constituencies, whatever their party allegiance, that traditionally have very low turnouts. It is unarguable that it will be impossible to reach all the electors in any of the constituencies unless there is a free mailshot. I say to the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane), who knows as much about Europe as about Rotherham, that the largest European constituencies have always had a free mailshot in elections, so that every elector can have the facts.
People often complain that we only take an interest in them at election time. They will get their polling card, but if they get no literature, what will that do to restore the political process? What will it do to make people feel engaged? What will it do to make people feel included? What will that do to make politics more valued? It will

917
do nothing. All it will do is ensure that those who feel marginalised and excluded already feel even more alienated from the political process.
If nothing else will persuade the Government, I repeat the question that my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) asked earlier. The Government have to come up with an alternative, because if they persist in their approach, they will be defeated. That is a solution that they do not want—and neither do we, because we want the election to go ahead.
There is a debate in the Labour party about Labour re-engaging with its heartland. At the last election, the majority of people in London voted Labour. The largest number of local authorities in London are Labour controlled. It will be to traditional Labour voters that the Government do the greatest disservice.
Mr. Bermingham: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Hughes: No, I will not. Many of those traditional Labour voters will be disengaged; many of them will not receive communication, and many of them will feel that their Government have let them down.
I join colleagues from all parts of the country and both sides of the House in saying that the Government have about seven days in which to think again. If they do not, they will be making a terrible political mistake.
12.50 am
Mr. Gerald Bermingham: The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) refused to give way to me. If he had, I would have asked him a very simple question—the same question that I asked the right hon. Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) a short while ago. If we are to have a referendum, and if we are to have freepost, should we not have it in all elections? Why did the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey not give way and answer that question? It is because he does not want to know the answer, which is that if we do it for one election, we must do it for every election. It must be as simple as that. [Interruption.] Wrong. I am saying that if we do it for London, we have to do it for Liverpool, Birmingham, and everywhere else.
Mr. Mark Fisher: Will my hon. Friend accept that London has local elections? They are for the boroughs. This is a regional election involving 5 million people—the electorate is larger than that of Scotland and Wales. This is not a local election, but a regional election, and of course there should be free post.
Mr. Bermingham: That is exactly why I am saying that there should be free distribution at elections. We cannot distinguish between elections. That is why I asked the question of the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey. It is as simple as that. If we differentiate one election and another, where the heck do we go?
12.52 am
Mrs. Jacqui Lait: I have been fascinated in both debates about the confusion that appears to be emerging at the heart of the new Greater London assembly. Having a mayor and assembly was the one clear policy for London that we thought the Labour
918
Government were introducing. We now appear to be challenging the role of the mayor and the assembly. On the one hand, the Minister insists on maintaining that this is a local government election; on the other, he is introducing to that election a system of deposits that is alien to local government elections.
The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) made exactly the point that I wish to make, which is that London is a region. It is defined as a region by the Greater London Authority Act 1999, and the London development agency is, by any definition, a function of regional government. If we are talking about regional government, we have to be talking about an organisation that is not a local government organisation.
Mr. David Heath: I wonder whether the hon. Lady can help me on a point made by the Minister. He suggested that if there was a free post for the whole of London, frivolous candidates or commercial interests would flood Londoners' post boxes with leaflets in support of their businesses. The hon. Lady represents a London constituency. Was she aware of that happening during the European elections, when similar circumstances prevailed in that London was treated as a region and there was a free post?
Mrs. Lait: The hon. Gentleman has picked up on another point that I was going to make. During my by-election, when one expects frivolous candidates, there were none, apart from the British National party. Therefore, I suggest that the idea that there are always frivolous candidates, and that the organisation of these expenses is designed to eliminate them, is a fantasy to bolster Ministers' confused arguments. I can understand their confusion. Last Saturday, I campaigned with our prospective candidate for the assembly in a nice, respectable, Conservative part of Beckenham—[Interruption.] The Minister would do well to listen to this. Reaction in that area suggested that people would vote for Steve Norris or, in fewer numbers, for—whisper his name—the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone). Not a single person mentioned the right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) or the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms Jackson).
When I told people that I was accompanying their prospective assembly candidate, the usual reaction was, "What's the assembly?" If there is any strong argument for free post, the understandable ignorance of the London electorate about the assembly's existence is it. There is no evidence that ordinary voters even know that there will be an assembly. I hope that the Government do not decide to solve that problem by themselves advertising the assembly. That would be an even greater travesty of democracy. We need to allow all prospective candidates for the assembly to benefit from a mailshot, just as the candidates for mayor should.
Mr. Casale: Did the hon. Lady remind her constituents on the doorstep that her party is profoundly antagonistic towards London government? Did she tell them that her party abolished the Greater London council and did not want these elections to happen? In opposing the motion, does she not intend to bring about a situation in which we have no election at all to the London authority?
Mrs. Lait: If I understand the hon. Gentleman correctly, he is suggesting that a mailshot would put

919
people off voting for the assembly. We have all argued that the opposite would be the case. The Minister would be rash to ignore the arguments advanced in favour of democracy for all Londoners and for residents of all the other cities in which the Government propose to introduce mayors. Candidates for mayors in other cities will have huge fund-raising requirements if they are to stand. In some less-well-off areas, I can see people being deterred from standing by the sums that will have to be raised if the electorate is to be reached. I beg the Government to add to their proposals for mayors of other cities the implications of what they are doing in Greater London.
Mr. Greenway: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way as it means that I shall not need to detain the House with a speech. Her last point is extremely strong. The hon. Member for Preston (Audrey Wise) said that this matter goes wider than London. Does my hon. Friend agree that if we are to have regional assemblies, which many Opposition Members do not want, there should surely be free postal delivery in Yorkshire, the south-west and the west midlands, just as there was in Scotland and Wales?
Mrs. Lait: My hon. Friend is absolutely correct. He points up the confusion that lies at the heart of the proposal not to provide a mailshot for the mayoral and assembly candidates. The Government ought to think hard about this matter, and they will have an opportunity to do so when the orders are defeated in the House of Lords. They must think hard about the role of the mayor and the assembly in our constitution.
Question put:—
The House divided: Ayes 262, Noes 168.

Division No. 77]

[12.59 am

AYES

Abbott, Ms Diane

Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

Ainger, Nick

Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

Ainsworth, Robert (Covtry NE)

Campbell—Savours, Dale

Alexander, Douglas

Cann, Jamie

Allen, Graham

Caplin, Ivor

Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

Casale, Roger

Atkins, Charlotte

Caton, Martin

Austin, John

Cawsey, Ian

Banks, Tony

Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

Barnes, Harry

Clapham, Michael

Barron, Kevin

Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

Bayley, Hugh

Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

Bermingham, Gerald

Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

Berry, Roger

Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

Best, Harold

Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

Betts, Clive

Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

Blackman, Liz

Clelland, David

Blizzard, Bob

Coaker, Vernon

Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

Coffey, Ms Ann

Borrow, David

Cohen, Harry

Bradley, Keith (Withington)

Coleman, Iain

Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

Colman, Tony

Bradshaw, Ben

Connarty, Michael

Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

Browne, Desmond

Corbett, Robin

Buck, Ms Karen

Cousins, Jim

Burden, Richard

Cox, Tom

Burgon, Colin

Cranston, Ross

Butler, Mrs Christine

Crausby, David

920

Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

Lepper, David

Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

Leslie, Christopher

Cummings, John

Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

Levitt, Tom

Dalyell, Tam

Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

Darvill, Keith

Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

Davidson, Ian

Linton, Martin

Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

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

Love, Andrew

McAvoy, Thomas

Dawson, Hilton

McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)

Dismore Andrew

Dobbin, Jim

Donohoe, Brian H

Macdonald, Calum

Doran, Frank

McDonnell, John

Dowd, Jim

McFall, John

Drew, David

Edwards, Huw

McGuire, Mrs Anne

Efford, Clive

Mackinlay, Andrew

Ennis, Jeff

McNamara, Kevin

Etherington, Bill

McNulty, Tony

Fisher, Mark

Flint, Caroline

MacShane, Denis

Flynn, Paul

Mactaggart, Fiona

Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

McWalter, Tony

Fyfe, Maria

McWilliam, John

Gapes, Mike

Gardiner, Barry

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Gerrard, Neil

Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

Gibson, Dr Ian

Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

Gilroy, Mrs Linda

Goggins, Paul

Marshall, David (Shettleston)

Gordon, Mrs Eileen

Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

Martlew, Eric

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

Maxton John

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Grogan, John

Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

Hain, Peter

Meale, Alan

Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

Merron, Gillian

Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

Hanson, David

Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

Healey John

Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

Miller, Andrew

Hepburn, Stephen

Mitchell, Austin

Heppell, John

Hesford, Stephen

Moffatt, Laura

Hill, Keith

Moonie, Dr Lewis

Hoey, Kate

Moran, Ms Margaret

Hood, Jimmy

Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

Hope, Phil

Hopkins, Kelvin

Mountford, Kali

Hoyle, Lindsay

Mudie, George

Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

Mullin, Chris

Humble, Mrs Joan

Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

Hurst, Alan

Hutton, John

Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

Iddon, Dr Brian

Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

Illsley, Eric

Naysmith, Dr Doug

Jamieson David

O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

Jenkins, Brian

Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

O'Hara, Eddie

Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

O"Neill, Martin

Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

Organ, Mrs Diana

Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

Pearson, Ian

Pendry, Tom

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

Perham, Ms Linda

Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

Kemp, Fraser

Pickthall, Colin

Kidney, David

Pike, Peter L

Kilfoyle, Peter

Plaskitt, James

King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

Kumar, Dr Ashok

Pollard, Kerry

Ladyman, Dr Stephen

Pond, Chris

Laxton, Bob

Pope, Greg

921

Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

Primarolo, Dawn

Prosser, Gwyn

Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

Purchase, Ken

Taylor, David (NW Leics)

Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce

Temple—Morris, Peter

Quinn, Lawrie

Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

Radice, Rt Hon Giles

Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

Rammell, Bill

Timms, Stephen

Rapson, Syd

Tipping, Paddy

Raynsford, Nick

Todd, Mark

Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

Touhig, Don

Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff

Trickett, Jon

Rooney, Terry

Truswell, Paul

Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

Rowlands, Ted

Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

Roy, Frank

Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

Ruane, Chris

Turner, Neil (Wigan)

Ruddock, Joan

Twigg, Derek (Halton)

Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

Sarwar, Mohammad

Tynan, Bill

Savidge, Malcolm

Vis, Dr Rudi

Sawford, Phil

Walley, Ms Joan

Sedgemore, Brian

Watts, David

Simpson Alan (Nottingham S)

Whitehead, Dr Alan

Singh, Marsha

Wicks, Malcolm

Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

Smith, Angela (Basildon)

Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

Smith, John (Glamorgan)

Winnick, David

Southworth, Ms Helen

Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

Squire, Ms Rachel

Wise, Audrey

Starkey, Dr Phyllis

Woodward, Shaun

Steinberg, Gerry

Woolas, Phil

Stevenson, George

Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

Stewart, David (Inverness E)

Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

Tellers for the Ayes:

Stinchcombe, Paul

Mr. Mike Hall and

Sutcliffe, Gerry

Mr. Kevin Hughes.

NOES

Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

Chidgey, David

Allan, Richard

Chope, Christopher

Amess, David

Clappison, James

Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

Baldry, Tony

Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

Ballard, Jackie

Collins, Tim

Beith, Rt Hon A J

Colvin, Michael

Bercow, John

Cotter, Brian

Beresford, Sir Paul

Cran, James

Blunt, Crispin

Curry, Rt Hon David

Body, Sir Richard

Davey, Edward (Kingston)

Boswell, Tim

Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

Day, Stephen

Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

Brady, Graham

Duncan Smith, Iain

Brake, Tom

Evans, Nigel

Brand, Dr Peter

Faber, David

Brazier, Julian

Fabricant, Michael

Breed, Colin

Fallon, Michael

Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

Fearn, Ronnie

Browning, Mrs Angela

Flight, Howard

Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

Forth, Rt Hon Eric

Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

Foster, Don (Bath)

Burnett, John

Fox, Dr Liam

Burns, Simon

Fraser, Christopher

Burstow, Paul

Gate, Roger

922

Garnier, Edward

Nicholls, Patrick

George, Andrew (St Ives)

Norman, Archie

Gibb, Nick

Oaten, Mark

Gill, Christopher

O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

Öpik, Lembit

Gorman, Mrs Teresa

Ottaway, Richard

Gray, James

Page, Richard

Green, Damian

Paice, James

Greenway, John

Paterson, Owen

Grieve, Dominic

Pickles, Eric

Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

Hammond, Philip

Prior, David

Harris, Dr Evan

Randall, John

Hawkins, Nick

Redwood, Rt Hon John

Hayes, John

Rendel, David

Heald, Oliver

Robertson, Laurence

Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

Heathcoat—Amory, Rt Hon David

Ruffley, David

Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

Russell, Bob (Colchester)

Horam, John

St Aubyn, Nick

Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

Sanders, Adrian

Hughes, Simon (Southward N)

Sayeed, Jonathan

Hunter, Andrew

Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

Jack, Rt Hon Michael

Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

Soames, Nicholas

Jenkin, Bernard

Spelman, Mrs Caroline

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

Spicer, Sir Michael

Spring, Richard

Key, Robert

Steen, Anthony

King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

Streeter, Gary

Kirkbride, Miss Julie

Stunell, Andrew

Kirkwood, Archy

Swayne, Desmond

Laing, Mrs Eleanor

Syms, Robert

Lait, Mrs Jacqui

Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

Lansley, Andrew

Taylor, John M (Solihull)

Leigh, Edward

Taylor, Sir Teddy

Letwin, Oliver

Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

Tonge, Dr Jenny

Lidington, David

Townend, John

Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

Tredinnick, David

Livsey, Richard

Trend, Michael

Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

Tyler, Paul

Llwyd, Elfyn

Tyrie, Andrew

Loughton, Tim

Wardle, Charles

Luff, Peter

Waterson, Nigel

MacGregor, Rt Hon John

Webb, Steve

McIntosh, Miss Anne

Welsh, Andrew

MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

Whitney, Sir Raymond

Maclean, Rt Hon David

Whittingdale, John

Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert

Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

McLoughlin, Patrick

Wilkinson, John

Madel, Sir David

Willis, Phil

Malins, Humfrey

Wilshire, David

Maples, John

Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

Maude, Rt Hon Francis

Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

Young, Rt Hon Sir George

May, Mrs Theresa

Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

Tellers for the Noes:

Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)

Mr. Peter Atkinson and

Moss, Malcolm

Sir Robert Smith.

Question accordingly agreed to.
Resolved,
That the draft Greater London Authority (Election Expenses) Order 2000, which was laid before this House on 3rd February, he approved.

Children's Ombudsman
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Allen.]
1.11 am
Mr. Tom Cox: I am a member of the British parliamentary delegation to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe—a Parliamentary Assembly of 41 member states. I chair the social, health and family affairs committee of that Assembly and I am the rapporteur for the European strategy for children. The committee that I chair has produced many major reports, especially on issues that concern the welfare and protection of children, such as child abuse, international adoption, the effects of social exclusion, child labour, sexual abuse, child soldiers and refugee children. I work very closely with the United Nations Children's Fund on children's matters.
The aim of my debate tonight is to seek the appointment of an ombudsperson for children—or as some countries say, a commissioner for children. Within the Council of Europe a number of member states, such as Norway, Belgium, Sweden, Finland, Germany, Luxembourg and Iceland, already have such an ombudsperson or similar organisation to consult with children and to protect children's interests. Many countries in other parts of the world—Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Costa Rica and Guatemala—have either an ombudsperson or a commissioner. Other European countries are at present considering such an appointment. The role of the ombudsperson is to work with children, to listen to their concerns, to ensure that their rights are safeguarded and developed and to work and co-ordinate with children's organisations on issues of concern.
I have spoken many times to the people who perform the role of ombudsperson. They speak in support of that role, and describe the confidence of young people in contacting them on issues of concern. We can point to examples of European countries where an ombudsperson has been successful in developing the rights of the young and protecting their interests and welfare.
I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister would be the first to agree that one of the major achievements on the protection and welfare of children was the United Nations convention on the rights of the child. Sadly, the Committee that I chair at the Council of Europe knows that children's interests are still often totally disregarded. In the United Kingdom, no independent body is responsible for promoting children's rights in this country. There are many excellent child care organisations and they do excellent work in the interests of young people, but I do not think that anyone would dispute that there is far too much duplication and overlapping of their work.
An ombudsperson would be there to consolidate the views of various children's organisations. There is clear evidence that that is what such organisations want. That is what they tell me, as I shall confirm later in my speech. I am often told that paper commitments are not enough and that what Governments say they will do and what they actually do are not always the same thing.
We know some of what has been done regarding our systems. Inadequate measures are in existence to enable children's views to be listened to when decisions about them are made. I regularly speak to youngsters attending
924
junior schools in my constituency and, in the past two weeks, I have visited St. Mary's Church of England and Ravenstone junior school, both in Balham. The youngsters to whom I speak are knowledgeable, intelligent and want to ask many questions. They repeatedly ask, "Why don't they listen to us, Mr. Cox?" They are right. Why do we not listen to the views that youngsters want to express?
We know that not enough attention is given to the importance of respecting the best interests of children in legislation. There is no independent system of monitoring how legislation works for the benefit of youngsters. Despite Government initiatives, there is very deep concern about the welfare and protection of young children in this country. One has only to ask child care organisations for their views.
How can youngsters make their views known to a Government Department or a Minister? Do we have press or television campaigns saying that the Government are considering changing the law or introducing a new one that will concern young people and do we say to them, "We want to hear what you think about it"? We know that young people need people to pursue their rights. What independent body exists in this country with the responsibility to monitor or, indeed, promote children's rights here? If there is one, I hope that my hon. will tell the House about it.
That is surely just the role for which an ombudsperson would be responsible. I ask the Minister to check the role and work of the ombudsperson in those countries that have such a post and consider the trust, the respect and the achievements that have been made. We know that young people have views, concerns and needs, but where are their rights? We talk about human rights, but when do we talk about or develop systems in which children's rights are promoted or even talked about?
We often hear of the most appalling cases of child abuse—either sexual or physical. In last Sunday's Sunday Express, there was an article on the report that has now been published by Sir Ronald Waterhouse, who headed the inquiry into sexual abuse at children's homes in north Wales where 650 allegations of abuse were made. In that article, the child protection director of the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, Neil Hunt, said of the inquiry:
"The disturbing facts about past abuse were that children had no one to turn to for help, and when they tried to speak out they were ignored. If these children had had access to advocacy services to stick up for them, this tragedy might well have been avoided.
Last week Sir Ronald told a conference that children in care need trustworthy and independent adults to listen to their concerns."
Yesterday, The Times published a letter from the NSPCC's chief executive and the president of the Association of Directors of Social Services, which was headed, "Abused children need a champion". It said:
"The NSPCC and the ADSS are united in calling for the Government to appoint an independent Children's Commissioner to champion the needs of UK children".
Today the House heard the statement by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales on that report. The comments that I have read out, including those made by the leader of the inquiry, set out the role that an ombudsman would play.
I fully support the introduction in recent years of bodies to promote the interests of women and disabled people, such as the Equal Opportunities Commission and the

925
Disability Rights Commission, and the Commission for Racial Equality. However, there is still nothing for children.
The Minister may well tell me about the provisions for the children's director in the Care Standards Bill, but many organisations that work with children have expressed clear reservations about that appointment. They think that the terms of reference are too narrow and they remain committed to the establishment of an independent ombudsman. There is no great support in this country for the appointment of a children's director.
We all know that children have no vote, no political power, and often no formal way of making their views known. What influence do they have in any lobby or institution that informs political change? We know that when children's issues are determined, whether at a national or local government level, the responsibilities for children's services are often split between different departments and there is poor communication or collaboration between them.
We should think of the appalling, brutal cases of child abuse with which we are familiar. In many of those cases, children died as a result of the abuse that they suffered. The point that is repeatedly made in the inquiries that follow those cases is that there was a lack of co-ordination between the agencies that were supposedly involved in securing the welfare of the abused children.
The committee on the rights of the child, which was established to monitor the implementation of the United Nations convention, said that without an independent role to monitor progress, children's rights are rarely given the priority and scrutiny that they require. The committee clearly recommended the appointment of an ombudsman or a commissioner in the United Kingdom.
I have spoken of the contact that I have with schools in my constituency, and I am sure that all Members have such contact. I suggest to my hon. Friend an ombudsman would be the best way to seek young people's views; to ask them to become involved in projects; to make them aware of the distribution in schools of leaflets and reports on children's rights; and to inform them of issues under discussion which concern them. Indeed, in countries where the post of ombudsperson or commissioner has been established, it has given young children their first opportunity to have direct access, to make their views known, and to be listened to. That is what I want this country to do.
I have already mentioned the views of organisations that work with children in various roles. I have a list of more than 100 such organisations in the UK, all of which support the appointment of an ombudsperson or a commissioner for children. I shall give a short list: the Child Poverty Action Group, Barnardos, the Association of Directors of Social Services, Gingerbread, Family Welfare Association, the Association of Lawyers for Children, the Local Government Association, the National Association for Maternal and Child Welfare, the National Children's Centre, Save the Children, the Council for Disabled Children, the National Children's Bureau, the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, the Royal College of Nursing, UNICEF UK and Oxfam UK. That is an impressive list.
There is also wide support in the country for the appointment of an ombudsperson or commissioner for children. A UK opinion poll held in December 1996 gave
926
the following results: 85 per cent. of the people asked said that there should be an ombudsperson; 13 per cent. said that there should not; and 2 per cent. said that they did not know. There is clear and overwhelming support for such an appointment.
In those countries that already have ombudspersons or commissioners, their achievements, the respect they command and the way in which young people relate to them are known. I suggest that it is time for this country to move forward and appoint such a person to promote awareness of children's rights; to analyse and comment on proposed Government legislation or policies in respect of their effect on children and young people; to examine failures to practice and follow guidelines on children's rights; to undertake or commission research relevant to children's rights and interests; and, above all, to establish a system in which children and young people can contact with confidence someone they know will listen to them, in the knowledge that their rights and interests will not be ignored. Many organisations and the vast majority of the general public in this country believe that that would be achieved by the appointment of an ombudsperson.
I, with others, will listen with great interest to the Minister's reply. I hope that what I seek will link with the proposals of the Scottish Parliament, the National Assembly for Wales and the Northern Ireland Assembly for the welfare and protection of young children.
1.29 am
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. John Hutton): I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox) for the opportunity he has given the House to discuss the general issue of the welfare and well-being of children. I know that he feels strongly about such issues and I assure him that I share his feelings.
Today, we all have on our minds the particular needs of children in the care of local authorities. Earlier today, the House heard the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales about the report of the inquiry into the abuse of children in care in north Wales. My hon. Friend knows that the Government will give careful and urgent attention to the recommendations of Sir Ronald Waterhouse.
My hon. Friend drew attention to the fact that Sir Ronald today recommended the appointment of an independent children's commissioner for looked-after children in Wales. Our proposal, to which my hon. Friend referred, to appoint a children's rights director to the proposed National Care Standards Commission captures the spirit of that recommendation.
Children's social services are one of the most difficult and demanding categories of social care. All the professionals involved have to make tough decisions and deal with some difficult situations. However, if we as adults find this area difficult and intimidating, we should never lose sight of what it must mean for the children. It is our responsibility to get the services right and we fully intend to discharge it.
The Government agenda for children is ambitious and wide ranging. In November 1997, the Government published the report known as the "Review of Safeguards for Children Living Away from Home"—the Utting report. It made 20 key recommendations and more than 130 other recommendations, with the principal aim of improving protection for children who live away

927
from home. The Government published their response to the Utting report in November 1998. The document sets out a detailed and comprehensive programme of policy and management changes across government to deliver a safer environment for all children who live away from home. Many of the Utting report recommendations are being addressed through the introduction of the Care Standards Bill and the Children (Leaving Care) Bill.
A ministerial task force was established in November 1997 to take forward the Government's response to the children's safeguards review. It involves Ministers from 10 Departments and outside representatives from social services, education, the police and the voluntary sector. It is an excellent example of working across government to deliver a safer environment for all children who live away from home. As my hon. Friend knows, the task force's job is to co-ordinate and take forward urgently the Government's response to the Waterhouse inquiry.
My hon. Friend did not refer to the Government's "quality protects" programme, which is a flagship policy of which we are proud. We are seeing it through the three years of the current spending review. My hon. Friend knows that it is a £380 million programme. We want a transformation in the quality of care that local authorities provide for looked-after children.
The care system must help children and young people to make the most of their talents, to achieve at school and in further education, and to become confident and successful adults. Local councils must act as proud and concerned corporate parents who know about their children's achievements and do all they can to meet their needs.
We must also provide earlier support for children and families, which will mean that fewer children suffer abuse and neglect. My hon. Friend referred to a child protection system. Such a system must provide effective safeguards for all children, wherever they live. Positive action on all those important matters is now under way.
My hon. Friend mentioned the importance of listening to children. Listening to their views and wishes is a key principle underpinning the "quality protects" programme. We issued guidance to local authorities in October 1999 which stressed that
"particular attention should be given to the involvement of young people collectively and to enhancing their individual voices, for example through the development of independent advocacy services."
That is a priority area for grant funding under the "quality protects" programme. In the first year, £5 million was allocated to developing children's participation. That will again be a funding priority in the second year.
Careful assessment of local authority management action plans, which must be submitted to the Department under the "quality protects" programme, will enable us to identify accurately and precisely the progress that has been made to date and where money should be targeted to develop that work in future. That is an unprecedented investment in listening to children.
Listening to children makes sense not only in terms of improving services; it can also contribute enormously to promoting their safety and welfare. However, it should not be the job of one person—a commissioner, an ombudsman or anyone else—to listen to children.
928
We need a culture change for children's social services which is powerful enough to ensure that listening to children is the job of everyone who is involved with their care. We believe that, and we are taking steps to ensure that it happens. "Quality protects" is beginning that process of change.
We are also trying to practice what we preach. That is why young people are being involved with the development of all the major policy initiatives in this area and will continue to be so in future. They are, for example, full members of the ministerial task force that is developing policy in this area.
The challenge for local authorities in the second year of "quality protects" is to implement their local action plans fully, improve services and achieve much better outcomes for children and young people. Next year, we are increasing the grant available from £75 million to £120 million and we expect real improvements to be delivered in return for those extra resources. My hon. Friend will be glad to know that in the following year the grant will be increased to £180 million. We are making good progress. By the end of next month all authorities expect—for the first time—to meet their statutory duties to inspect children's homes, and there has been an increase in the number of adoptions and the support being given to those leaving care and in councils listening to children.
Mr. Hilton Dawson: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Hutton: I will not, if my hon. Friend will forgive me. I have more to say.
The Care Standards Bill, which my hon. Friend referred to, makes an important contribution here. The debates in Committee in the other place were completed on 18 January, and it sets out a wide reform of the systems to protect vulnerable people and to improve standards in children's homes, care homes, private and voluntary health care and other care services. It will establish a National Care Standards Commission—a new independent body to regulate children's homes and services and care homes for the elderly and disabled people.
As my hon. Friend said, the Bill will establish a national children's rights director, which will be a senior post in the commission. Further consultation is required on the specifics, but the Government believe that the appointment will ensure that children's rights and safeguards are given the highest priority by the new commission. It is an important and innovative development for children's welfare.
The children's rights director will be a unique appointment and a real breakthrough for looked-after children. The postholder will, for the first time, be able to take a national overview of the rights of looked-after children and the way in which they are being cared for by local authorities. The scope of the post was originally set out in the White Paper "Modernising Social Services", which envisaged a number of roles. He would, for example, be able to help the commission to give full and effective coverage of children's services and rights within its statutory regulatory responsibilities and its reports on the discharge of those responsibilities.
The director would also be able to ensure that the views of children placed in the facilities and services regulated by the commission were given proper weight in that

929
regulatory task, and he would report directly to the chief inspector of the social services inspectorate any significant evidence relevant to the rights and safety of children gained from the commission's regulation and assessment of services for children. That might help local authorities or other providers to improve the services and support that they give to children.
I emphasise to my hon. Friend that we shall be very happy to discuss the role and exact function of the children's rights director. Hon. Members will accept that his role and function need to be consistent with the role and function of the National Care Standards Commission as a whole. I make it clear that the director will be senior in the commission. We are well aware that further consideration of and consultation on the specific role is required, and we shall of course ensure that he or she is appropriately supported and that other members of the commission also have significant experience of children's social services and related issues.
The measures that the Government have already taken show clearly that we are committed to ensuring, through a range of initiatives, that children's rights remain clearly and firmly on our collective agenda. Ministers have previously considered whether there is a case for a children's rights commissioner with responsibilities extending further than looked-after children, and discussed it with children's rights groups early in 1998.
930
In our response to the second report of the health committee on children looked after by local authorities, which was published in December 1998, we announced our decision not to proceed with the appointment of such a commissioner.
The Government are not convinced that it would be desirable to create a new national mechanism additional to the courts, the police and the prosecuting authorities, the various existing commissioners, including the Parliamentary Commissioner and the health and local government ombudsmen, the responsibilities of local and health authorities to deal with complaints, and the various inspection and regulatory arrangements for ensuring that safeguards for children are properly implemented and that their voices are heard.
This has been a short, but none the less useful, debate. I can assure my hon. Friend that we are committed to safeguarding the welfare of children. The Government are determined not to let children down and to ensure that their voices are fully heard. The prompt and decisive action that we have taken today in response to the Waterhouse report amply demonstrates our commitment to ensuring that this happens in the future too.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty minutes to Two o'clock.

Preamble
[MR. MICHAEL LORD in the Chair]

Ilisu Dam
Motion made, and Question proposed.That the sitting be now adjourned:—[Mr. Robert Ainsworth.]
10 am
Mr. Kevin McNamara: I am grateful to Madam Speaker for granting me this debate. The Ilisu dam is of considerable interest to many hon. Members, so I shall be as brief as possible to give my colleagues an opportunity to speak in the debate.
I wish first to deal with the Government's often repeated rebuttal of the criticisms of the project, which is that we in the United Kingdom do not have the right to tell Turkey what to do within the confines of its own state. That is true, but the United Kingdom has legitimate concerns at stake. There are serious doubts about the way in which the Turkish authorities have gone about this project, which would be a cause for concern even if the United Kingdom had no direct interest. Secondly, we are discussing United Kingdom taxpayers' money. Those who express concerns about the dam are not trying to tell Turkey what to do. We are asking only that our Government act responsibly. Given all the grave problems involved, the United Kingdom should not support the project.
In recent weeks, the Minister for Trade has advanced two basic arguments about the dam in support of the Government's policy. He claims that there is much misinformation about Ilisu and that critics do not understand that it is a hydropower project rather than an irrigation dam and, as such, will not divert water from downstream states. I assure the Government that I am well aware of that but, as I shall outline in a moment, I still have grave concerns about the potential for manipulation of water flows.
Secondly, the Minister for Trade argued that the dam is the least harmful option and that, otherwise, Turkey would be building fossil fuel plants or nuclear power plants. That is a strange argument, given that Turkey is at present negotiating with Westinghouse about the possibility of a nuclear plant. It raises important questions about the alternatives to Ilisu. That issue has not been addressed by Turkey, by any of the proposed donor countries or by the various reviews that have been carried out. It is fundamental that it is, a point to which I shall return later.
I shall outline what I believe to be the important criticisms of the dam project. First, there are the international implications and the prospect of water wars. The dam is a major installation. It will not affect just one country, but three—Turkey, Iraq and Syria—and it will impact significantly on the water politics of the entire area. We must remember that water is already a focus of conflict in that region—for example, around the Nile and the Jordan. The United Nations has warned us that, in the coming century, water is likely to be a major cause of instability and conflict, and that the next war in the middle east will be fought over water.
156WH
It is interesting to know that, in the current negotiations over the Golan between Israel and Syria, control over water is an important issue.
I know that the Ilisu dam is an hydro-electric power project, not an irrigation project, and that the dam will not divert any of the water of the Tigris. All the water in the river will continue to flow through the dam and downstream to Iraq and Syria. My concern is the potential for manipulation of the flow of water. The Ilisu dam is an integral part of the 22-dam Guney dogu Anadozu Projesi, the south-east Anatolia development project. There are strong grounds for fearing that Turkey will use the dams to exert pressure on Iraq and Syria, the downstream states, by restricting the flow of water. The spare storage capacity of the Ilisu reservoir alone could block the flow of the Tigris entirely for two or three months, which would put Iraq and Syria under siege.
Despite assurances from the Export Credits Guarantee Department and Balfour Beatty that adequate downstream flows will be maintained, I have been concerned at reports that an official of the Turkish state hydraulics works department, the DSI, has threatened that if, for example, Syria continues to support Kurdish rebels, Turkey will cut off the water. The downstream states are understandably concerned. Syria has protested several times to the United Kingdom about the proposal to use ECGD facilities for the dam, and the League of Arab States protested in writing to the Foreign Office last year.
Turkey has not consulted Iraq over the building of the dam. That is in direct violation of article 5, protocol 1, of a 1946 treaty of friendship and neighbourly relations between the two states, which explicitly requires that Turkey should keep Iraq informed of its plans for construction works on the Tigris and Euphrates rivers.
One of the four essential preconditions for ECGD support for the project that were stated on 21 December 1999 by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry was that Turkey should
"give an assurance that adequate downstream water flows will be maintained at all times".
However, there is no clear data about existing water flows or how they will be affected by the dam, and the UK requirement is for only "an assurance". Therefore, what means will we have to ensure that the assurance is honoured?
The United Kingdom Defence Forum has warned that the GAP is
"one of the region's most dangerous water time bombs. The dispute has not erupted yet because the project has not yet reached its full potential. By the time of its planned completion in"—
I was about to say 20010, but that would be a long time even for British construction workers—
"2010, the vital interests involved give it the potential to become one of the region's most dangerous flash-points".
That will have significant implications for western security, as Turkey is a member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation and is now beginning the process of accession to the European Union. The project's security implications could extend far beyond Turkey's borders, and could affect our security interests as a member of NATO and Turkey's future in the EU. UK support for the dam, a project about which the neighbouring countries have protested, would therefore be not only unethical, but plainly foolhardy.

157WH
The dam has implications in Turkey for the treatment of Kurds. Turkish Government publicity for the GAP says that it will
"dramatically change the social and cultural make-up of the region".
I am sure that that will be the case, and we all understand that that sounds sinister to the Kurds, who make up 95 per cent. of the population of the Ilisu dam area. For many decades, Kurds in Turkey have suffered a systematic and concerted campaign by the Turkish state to wipe out their identity that amounts to ethnic cleansing. The Kurdish language is forbidden. The Turkish Government's record on human rights in south-east Turkey is appalling.
From 1984 until recently, there was civil war between the Kurdish PKK—the Kurdistan Workers party—and the Turkish army. Despite the project's location in what is essentially a war zone, no conflict impact assessment has been made of the Ilisu dam or the GAP. The United Kingdom Defence Forum has highlighted what it calls the
"profound security implications"
of the construction of the Ilisu dam. The dam will
"transform the geography of Turkish Kurdistan",
cutting off guerrilla escape routes into the mountains and forcing the rural population out of the countryside, where it may be a support base for the PKK, and into the slums of the cities, where it can be more easily controlled by the Government. The forum concluded:
"an underlying motive of the project is to deny the Kurdish guerrillas the environment in which they operate."
Basically, whether there are guerrillas there or not, that is ethnic cleansing.
The potential clearing of 16,000 people is a recipe for disaster and agitation in not only Turkey, which has an appalling record as regards the treatment of the Kurds, but the surrounding regions and the rest of the Kurdish nation. The Kurds are divided between four states: Syria, Iraq, Turkey and parts of Russia. They have been agitating for self-determination for countless years. Again, that has significance for our security policy. We are entitled to ask what has happened to the ethical dimension of our foreign policy. For the United Kingdom to assist in what amounts to ethnic cleansing is intolerable. The dam is not merely a dam; it has enormous political and cultural implications to which we cannot turn a blind eye.
Hasankeyf is of enormous cultural significance, particularly for the Kurds, and was designated a protected site in 1978. Thousands of years of human settlement and history are there, layer upon layer. Sadly, they are being excavated at a snail's pace. If the city were flooded, it would be lost for ever. The Kurdish community understandably sees the flooding of Hasankeyf as part of a wider strategy to eradicate Kurdish culture. Local people believe that, if it were a historical site in western Turkey, it would not be submerged.
There is still considerable confusion over the number of people who will be affected by the project. The ECGD's stakeholder report says that 16,000 will be displaced and a further 20,000 partly affected. The
158WH
Kurdish human rights project says that the true figure is higher. Whatever the numbers, many thousands will be affected and at least 16,000 displaced—a polite way of saying that they will be forced to leave their homes and their lands. Yet there has been no consultation between the DSI and local people, and no resettlement plans have been drawn up.
The ECGD's stakeholder report expresses grave concern that the open, consultative and participatory process necessary for resettlement is not part of the Turkish political and institutional culture. The authorities simply do not have the capacity to approach resettlement in that way. They already have a momentous problem trying to rehouse and resettle people after the two recent disastrous earthquakes.
Although Turkey has a legal framework for resettlement that looks good on paper, there have been numerous serious problems in its implementation. Compensation is institutionally inadequate. There is a system for setting payments, but most people take the DSI to court to claim more. Cases can take two or three years to settle in the courts, and inflation is high—running at up to 100 per cent—so that by the time families receive their compensation any increase has been eaten up.
Those who eventually get compensation are the fortunate ones. Many families, in particular the poorest, do not have legal title to their land and, without the documents, they receive no compensation at all. Only 60 per cent. of rural people in the Ilisu area have land registration deeds. Resettlement, even if done appallingly badly, is an expensive business. The cost of Ilisu alone is estimated at $500 million, nearly one third of the total project cost of $1.6 million, and experience shows that it is likely to rise.
Who will benefit from the dam? Balfour Beatty says:
"Ilisu will bring new wealth and employment prospects to the population of this impoverished area".
However, more than two thirds of those who have been resettled after other projects undertaken as part of the GAP now wish to return to their former communities. There are no guarantees that local people will be employed, even in constructing the dam—particularly if they are Kurds—and no stable employment is planned for the area.
Export credit agencies' concerns about resettlement have led them to stipulate that an independent monitoring body must be established, but to what extent could such a body operate independently? The head of Turkey's dam building programme has said that he will not give an independent monitoring team the powers that it would need for effective oversight. All observers of the project so far have been denied access to certain areas and followed everywhere. They have been unable to talk to the local population. How can the project be independently monitored in the prevailing political climate in that part of Turkey?
Balfour Beatty claims that even if the ECGD did not support the project, it would go ahead, and other countries' export credits agencies would pick up the business, and the United Kingdom would lose out. We hear the same argument in relation to arms sales—presumably we must prostitute ourselves, on the basis that, if we do not, somebody else will put his daughter on the streets. Balfour Beatty also claims that the United

159WH
Kingdom would have no further influence on the project, that not supporting the project would damage UK-Turkey bilateral relations and that the United Kingdom would acquire
"an international reputation for unreliability and unpredictability in the handling of these matters, with consequent long-term damage not just to Balfour Beatty but to all British-based major project contractors".
Balfour Beatty is over-egging the pudding. Evidence given to the Select Committee on Trade and Industry shows that industry is happy with the way in which ECGD works and praises it as innovative. If we innovate by refusing to fund this deeply damaging project, I am sure that it will do us good in the long term, and it will certainly do no harm. In any case, as I have said, there are wider considerations than the needs of just one British firm, important as they are.
Dr. Jenny Tonge: My hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake) asked a parliamentary question about whether details of, and reasons for, Balfour Beatty's application for export credits guarantees could be put in the Library. He was told that that was not correct practice, because of commercial confidentiality. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we should know what lies behind the application?
Mr. McNamara: I do. I have always found the arguments for commercial confidentiality strange, because they ask us to accept one company's word. In the United States—the biggest and richest capitalist country in the world—commercial confidentiality does not apply to defence contracts, business contracts or anything that involves the Government. It must be part of the secretive nature of the Government—by which I mean any Government of our country, because we are talking about a continuing problem. Of course, my hon. Friends are as open as possible, as we can see from the Freedom of Information Bill. We should have the details, and perhaps the Minister will be able to reply to the hon. Lady.
What are the alternatives to the dam? Ilisu is an expensive project. Independent energy consultants from Turkey and elsewhere have stressed the fact that the same amount of power as that which would be generated by the dam could be saved, at a lower cost, simply by modernising the transmission system, which has a reputation for inefficiency. There is also considerable scope for improving end-use efficiency—the efficiency of appliances and so on. If we want to support Turkey in tackling its energy problem, we would do better to support other means of energy generation. Tackling the demand side—improving energy efficiency—is an obvious first step. If we do not do that, new power stations, whether Ilisu or others, will lose a significant proportion of their power merely through transmission.
In the longer term, we should look to supporting clean generation. I am not an energy expert, but I know that the choice is not merely between fossil fuels, nuclear fuel or big dams. Plenty of other options are available, if only they are taken seriously. The environmental impact of Ilisu might be mitigated by measures such as reducing the height of the dam, but no analysis has been carried out, so we do not know. I should be obliged if my hon.
160WH
Friend the Minister would assure us that, before a decision is made about ECG support for the dam, all the options will be examined and a report outlining the pros and cons will be made public. It is incredible that a project of such scale has reached the stage that it has with, apparently, no examination of costs and benefits, and no consideration of alternatives. No wonder so many question marks hang over its purpose.
I have spoken for longer than I had intended, and I realise that other hon. Members want to speak. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will consider carefully the anxieties expressed this morning, and that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will decide that he is not, after all, minded to support the project.
I reiterate my key anxieties about the preconditions for approval. The language that the Department of Trade and Industry uses is deliberately weak. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State did not even refer to them as conditions, but merely said that granting export credit would be conditional on the Turkish authorities "agreeing to address" anxieties about resettlement, water treatment, downstream water flows and the preservation of Hasankeyf. En passant, we notice that the Government are anxious that they cannot get anything more precise out of the IRA than an agreement to address the anxieties of disarmament. If we demand specificity from the IRA, as we should, we should also demand it from the people involved in the construction of the dam.
Nor has my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State fully faced the problems of resettlement, water treatment, downstream water flows and the preservation of Hasankeyf. What does "agreeing to address" those anxieties mean? The UK Government need to make a clear and unambiguous statement of what guarantees they need from the Turkish authorities before we consider granting support. A clear definition of responsibilities and rights of redress must be provided before allowing the ECGD to proceed, and it should be possible to withdraw support if conditions are not met.
The Ilisu dam cannot be compatible with protecting human rights and the environment in south-east Anatolia. UK support for Ilisu would be incompatible with our commitments to sustainable development and an ethical dimension in foreign policy. We should on no account support the project.
10.23 am
Dr. Jenny Tonge: Only two weeks ago in this Chamber, we debated export credit guarantees and arms sales. The Ilisu dam provides yet another example of the questionable use of ECGs by a Government who continue to claim to have a foreign policy with an ethical dimension.
On 20 December last year, I was told in answer to a question on ECGs and the Ilisu dam project that the project
"has given rise to a number of social, political, environmental and cultural issues requiring further consideration between ECGD, the other export credit agencies involved, the Turkish authorities and the contractors. A decision on the application will not be taken until the issues have been satisfactorily resolved."—[Official Report, House of Commons, 20 December 1999; Vol. 341, c. 380W.]

161WH
The following day, the Secretary of State told the press that he was minded to grant the ECGD cover of £200 million for Balfour Beatty's participation in the project, and was waiting for reports on several matters, including consultation with and compensation for the local population involved in the settlement programme. Fifty-two villages and 15 towns will be flooded, and 20,000 people will be displaced, the majority of whom are, as we have heard, Kurdish. A plan is being discussed for the preservation of as much as possible of the archaeological heritage of Hasankeyf, including the provison of upstream water treatment plants to ensure water quality and an assurance that downstream flows will be maintained at all times. That is all good stuff, but major concerns remain.
I accept that the project provides much-needed electricity for Turkey. A young Turkish student whom I met in Oxford some weeks ago forcefully explained to me that the project is necessary because Turkey so desperately needs hydro-electric power. I accept that, and publicly acknowledge that that is the case. However, the ECGD has not, in considering the environmental and social impact of the project, applied even the World bank's best international practices. The World bank has refused to have anything to do with the dam, stating that it violates the UN convention, which seeks to prevent border disputes between states that share water resources. In its assessment, the ECGD presumably used the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development's guidelines—which are not, in any case, legally binding—as a benchmark. There seems to be some confusion about the guidelines and parameters that are being set.
When the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry gave evidence to the Select Committee on International Development earlier this month, he said this is not an aid-funded project, as was the Pergau dam—another notorious example—but a commercial operation. Surely, however, export credit is a form of aid, and should therefore abide by the same principles as other aid projects. The Secretary of State has admitted that work on drawing up the international procedures that all OECD members will follow remains unfinished. In that case, why is Britain using as yet ill-defined guidelines instead of the recognised World bank guidelines, to which I understand that we are already committed?
We have seen too many cases of multinational malpractice throughout the developing world. It is encouraging that the Government are taking an active part in reaching agreed international procedures on environmental standards, but there must be a European code of conduct for export credit guarantees and incentives, which are consistent with the World bank and the OECD social, environmental and conflict prevention standards. In the case of the four areas of concern about the Ilisu dam that the Government listed, it is essential that there should be binding obligations that the UK can withdraw the guarantees if agreements break down. Assurances are simply not enough. The hon. Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) graphically pointed out the weakness of Britain's commitment in making those guarantees.
162WH
Turkey needs access to hydro-electric power. The Ilisu dam is not for irrigation. Turkey currently suffers from an energy deficit, and there are fears that it may use nuclear energy to close the energy gap. If it is to join Europe and grow, Turkey certainly needs energy, but environmental and political concerns cannot be ignored. The dam is only 40 miles from the borders of Iraq and Syria, and could be used to cut off their water supply from the Tigris. Although Balfour Beatty argues otherwise, surely while the reservoir behind the dam is filling, flooding a huge area of land, the water flow of the Tigris will be much less. However it is done, there will be a significant effect on the water that flows along the Tigris.
It is said that tributaries of the Tigris, especially in Iraq, supply more water than comes from the Tigris through Turkey. However, what about times of drought? Although I have not seen the Tigris, I am reliably informed that it is a huge river. It must have some effect on the flow of water into Iraq and Syria, and in future. Turkey could manipulate water supplies to Iraq and Syria. Fears of water wars are not completely misplaced. Furthermore, there is little evidence that Iraq and Syria have been consulted about the matter.
On the issue of human rights, Turkey's record vis-a-vis the Kurdish people is not good. Of the 20,000 people affected, 95 per cent. are Kurdish. I must declare a family interest because my husband lived among Kurdish people in Iraq for a while as a small boy. For 30 years, he has regaled me and my family about the goodness and decency of those people, and about how welcome they made him feel. I have, therefore, always had very warm feelings towards them, because of his advocacy.
Turkey's record on human rights is still a matter for huge concern, and the Kurds rightly feel that the flooding of the ancient town of Hasankeyf is another attack on their cultural identity. In that area, the Kurds are mainly farmers working on agricultural land. Will the Turkish Government ensure that all the Kurdish families on the land that is to be flooded are given equivalent agricultural land, so that they can carry on farming, or will those families become raggle-taggle people living in slums on the borders of the cities in Turkey? The latter outcome is the more likely. How will the United Kingdom Government ensure that the Kurds are properly resettled, and able to benefit from the energy provided by the Ilisu dam and other projects in the area, such as the GAP? Are we to accept Turkey's word on the matter, or will there be continuous monitoring?
My concerns are shared by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell), who, in September last year, called for a cross-departmental control mechanism for the ECGD to ensure sustainable development and an ethical foreign policy. There have been many recent examples of the DTI and the ECGD appearing to overrule the advice of the Foreign Office and the Department for International Development—investment in Sudan, arms exports to Eritrea and Ethiopia and the sale of Hawk jet parts to Zimbabwe. I could continue, but I shall spare the Minister's blushes.

163WH
At the Select Committee for International Development hearing to which I referred earlier, the Secretary of State said:
"The DTI are not responsible for human rights assessments for areas of export credit."
Indeed, the Department of Trade and Industry is not responsible. However, if that job belongs to the Foreign Office and the Department for International Development, why does not the DTI listen to, and act on, their advice? I hope that the Minister will have some answers.
10.33 am
Mr. Malcolm Savidge: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) on initiating the debate. I shall be brief for two reasons. First, both he and the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) have covered the issues thoroughly. Secondly, I was somewhat over-exuberant in my cheering when Aberdeen football club managed to get through to a final for the first time in five years, and, as a result, my voice is not at its best.
Why are we raising concerns about the Ilisu dam? It has been suggested that great benefits will be gained from it, such as providing jobs in the area and in the United Kingdom. It has also been suggested that there could be environmental benefits, such as removing the necessity to build a nuclear power station in an area known to experience earthquakes, and that the project could be seen as sympathetic from the point of view of global warming. Certain figures in the stakeholder report might even suggest some public support for the project. Will the Minister tell us how many jobs would be gained in the United Kingdom as a result of support for this project?
The environmental review expresses concern that not nearly enough study has been carried out into the potential damage to flora, fauna and wildlife habitats and states that there has been insufficient analysis of alternative ways in which to produce and conserve energy—a matter with which my hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North dealt thoroughly.
The hon. Member for Richmond Park dealt with cultural questions. Grave concerns have been expressed about the archaeological heritage, and not merely in the city of Hasankeyf. I defer to the hon. Member for Richmond Park on the precise pronunciation of that. Of course, much of the surrounding region is unexcavated, particularly the cave areas, and a rich archaelogical heritage could be permanently lost.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North said, according to Government briefings, a dam built primarily for hydro-electricity, rather than irrigation, should not substantially affect downstream water flows. However, am I right in saying that the building of a previous Turkish dam affected water flows even though Turkey promised its neighbours that it would not? Moreover, is not Turkey still in dispute on that with Syria, which has taken it to the International Court? Is not it also true that the Turkish contractor for the Ilisu project was reported on a BBC Radio 5 Live programme as saying that downstream water flows will be reduced by 45 per cent. for at least the first three years.
The stakeholder report highlights a possible cumulative effect, particularly in the light of a proposed further dam, which would be used for irrigation. Again,
164WH
my hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North mentioned the problem of water control and spoke in detail on diplomatic relations in the region. I recently visited most of the front-line states that are involved in the middle east peace process, and grave concerns were expressed about the possible effect of such projects on that process. Access to water is an important issue in discussions between Syria and Israel on the Golan heights. Many people look to Britain to support a process for which there is cautious optimism. Given the current desperate shortage of water, it would be particularly unfortunate if we were to have a deleterious effect on those delicate negotiations.
At least 16,000 and perhaps as many as 25,000 Kurds will be compulsorily moved, and a further 20,000 may be affected, although the stakeholder report makes it clear that it is difficult to be precise. Under Turkish law, compensation would be offered, but the report also makes it clear that the history of compensation in relation to Turkish dam projects is not encouraging. Many people claim to have received no compensation, and often compensation has been too little, too late. In Turkey, where inflation can run at 100 per cent. per annum, too late automatically becomes too little.
The stakeholder report refers to the damage done to social structures. Balfour Beatty has made extravagant promises on consultation but, according to the report, there has been no attempt at consultation. It has been said that the project has been under consideration for some 20 years but, in fact, it has been under consideration for 50 years. Not a single person was found first to have heard of the project from the companies involved.
Proper consultation has not taken place. There is virtual martial law, and the stakeholder report states that security conditions make it difficult to obtain proper access. The reporter had limited time and was unable to visit many areas because of security difficulties. The report states, with fairness, that the figures about support should be treated with considerable caution. The translator in the Kurdish areas was a Turkish Government official. How freely would people speak in that situation? It has been suggested that the area will benefit from additional electricity, but it is alleged that most of the electricity that is produced by the existing dam projects is used not in the Kurdish areas but elsewhere in Turkey.
The Government should be careful not to repeat the situation that arose in relation to the Pergau dam under the previous Government. My hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North mentioned that this dam—I need to be careful about how I use that word—project is called the GAP. I shall not try to pronounce the Turkish that the acronym stands for, but I fear that the word "gap" is appropriate in this context. There may be a gap between the airy reassurances that we have received and what appears to be the grim reality on the ground. I fear that, if the Government are strongly minded to approve this project there could too easily be a gap between reassurances that we might receive on human rights, environmental, cultural and diplomatic matters, and what really happens.

165WH
I am not given to Joan of Arc experiences—I do not often hear voices—but when I was coming to the Palace on the tube this morning, I heard loud and clear a warning that I hope the Government will heed: "Mind the gap."
10.41 pm
Mrs. Angela Browning: I congratulate the hon. Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) on raising the subject. The speeches of Labour and Liberal Democrat Members make it clear why the project is a matter of concern.
On 21 December last year, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry issued a press release outlining his approach to the matter. That happened to be the day that the House rose for the Christmas recess, and the Department of Trade and Industry slipped out several press releases in the full knowledge that Members of Parliament would be packing up to go home and so would pay them less attention than if they had been released in the middle of the week when the House was sitting. That is a somewhat cynical approach to this important matter.
In the press release, the Secretary of State referred to
"The two reports: one examining the resettlement issues and the other looking at the environmental impact",
and he explained that they were
"commissioned to help Ministers decide whether to grant export credit backing to the scheme."
He continued:
"I have carefully considered both reports and I am minded to grant export credit."
I have read both reports, but it puzzles me that the Secretary of State came to that conclusion. The report on resettlement is a weightier document than that on the environment, but there is little in either report that would lead one to think, "Yes, let's go with those proposals," not least because the project is not new—it has been around for 20 years—although, interestingly, the Ilisu dam already features on Turkish tourist maps. I applaud such commitment, but placing the scheme on a map does not answer the many questions that hon. Members have raised today. I agree with some of the concerns that have been raised.
In giving his judgment on those two documents, the Secretary of State added four caveats—things that needed to be done before he could proceed. If the Government are to go ahead with ECGD money, it would be helpful if the Minister could give us some detail about the action that is being taken and what is being put in place, to ensure that the criteria are not only met but are monitored and enforced. To recap, the four caveats were, first, the need to
"draw up a resettlement programme which reflects internationally accepted practice and includes independent monitoring".
We all accept that that is a laudable aim, but what will be done in practice to ensure that that is done? The second was, to
"make provision for upstream water treatment plants capable of ensuring that water quality is maintained".
166WH
There is a great concern in the environmental paper about water quality. the third was to
"give an assurance that adequate downstream water flows will be maintained at all times".
I understand that since the environmental report was produced more work has been done on that issue. Perhaps the Minister will update us on the solutions that have been found to that problem.
The fourth caveat was the need to preserve archaeological sites. I notice that the press release includes the words "as possible", which is a bit of a cop-out. We all want to preserve such sites, but can the project go ahead even if it is not possible to preserve them? Will the Minister clarify what is meant by that statement?
We have heard from other hon. Members about the impact on neighbouring countries, and I want to emphasise the huge political row and instability that could be caused in the region if the scheme proceeds without due consultation with neighbouring countries, particularly Iraq and Syria, and if the views of the Arab League, which has made official representations on this matter, are not taken into account. It is not clear from the Government's press releases or the documents that they have put into the public domain how they intend to respond to complaints from third parties. Certain lobbying groups—for example, Friends of the Earth—have issued press releases saying that the Government could be taken to court if they proceed with the scheme. Presumably the Government have taken legal advice on their position.
That brings me back to a point that was made earlier concerning the international legal basis on which the Government will now proceed. We have heard about the involvement of the World bank. I understand that it was approached as early as 1984 when it turned the project down. When I look at the parameters and conditions that have applied since 1984, my instinct tells me that the World bank is less likely to say yes in 2000. Presumably the Government have taken advice on their position in relation to other international bodies, which clearly would have a view on the scheme.
We seek more information from the Minister today. Much of what one reads in the newspapers is comments by Ministers and commentary on them, but I have the clear impression that the scheme is being driven personally by the Prime Minister. There appears to be a huge row between the Foreign Office and No. 10. One wonders what pivotal role the Department of Trade and Industry plays in all this, but as the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry is "minded" to proceed, one assumes that he is on the side of No. 10. Clearly the scheme flies in the face of the Foreign Office's stated ethical foreign policy, not only for all the reasons that hon. Members have so ably demonstrated, but particularly because of the question of the Kurdish population, which must be addressed.
This is a big issue for thousands of people. Any big civil engineering project such as this anywhere in the world, even in our own country, would cause a great deal of concern to those living in the immediate vicinity. As Members of Parliament, we all know what happens. In the past seven years my constituency has faced the prospect of a new town, a gas-fired power station and a quarry. When such matters arise, all those who are

167WH
immediately affected lobby against them. It is right that they should raise their voices, but the issue that we are considering is of enormous humanitarian concern. As the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) rightly said, the population in the vicinity of the proposed dam has not been consulted. Nothing in the report assumes any preparation or consultation on how the community would be rehoused and remain as a community. Is the failure to address the resettlement issue the result of a formula to disperse the community to the fringes of many cities, as the hon. Lady said? If that is not the case, work needs to be done rapidly, and assurances given.
Dr. Tonge: Does the hon. Lady agree that in other countries and contexts that might be referred to as ethnic cleansing?
Mrs. Browning: Indeed. There is great concern about the way in which Kurdish communities have been treated in the past. We are therefore cautious about the possibility of dispersing a community.
Other hon. Members have ably outlined the problems, but I want to add a further point. If the Prime Minister is the driving force behind the proposal, he is in a strong position to ensure that, if the dam proceeds and is supported by the UK taxpayer, the criteria outlined by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry on 21 December are met. He has a strong card to play. Turkey wishes to become a member of the European Union, and the Prime Minister will have many opportunities to influence that decision and the speed with which it happens. As a negotiator, he should ensure that, if Turkey's membership of the EU proceeds, the conditions for ECGD funding outlined by the Secretary of State are met. That does not need to be done in a bullying way; it is purely a matter of straightforward international common-sense negotiation.
Mr. McNamara: I asked the Prime Minister whether the matter had been raised at the Helsinki summit, when the Kurds were invited to attend. He said that it had not; nor had it been raised in side meetings or with European Union officials. I agree with the hon. Lady that the matter should be addressed.
Is the hon. Lady aware that Balfour Beatty is part of a consortium currently being prosecuted for bribery in relation to a dam project in Lesotho? Should the ECGD be funding the company in those circumstances?
Mrs. Browning: I do not know the background to the legal affairs of Balfour Beatty. I would expect that to be explored by the appropriate agencies, to ensure, if that is the case, that it is exposed. I am aware, however, that it is not just a Balfour Beatty UK project; an international consortium is involved. Many other countries, including European countries, are involved in the project.
I hope that the Minister will be able to give us the answers and assurances that we seek. In particular, I hope that she will shed some light on from where, within the Government, the driving force is coming. If it is No. 10, I hope that she will assure us that the Prime Minister will use his high office to ensure that our concerns about resettlement, environment and the
168WH
effects on neighbouring countries are addressed. Resolution and enforcement will be necessary if the project is to proceed.
10.54 am
The Minister for Small Business and E-Commerce (Ms Patricia Hewitt): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) on securing a debate on a matter that is of great concern to him and to the other hon. Members who have spoken. I fully understand those concerns because the Government share them.
I begin by reminding the House in some detail of the statement that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made shortly before Christmas when he published the two reports commissioned by the Government—one on the resettlement issue and the other on a review of the larger environmental impact assessement which had been commissioned on behalf of the Swiss contractors. In that statement my right hon. Friend said:
"I have carefully considered both reports and I am minded to grant export credit. This will be conditional on the Turkish authorities agreeing to address the concerns we have about the environmental and social impact of the project."
He went on to say that copies of both reports have been given to representatives of the Turkish Government and the other Government export credit agencies considering support for the project, and that the Government are discussing with them the details of the areas in which changes would be required and action taken before the Government could consider export credit support. They include the need to draw up a resettlement programme that reflects internationally agreed practice and includes independent monitoring; to make provision for upstream water treatment plants capable of ensuring that water quality is maintained; to give an assurance that adequate downstream water flows will be maintained at all times; and to produce a detailed plan to preserve as much of the archaeological heritage of Hasankeyf as possible. The matters of concern that were raised by my hon. Friend and other hon. Members this morning reflect the concerns that my right hon. Friend raised with the publication of the two reports just before Christmas.
Underlying the debate is the question of whether the British Government and, in particular, the Export Credits Guarantee Department, should remain engaged in discussions about the project or should pull out completely. The reality is that Turkey is in any case likely to proceed with the dam, using Turkish companies or contractors from other countries. As the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) made clear, for the past 20 years the Turkish authorities have been planning on the assumption that they intend to proceed with the dam, which, as she said, is noted on their maps. By remaining engaged with that process we can try to ensure that international standards are met and that if and when the dam is built it has a high standard of construction, which is particularly important in a country that has suffered two major earthquakes in recent years, to tragic effect.
The hon. Lady also rightly said that Turkey is a candidate for accession to the European Union, that candidate status was confirmed by the Helsinki Council last December. Like every other candidate for EU

169WH
membership, Turkey has to meet the EU's political membership criteria on democracy, the rule of law, human rights and the treatment of minorities before accession negotiations can begin. All those issues are directly relevant to the concerns that the Government and other hon. Members share about the Ilisu dam project.
However, it is also worth remembering—I am glad that the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) stressed the point—that the dam project offers the possibility of major economic benefits for Turkey. Turkey's economy is growing rapidly and, as a potential member of the EU, can be expected to continue to do so. It already has an energy deficit of 5 per cent. and has to import to meet its current energy needs. Moreover, its per capita energy consumption is only 15 per cent. of the OECD, making it clear that, whatever other measures it takes to promote energy efficiency and, thereby, hold down the growth in demand for energy, it will have to increase energy supply.
Hydro-electric power is a clean and renewable source of energy. It would help Turkey to continue to diversify its sources of power. It clearly would help to reduce reliance on imported energy and it would reduce the likelihood of Turkey deciding to build a nuclear power plant to meet some of its energy needs. Again, given the recent earthquakes, there is particular concern about any prospect of nuclear power plant construction in Turkey.
It is also worth saying that, if Balfour Beatty becomes one of the contractors for the Ilisu dam, it will bring to the project high-quality and highly experienced British construction. I remind hon. Members of the recently completed British-constructed Izmit water project. It withstood last year's earthquake, despite the fact that it was extremely close to the epicentre of the quake. There are real advantages in our engaging with Turkey in developing the plans for the project before a decision is made about whether to offer an export guarantee.
Dr. Tonge: Is the Minister truly satisfied with Balfour Beatty's record? We have heard already that Lesotho is prosecuting for corruption the project contractors in that country, of which Balfour Beatty was one. I understand, too, that BICC—Balfour Beatty's parent company—has been barred by Singapore from bidding for Government contacts for five years, following bribery. Is the hon. Lady entirely satisfied that we can rely on the company to do the right thing on the Ilisu dam project? Do the Government have any plans to take on the company under the OECD guidelines and ensure that it does not do the same again?
Ms Hewitt: The consortium of which Balfour Beatty is a member has been accused of corruption in relation to the Lesotho highlands water project. Balfour Beatty vigorously denies any such wrongdoing and I am sure that, like me, the hon. Member for Richmond Park believes that one is innocent until proven guilty. The case is expected to begin in the South African courts in
170WH
the summer and we shall see what emerges. We do not intend to put current applications on hold until a verdict is reached in that case.
Mr. Savidge: I am concerned that, with the suggestion of the alternative being a nuclear power station in an area of earthquakes, we might be guilty of precisely what the report criticises in its reference to the way in which the Turkish Government have dealt with the matter. It seems to have introduced oil-fired power stations with a view to making them a paper tiger to knock down. The report suggests other possibilities that have never been considered seriously.
Ms Hewitt: My hon. Friend makes an important point. Clearly, it is up to the Turkish Government to decide on an energy strategy by which to examine the comparative risks, costs and benefits of the Ilisu project, and so on. The update of an environmental impact assessment report may deal with those issues, but, as we and all developing countries know, with economic growth tends to come an increase in the demand for energy. Given that Turkey's per capita energy consumption is a small portion of the OECD average, it seems sensible to assume that the Turkish Government are right to anticipate a need for a significant increase in energy supply if they are to enjoy the benefits of economic growth and those that will be delivered to their population through that growth.
There are only so many possibilities for any Government to consider about meeting significant increases in demand for energy, one of which is clearly nuclear power plants. To follow a course of action that might increase the likelihood of a nuclear power plant being built in a country that has recently suffered two major earthquakes is not necessarily sensible or in the interests of its people.
The hon. Members for Richmond Park and for Tiverton and Honiton raised the roles of different Departments. The hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton became rather overexcited about a conspiracy that she appeared to see within the Government.
Mrs. Browning: I certainly was not accusing the Government of conspiracy in this instance, although I might in others. I was more concerned that there seems to be a difference of opinion between Departments.
Ms Hewitt: I am happy to reassure the hon. Lady about that as well. The Department of Trade and Industry works extremely closely on the matter with several other Departments, such as the Department for International Development, the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions and, especially, the Foreign Office. There is a range of interests, and the DTI leads on the support of exports. Issues of sustainable development, human rights, the treatment of minorities and so on are not the preserve of any single Department. DFID has given us extremely helpful advice, especially by putting us in touch with Dr. Morvaridi, who carried out the analysis on resettlement that we published in a report shortly before Christmas. I must stress that Turkey is not one of

171WH
DFID's key partner countries, and the project is not one of aid. DFID's involvement has declined since the commission of the report.
Dr. Tonge: The Minister must accept that DFID is interested in and does a tremendous amount of work on conflict prevention. Time and again, it seems to those of us who are not party to Government thinking that its advice is overruled by other Departments and by No. 10 Downing street, as the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton suggested. We are concerned that commercial interests are always put before the promised ethical foreign policy.
Ms Hewitt: There is no question of DFID being overruled. It has assisted us in properly analysing resettlement, which is a major human rights issue relating to conflict settlement. We have been able to tell the Turkish Government that we think that a great deal more needs to be done if an effective resettlement programme is to be carried out. Turkey is not one of DFID's key partner countries, so it is appropriate that the DTI should use its role as the sponsoring Department for the ECGD to promote human rights issues and environmental and sustainable development issues within the context of what is a commercial project.
The DETR maintains an interest in sustainable development, as do the ECGD and the Foreign Office. The Foreign Office is especially interested in the human rights issues as well as relations with Turkey and other states in the region. My Department and the ECGD have worked extremely constructively with those Departments, and will continue to do so as the process continues until a decision is made. The DTI is in the lead because the request is for commercial support through the ECGD.
My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Savidge) asked whether the project would have an impact on the middle east peace process, but such anxieties are not well founded. The project will have a minimal impact on Syria and no effect on the other front-line states. It is on such issues that we work closely with the Foreign Office.
Mr. McNamara: My hon. Friend passed lightly over the major anxiety about water flows. She did not deal with the dam's possible impact on Syria and Iraq, or with the general comments of the United Kingdom Defence Forum. Will she go into more detail, rather than merely repeating what we have already read?
Ms Hewitt: I shall discuss those issues in a moment, but I want to deal with the issue that my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North raised about the middle east peace process. Of course I shall discuss in some detail both upstream and downstream water flows.
The hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton referred to the World bank—
Mr. Savidge: I visited Syria and spoke to its Foreign Secretary, who has considerable influence in the regime. He expressed grave concern at the dam's possible effect on water supplies to Syria. What consultations have
172WH
been entered into with Syria, now that we are trying to encourage better relations with it in moving the middle east peace process forward?
Ms Hewitt: My hon. Friend should ask that question of a Foreign Office Minister involved in detailed discussions with the Syrian Government. My understanding is that, precisely because the dam is a hydro-electric project, rather than an irrigation project, it will not have a major impact on the water supply to Syria. I shall return to that issue in a moment.
One of the reasons for ECGD engagement in the process is to influence for the better the enivronmental impact of water projects. In introducing the debate, my hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North elaborated well on the broad context of water projects and the genuine danger of serious conflict over an apparently or genuinely scarce resource. ECGD has been able to deliver positive action to influence the environmental impact of several recent power projects, including the Shandong in China, the Sual in the Philippines, the Manjung in Malaysia, and the Vizag in India. In all those cases, rather than putting commercial interests above environmental and other interests, as the hon. Member for Richmond Park implied, we used commercial leverage to achieve environmental goals. I hope that my hon. Friends support that. In this case, we are doing that through the pressure that we and other export credit agencies are bringing to bear in discussions with the Turkish authorities.
Several hon. Members referred to the reduction in water flow that will occur while the dam fills up, as distinct from what will happen once the dam is full and the hydro-electricity project starts. The DSI, which bought, or commissioned, the dam, has discussed the problem with engineers for the United States agency Eximbank, the United States' equivalent of our ECGD. We are waiting for confirmation of the minimum flow agreed to be maintained while the dam fills up, after which we shall be able to judge whether what has been agreed will be adequate to maintain the downstream flow into other countries. We are continuing to discuss the rights of neighbouring states, and it is for the Foreign Office to take the lead. The real responsibility lies with Turkey to communicate its proposals to neighbouring states and to reassure them that the project will not have an adverse impact on the downstream flow. As it is not an irrigation project, that should not be a problem once the dam is fully operational. As I said, we have yet to receive the information that Eximbank will obtain on the level of flow to be maintained while the dam is being filled up. However, half the flow of the Tigris joins the river below the dam and below the Turkish border, so by no means all the flow of the river will be affected by the construction of the dam.
Dr. Tonge: One has only to look at the map, as I did carefully last night, to see that the tributaries of the Tigris, which come from Syria and Iraq, are a long way from the sources of the Tigris. It is conceivable that a drought in either of those areas could lead to minimal flows of those tributaries and the people would be

173WH
dependent on the flows from the Tigris. That puts Turkey in a prime position to influence and, if necessary, wage a water war against those two countries.
Ms Hewitt: Those concerns are being addressed, but again I stress that, if it were an irrigation project, there would be a risk of inadequate water flows into Syria and Iraq. However, a hydro-electric project such as this depends on a continuous flow of water, not on stopping and diverting the water in the way that an irrigation project would.
Mrs. Browning: The environmental document states:
"Some of the potential downstream impacts, eg reduction in floodplain fertility for agriculture, channel erosion, loss of downstream riverine fisheries, are largely discounted since it is assumed that Cizre Dam will be constructed and a reservoir environment created downstream."
We have not heard much about that second adjunct, on which the dam now appears to be conditional. Is that going ahead?
Ms Hewitt: A major point in the environmental report was that other scenarios had not been properly addressed in the environmental impact assessement. That main environmental impact assessment, which has been commissioned by the Swiss, is now being updated. We hope that it will take account of the criticisms expressed in the report that we commissioned, which we published before Christmas. Clearly, we need to understand, as do the Turkish Government, the implications of building the second dam and what would happen to water flows and other environmental issues in either of those scenarios.
Upstream issues also arise. The water treatment plants that will be constructed in the main towns must be operational before the dam starts to fill, because the environmental impact assessment has made it clear that, otherwise, there is a risk of pollution in the reservoir. It is a serious issue and it is being addressed.
The other serious issue is the resettlement of villagers whose land would be flooded as a result of construction of the dam. Here again we are working closely with the Foreign Office. A full resettlement plan must be drawn up, taking account of the people's wishes. In other words, we need a process that involves their participation, with proper support provided to all those affected. It is clear from Mr. Morvaridi's excellent report that we are taking those issues seriously, and we expect the Turkish authorities to respond equally seriously.
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn:: I apologise for not having been here earlier, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I had a previous engagement.
I fully accept that the British Government are concerned about the treatment of people displaced by the dam, but Turkey's record on displacing people from the Kurdish region is nothing short of abominable and apalling. Given the way in which those people have been treated by the army and civil authorities, does the Minister have any reason to believe that the situation will be different if the construction of the dam goes ahead?
Ms Hewitt: Real concerns exist about Turkey's human rights record, and those, among other issues,
174WH
must be addressed if Turkey is to succeed in its desire to become a member of the European Union. However, there are signs of progress. The Turkish authorities have appointed independent local consultants who have carried out assessments for the World bank in respect of other projects, and have agreed to the appointment of an international expert. Furthermore, progress is being made on the consultation exercise and the survey. The Turkish authorities are taking the matter seriously as a result of the international pressure that we have helped to bring to bear.
Dr. Tonge: Will the Minister then explain why the World bank refuses to support the project?
Ms Hewitt: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for restating that point, because I should have dealt with it earlier. The World bank has not been asked to support the project. Discussions took place between the Turkish Government and the World bank, but the bank said that those discussions did not constitute a request for support. We have discussed the project with the World bank, and have not received any indication of the kind of opinion to which the hon. Lady referred.
Several hon Members referred to the archaeological and cultural heritage of Hasankeyf. That has been the subject of research by the Middle East technical university, and a presentation that was given in Ankara a couple of weeks ago—of which we are awaiting full details—will give us a better idea of how much can be preserved and what can be catalogued. However, it is worth pointing out that much of that archaeological heritage is not in good condition, and several experts have expressed the view that, if the dam were not to be built, much of it would continue to decline and disappear.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North and other hon. Members asked whether, if export credit guarantees are to be granted in this case—the decision has not yet been made—it would be possible to enforce any conditions in relation to the contract. The ECGD enters into agreements with the exporter and the bank that determine the terms on which support is made available, and is also involved in the negotiation of the loan agreement between the bank and the borrower. It is normal for such loans to include undertakings by the borrower which, if they are not observed, may lead to the suspension of the continued availability of the loan. If we were to give cover, and conditions attached to that cover were not fulfilled, we would be able to pursue diplomatic and legal forms of redress. The time for detailed consideration of any such conditions would follow the Secretary of State's decision as to whether to proceed. That will not happen for some time, because we have not yet received the full updated environmental assessment report.
I assure hon. Members that, if support were to be offered, it would be possible to consider making requirements under the terms of the loan agreement that certain events shall have occurred, or that the Turkish authorities shall have carried out certain acts, before the agreement becomes effective. It would be possible to require undertakings by the authorities that they will carry out certain acts in certain ways, and to provide that if the undertakings were to be breached, the whole

175WH
amount of the outstanding loan would become immediately payable and there would be no further advances to the contractor under the loan.
Similarly, under the construction contract, the contractor should be able to cease work in the event of a breach of undertakings by the Turkish authorities. The ECGD contract with the contractor could include a provision whereby, in the event of a breach of undertakings by the Turkish authorities, the ECGD would have the right to direct the contractor to cease work.
I hope that I have made it clear that the Government share the concerns that hon. Members have expressed—my hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North did so eloquently—and that we are using our influence through the ECGD to reach more satisfactory outcomes in relation to the environment, interstate relationships and questions relating to human rights and resettlement. We expect a decision about support to be taken some time in the summer, by which time we will have considered the updated environmental impact assessment report and had responses to our other concerns. We and the export credit agencies that are involved will take account of the need to establish a resettlement action plan that reflects international practice and ensure that it is put into effect properly.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving us an opportunity to debate this important issue. If my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State decides, after consideration, to grant export credit cover, a statement will be made to the House, which will provide a further opportunity for debate and questioning.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Nicholas Winterton): The right hon. Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shepard) and the Minister are present in the Chamber, so although we are a little ahead of our timetable we may start the next debate.

Care Homes
11.26 am
Mrs. Gillian Shephard: I am extremely grateful to have an opportunity to raise this matter, which is of enormous interest and great concern to my constituents.
It is my intention not to pre-empt consideration in the House of the Care Standards Bill, which is passing through the other place, but to focus on the impact on privately run care homes in Norfolk of the draft rules for such homes, which are contained in the consultation document "Fit for the Future". That document was commissioned by the Government from the Centre for Policy on Ageing and published in September 1999.
I emphasise from the outset that I fully support the objective of achieving higher and more uniform standards in care homes. The Minister of State will know that all the relevant bodies share that objective, including the National Care Homes Association, Help the Aged, the Registered Nursing Homes Association and the Royal College of Nursing. People in such care homes are, by definition, among the most vulnerable in society and they deserve the protection of verifiable standards.
It would be hard to overstate the anxiety among private care home owners that has been provoked by the rules that are proposed in "Fit for the Future", especially those regarding physical accommodation. The Minister will be aware that their anxiety has been in no way allayed by the fact that, for reasons that are best known to the Department of Health, many care home owners were unable to get copies of "Fit for the Future" until after 3 December last year, which was the closing date for consultation. I am glad that the Department took the welcome step of extending the consultation period.
"Fit for the Future" states that single rooms in care homes must have at least 10 sq m of usable floor space, and that there must be 12 sq m for wheelchair users. New single rooms must have at least 12 sq m of usable floor space, rooms should not be shared by more than two people and people should have made a positive choice to share. Communal space must amount to at least 4.1 sq m per resident. Those requirements sound extremely reasonable. Of course, those of us with experience of care homes, or who have relatives or friends in such homes, want people to be comfortably housed in rooms that are sufficiently large, and which equate with the people's choices. However, the rapid—or, worse still, retrospective—imposition of such standards would impact on the vulnerable members of society whom the Care Standards Bill is designed to protect.
Staffing requirements would include one member of staff to every five residents for morning work, one to every seven for afternoons and evenings, and one to every 10 at night, with a minimum of two remaining awake. Additional staff would have to be on duty at peak times, and at least one third of care staff would have to be registered nurses. In my experience of private care homes in Norfolk, staffing ratios and the requirement for additional staff at peak times would present little difficulty. In fact, most homes already work in that way, and it is clearly sensible to have more people

177WH
on duty when they are needed. However, the requirement for registered nurses presents some difficulty in respect of costings, and so on.
In Norfolk, there are about 415 private homes. The majority care for the elderly and the remainder look after people with learning disabilities, mental health problems or physical disabilities. In its response to "Fit for the Future", a consultation document that was sent to the Department of Health last month, Norfolk Independent Care Homes calculated that the average-sized home registered in Norfolk has about 20 residents. It is interesting to note that, although there are about 1,000 places in local authority homes in our country, there are 4,800 places in private care homes. That gives added point to private care home owners' anxieties, and must be of concern to Ministers. Although there are some new purpose-built care homes, given the rural disposition of a county such as Norfolk, the vast majority are evenly spread throughout the county in converted manors, halls or old rectories. Therefore, one home might serve three, four or five small village communities within a five-mile radius.
Norfolk care home owners have calculated that they employ one member of staff for each resident, which is another issue of concern. By definition, many of those staff are women, who work flexible hours and frequently walk or cycle to work. Given the even spread of provision, the homes form a source of employment that is easy for people to access. Each home is well known in its locality, and it is important to prospective residents to know that, on entering residential care, they will meet local friends and acquaintances. It is not putting the matter too strongly to say that the choice of a residential home is one of the few freedoms left to those who enter them.
Mr. Keith Simpson: I wish to support my right hon. Friend. In my constituency I have shared a similar experience. Does she agree that it is not merely the owners of small homes but residents and their families who feel vulnerable, and that we must not only enhance standards in care homes but protect their local nature?
Mrs. Shephard: I agree with my hon. Friend, and I suspect that the Minister, who has taken a good deal of trouble to meet associations and proprietors of care homes, is also well aware of the problem. He, too, represents a rural and far-flung constituency, so he will appreciate the force of my argument. In rural counties such as Norfolk, requiring the removal of two, three or four beds might render the home in question unviable as a business. It would have to close down, and the geographical relevance of the home would be gone. The home would cease to serve the locally based needs of the residents. The magazine Caring Times, in its edition of 2 February 1999, quoted an anonymous source as saying that if the Centre for Policy on Ageing were to succeed in introducing the standards, the only people who would be able to meet them would be those running 100-plus bed purpose-built homes, thereby restricting individuality and choice. I agree with that comment. In Norfolk, there are a number of well-run large purpose-built homes. Although those would be the choice of
178WH
many, at least as many people would choose smaller, more individualistic accommodation for their relatives, especially if it is close at hand, as frequent visiting would be easier. Many people entering residential care prefer a homely atmosphere to more institutional care.
Norfolk social services responded to the Government's consultation, and in a letter dated 20 November 1999, it stated:
"Norfolk is a geographically large and predominantly rural county. The current stock of residential care homes is diverse in terms of both size and location. In a county where elderly people still predominantly have their family roots within a particular village or small cluster of villages, the location of a residential care home is a critical element of choice … The proposed standards are likely to speed this trend and cause significant disruption to existing residents as small businesses fail as well as limit choice to prospective residents. There has been a need locally to formulate specific strategies to redress the forced migration from villages of young couples—the forced migration of our elderly people through the lack of local residential care homes must be avoided."
Since the Government took office, residential care home owners in rural areas have had to deal with a number of difficult issues. They have had to deal with the impact on their businesses of the working time directive, and the Government's reduction of council grant to shire local authorities, which has resulted in social services cuts. Hikes in fuel taxes have affected all rural businesses. Pay increases for nurses, which were richly deserved, mean, of course, that more care homes are being forced to provide only residential care, as they simply cannot afford to pay the staff to provide nursing care. All that is within the context of rising numbers of frail, elderly people in society, and falling numbers of hospital beds. Instead of piling further pressure on care homes, the Government should be seeking to demonstrate that they have understood the impact on frail and elderly people and their families, as my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Simpson) pointed out, not to mention that on the NHS and local authorities. By forcing the pace of improvements in the private care sector, they might push hundreds of private care homes out of business.
We need to be aware of the findings of the Forum of Private Business care sector survey dated July 1999. Seventy-five per cent. of respondents claimed that if the "Fit for the Future" proposals were carried out, their businesses would no longer be viable. What would happen to the 500,000 or so frail people who would have to be rehoused? Extraordinary distress would be caused to the families. Who would re-employ those thrown out of work? The Norfolk Residential Care Homes Association welcomes the introduction, in principle, of mandatory minimum standards. Mr. Colin Gething, the association's chairman, points out in a letter dated 12 January 2000, that
"it does appear to our membership that, whilst the emphasis may not be biased towards physical standards, the degree of variation of the physical and measurable aspects from that which is currently required by many authorities will impose unrealistic demands both practically and financially, and yet not improve the standard of care one iota."
For many small to medium-sized homes of 10 to 18 registered places, the imposition of standards such as minimum sizes for rooms and communal space will be unattainable, and the loss of two or three rooms to a financially marginal business will culminate in the

179WH
closure of a home and the loss of not two or three, but all. Sadly, such a closure has already taken place, in my constitutency, even before the end of the consultation period. The proprietor of the former Lion House residential home in Downham Market wrote, on 16 October 1999:
"The national standards room size of 10 square metres for existing homes will leave us only 5 registered rooms, from 15. This will bankrupt us. Therefore, I am closing Lion House at the end of November … Two years ago, it was valued as a business at £345,000 … Now, as a house with vacant possession, it is valued at £200,000. So not only have we lost a good business which we have spent 15 years building up, we have also lost £145,000."
The arrangements for finding alternative accommodation for the frail, elderly residents were handled by social services with extreme difficulty, although that is not a matter for this debate.
That example illustrates the difficulties posed by the present approach. Mr. Barry Hartley of the National Care Homes Association said, in the October 1999 issue of Caring UK:
"I'm very disturbed that the Government has missed a golden opportunity to look at the true values of care and whether people are being cared for appropriately. One of our prime reasons for wanting national standards was to ensure a system which measured those things which are important rather than those things which can easily be measured. We are disappointed that standards have not been developed which relate to individual personal quality of care … The 'apparent intention to cull between 12 and 23 per cent. of the sector' is alarming."
Those and other matters will be thoroughly debated when the Care Standards Bill comes from the other place to be debated in the House. However, I want to demonstrate that the Government's handling of the consultation process on this vital issue, in addition to their apparent lack of concern about the fate of 12 to 23 per cent. of the sector, does not bode well. I am talking not only about the businesses but about the frail people for whom they care.
I hope that the Minister will dispel some of our fears in his response to the debate. Will he make it clear that the Government have understood, from the response to their consultation, the disastrous effect on the sector of over-hasty implementation of the accommodation requirements? Will he also make it clear that there is a need for careful consideration of the effect on the overall availability of residential care places of imposing the new standards? Will he also consider the alternatives that the public would expect the Government to provide in the event of large numbers of homes going out of business? Will he give an estimate of the cost to the sector of implementation? Will he set out a timetable, first for publishing the final standards so that home owners will know what is required, and, secondly, for the implementation time proposed, so that they can begin to plan the development of their businesses? Does he plan to compensate private care home owners for the loss in value to their businesses, or for the loss of their business altogether?
I believe that the Minister understands the importance of the role played by the private sector in residential care, and the problems that the Government would have if they ignored the sector's difficulties in maintaining the current number of places under the "Fit for the Future" proposals. I hope that the Minister also understands that behind my concern is the knowledge that to enter residential care is a massive step for anyone
180WH
and their family. To plunge the sector into anxiety or uncertainty, for an unspecified period, is unacceptable. I hope that he will be able today to dispel some of that uncertainty for the sake of everyone concerned.
11.45 am
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. John Hutton): I warmly congratulate the right hon. Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard) on choosing this subject for our debate today and on the way in which she has addressed her concerns.
I am particularly grateful to her for accepting the argument for national standards, because we should not allow that issue to go by default. We are not trying to do any of the things that she suggested: we do not intend to cause concern, anxiety or fear for the future in this major sector of the social care industry. The services provided by private care homes, both nursing and residential, are hugely important in our country, and the Government do not intend to jeopardise the sector's ability to respond to our population's social care needs. We would be crazy and stupid if we were to develop national minimum standards from that starting point. We do not intend that the "Fit for the Future" proposals should have the unforeseen consequences suggested by the right hon. Lady. Therefore, I shall try to reassure her and her hon. Friends about some of the concerns that she has raised today.
The right hon. Lady is right to say that Norfolk and Cumbria, the county in which my constituency is based, have many similarities. Although my constituency is not predominantly rural, the county of Cumbria is, and she is right to say that in rural counties there is a particular dimension to the argument about the provision of longterm residential care services, to which the Government are sensitive and of which they are mindful.
The right hon. Lady raised a number of detailed points, and I shall return to some of them during my remarks, but today's debate also gives me the opportunity to correct some of the misconceptions and misunderstandings about the "Fit for the Future" proposals and to address the legitimate concerns expressed by many in the industry over the past few months. As the right hon. Lady was gracious enough to point out, I have made every effort to resolve those concerns in my meetings with representatives of this crucial industry.
We start from the point that the development of national standards for care homes and other social care services is long overdue. Enforceable national rules should ensure that poor standards and shoddy treatment are rooted out for good and that, regardless of location, all residents in care homes will be afforded the same protection and access to decent facilities.
National minimum standards for care homes are, therefore, part of the Government's plans for reforming the current regulatory arrangements for social services, nursing homes and the private health care sector. The reforms, first announced in the White Paper "Modernising Social Services", were put in train on 2 December, when the Care Standards Bill was introduced in another place.
The Bill will introduce new systems that will help to deliver our aims for a modernised regulatory framework. The current system has long been the subject of criticism by regulators and care providers for lacking independence, consistency and coherence.

181WH
The Care Standards Bill will establish an independent National Care Standards Commission responsible for regulating social care and private health care. The commission will be responsible for laying down standards of care and ensuring that those standards are met through a system of registration, inspection and enforcement. In addition, in line with the recommendation made by the royal commission on long-term care, it will also have responsibility for monitoring and reporting on trends in the provision of long-term care, investigating complaints and taking tough action where necessary, reflecting the views of service users and encouraging better services through reporting on service performance.
We want the National Care Standards Commission to be a powerful new body which will make a major contribution to improving standards of care and informing and empowering consumers. Raising the standard of social care provision and increasing the protection of vulnerable people are paramount considerations for the Government, and the main reasons for having national standards.
National standards will be central to the commission's responsibility for ensuring minimum standards of care. They will form the basis on which the commission's inspectors judge the fitness of the homes and agencies that they regulate and make decisions about registration and cancellation. The standards will be applied consistently to service providers across the country. At the moment there is often a wide variation in the standards required by different local and health authorities, leading to confusion and frustration between providers and regulators. National standards will mean that providers will be clear about the standards that they have to meet and that users and their carers will be clear about the standards that they can expect.
I think that the right hon. Lady referred to the National Care Homes Association. It welcomes the Government's commitment to national standards and notes, in its response to "Fit for the Future", the importance for the public of knowing the minimum level of service that they can expect to be provided. The Independent Healthcare Association also welcomes the principle of national standards and notes that many of those proposed are standard practice already. Counsel and Care, another major organisation, welcomes the establishment of national standards as part of the determination to modernise social services and engender confidence for older people and their relatives in the home that they have chosen.
The consultation document "Fit for the Future" sets out the proposed standards of the Centre for Policy on Ageing for older people in residential and nursing care homes. It was sent to all major interested organisations on 8 September and has been widely circulated. The right hon. Lady correctly referred to some of our earlier problems with distributing the document. We eventually produced 10,000 copies of it, distributed it widely and also exended the consultation period by six weeks. I shall come to the consultation responses later. It turned out to be one of the largest consultation exercises that the Department of Health has organised for a long time. We took great efforts, as the right hon.
182WH
Lady will be aware from her time as a Minister, to ensure that everyone with an opinion and an interest in this subject could comment on the proposals.
The proposed standards are aimed at promoting better quality care and helping to prevent abuse by grounding practice in the important principles of dignity, choice and respect. Older people and other adults in residential care are especially vulnerable to abuse and poor practice because of their physical and mental conditions. The proposed standards in "Fit for the Future" seek to protect residents more effectively in a number of ways.
First, they will guarantee residents access for the first time to an effective complaints procedure, which will be monitored by inspectors who will have the power to investigate unresolved complaints and take any necessary remedial action. Secondly, the standards will ensure that vulnerable people are cared for by reliable and trustworthy staff who have been carefully recruited and properly trained to do this difficult and sensitive job. Often at present, inspectors find that staff have been casually employed and are engaged in providing personal, intimate care—sometimes, sadly, with no check on their suitability and no induction or training. That is not acceptable.
The standards will ensure that residents have the right to choose the way in which they live their lives, as do you or I, Mr. Deputy Speaker—for example, when they get up or go to bed, what they would like to eat, when their relatives can visit and so on, all the details of life that go to make up one's sense of identity and individualism.
The consultation period for "Fit for the Future", as the right hon. Lady said, ended on 21 January. We have received more than 1,400 responses to the consultation document, which provoked a large response from care provider organisations and individual care providers. While there is widespread support for most of the standards proposed, it is clear that there is real concern about some of them. In particular, the physical standards, such as room size, and standards on staffing have attracted criticism from some sectors of the care industry and certain parts of the country. Again, the righ hon. Lady referred to her concerns in that regard as well. The varying levels of concern illustrate graphically the current variation in standards across the country.
We are determined to set standards that promote better quality care, but they must be realistic and affordable. We do not intend to impose unreasonable or heavy financial burdens on providers and we intend to keep the number of enforceable standards to a minimum.
Mrs. Caroline Spelman: The responses to the extended period of consultation on "Fit for the Future" will be important to inform the debate on the Care Standards Bill, which is being discussed in the other place. Will the Government publish the findings of that consultation? If so, will they do so by the time the Bill is debated in this House?
Mr. Hutton: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for making that point. I intend to refer to it. The document "Fit for the Future" identified as many as 260 possible national minimum standards. It is highly unlikely that we shall need as many as 260. Some of the proposed

183WH
standards are unnecessary and may have only a marginal impact on promoting good-quality care, which must be the main purpose of the entire exercise. I cannot specify today which standards we shall adopt because we are still considering the matter. We have 1,400 responses to go through and the consultation period expired only on 21 January.
I hope that I can give the right hon. Member for South-West Norfolk an idea of our initial thinking on two of the issues to which she referred. I refer first to staffing. I confirm that we do not accept that fixed ratios are the best means of specifying the number of qualified nurses who should be employed in nursing homes. That should relate instead to the assessed needs of the residents in each home at any one time and we are considering what models of assessment should be recognised by the commission for that purpose. Similarly, we are considering how nursing needs are defined initially, so that staffing levels can be best set accurately and realistically. Nor am I convinced that ancillary staffing levels, including catering and domestic staff, should be specified by fixed ratios. Instead, they should take account of the degree of efficiency and effectiveness shown by operators in managing such tasks, as observed in the outcome of the quality of the care that is provided.
As the right hon. Lady would expect, we are considering carefully the standards concerned with the physical characteristics of a home. In doing so, we must take account of the high levels of physical frailty of many older people when they enter residential and nursing homes. Room size is an important aspect of the quality of life. Hon. Members have only to think about the significance to them of their own home and work environments to know the importance of a minimum standard of space. It is also an important aspect of safety for staff and residents, when special aids and adaptations for lifting and handling must be used.
While I cannot yet make an announcement, I can assure right hon. and hon. Members that we do not intend to impose on existing providers physical standards that are not already being met by their
184WH
competitors. They will be standards that they should be able to meet over time. I can also announce today that any requirement to meet new standards on room sizes in the future will apply only after the end of the transitional period and not, for example, on the sale or transfer of an existing home to a new owner.
None of the standards will be implemented until at least 2002 when the National Care Standards Commission takes on its regulatory role. Some standards, particularly the more challenging and those relating to the physical environment of a care home will not be introduced until some time after the commission has started its work in 2002. In deciding on the time scale for introducing the finalised standards, we will ensure that providers are given sufficient time to meet those requirements. We aim to publish the finalised standards and their implementation timetable later this year. But—to respond to the hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman)—I intend to make an announcement about room sizes during the spring, which may be of use to those who debate the Bill in Committee.
The right hon. Lady alluded to other issues to which I shall not have time to respond fully. Naturally, I stand ready at any time to discuss such matters in greater detail with the right hon. Lady, who has certainly shown that she has a sound grasp of the subject. She referred to Lion House in Downham Market in her constituency. It is unfortunate that people have read the standards in "Fit for the Future" and assumed that they will be the final minimum standards. I have tried to make it clear today that that is not the case. In any event, the standards could not apply until after the National Care Standards Commission is set up in 2002. There will then have to be a transitional period before some of the more demanding standards could realistically be implemented. We are talking about years, not weeks or months. Decisions by inspection units to move to adopting those standards now or by care home owners to change the ownership of or close a home, taken simply on the basis of the consultation document, would be premature. We will respond fully to the concerns expressed.

Jazz
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Nicholas Winterton): Before I call the hon. Member for Luton, North (Mr. Hopkins) to speak on the subject of support for jazz, I hope that I may be permitted to say what a pleasure it is to welcome the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport to respond to the debate.
12 noon
Mr. Kelvin Hopkins: I am most grateful and pleased to have this opportunity to speak on behalf of jazz in our country, with its audience of millions and its wonderful musicians. Jazz is a significant contributor to the world of the arts and, as a lover of jazz and a former musician, I want jazz to prosper and grow and to bring its joys to many present and future generations.
Jazz has a vigour and life of its own but, like virtually all art through the ages, it requires additional support to reach its full potential to sustain and nurture its musicians and audience and to make a full contribution to our world. Jazz requires financial support and benign governmental sustenance. Art requires subsidy, and always has. Historically, religious institutions, monarchs, aristocrats, the wealthy and the corporate world have always realised that if one wants to see and hear the best, that costs. Great architecture, craftsmanship, visual art and music have to some extent always been patronised, sponsored and subsidised; so it has to be with jazz.
In a democratic age, it is right for the state to subsidise the arts. The arts should receive more support in our country than they do at present if they are to be for the many and not the few. Within the arts family, underfunded as it is, jazz is a poor relation. Jazz needs and deserves support, as a legitimate and distinct art form, along with opera, the visual arts, theatre and cinema. Our museums and art galleries are publicly financed; were they not, much art would be the preserve of the rich. Our public libraries have also brought literature to countless millions. Jazz receives some public funding but it is too little and sometimes derisory.
I should perhaps declare an interest, as secretary of the all-party parliamentary jazz appreciation group, which has some illustrious members, including the Deputy Prime Minister, the previous Chancellor of the Exchequer, as well as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. I am also a member of the all-party opera group, a supporter of the Globe theatre and was, in my youth, a modest performer of Mozart. I therefore speak for jazz within a broader arts perspective. Jazz does not have its fair share of the arts budget, which is itself too small, although I should point out that I appreciate and admire my right hon. Friend for his own love of the arts and acknowledge that he operates within certain constraints.
My case for jazz needs some facts and statistics to support it and I am indebted to Jazz Services Ltd. for providing much background information for this debate. That organisation was formed 16 years ago to promote the growth and development of jazz and is funded by the Arts Council of England. Musicians throughout the country play jazz. Many UK jazz musicians have developed international reputations and
186WH
have committed their works to recordings that are eagerly sought by a worldwide audience. No major city in the UK is without a jazz scene. Mature musicians of established reputation and young musicians, many with great flair and originality, seek a serious audience who can understand and enjoy their music. They perform in a variety of settings: concert halls, arts centres, village halls, ballrooms, restaurants, coffee houses and public houses. Every summer there is a profusion of jazz festivals all over the country, many attracting some of the finest jazz musicians in the world.
One of the features of the British jazz audience is its size—some 3 million people patronise such events and four to five times as many again have a definable interest in jazz. It is interesting that the jazz audience is very much the same as that for opera.
The prime characteristics of a jazz audience at a typical small-scale venue are that it would have a 3:2 ratio of males to females, 70 per cent. of the audience would be aged between 16 and 35, 30 per cent. would be full-time students, and 50 per cent. would be from the ABC1 social groupings. Of course, that means that 50 per cent. would be from the C2, D and E groupings, which means that jazz has a wide appeal.
From 1993, Jazz Services Ltd. has advocated increased public support for jazz in the United Kingdom. The jazz on a shoestring campaign was launched in 1995, and an early-day motion about it attracted the support of more than 100 Members. A 10,000-signature petition in support of the campaign was presented to the then chairman of the Arts Council of England, Lord Gowrie, by Humphrey Lyttleton, John Dankworth and my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mr. Purchase), who organised the petition.
Jazz Services Ltd. made representations to the then National Heritage Committee, the first report of which on the funding of the performing and visual arts in February 1996 stated:
"We do not believe that the different level of overheads in the performance of jazz and opera explains the massive discrepancy between the subsidy per member of the audience in the two forms of music; the Arts Council should look again at the funding of live jazz played by British musicians, in particular the National Youth Jazz Orchestra"—
NYJO—.
"and local youth jazz orchestras".
NYJO is a jewel in our national musical crown and a marvellous training ground for hundreds of young musicians over the years. This year, NYJO has lost vital sponsorship funding, and has been offered an additional £500 by the Arts Council. That is an example of the derisory funding that I mentioned earlier, and is indicative of the regard in which jazz is held by some in the arts establishment.
In 1999–2000, Arts Council subsidy per attendee for jazz is 25p. For classical music, it is £2.26, and for opera, £12.75, which is 51 times the subsidy for jazz. I fully support the opera subsidy. I do not want to rob Pavarotti to pay Courtney Pine, but jazz deserves more. I am sad to say that the jazz subsidy has fallen by 4p per head since 1996–97, while opera funding has increased by 52p per head.
If we add Arts Council funding to support for jazz from the regional arts boards, the spending in 1997–98 of £1.9 million fell to a budget for this year of £1 million,

187WH
which is in round terms a cut of more than 40 per cent. That is shabby by any standards. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will try to secure better funding for jazz.
Another restriction on the performance and accessibility of jazz is the so-called two-in-a-bar rule, which means that only two musicians can play in licensed premises without a public entertainment licence. That denies employment opportunities to jazz musicians. Many styles of music suffer from the rule, but jazz is hit especially hard. Licensing is not the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, but I hope that he can use his influence with fellow Ministers to seek the necessary legislative change. I understand from the Musicians Union that the Government have accepted the argument for change, and I look forward to proposals in the forthcoming White Paper.
The jazz community congratulates the Government on their new deal for musicians, which is aimed at getting young musicians off the dole. The success of the project depends on young musicians being able to form and join bands and find venues in which to play. Pubs, clubs and restaurants are key, and 100,000 such venues are restricted by law to two musicians in a bar. Even if 10 per cent. became additional venues, that would mean 10,000 more places in which jazz groups could play.
I must conclude, but I would like to say more about jazz in other spheres, such as education and the media, and the need to make jazz more available to all from a young age. Appreciation of all arts depends to some extent on early familiarity. Britain is an intensely musical nation, bursting with talent, and in jazz we are second only to the USA. We have produced many world-class musicians as well as millions of discerning listeners. We have a proud jazz tradition and stunningly good young musicians, but jazz needs and deserves more support from Government.
Jazz was given to the world by black Americans, but is now an international multicultural music that knows no class boundaries and is a force for friendship. Like my political party, it has recently completed its first century, and promises more joy and exhilaration in the new millennium. I hope that the Government can show how much pride we have in Britain's great jazz tradition with more support for jazz at every level for the future.
I have often spoken about jazz in the past, but this is the first occasion on which I have been unable to accompany my talk with recorded musical contributions. That is a shame because jazz can, and does, speak for itself, and I have seen many in my audiences over the years whose eyes have shown that they have fallen under the spell of great music. My children grew up to the sounds of jazz and are as at home with Count Basie as they are with the Beatles or J.S. Bach. I would like everyone to have such choices and to experience the full richness that all music, including jazz, has to offer.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Before I call the hon. Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Connarty) I inform hon. Members that he has, as is proper, received the permission of the hon. Member for Luton, North (Mr. Hopkins) and the Secretary of State to participate in the debate.
12.11 p.m.
Mr. Michael Connarty: It would be remiss of me not to speak in the debate, as I am the chairman of the all-party jazz appreciation group and something of a fanatic in my pursuit of the jazz medium. I must compliment my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North (Mr. Hopkins) for obtaining the debate and for the business like way in which he has approached his role in the jazz appreciation group. He has not only encouraged people to listen to the medium and to appreciate the wide diversity and tremendous colour of the jazz scene, but worked generally on behalf of jazz.
Sadly, this is not a good time for the funding of the jazz world. I am also a member of the all-party opera group, and was the founding secretary of the Scottish opera group, which contributed to the solution that saved Scottish opera a few years ago. We have had the aid of some important people, including Lady Smith, the widow of the former Labour leader, who is very active in that group.
I must correct my hon. Friend on one point. Believe it or not, the Belgians not the Americans, gave us the saxophone. A gentleman called Dr. Sax invented the saxophone as a marching instrument for military bands; obviously it lends itself to being carried and played. Thank goodness—
Mr. Hopkins: I know that very well. The Americans gave the world jazz and taught it how to play the saxophone properly.
Mr. Connarty: Indeed, I was going to pay a compliment to one Ornette Coleman, who was probably the first practitioner of jazz and bebop as we know it. He was sacked from some big swing bands that liked a nice rhythm and did not like him to go off and freelance as he did, although that has of course become the stock of most good jazz concerts.
I was thinking about this debate on Saturday when I went to hear the Scottish National Jazz Orchestra, which is led by Tommy Smith, a young boy from an impoverished background in Edinburgh. He was encouraged at the age of 12 to take up the saxophone at the Wester Hails community centre; he went on to Berklee and now writes some of the best pieces. Joe Lovano, who is of European extraction but plays in New York, played with him on Saturday night. They performed a beautiful, inspirational piece called "Torah", which was written by Tommy Smith and which is based on the first three books of the Bible. To those who turn up their noses at jazz, as something that happens in bars, I can say that the performance matched anything in the classical field.
However, I want to speak about the crisis that affects NYJO. We must compliment people such as Bill Ashton, who has kept NYJO alive by begging and seeking sponsorship for 25 to 30 years. My hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North mentioned the massive loss of sponsorship.
UNISON has kept NYJO on the road for the past three years by giving it £30,000, which is remarkable for a trade union. The union also gives substantial sponsorship to a brass band in my constituency, the

189WH
former Kinneil colliery band. Clearly, it has supported a wide range of music on behalf of its members and has been fundamental to keeping NYJO alive.
NYJO now has a serious problem that £500 from the Arts Council will not solve. We must look seriously at an orchestra that has been the breeding ground for some of the best young jazz musicians—now probably mature jazz musicians—around the world. I hope that the Minister will give particular consideration to the plight of NYJO.
I have always found it strange that Humphrey Lyttleton, one of the great founders of British jazz, is not knighted—in fact, he is not even a lord. It is about time we had people to join John Dankworth in the pantheon of jazz. I hope that the Minister is listening. Bill Ashton may also deserve a small honour for his sterling work on behalf of jazz.
Those matters are important. By giving not only cash but support, the Government show that they appreciate the cultural diversity encouraged by people who lead orchestras such as the Strathclyde youth orchestra, or the school orchestras with many brass players who play jazz. Clearly, we can do a lot through education. If we could recognise some of the work of individuals, we could put jazz on a respectable footing. I hope that the two-in-a-bar rule will change. That would be important as it would provide 10,000 new venues. I also hope that the Minister will seriously consider encouraging the Arts Council to recognise jazz. Perhaps he might think of using some form of direct funding. Jazz has certainly enhanced my life.
I have met young people in London who used to come to my home, such as Stephen Hamilton, a young jazz pianist who has played on many CDs that have been released in Britain and who used to play the old battered piano in my front room. Sadly, I have to say that my son, a software engineer in London, earns three times as much in a year as he does. Stephen could clearly have done that job, but he chose to pursue his love for jazz instead. He is a great talent, but his annual takings do not add up to a good salary, and he receives only slightly more than the average wage, because of what he calls his art. We can support him only by giving money to that art to show that we recognise his giving, and the giving of many talented jazz players in Britain.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am sure that I speak on behalf of all hon. Members when I say how grateful we are to the Secretary of State for coming to give encouragement to debates in Westminster Hall, and for finding time to reply to this debate on jazz. His action is a great fillip.
12.16 pm
The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Mr. Chris Smith): I am delighted to be here today, because it is fascinating to see for the first time the proceedings in Westminister Hall, which are eminently more civilised than those in the Chamber. Furthermore, jazz is of great importance, and by replying in person I want to show the significance that I attach to it.
I must congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North (Mr. Hopkins) on his choice of tie, which is extremely appropriate, because it is the parliamentary
190WH
jazz group's tie. It is a pleasure to listen to my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Connarty), who had a distinguised year as parliamentary private secretary to my right hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Chryston (Mr. Clarke) when he served as a Minister of State in my Department. It was a pleasure to work closely with my hon. Friend during that period.
I have listened carefully to what my hon. Friends have said. The starting point has to be that it is important to recognise that the funding system reflects the diversity of musical genres, whether they be jazz, folk, African-Caribbean, early music or any of the more traditional styles that have been supported from public funds. It is also important that those funds help to support and generate a great diversity of audiences, because the same audience does not appreciate all types of music.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North is aware, the arts are subsidised using the arm's-length principle. Decisions on funding for individual art forms or organisations are taken by those with the relevant expertise in the Arts Council of England or in the regional arts boards. It is important that Ministers do not intervene directly in those decisions. The Government should set the framework within which arts funding operates. Support for the full diversity of music in England is an important principle. However, decisions about grants to particular organisations, and even the balance between different genres of artistic activity, must be for the Arts Council and, increasingly, the RABs, to which much decision making is rightly being devolved. The Arts Council and the RABs include experts who can make decisions about particular arts organisations. Politicians and civil servants simply do not have that expertise. It is important to set the principle, which must be that jazz deserves good support from the public funding system.
Before I discuss funding, I shall touch briefly on the public entertainment licensing regulations to which my hon. Friends the Members for Luton, North and for Falkirk, East referred, and in particular the two-in-a-bar rule. I am pleased to say that, together with colleagues in other Departments, especially the Home Office, we are actively reviewing the constraints that the licensing system places on musical performance in such venues, and I hope that in due course we shall be able to introduce deregulatory measures to assist the broad picture.
I cannot deny that opera and classical music account for the bulk of Arts Council funding. The statistics that my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North cited speak for themselves. That is perhaps not surprising given the nature of both art forms. Opera and classical music cost more than other forms of music. They employ large numbers of people, such as musicians, choruses, designers, riggers and technicians, for example, to achieve their effects. In addition, the cost of hiring soloists is often dictated by the international market.
Classical music has a history of private patronage, which translated in the post-war era into public subsidy, which continues to this day. Jazz, on the other hand, has a different heritage. It is rooted in the musical traditions of Afro-Caribbean Americans. West African and black folk music forms developed in the Americas.

191WH
The word "jazz" has a variety of meanings, encompassing a broad and changing stream of styles. Within those styles, each jazz performance represents an original and largely spontaneous creation, as an essential element of jazz is improvisation. Jazz music is a unique art form. It stands alone in its use of improvisatory practices as the focal point of the music. It provides great scope for individuality and creativity. Its vitality stems from the spontaneity of the improvising musician.
In its turn, jazz has influenced the development of new styles of popular music and the work of symphonic composers. The interaction of different styles and genres of music is one of the most welcome developments in modern musical tradition. We are witnessing the fusing of different traditions and types of creativity, which is extremely welcome.
Subsidy acts as investment, provides continuity, allows artistic risks, sustains the best of tradition, develops new talent and feeds, but does not replace, the commercial entertainment economy. That is not to say that jazz should not be supported from the public purse; it must be. It would struggle without that support. However, a mixture of funding sources is appropriate for jazz, which is an important part of the UK contemporary music scene.
No one would doubt the existence of a jazz economy, as evidenced by the number of private sector jazz clubs, concerts, festivals, dedicated record labels and, indeed, in Jazz FM, a commercial radio station specifically devoted to jazz. The Arts Council's funding for jazz is currently about £1 million in grant in aid, which includes support from the new audiences fund. Jazz has also benefited from lottery funding, and is a key part of the work of the National Foundation for Youth Music, an organisation that we established, with £30 million over three years of lottery support from the Arts Council of England, and which is designed to support all types of musical development and activity, including jazz, among young people. As my hon. Friend mentioned, the new deal for young musicians, enabling people who are otherwise unemployed to develop their musical skills and experience, is particularly appropriate for young jazz musicians.
In addition, awards have been made to organisations that are developing the jazz musicians and audiences of tomorrow. JazzDev, for example, formed over 15 years ago to promote the growth and development of jazz in the UK and primarily funded by the Arts Council of
192WH
England, works closely with other UK organisations to give voice to jazz. JazzDev has recently been awarded money from the new audiences fund to work with four arts marketing agencies in Leeds, Birmingham, Manchester and Liverpool on measurable exercises to increase arts audiences across all sectors, including jazz. JazzDev's grant in aid increased by 8.5 per cent. this year and will increase by 5 per cent. in the next financial year.
My hon. Friend the ⅞ember for Luton, North mentioned the work of the National Youth Jazz Orchestra. I am pleased to tell him that, after an admittedly tiny increase in funding in the current financial year, that orchestra will receive a 24.4 per cent. increase in 2001–02. The grants of the Arts Council of England to the English regional arts boards will in 2000–01 be nearly 20 per cent. higher than in the current financial year. The regional arts boards are free to develop music policies appropriate to their different regional contexts and audience needs. Many jazz organisations will look to those boards over the coming months to use some of their substantially increased funding, which is designed to increase support for jazz. Money is available, much of it through the RABS, for new and not so new programmes which are designed to benefit applicants from outside the classical mainstream.
The Arts Council of England published its policy for the support of jazz in November 1996 and both it and the RABs remain fully committed to its recommendations. Much has been done since that report, but much remains to be done. My hon. Friends have today done us a great service in reminding us of that. We have encouraged the Arts Council to reform itself and the funding system it operates. Gerry Robinson as chairman and Peter Hewitt as chief executive of that body have achieved much in the past two years. There is still much to do, however.
The Arts Council is keen to ensure that all forms of art and music receive support and funding, but it must make the final decisions; I cannot do so. I recommend that both my hon. Friends and all in the jazz constituency maintain their dialogue with the Arts Council, particularly with the RABs. They should point firmly to the principle that we have established throughout the past two and a half years that diverse musical types and activities deserve support and should give as much encouragement as possible to those parts of the funding system that rightfully ensure that jazz is supported and continues to play a major part in the musical and artistic life of this country.

Legal Aid
12.29 pm
Mr. Richard Allan: I am pleased to secure the debate as a way of highlighting an issue that has been brought to my attention by several constituents. I am not, nor have I ever been, a lawyer, so I seek the Committee's indulgence if I use wrong legal aid terms. Several cases have been brought to my attention by people who believe that those taking action against them are doing so on the basis of legal aid funding that has been secured fraudulently, and I shall refer to one such case. I accept that the Minister cannot address the specific details of the case as it is still on-going. I am looking for a general response to this and similar cases.
I hope that the Government will say that they are serious about investigating claims of fraud in the system and will offer some encouragement to my constituent that his experience will not be repeated. I am sure that many other hon. Members have had similar experiences in their surgeries of listening to the frustration felt by people who are paying for their own costs while defending themselves against someone whom they believe is receiving legal aid through misrepresentation or trying to change the circumstances of the case to take advantage of loopholes.
The frustration to which I refer comes from several features of the operation of the system. First, it often appears to people that the Legal Aid Board does not act swiftly or effectively to take legal aid away from claimants when evidence is produced that suggests that their claim is ineligible. Secondly, the sort of evidence that must be produced to prove that someone's claim is invalid seems to go well beyond that which is required in other areas of means-tested public funds. Thirdly, I draw attention to the lack of feedback to the complainant about what action has followed the allegations. The fact that the law often requires that there is no feedback certainly compounds the frustration felt by people in such situations. The legal protection against revealing information is understandable and I shall not challenge that in this debate. I shall focus instead on the delay and the ineffectiveness of the system for responding to the allegations that someone is ineligible for legal aid.
A case was brought to my attention by Mr. Barry Whitworth, the chairman of T. W. Ward Machinery Ltd. in Sheffield. It concerns a former director and shareholder, Mr. William Gerrard. The case has a long history; it was raised with my predecessor before the 1997 general election and it deals with matters that go back about 14 years to 1986. In 1995, my constituent wrote a letter to the then Lord Chancellor which opened with the comment that be believed that the Lord Chancellor had expressed concern at how legal aid was being administered and that reforms were in prospect. The Government may be able to claim that some reforms have been made since then, although there may be a dispute about their nature. However, things have certainly moved on.
Mr. Whitworth said that his small company and its employees were being seriously threatened by what he believed to be a shocking and blatant abuse of the legal aid system. A former director and shareholder was
194WH
dismissed from employment with the company in November 1986. He had failed on three occasions through court proceedings with claims against the company. He then obtained a legal aid certificate with which to go to the appeal court to pursue the claims further. My constituent believed that his objective was, and always had been, to cause as much aggravation and cost to the company because of the circumstances of the dismissal. He cited as evidence in support of that view the fact that the individual had turned down several attempts to settle the claim out of court.
My constituent accepted that there was a valid dispute and had attempted to settle it. He believed, however, that the individual continued to pursue the case because he wished to continue to cause aggravation to the company against which he felt some grievance. My constituent cites as primary evidence for his belief that the individual should not have had a legal aid certificate the fact that the individual was operating as a machine tool dealer, which was a similar line of business to his own. He believed that the individual obtained the legal aid certificate by putting his company into receivership and then continuing with what was effectively the same business from the same premises with the same stock, but had moved it into his wife's name with only a minor change of trading identity. My constituent believed that that was a technique to obtain significant legal costs.
My constituent believed that the individual was enjoying a reasonable life style, earning in excess of £50,000 a year, that he had stock in his warehouse with a retail value of more than £500,000 and that he was advertising machinery with a stock value in excess of £1 million. He had evidence that the person involved was holidaying in places such as Australia and New Zealand, and felt that that would be sufficient to disqualify him under the constraints of the legal aid system, which requires that people should be in need before having access to public funds. My constituent felt as though he had a gun to his head in relation to the court proceedings, while the other person involved had a blank cheque to underwrite his ability to continue the court case well beyond what my constituent thought reasonable.
The Legal Aid Board's reponse took three months to arrive. My constituent made his claims in December 1995, and in February 1996 he received a letter from the policy and secretariat of the Legal Aid Board that detailed the relevant considerations. The letter informed my constituent that section 38 of the Legal Aid Act 1988 prevents the disclosure of information and said that the information supplied to the Cardiff area office, where the application had been made, met the statutory tests and that the Benefits Agency had determined that the assisted person was financially eligible for legal aid.
My constituent thought that strange, given his information. He supplied the information that I cited from the original letter about why the person involved should be considered ineligible, and was told that it would be sent to the Benefits Agency's legal aid assessment office in Preston. He was assured that an investigation would take place and that a report would be made on the investigation. No response arrived, but in August 1996 my constituent was informed that the legal aid certificate had been revoked for other reasons to which he would not be privy. However, by

195WH
4 September 1996, the legal aid had been reinstated and the case was due to resume. My constituent could not be told why.
My constituent's solicitors expressed their anger at that turn of events, which they felt was highly inappropriate and placed my constituent in a difficult position. They wrote to the Legal Aid Board's legal department, saying that the net effect of the decision to revoke the certificate and subsequently reinstate it was that substantial work done over the years by the first firm of solicitors would be for nought, and that further public funds would be used to employ a second firm of solicitors to spend many working days reading through the boxes of papers at a cost of thousands of pounds. They pointed out:
"All this is done to benefit a … litigant who has turned down a payment into Court made on commercial terms and who openly leads a quite extravagant lifestyle"
and clearly had access to funds. My constituent's solicitors felt that that was not an appropriate use of legal aid funds, and made significant representations on that basis.
Jane Griffiths: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that his constituent in Sheffield is not alone in suffering from a lack of proper scrutiny and accountability in the allocation of public funds? I pay tribute to the Reading Chronicle, which has assisted in exposing the lack of scrutiny in the Reading legal aid office.
Mr. Allan: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for alluding to the breadth of the problem. Many hon. Members will have had similar experiences. I know that she has a constituency interest in tackling the problem. I hope that anyone who works in the legal aid system will be able to take action and deal effectively with such matters in future.
The saga of my constituent continued throughout 1997. In September 1997, my constituent's solicitors finally received a response to their original allegations of December 1995 about the claimant's merits. The letter acknowledges the fact that the response was delayed. It notes that the board failed to inform my constituent's solicitors of the conclusion of its investigations. It contains an apology, made on behalf of the board, for that error and for any inconvenience caused. However, the response makes it clear that, having investigated the claims that had been made, the information did not materially affect the grant of legal aid. Legal aid was therefore continued to support the appeal even after the information had been supplied. The letter confirmed that my constituent could not be informed of the reasons for the decision, and that litigation was due to continue following that award. I hope that the Minister will deal with the provision of timely information by the Legal Aid Board, as that is an especially disturbing aspect of the case. My constituent has been trying to run a business and plan his legal costs, and it has been difficult to obtain information about what was happening.
In February 1999, my constituent contacted me again to express his ongoing frustration that the situation had still not been resolved. He informed me that he was
"appalled to hear from the news this morning that the auditors for the Legal Aid Board have qualified their accounts for the seventh year and state that no less than 13 per cent. of recipients of legal aid are not qualified to receive their support."
196WH
I would be interested to hear the Minister's response to that. All hon. Members can imagine my constituent's frustration on reading that in his daily paper when he felt that the person against whom he was conducting his legal business should have fallen into such a category. He said that the continuing scandal was unacceptable bearing in mind that the Lord Chancellor's Department and the Government had promised to deal with any corruption and ability to defraud the system. A new selection of papers that he sent to me made it clear that his business was suffering because of his problems. He had lost count of the number of legal firms that had represented his opponent during the 13 years, and said that his opponent was able to continue only because of the legal aid system's support. He again said that he believed that the individual had means and continued to run a machine tool business. Anyone in the trade has access to information about other people in it, and he is sure that the individual is carrying on a substantial business.
I wrote to the Lord Chancellor's Department in response to my constituent's letter and received an explanation of the situation and some qualifications of it. I sent it to my constituent, who was disturbed to read that
"To qualify financially, an applicant's disposable means must be within certain limits. These are currently £7,777 per annum for income and £6,750 for capital."
My constituent felt that the capital limit might be exceeded, in view of the representations that he had made about the business holding £500,000 of goods. He sent me several advertisements and the accounts for Severn Machine Tools Ltd., with which he believed that the claimant was involved. Advertisements from magazines such as Machinery Market in September 1988 and January 2000 set out a catalogue of valuable equipment that my constituent believes is in the control of the individual against whom he is claiming. He again sent me company accounts for the firm to show me that it had substantial assets that he believed should qualify.
Action was taken by the Legal Aid Board in 1999 to remove the legal aid certificate from Mr. Gerrard, presumably based on information that my constituent supplied about the means. My constituent became even angrier when he found that mistakes were made in that process, and his frustration was understandable. A letter from the Legal Aid Board in November 1999 explained the situation. It said that
"Mr. Gerrard ceased to receive legal aid on 20 April when his legal aid certificate was revoked",
but it could not give
"any further information … due to the provisions of Section 38 of the Legal Aid Act".
It states that an individual can appeal, and that therefore a hearing took place
"on 5 August 1999 when the Area Committee resolved to dismiss the appeal and to confirm the revocation of the certificate. However … regrettably an administrative error was found in the appeals process necessitating the reinstatement of Mr. Gerrard's certificate. However, this office is still actively investigating the matters".

197WH
There was a further period of uncertainty. To its credit, the Legal Aid Board took the opportunity to apologise to my constituent
"for the unfortunate administrative error"
and to assure him that
"matters … are being actively considered … and a final decision should be available shortly".
However, the administrative error allowed further adjournments of the case, and while the uncertainty remained my constituent continued to incur legal costs because his solicitor had to deal with the situation.
I close with a final letter from my constituent written in January this year. He sent me further documentation, told me about the catalogue of errors and mismanagement and then explained again his situation by saying that he is
"in limbo whilst the system appears to provide little or nothing in the way of support or sympathy of any kind for our case whilst clearly bending over backwards to help this individual".
He again sent me the latest company advertisement which, as usual, involves several million pounds of machine tools and equipment in a business with which he believes the individual is involved. My constituent feels that he is in limbo and that the case needs to be resolved.
I have had other cases that give me cause for concern, where what I believe to be credible allegations of fraud do not seem to be properly followed up. In particular, spouses or partners are used in such fraud; in some cases, spouses are said to hold assets and in others it is denied that someone is a partner where doing so provides a good loophole. I have had a case of someone who told the Legal Aid Board that the house he lived in, the car he drove and everything else belonged to his landlady with whom he had no personal relationship; he was just a lodger who paid rent. Yet I was given other information to suggest that there was a relationship. I question whether the Benefits Agency would decide in such circumstances to pursue the individual to see whether he was being supported and had access to assets because of a relationship.
I hope that the Minister will state that the Government are committed to a fair legal aid system. I do not wish the scope of legal aid to be too restricted because legal aid is essential for some people to obtain access to the legal system and claim their rights under the law. However, I wish to see it available to the genuinely deserving, if one can use that phrase—those who are otherwise too poor to go to court. I wish the Legal Aid Board to act vigorously to ensure that that is the case when making grants of legal aid. I look forward to a positive response from the Minister to the concerns that I have raised about the general issues of my constituent's case.
12.47 pm
The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr. David Lock): I congratulate the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan) on securing the debate and thank him for raising the matter today. I was grateful to hear about the problems that he perceives in the legal aid scheme. As he knows, the
198WH
Government take welfare fraud extremely seriously and are determined to tackle it in any form, including legal aid.
As the hon. Gentleman said, at the moment people are entitled to receive legal aid only if they qualify financially and if their case has enough merit to warrant it. It is vital that public funds are not wasted by being committed to weak or trivial cases, when the money could be better used elsewhere. The Legal Aid Board is acutely aware that granting legal aid has important consequences for both sides. It gives one party the access to justice that he needs and otherwise might not get, but at the same time it can greatly affect the balance of power in a case. The board therefore takes very seriously both the process of granting legal aid and the requirement to keep people's legal aid under review.
I shall briefly address the points raised about the individual case. As the hon. Gentleman said, legal aid was granted only in October 1996, to support an application to the Court of Appeal. Mr. Gerrard was a director, shareholder and employee of T. W. Ward Machinery Ltd. and his case against the company began in October 1986. Legal aid was granted only in December 1994 when the case went to appeal. The Court of Appeal allowed that appeal and as a result Mr. Gerrard was granted a full civil legal aid certificate, following his success at the Court of Appeal. In August 1996, following representations from T. W. Ward's solicitors about the merits of Mr. Gerrard's case, the area office decided to discharge his certificate. Mr. Gerrard appealed to the independent area committee, which reinstated his certificate.
Such cases will not get legal aid in future. Publicly funded help needs to be focused on cases where substantial but limited resources can do the most good. So some types of case will come out of the scheme altogether—including business cases. The Government do not believe that those warrant a share of the limited funding that will be available. However, a suitable alternative exists, in the form of conditional fee agreements, that still gives access to justice. The Government have recently said that the rules will change in April to allow insurance premiums and the success fee to be recoverable, thus making a conditional fee agreement a real possibility in the type of cases that we are discussing. Someone facing a conditional fee agreement, particularly backed by an insurance policy, will be able to litigate, confident that if he successfully defeats the claim, a fund exists against which the costs of meeting the litigation can be claimed.
The Legal Aid Board took over responsibility from the Benefits Agency for means assessment during 1997. The first time that it considered the representations in the case was in October 1998. The case was referred to the newly set up special investigations unit in December. The unit investigated the matter promptly and Mr. Gerrard's certificate was embargoed in March 1999 and then revoked in April. I accept, as the hon. Gentleman said, that there were some procedural errors during the revocation progress, but I stress that the embargo remains in force so that Mr. Gerrard's solicitors have not been able to take his case further on legal aid.

199WH
Mr. Gerrard has appealed, so I cannot say any more about the status of his certificate. That is a matter for the independent board. At the time of his original application, responsibility for means assessment in civil legal aid cases lay with the Benefits Agency. During 1997, the task was transferred to the Legal Aid Board and a special investigations unit was set up to deal with applications from people with particularly complex means. The SIU carries out a thorough investigation when the applicant has complex finances and perhaps an aura of wealth. Its aim is to detect any non-disclosure of assets and to provide an accurate means assessment in accordance with the legal aid regulations.
I shall refer to two matters in passing. Transferring assets to one's spouse will not assist a legal aid application because, rightly, the regulations require applicants to disclose the assets both of themselves and their spouses. I can say to the hon. Gentleman that, if anyone is considering transferring the yacht, the business, the shares and the pension fund to his spouse, it will not do any good. Secondly, he rightly referred to the qualification on the Legal Aid Board's accounts. That came about because the category of people that the auditors could not accept as eligible arose in criminal cases when legal aid is granted by the court, not in civil cases when legal aid is granted on evidence provided by the applicant's solicitor.
However, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be pleased to know that, through the recovery of defence cost orders provisions that will come in force later this year, the issue of who is or who is not eligible for legal aid in criminal cases and how proper contribution is obtained from those who have assets for their criminal defence will be dealt with properly. We are confident that the new system will meet many of the objections raised about the previous system.
The hon. Gentleman referred to representations. Last year, the board received 5,500 representations relating to means. That compares with more than 6,000 in the previous year. I expect the figures for the present year to show a further reduction as, for the first half of the year, only 2,292 were received. Merits representation also show a slight decrease. The majority of representations are considered by the board's area offices. Last year, 68 per cent. of them led to no change in the certificate. Of those that did result in a change, the most likely outcome was either discharge or revocation, which was 28 per cent. of the total.
In October 1998, new guidance was issued that aimed to ensure that all claims are dealt with within three months of receipt of representations. When there are complex financial circumstances to investigate, it may take longer, but the aim is to respond within three months.
Merits challenges raise particular difficulties. I have already mentioned the effect that the granting of legal aid has on the power structure betwen the parties in a case. People with legal aid have protection against paying costs that private clients do not enjoy. Even though legal aid costs are carefully controlled, they can still have a daunting effect on the other party to the litigation. The board takes representations seriously and considers them carefully.
200WH
Often at the core of representations are disputes over the facts that are a matter for the court to try. It is not for the board to try those issues, nor can it refuse or discharge legal aid purely because the other side would be put in a difficult financial position if legal aid were continued. Its role is to decide whether the applicant has a good case to put before the court, one that a reasonable person of moderate means woud back with his or her own money.
The board is also conscious that advice about the merits of a case comes from the applicant's solicitor or barrister. Lawyers owe duties both to the client and to the legal aid fund, and those duties can conflict. We accept that there may be a temptation for solicitors to overstate the merits of an applicant's case. That can be done in an effort to improve the cleint's bargaining positon or because the solicitor wishes to see the case progress and knows that, if the board is advised that the case is weak, it is likely that legal aid will be discharged. We are conscious of the fact that the same solicitor will be paid from the Legal Aid Board, should legal aid continue.
In the past, the merits test did not give enough recognition to that conflict. The stricter funding code and the Government's intention to target funds where they can do the most good will enable the new Legal Services Commission, which will come into effect in April, to monitor and ensure that the conflict is properly recognised in the granting of legal aid. If there is doubt about the merits of a case, the Legal Aid Board can refer the application to an independent barrister for an opinion. A pilot of those arrangements is under way at the Cambridge office and I expect it to be used more in the future.
The hon. Gentleman may be interested to know that the SIU has been successful to date. It has conducted about 500 investigations on civil legal aid and, of those, 82 per cent. led to a change in the certificate. A little under 50 per cent. of the total were revoked, so, for all purposes, the applicant would be treated as if he were never granted legal aid in the first place and would not receive cost protection from the beginning of the case. Of the remaining 32 per cent. the majority were discharged or refused. A small percentage resulted in a change to the contributions payable. Since 1998, the SIU has also prepared reports to help courts to determine applications for criminal legal aid and, during its one-year pilot operation, it received 100 referrals. Its success in those cases was even more impressive; in 98 per cent. of them, it recommended to the court that it should refuse legal aid or change the contributions payable.
The hon. Gentleman referred to confidentiality. The problem under the present rules is that, when information is received about an applicant's status, it is rightly protected by confidentiality. The Government are committed to combating welfare fraud and, under the existing Legal Aid Act 1988, the Legal Aid Board can pass information to other agencies only when there is suspected fraud under that Act. I am pleased to say that, as a result of section 20 of the Access to Justice Act 1999, which will come into force in April this year, the commission will be able to disclose information for the detection of any offence to any appropriate body, not just those under the Legal Aid Act 1988. The message must go out to anyone who is considering applying for

201WH
legal aid by providing false information that the legal aid authorities have the right to refer that to the Benefits Agency or the police or to take any other steps to highlight welfare benefit fraud. Anyone who provides false information when applying for legal aid is likely to be found out and I am sure that that will affect the balance between the parties in litigation.
202WH
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising the many issues concerning legal aid. I hope that the framework of the Access to Justice Act will result in a much better, tighter and appropriate use of public funding in cases where it is merited.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at One o'clock.

PRIME MINISTER

  Public Bodies (Fees)
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Prime Minister which fees his Department, its agencies and associated public bodies collect; how much has been raised and will be raised from each of these fees from 1989–90 to 2001–05; and which of these fees count as negative expenditure. [107974]

  The Prime Minister
  For the purposes of this question, this answer includes my Office and the Cabinet Office, together with its agencies and associated public bodies. A fee is a charge made under legislative authority. My Office, the Cabinet Office, its agencies and associated public bodies collect no fees.

  Privy Council (Judicial Committee)
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answers of 7 February 2000,Official Report, columns 3–4W, (1) which judges have served on the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, who were nominated on the advice of a head of Government of another Commonwealth country in the past twenty years; [109383]

  (2) if he will list the people from other countries of the Commonwealth who have been accorded membership of the Privy Council in the past 20 years; which of these were eligible for membership of the Judicial Committee; and which served on the Judicial Committee subsequently. [109384]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 10 February 2000]: I understand that of those persons appointed to the Privy Council in the last 20 years the following have actually served on the Judicial Committee by virtue of holding or having held judicial office in a superior court outside the United Kingdom:

  Privy Councillor

  Sir Gordon Bisson

  New Zealand Court of Appeal

  Sir Maurice Casey

  New Zealand Court of Appeal

  Sir Thomas Eichelbaum

  New Zealand Court of Appeal

  Sir Thomas Floissac

  East Caribbean Supreme Court

  Thomas Gault

  New Zealand Court of Appeal

  Telford Georges

  Bahamas Court of Appeal

  Sir Michael Hardie Boys

  New Zealand Court of Appeal

  John Henry

  New Zealand Court of Appeal

  Sir Duncan McMullin

  New Zealand Court of Appeal

  Edward Zacca

  Supreme Court of Jamaica

  460W
  Of course, some Privy Councillors appointed prior to 1980 will also have served on the Judicial Committee.

  In the last 20 years, the following people from countries of the Commonwealth other than the UK have been accorded membership of the Privy Council:

  Privy Councillor

  Duncan MacIntyre

  New Zealand

  Lancelot Raymond Adams-Schneider

  New Zealand

  Sir Duncan McMullin1

  New Zealand

  Edward Phillip George Seaga

  Jamaica

  Sir Julius Chan

  Papua New Guinea

  Allan Louisy

  Saint Lucia

  Robert Milton Cato

  St. Vincent and the Grenadines

  David Spence Thomson

  New Zealand

  Sir Edward Somers1

  New Zealand

  Sir Zelman Cowen

  Australia

  George Cadle Price

  Belize

  Tomasi Puapua

  Tuvalu

  Vere Cornwall Bird

  Antigua and Barbuda

  John George Meluin Compton

  St. Lucia

  David Lange

  New Zealand

  Kennedy Alphonse Simmonds

  St. Kitts and Nevis

  Sir Geoffrey Winston Russell Palmer

  New Zealand

  Robert James Tizard

  New Zealand

  Fraser MacDonald Colman

  New Zealand

  James Fitz-Allen Mitchell

  St. Vincent and the Grenadines

  Manuel Esquivel

  Belize

  Sir Maurice Casey1

  New Zealand

  Telford Georges1

  Bahamas

  Herbert Augustus Blaize

  Grenada

  Anerood Jugnauth

  Mauritius

  Paias Wingti

  Papua New Guinea

  Francis Duncan O'Flynn

  New Zealand

  Sir Gordon Bisson1

  New Zealand

  Ezekiel Alebua

  Solomon Islands

  Jonathan Lucas Hunt

  New Zealand

  Sir Michael Hardie Boys1

  New Zealand

  Sir Thomas Eichelbaum

  New Zealand

  Lainagan Namaliu

  Papua New Guinea

  Michael Norman Manley

  Jamaica

  Lloyd Erskine Sandiford

  Barbados

  Helen Elizabeth Clark

  New Zealand

  Michael Kenneth Moore

  New Zealand

  Bikenibeu Paeniu

  Tuvalu

  Sir Nicholas Alexander Braithwaite

  Grenada

  James Brendan Bolger

  New Zealand

  Donald Charles McKinnon

  New Zealand

  William Francis Birch

  New Zealand

  Thomas Munro Gault1

  New Zealand

  Ian Lloyd McKay1

  New Zealand

  John Steele Henry1

  New Zealand

  Edmund Walter Thomas1

  New Zealand

  Percival Noel James Patterson

  Jamaica

  Edward Zacca1

  Jamaica

  Sir Vincent Floissac1

  St. Lucia

  Hubert Ingraham

  Bahamas

  Owen Seymour Arthur

  Barbados

  Kamuta Latasi

  Tuvalu

  Jennifer Mary Shipley

  New Zealand

  Winston Raymond Peters

  New Zealand

  Douglas Arthur Montrose Graham

  New Zealand

  Paul Clayton East

  New Zealand

  Sir Kenneth James Keith1

  New Zealand

  Peter Blanchard1

  New Zealand

  Andrew Patrick Charles Tipping1

  New Zealand

  Wyatt Beetham Creech

  New Zealand

  Dame Sian Seerpoohi Elias1

  New Zealand

  Simon Upton

  New Zealand

  1 Judges who are or were eligible for membership of the Judicial Committee

  Austria (Bilateral Meetings)
  Mr. Jim Murphy
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the previously planned meetings, and their subject, between him and the Prime Minister of Austria which have been cancelled since the formation of the new Austrian Government. [109868]

  The Prime Minister
  I had no previously planned meeting with the Chancellor of Austria before the measures of the 14 member states were implemented.

  Iraq
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his letter of 8 February to the hon. Member for Linlithgow, if he will set out the conditions which Iraq must fulfil to have made real progress on disarmament. [109601]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 14 February 2000]: Security Council Resolution 1284 sets out the conditions which Iraq must fulfil. The Executive Chairman of UNMOVIC and the Director General of the IAEA will identify the key remaining disarmament tasks to be completed by Iraq. The resolution states that what is required of Iraq for the implementation of each task should be clearly defined and precise.

  Central and Regional Government
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Prime Minister when the Performance and Innovation Unit's report on the role of central Government at regional and local level will be published. [110419]

  The Prime Minister
  The Performance and Innovation Unit's report "Reaching out: the role of central Government at regional and local level" is being published tomorrow.

  Copies will be available from the Vote Office.

  Review Body on Senior Salaries
  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the report and recommendations of the Review Body on Senior Salaries. [110420]

  The Prime Minister
  The 2000 report of the Review Body on Senior Salaries, which makes recommendations about the pay of the senior civil service, senior military personnel and the judiciary, together with the annual uprating of Parliamentary salaries, is being published today. Copies are available from the Vote Office. I am grateful to the Chairman and members of the Review Body for their work.

  The main recommendations of the Review Body are:
  an increase from 1 April 2000 of 2.9 per cent. in the minimum and maximum values of each of the pay bands for the senior civil service. Within the bands, departments and agencies will determine individual awards on the basis of performance. A further 0.4 per cent. of the total senior civil service paybill should be made available to fund additional performance awards for the most senior staff, whose pay has fallen well behind comparable remuneration elsewhere. Promotion to and within the senior civil service should be recognised by a move to a higher pay band and an increase of not less than 10 per cent.;
  an increase from 1 April 2000 of 3.3 per cent. in judicial salaries, with additional increases for seven senior members of the judiciary as a result of changes in the salary structure at those levels in recognition of their increasing responsibility for judicial leadership and the supervision of the judicial system;
  462W
  an increase from 1 April 2000 of 3.3 per cent. in the maxima of the pay ranges within which individual salaries are set for senior military personnel.

  The Government have decided to accept these recommendations. Their cost will be met within existing Departmental Expenditure Limits.

  Pay increases for Members of Parliament and Ministers are linked automatically to the increase in pay bands for the senior civil service. Their pay entitlement will therefore increase from 1 April 2000 by 2.9 per cent.

  House of Lords Reform
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Prime Minister what plans he has to bring forward proposals for reform of the House of Lords; and on what timescale. [110336]

  The Prime Minister
  The Government have made it clear that they wish to give proper consideration to the recommendations of the Royal Commission. That process is still continuing.

  Proportional Representation
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Prime Minister when he intends to hold a referendum on whether proportional representation should be introduced for elections to the United Kingdom Parliament. [110335]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the Leader of the Opposition in the House on 12 January 2000,Official Report, column 274.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Police Service
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what criteria relating to minor criminal records will govern entry into the proposed Police Service for Northern Ireland; what class of criminal conviction is a barrier to recruitment to the RUC; and what plans he has to change the criteria. [107815]

  Mr. Ingram
  A note setting out the current criminal convictions criteria has been placed in the Library. It is also available on the Royal Ulster Constabulary's website.

  The criteria will be reviewed in light of the recommendations on recruitment in the Patten Report.

  Royal Ulster Constabulary
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for Hull, North of 24 January 2000,Official Report, column 5W, if he will list the responsibilities of the Chief Constable of the RUC when he was a detective superintendent at RUC Headquarters. [108429]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 8 February 2000]: While I was content to answer the previous question from my hon. Friend for Hull, North, I do not consider it appropriate to answer questions relating to the operational responsibilities of individual members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  Construction Industry
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assistance his Department gives to aid the development of the construction industry. [107848]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The Department operates a sponsorship programme to support the technical and commercial development of the construction industry.

  We invest approximately £25 million a year in research and dissemination of best practice to help and encourage the industry to improve its competitiveness and its performance on such issues as sustainability, diversity, health and safety, training etc. This includes over £8 million to support collaborative research with industry.

  £000

  Financial year

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  Movement for Innovation

  M4I Board/Local Government Taskforce/Change the Face of Construction/other publicity and conferences

  110

  615

  Housing Forum

  0

  100

  Construction Industry Board (including National Construction Week)

  140

  155

  Construction Best Practice Programme

  1,300

  2,000

  Please note that because a number of expenditures are expected to arise at around the turn of the financial year, out-turns for the current financial year may vary from the above estimates.

  Housing (Elderly People)
  Mrs. Brinton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to increase the availability of suitable housing to the elderly. [109247]

  Mr. Mullin
  Over the lifetime of this Parliament, we are providing nearly £5 billion of extra resources for investment in housing in England. Most of these resources are being directed through local authorities who are key to the delivery of our housing policies. £2.1 billion has been allocated to local authorities in 2000–01, through the Housing Investment Programme—48 per cent. more than was available in the current year.

  We believe that local authorities are best placed to decide on the needs and priorities of their areas and their investment decisions for these additional resources should be based on robust local assessments of the housing needs of all groups within the community, including addressing the needs of the elderly.

  In particular, grants are available through local authorities, to help elderly and disabled people to carry out adaptions and improvements that enable them to remain in comfort and safety in their own homes. Provision for disabled facilities grants is due to increase by a quarter over the current expenditure period, and this is expected to pay for over 10,000 additional adaptations.
  464W
  From within this total, the Department contributes funds to support the work of the Construction Industry Board, the Construction Best Practice Programme, the Movement for Innovation Board and the Housing Forum, on their work to improve the industry's performance.

  The Department also provides support for external and internal trade missions to promote UK interests in overseas markets.

  Mr. Baldry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how much funding he has provided to support the(a) Movement for Innovation, (b) Construction Industry Training Board, (c) Construction Best Practice programme and (d) Housing Forum for the years (i) 1998–99 and (ii) 1999–2000. [R] [108707]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  DETR funding has been as follows:

  Regional Development Agencies
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many regional development agency boards have more than one member with expertise in rural matters. [109810]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  All RDA boards have at least one member with rural expertise. Yorkshire Forward and the East of England RDA have two board members with rural expertise.

  Brownfield Sites
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many brownfield sites his Department has identified in(a) rural and (b) urban areas; and what is the total area of such sites in each category. [109766]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  Provisional results from the first phase of the National Land Use Database (NLUD), published in May last year estimated that, in 1998, there were about 33,000 hectares of previously developed vacant and derelict land in England. An additional 23,000 hectares of land are potentially available through reuse of vacant commercial buildings, land currently in use but allocated in plans for redevelopment or with planning permission for housing, and other sites expected to become available for redevelopment. These results were compiled from information on more than 30,000 previously developed sites.

  This information is not available for urban and rural areas separately.

  Dan Norris
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he will publish a list of brownfield sites in England. [110235]
  465W
  Ms Beverley Hughes
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Mr. Wyatt) on 28 January 2000,Official Report, column 357W.

  Carbon Dioxide Emissions
  Mr. Dobbin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if the United Kingdom is on target to meet the level of carbon dioxide reduction agreed at Kyoto. [109575]

  Mr. Meacher
  The UK has a legally binding target under the Kyoto Protocol of reducing its greenhouse gas emissions to 12.5 per cent. below 1990 levels by 2008–12. Our emissions of the six greenhouse gases covered by the Kyoto Protocol fell by almost 9 per cent. between 1990 and 1997 and is on target to meet our commitment. The Government will shortly be publishing a draft UK climate change programme for consultation. The draft programme will show how the UK plans to meet its legally binding Kyoto target and move towards the domestic goal of a 20 per cent. cut in carbon dioxide emissions below 1990 levels by 2010.

  Austria (Bilateral Meetings)
  Mr. Jim Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many bilateral meetings were held between his Department and its Austrian counterpart in each of the last five years; and what was discussed at each meeting since May 1997. [109872]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  Any records of bilateral meeting between the DETR (or the former DOE or DOT) and its Austrian counterpart are not held centrally. It would therefore involve a disproportionate cost in trying to retrieve the information.

  Mr. Jim Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list those previously planned meetings and their subject, between his Department and its Austrian counterpart which have been cancelled since the formation of the new Austrian Government. [109899]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  There were no previously planned meetings between DETR and its Austrian counterpart when the new Austrian Government was formulated.

  Tree Felling (Croydon)
  Mr. Ottaway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what is the outcome of his review of the proposal by Croydon Council to fell trees at Gravel Hill, Croydon. [109510]

  Mr. Mullin
  The Secretary of State received on 12 January a request to make a tree preservation order in respect of trees at Gravel Hill, Croydon. This request and subsequent submissions are currently being considered. I will write to the hon. Member when a decision has been made.

  Housing Associations (Borrowing)
  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what is(a) the
  466W
  value of borrowing by housing associations to finance investments in housing stock and (b) the average length of the term for repayment. [109545]

  Mr. Mullin
  According to information from the Housing Corporation at 31 March 1998 committed loan facilities of £13.5 billion had been arranged by housing associations and other registered social landlords, of which £10.6 billion had been drawndown. Whilst the vast majority of this funding was to finance the purchase, development or improvement of housing stock, it is not possible to identify separately that element which was raised to meet other costs.

  The average length of term for repayment is not available. Typically long term funding may be for periods of 25 to 35 years. Short-term funding may be up to five years.

  Planning Applications
  Dr. Stoate
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) when he will announce his decision on the planning application for the cement works at Holborough, Kent; [109551]

  (2) when he will announce his decision on the planning application for Stone Lodge Park, Dartford; and if he will make a statement. [109550]

  Mr. Raynsford
  On the Holborough application, we are considering the Inspector's report and will issue a decision as soon as possible.

  On the Stone Lodge application, it was necessary to seek further representations from the parties on the question of need for the facilities proposed. We are analysing the responses and will issue a decision shortly.

  EU Structural Funds
  Mr. Prior
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what guidance is being given to those responsible for implementing the provisions of the Single Programming Documents for Objective 1 funding in(a) Merseyside, (b) South Yorkshire and (c) Cornwall, with regard to issuing draft programme Complement and Guidelines in advance of the final approval of the SPD, to enable project sponsors to move ahead with their projects without delay. [109556]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  My Department has issued guidance to programme managers on the implementation of Objective 1 programmes. This will be updated as new policy and other developments arise. We are very keen to avoid any delay in the implementation of these programmes, to enable partners to maximise the opportunities afforded by the new programmes.

  Biodiversity
  Mrs. Brinton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) what representations he has received on whether biodiversity action planning should be placed on a statutory footing; [109991]

  (2) what plans he has to provide a statutory basis for biodiversity action planning. [109992]
  467W
  Mr. Mullin
  A number of representations on whether the biodiversity action plan process should be placed on a statutory footing have been received since the announcement, in the Queen's Speech, of a Bill to give people greater access to the countryside and improved protection for wildlife. This issue and representations received on many others are currently being considered.

  Mrs. Brinton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the implications for the national biodiversity action planning process of the Countryside Council for Wales's decision not to work on biodiversity action plans. [109990]

  Mr. Mullin
  The implications of the Countryside Council for Wales's decision are a matter for the National Assembly for Wales.

  Departmental Research
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the titles of(a) research studies, (b) audits and (c) surveys he commissioned for completion in the last 12 months, stating in each case when the results were published. [109944]

  Mr. Mullin
  I refer to the answer that I gave on 8 December 1999,Official Report, column 544W, on Departmental Research, when I explained that details of each project are not held centrally. As on that occasion, a list of research projects will be prepared and placed in the Library of the House.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list for each(a) unitary, (b) shire county, (c) shire district, (d) metropolitan district and (e) London borough council
  (i) the real terms cash and percentage increase in standard spending assessment between 1997–98 and 2000–01,
  (ii) the real terms cash and percentage increase in revenue support grant between 1997–98 and 2000–01, (iii) the real terms cash and percentage increase in total external support between 1997–98 and 2000–01 and (iv) the real terms cash and percentage increase in aggregate external finance between 1997–98 and 2000–01. [109600]

  Ms Armstrong
  [holding answer 11 February 2000]: The information requested, to the extent that it is available, has been placed in the library. It is not possible to provide the increase in aggregate external finance to 2000–01 as the latest available figures relate to budgets for 1999–2000.

  Development Plans (MPs' Representations)
  Mr. Stinchcombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make it his policy that hon. Members should have the opportunity to make oral representations at the examination in public concerning the development plan policies relating to their constituencies. [109975]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  Existing policy on the selection of participants in Structure Plan examinations in public (EIPs) is set out in Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and in the booklet "Structure Plans—A Guide to 468W
  Procedures" published by my Department in December 1999. There are currently no plans to alter this policy. The purpose of an EIP is to provide the local structure planning authority with more information, through public discussion of certain issues, before reaching decisions on the plan. It is not intended that all those who have made objections or representations on an issue selected for discussion should be invited to take part.

  Primary legislation gives responsibility to the EIP panel and the local planning authority for selecting participants. The basic criterion will be the significance of the contribution which they can be expected to make to the discussion of the matters to be examined. The aim will be to select participants (whether statutory bodies, interest groups or individuals) who between them represent a broad range of viewpoints and have a relevant contribution to make.

  Mr. Stinchcombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the advantages and disadvantages of amending planning and public inquiry rules and legislation to give hon. Members the right to make oral representations at the examinations in public on the development plan policies concerning their constituencies.[109977]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  None. However, my right hon. Friend, the then Minister for Planning, indicated in "Modernising Planning—A Progress Report", published by my Department in April 1999, that while a number of improvements had already been achieved, we would continue to consider proposals for further changes to make the planning system more efficient and effective. A summary report on research into the Operation and Effectiveness of Structure Planning System was also published in April 1999, and indicated that the Department intended to carry out a short-term review of the structure planning process in England. That review will commence shortly.

  Small Airports
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) what plans he has to(a) reduce noise levels and (b) improve safety at small airports outside London; [109797]

  (2) if he will make a statement on the safety and age of aircraft using small airports. [109798]

  Mr. Mullin
  Our policy on noise is the same for small and large airports—reduction of noise at source, and airport specific measures where necessary. The Government continue to work for international agreement on higher certification standards and on phasing out noisier aircraft. Apart from the designated London airports, where the Secretary of State has direct responsibility, measures to reduce operational noise are the responsibility of the airport management, working in consultation with local interests. We shall shortly consult on the details of proposed legislation to strengthen aerodromes' powers to establish and enforce noise amelioration schemes, and to enable the Secretary of State to designate an aerodrome requiring it to agree such a scheme with an appropriate local authority.

  All United Kingdom airports are licensed by the Civil Aviation Authority and must be operated safely, regardless of their size or location. Similarly there is no

  469W
  necessary correlation between the age of aircraft and their safety: what is important is that the aircraft are maintained properly. Commercial aircraft must be maintained to an approved maintenance programme by qualified engineers working for an approved maintenance organisation. The age of the aircraft will be taken into account in determining the maintenance programme. Similar arrangements apply to aircraft with a private category certificate of airworthiness.

  Second Homes
  Mr. Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) what levels of payment have been made to local authorities to recompense them through the premium support grant for the 50 per cent. council tax discount given to(a) second homes and (b) other domestic properties entitled to the 50 per cent. discount, in each of the last three years; [110203]

  (2) what recompense has been paid to local authorities through the revenue support grant for the loss of income due to the 50 per cent. council tax discount for second homes, (a) by district and (b) by county and unitary authority in each of the last three years. [110205]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  There is no distinct element of the Revenue Support Grant to recompense authorities for council tax discounts they are required to give. However, the definition of the tax base used in the calculation of Revenue Support Grant normally has the effect of increasing an authority's grant by an amount broadly similar to the discounts. It will not be exactly the same as the discounts because the taxbase is based on information available before the year in which the discounts are given, the tax base is based on 100 per cent. collection, and the grant calculation uses a national tax rate rather than the actual tax rate.

  The Department does not have information distinguishing 50 per cent. discounts on second homes and 50 per cent. discounts for other reasons. We will place tables in the Library shortly based on all 50 per cent. discounts.

  Radiation Protection
  Mr. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the implementation of the European Council Directive 96/29/Euratom on radiation protection, with particular reference to the treatment of nuclear waste. [110248]

  Mr. Meacher
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Mr. Leslie) on 14 February 2000,Official Report, columns 356–57W.

  Single Vehicle Approval Tests
  Mr. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on his plans to introduce enhanced single vehicle approval tests. [110247]

  Mr. Hill
  Changes to the single vehicle approval scheme were the subject of public consultation last October, when it was envisaged that an enhanced test 470W
  would be introduced this March for certain classes of passenger car and light goods vehicle. In the light of responses, including observations from the European Commission, we are reviewing the proposals. This will mean the existing arrangements will continue for the time being. A further announcement will be made as soon as we have decided how best to proceed.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  New Deal (Young People)
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many 18 to 24-year-olds have entered the New Deal in Shrewsbury and Atcham; what the destinations of the leavers were; and if he will make a statement. [105525]

  Ms Jowell
  In the period to the end of October 1999, 299 young people started the New Deal in Shrewsbury and Atcham constituency. Of the 173 leavers, 78 found unsubsidised employment, 21 transferred to other benefits, and 20 left for other known destinations. Many of the remaining 54 who left for unknown destinations will have found jobs without telling the Employment Service. We are on target to meet our manifesto commitment of 250,000 young people into jobs and have just published a 10 point plan to build on the success of the New Deal.

  School Sports
  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has to introduce a school sports strategy to coincide with the forthcoming Government sports strategy. [107156]

  Jacqui Smith
  I am working very closely with the Minister for Sport to develop the education strand of the Government's Sports Strategy.

  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what percentage of children can swim 25 metres at the end of Key Stage 2; and if he will make a statement. [107159]

  Jacqui Smith
  In November, Ofsted conducted a focused survey on swimming in the primary school and is currently analysing the data which will provide an up-to-date figure on what percentage of children can swim 25 metres at the end of Key Stage 2.

  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what research his Department has(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated on the relationship between physical exercise and standards of literacy and numeracy. [107172]

  Jacqui Smith
  No research has been commissioned on the relationship between physical exercise and standards of literacy and numeracy. Ofsted has published an evaluation of the first year of implementation of the National Literacy Strategy and is currently evaluating the first year of the National Numeracy Strategy.

  Individual Learning Accounts
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if students undertaking a fourth year at law school will be eligible for an individual learning account from September 2000. [108128]

  Mr. Wicks
  Anyone aged 19 and over can open a learning account. A package of incentives is available for people in work, or seeking to return to work, who do not benefit from the public provision provided to unemployed people and people in full-time education (e.g. women seeking to return to the labour market, younger workers with low skills or few qualifications and self-employed people). The incentives will help these people to invest in their own learning and take charge of their career and futures.

  New Deal (Regional Variations)
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what assessment the Government have made of regional variations in the performance of the New Deal; and if he will make a statement. [109280]

  Ms Jowell
  The overall success of the New Deal does not mean that variations in levels of performance will not arise. This is inevitable in the short run and reflects the range in the client group and labour market conditions in some localities. We are always striving to improve performance and build on success. We have a strategy in place for continuous improvement which enables us to monitor performance against a range of measures and develop plans for improvement. By involving locally based partnerships in delivery we are ensuring that the programme design is relevant to local needs and will continue to offer unemployed people the best route into employment.

  Section 28
  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what reports he has received indicating that section 28 of the Local Government Act 1988 has prevented teachers from dealing with incidents of bullying in schools. [109369]

  Jacqui Smith
  Section 28 of the Local Government Act 1988 has never applied to schools, but it is clear that it has had a significant effect on teachers' perceptions.

  In research carried out in over 300 secondary schools by the Health and Education Research Unit at the Institute of Education, University of London (Playing it Safe, November 1997) some 44 per cent. of the teachers responding said that section 28 of the Local Government Act 1988 had made it more difficult for them to address the needs of gay, lesbian and bisexual pupils. The report noted that
  "teachers often referred to confusion about promoting homosexuality and how this had caused them to be reluctant to touch upon certain issues."

  More recently, Dr. Debbie Epstein from the Institute of Education, University of London, who has conducted confidential interviews with teachers as part of her
  472W
  research into sex education in schools (Schooling Sexualities, Open University Press 1998), concluded that
  "Section 28 has created an atmosphere of confusion and fear. Because teachers do not know how to comply with it, they err on the side of caution. As a result, they choose to ignore, wherever possible, homophobic harassment and bullying. This creates a permissive environment in which pupils believe they can, and do, get away with it."

  Citizenship Studies
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment in respect of the inclusion in the National Curriculum of citizenship studies in schools, what consultation took place, and with whom, prior to the adoption of such studies; to whom and when draft proposals were sent for comment; what specific requirement is made in respect of information and instruction concerning the European Union and consequential citizenship obligations; what material for use of (i) teachers and (ii) pupils in respect of the European Union is made available through departmental channels; and if it includes a package entitled, Euroquest. [109435]

  Jacqui Smith
  The Qualifications and Curriculum Authority consulted widely on proposals for a framework for Citizenship and Personal, Social and Health Education between 13 May and 23 July 1999 as part of broader proposals for the review of the National Curriculum.

  The proposals were sent to all schools. In addition, 4,000 copies were sent to other major organisations including central educational organisations, subject organisations, professional associations, Local Education Authorities and faith groups. In all, nearly 80,000 copies of the proposals for Citizenship and Personal, Social and Health Education and over 50,000 copies of the full consultation materials were distributed. In addition to the paper consultation, MORI held discussions with a number of focus groups of teachers, parents and governors.

  Questionnaires were returned by nearly 2,500 people and organisations—including over 600 schools, nearly 1,000 teachers, almost 200 parents, nearly 100 school governors, 90 Local Education Authorities, and over 20 employers. Details of the questionnaire responses and the responses of the focus groups were published in September. They showed a high degree of support for the proposals.

  The Citizenship programme for secondary schools—to take effect, subject to Parliamentary approval, at the start of the school year 2002—provides for pupils to be taught about: the world as a global community, and the political, economic, environmental and social implications of this, and the role of the European Union, the Commonwealth and the United Nations at Key Stage 3 and the United Kingdom's relations in Europe, including the European Union, and the relations with the Commonwealth and the United Nations at Key Stage 4.

  During the UK Presidency of the European Community from January to June 1998, an information and resource pack for schools, Partners in Europe, was produced and distributed by the four education departments in the UK, in response to requests from teachers to update materials that were already in use in the classroom. The pack offers case studies of how schools have incorporated the European dimension into work which meets the requirements of the National Curriculum. It was produced in conjunction with the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority and the

  473W
  Central Bureau for Educational Visits and Exchanges. The material is available from the Department's website. It is designed for use by teachers and its use is voluntary.

  I understand that the Euroquest booklet was funded entirely by the Representation of the European Commission in the UK, and that the content of the booklet was produced in collaboration with a number of UK educationalists and the Central Bureau for International Education and Training. One million copies were produced and approximately half have been distributed to schools on request.

  Air Conditioning and Refrigeration Systems
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what guidance he gives to local education authorities on the use on their estates in air conditioning and refrigeration systems of substances which contribute to global warming. [109332]

  Jacqui Smith
  The Department gives advice in Building Bulletin 83, "Schools Environmental Assessment Method (SEAM)". This recommends specifying materials which are CFC and HCFC free, and do not use CFCs or HCFCs in their manufacture, for refrigerants in refrigerators, freezers and air conditioning systems.

  Unemployment
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what percentage of all those unemployed in(a) rural and (b) urban areas were classified as long-term unemployed (i) at the latest date for which figures are available and (ii) 10 years previously. [109752]

  Ms Jowell
  In England, in December 1999, 18.4 per cent. of claimant unemployed people in rural areas and 25.1 per cent. of claimant unemployed people in urban areas had been claiming for more than a year. The figures for December 1989 are 17.8 per cent. and 26.7 per cent. respectively.

  Minimum Nutritional Standards
  Mr. Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list the education authorities that(a) voluntarily adhere and (b) do not adhere to the Minimum Nutritional Standards. [109763]

  Jacqui Smith
  Regulations to be laid before Parliament in due course, setting out compulsory nutritional standards for school lunches in England, will begin to take effect from September 2000. In the meantime, local education authorities and schools are free to set their own local specification and guidelines.

  Milk (Schools)
  Mr. Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list the education authorities that provide milk to school children(a) free and (b) at cost. [109762]

  Jacqui Smith
  All education authorities decide for themselves whether or not to provide any milk for school children. Where they do so, they must, by law, provide milk free to children whose parents receive the specified 474W
  benefits. Authorities must charge for all other milk they provide. We do not collect statistical information on which education authorities provide free or at cost milk.

  Remploy
  Mr. Rooney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what was the subsidy to Remploy(a) in cash terms and (b) at December 1999 prices, in each year since 1980.[109597]

  Ms Hodge
  [holding answer 14 February 2000]: This table shows the Government's subsidy to Remploy, in both cash and real terms, since 1980.

  £ million

  Year

  Cash

  December 1999 prices

  1980–81

  42.123

  101.605

  1981–82

  45.684

  98.724

  1982–83

  49.100

  99.127

  1983–84

  51.903

  100.868

  1984–85

  56.570

  103.849

  1985–86

  59.290

  102.814

  1986–87

  57.144

  95.859

  1987–88

  57.996

  93.716

  1988–89

  62.714

  95.570

  1989–90

  67.013

  94.747

  1990–91

  72.167

  93.026

  1991–92

  75.346

  92.557

  1992–93

  83.995

  100.210

  1993–94

  89.199

  104.613

  1994–95

  92.081

  105.169

  1995–96

  94.161

  104.106

  1996–97

  94.161

  101.667

  1997–98

  94.161

  98.402

  1998–99

  94.161

  95.89

  1999–2000

  95.661

  95.661

  Bullying
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on the Government's policy on tackling bullying in schools. [109925]

  Jacqui Smith
  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 educational needs, or related to sexual orientation. We want all schools to treat bullying seriously and deal with it promptly and firmly whenever and wherever it occurs. Since September 1999, schools have been required by law to have an anti-bullying policy. Ofsted's Framework for Inspection requires inspecting teams to evaluate the measures taken by the school to prevent and eliminate bullying.

  We will be launching a further anti-bullying initiative shortly. This will comprise a public information film to raise awareness of the problem; a video for schools on tackling bullying aimed at young people, on the theme `Don't Suffer in Silence'; and a revised and updated anti-bullying pack for schools on the same theme setting out, among other things, strategies for combating bullying including racist bullying.

  Education SSA (Shropshire)
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list for each year
  475W
  from 1992 to date, the standard spending assessment increase in education allocated to Shropshire County Council; and if he will make a statement. [110129]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The data requested are given in the table. These figures have not been adjusted for any changes in local authority function over the years and are not directly comparable due to the effects of local government reorganisation.

  Year

  SSA total

  Cash change £ million

  Percentage change

  1990–91

  128.2

  —

  —

  1991–92

  145.5

  17.3

  13.5

  1992–93

  154.0

  8.5

  5.9

  1993–941

  134.0

  —

  —

  1994–95

  135.5

  1.5

  1.1

  1995–96

  137.1

  1.6

  1.2

  1996–97

  145.3

  8.2

  6.0

  1997–982

  146.9

  1.6

  1.1

  1998–993

  95.4

  —

  —

  1999–2000

  100.8

  5.4

  5.7

  2000–01

  105.4

  4.6

  4.5

  1 From 1993–94 Education Spending Assessment figures are affected by the Creation of the Further Education Funding Council and the subsequent reduction in post-16 funding

  2 In 1997–98 £527 million was removed from Education Standard Spending for the Nursery Voucher Scheme

  3 In 1998–99 Shropshire was affected by Local Government Reorganisation

  Assisted Places Scheme (Shropshire)
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list for each year the cost of the assisted places scheme in Shropshire; and if he will make a statement. [110132]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The cost to the Exchequer of the assisted places scheme at the seven participating schools in the area of the present Shropshire local education authority in the current academic year 1999–2000 is estimated to be £535,600. Information relating to previous years is not readily available and, in any case, would not be directly comparable in view of the boundary changes brought about by the recent local government re-organisation. The assisted places scheme is being phased out and no new assisted places are now available.

  Kinloss School, Worcestershire
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on the timescale for the publication of the Social Services Inspectorate report into Kinloss School in Worcestershire. [110304]

  Jacqui Smith
  On 3 February 2000 my Department authorised the Worcestershire County Inspectorate to release copies of the report. Copies will be sent to all local authorities that have placed children in the school and to those people, often parents of present or former pupils, who have contacted the Department or the Inspectorate about the report. I understand that the Inspectorate is finalising its distribution arrangements, and expects copies to issue around one week from now.

  My Department has also given the school notice of withdrawal of its approval under section 347 of the Education Act 1996. This means that the school has until
  476W
  June 2000 to remedy the failings identified in the report, or it will lose its approval. The school has submitted its plans for addressing these issues, and we will arrange for inspection at the appropriate time.

  Education Funding (Newcastle)
  Mr. Doug Henderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will set aside the passporting test and review his decision to reduce the education element in Government grant made available to Newcastle City Council. [110185]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  It is vitally important that the increased funding we have made available reaches education. We will therefore continue to urge local authorities to passport the increase in education standard spending assessment to education budgets. My right hon. Friend will take decisions on the release of the £50 million special grant to support school budgets in due course.

  Teachers' Pay
  Mr. Cann
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what progress he has made on reforming teachers' pay. [109246]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The Green Paper "Teachers: meeting the challenge of change" (Cm 4161) published in December 1998 outlined our proposals for reform of the teaching profession. Following extensive consultation with representatives of teachers and teachers' employers on the proposals, the Department for Education and Employment submitted detailed evidence on pay reform to the School Teachers' Review Body (STRB) last September. This evidence contained revised proposals on the pay structure and responded to issues raised through the consultation process.

  The STRB's Ninth Report was published on 1 February. The report is a major endorsement for the Government's reforms, and the Government have accepted the recommendations with only minor modifications. Copies of the report have been placed in the Libraries of the Houses of Parliament. The Secretary of State has initiated consultation with key stakeholders including teacher unions and employers on the STRB's recommendations. The consultation ends on 7 March.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what assessment he has made of the National Union of Teachers representations on the Government's proposals on performance-related pay. [109570]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The Government's proposals for teachers' pay reform were initially outlined in the Green Paper, "Teachers: meeting the challenge of change" (Cm 4164). We have discussed our proposals extensively with all teacher unions and other key stakeholders. The NUT's evidence to the independent pay body, the School Teachers' Review Body (STRB), was considered alongside that of other statutory consultees when the STRB drew up their recommendations, which were published on 1 February 2000. Ministers and officials will continue to meet unions and other consultees as part of the consultation on the STRB recommendations. The consultation ends on 7 March.

SOLICITOR-GENERAL

  Charity Premises
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Solicitor-General on how many occasions charges have been brought against managers of charity premises under section 8 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971; and if he will make a statement. [109890]

  The Solicitor-General
  The Crown Prosecution Service measures its performance and case-loads by the number of defendants, the type of proceedings and the outcome of cases. It does not keep a central record of specific charges brought by the police. That information is held on individual case files and could be recovered only by examining every case file in each CPS office. The cost of such an exercise would be prohibitive.

  Gardening Leave
  Mr. Garnier
  To ask the Solicitor-General how many staff employed by the Law Officers' Departments are currently on gardening leave. [110342]

  The Solicitor-General
  None. I take "gardening leave" to mean paid absence from work that is not annual leave, sickness absence, suspension or any category of special leave as defined in my Departments' personnel management manuals.

DEFENCE

  Flying Hours
  Mr. Duncan Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many hours flying, other than during operations,(a) the Army Air Corps and (b) the Fleet Air Arm have flown in each of the last five years. [108656]

  Mr. Spellar
  For statistical purposes, the number of flying hours is collated by financial year (FY). Figures for the last five complete years and for the current year are as set out. The figures for the current FY are up to and including the end of October 1999.

  Financial year

  Total Army Air Corps hours 1

  Total Fleet Air Arm hours 1

  1994–95

  66,035

  17,958

  1995–96

  62,564

  18,596

  1996–97

  62,601

  16,509

  1997–98

  64,354

  17,958

  1998–99

  67,465

  15,835

  1999–20002

  37,568

  11,136

  1 Excluding operations

  2 To October 1999

  Antonov 124–100
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if the Antonov 124–100 has the capacity to lift two main battle tanks simultaneously. [103103]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 20 December 1999]: On the basis of information publicly available, we are not aware that the Antonov 124–100, nor any of the other aircraft under consideration to fulfil our Short Term Strategic Airlift requirement, are currently capable of
  478W
  carrying safely two Challenger 2 Main Battle Tanks. We have not, however, sought detailed information on this point since we have no such requirement.

  Chinook Crash, Mull of Kintyre
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what evidence underlies his conclusion that RAF Chinook ZD 576 was travelling too low and too fast towards the Mull of Kintyre on 2 June 1994. [108750]

  Mr. Spellar
  In reaching their conclusions concerning the height and speed of the aircraft just prior to the accident the RAF Board of Inquiry considered data extracted from navigation equipment on the aircraft, the AAIB technical report and information and analysis provided by Boeing Helicopters and the Defence Research Agency, Bedford. Evidence from witness statements was also taken into account.

  Bowman Project
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the problems being experienced with the new Bowman Communication System; and what assessment he has made of their impact on the effectiveness and safety of the United Kingdom's armed forces. [109037]

  Dr. Moonie
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle), the then Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence, on 21 December 1999,Official Report, column 468W, to my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mrs. Gilroy).

  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the reasons for delay to the original in service date of the BOWMAN digital battlefield communications system; and if he will make a statement. [109965]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 14 February 2000]: This is a matter for the Chief Executive of the Defence Procurement Agency. I have asked the Chief Executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from John F. Howe to Mr. Paul Keetch, dated 15 February 2000:
  I am replying to your question to the Secretary of State for Defence about the reasons for delay to the in service date of the BOWMAN communication system. This matter falls within my area of responsibility as Chief of Defence Procurement and Chief Executive of the Defence Procurement Agency.
  As part of our normal process, we assess the reasons for any programme slippage. Accumulated slippage from BOWMAN's original in service date of December 1995 can be attributed to a combination of technical difficulties, MOD budgetary constraints, the need to reconsider the BOWMAN procurement strategy following changes in industry, a redefinition of the in service date to reflect the completion of field trials and a further redefinition of the programme in order to reduce cost growth and risk.
  On 21 December 1999, the then US of S, in a Parliamentary answer to Linda Gilroy MP, provided a progress report, which noted the difficulties being experienced by ARCHER Communications Systems Ltd. Subject to continued good progress by ARCHER on their improvement programme, our aim would be to seek approval to proceed later this year following which we would expect to place an implementation (manufacture) contract by the end of the year. Prior to this we cannot set a revised in service date but would expect it to be in late 2003 or early 2004.

  Armed Forces Pay Review
  Mr. Alan Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the report and recommendations of the Armed Forces Pay Review Body. [110524]

  Mr. Duncan Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on what date the annual armed forces pay review will be announced; and if he will make a statement. [109050]

  Mr. Hoon
  The 2000 Report of the Armed Forces Pay Review Body has been published today. Copies are available in the Vote Office and the Library of the House.
  I am grateful to the Chairman and members of the Review Body for the work they have put into them.

  In the Comprehensive Spending Review the Government made it clear that public sector pay settlements would need to be fair and affordable and support budgeted public service improvements. In making their recommendations the AFPRB have taken into account a number of considerations, including the recruitment, retention and motivation of the armed forces and have recommended an increase in basic military salary of 3.3 per cent. for all ranks, with the exception of Privates, Lance Corporals, Captains and Lieutenants who should receive 3.8 per cent. An increase of 1 per cent. in X Factor is also recommended. The X Factor which has not been reviewed for five years, is paid as an addition to basic pay and reflects the differences between conditions of service experienced by members of the armed forces over a full career and conditions in civilian life, which cannot be taken directly into account in assessing pay comparability. The graduate starting salary is set at £18,126 p.a. There are also some increases in Additional Pay (e.g. Flying Pay, Submarine Pay and Hydrographic Pay) and in Longer Separated Service Allowance/Bonus.

  These recommendations will fully support the armed forces strategic personnel policies, in particular in relation to recruitment and retention. The additional cost to the Defence Budget will be £260 million. This will be met within existing Departmental Expenditure Limits.

  The AFPRB' s recommendations are to be accepted in full, with implementation effective from 1 April 2000.

  Defence Bills Agency
  Mr. Alan Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what performance targets have been set for the Defence Bills Agency for the financial year 2000–01.[110523]

  Dr. Moonie
  Targets have been set for the Defence Bills Agency for the financial year 2000–01 in accordance with the Agency's Service Level Agreement with the Ministry of Defence. The targets build on the high standards of service achieved by the Agency since its formation in January 1996 and are as follows:

  By the end of the financial year 2000–01, to reduce transaction costs by a further 7.3 per cent. for bills and a further 2.4 per cent. for invoices over the targets set for 1999–2000. This represents a further step towards achieving overall reductions in transaction costs of between 15 per cent. and 20 per cent. by March 2004 as required under the terms of the Service Level Agreement.

  480W

  To produce financial and accounting information to the ISO 9001/3 quality standard and to the times set out in the Service Level Agreement.

  To pay 100 per cent. of correctly-presented bills within 11 calendar days of receipt.

  To raise 95 per cent. of invoices within four working days of receipt of a correctly-presented claimable document.

  Within the permitted tolerances, to meet the performance targets prescribed in the Service Level Agreement.

  Reserve Forces
  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the cost was of each of the reserves and auxiliary forces, distinguishing between Regular Reserves and Volunteer Reserves and identifying separately the cost of the(a) Territorial Army, (b) Royal Naval Reserve, (c) Royal Marine Reserve, (d) Royal Air Force Volunteer Reserves and (e) Royal Auxiliary Air Force, and specifying the constituent parts of each figure in the last year for which figures are available. [108907]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 9 February 2000]: The information is not available in the format requested and cannot be provided except at disproportionate cost. I can, however, identify total expenditure by Service during 1998–99 as follows:

  £ million

  Navy Reserve Forces Pay

  6.646

  Navy Bounty Payments

  3.025

  Army Reserve Forces Pay

  94.908

  Army Bounty Payments

  30.780

  Royal Air Force Reserve Pay

  6.993

  Royal Air Force Bounty Payments

  0.057

  Total

  142.409

  TRACER/FSCS System
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what agreement has been reached with the USA regarding funding for the development of the TRACER/FSCS system. [109858]

  Dr. Moonie
  The UK and USA have entered into a joint Project Definition phase for TRACER/FSCS under the terms of a Memorandum of Understanding. This commits both nations to an equal share of the cost of this stage of the project. There is no commitment, by either nation, to proceed beyond the Project Definition phase and, therefore, no agreement to fund any further development beyond this stage. The UK contribution to the cost of the collaborative Project Definition contracts for TRACER is some £90 million.

  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what staff requirement is planned to be met by the development of the TRACER/FSCS system. [109856]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Tactical Reconnaissance Armoured Combat Equipment Requirement (TRACER) is intended to meet the Army's requirement for a manned reconnaissance vehicle as stated in Staff Requirement (Land) 4061. The requirement forms the UK part of the UK/US collaborative project for a future reconnaissance vehicle, the US part being known as the Future Scout Cavalry System (FSCS).

  Accommodation (Royal Navy)
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what (a) refurbishment (b) rebuild and (c) new build projects are planned to modernise accommodation provided for junior ratings in each of Her Majesty's Royal Naval Shore Establishments; in what year they were first

  Establishment

  Type

  Year approved

  Initial anticipated completion

  Current anticipated completion

  Royal Naval Air Station Yeovilton

  New Build

  1997

  March 1999

  March 2000

  HMS Dryad

  New Build

  1998

  November 1999

  March 2000

  Royal Marines Bickley

  New Build

  1998

  July 2001

  July 2001

  Royal Naval Air Station Culdrose:

  Phase 1

  Refurbishment

  11999

  August 2000

  September 2000

  Phase 2

  February 2003

  February 2003

  Phase 3

  June 2005

  June 2005

  Royal Marines Chivenor

  New Build

  2000

  June 2001

  June 2001

  1 Three phases

  MESAR2
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the cost is of evaluating MESAR2 in White Sands, USA; how much of the cost will be borne by his Department; and if he will make a statement. [109801]

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

  Letter from John. F. Howe to Mr. Michael Hancock, dated 15 February 2000:
  I am replying to your question to the Secretary of State for Defence about the cost of evaluating MESAR2 in White Sands, USA and how much of the cost will be borne by his department. This matter falls within my area of responsibility as Chief of Defence Procurement and Chief Executive of the Defence Procurement Agency.
  The estimated cost to the UK of evaluating MESAR2 at the White Sands Missile Range is £1,691,000 (excluding VAT). The range will be provided to us on a cost-free basis but there will undoubtedly be costs incurred by the US of which we have no visibility.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what has been the cost so far of DERA's evaluation of MESAR2; and if he will make a statement. [109803]

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

  Letter from John F. Howe to Mr. Michael Hancock, dated 15 February 2000:
  I am replying to your question to the Secretary of State for Defence on what has been the cost so far of DERA's evaluation of MESAR2. This matter falls within my area of responsibility as Chief of Defence Procurement and Chief Executive of the Defence Procurement Agency.
  To date the costs attributable to the DERA evaluation of MESAR2 are £6,395,700 (excluding VAT), which is part of the overall figure of £18,074,320 spent by MOD on MESAR2 so far.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much money his Department has spent so far on MESAR2 and over what timescale; and if he will make a statement. [109802]
  482W
  approved; what the programmed dates for completion were at the time of approval; and what the current expected dates of completion are. [109474]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 10 February 2000]: Following is the approved programme of current and planned projects for junior ratings single living accommodation:

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

  Letter for John F. Howe to Mr. Michael Hancock, dated 15 February 2000:
  I am replying to your question to the Secretary of State for Defence on how much money his Department has spent on MESAR2 and over what timescale. This matter falls within my area of responsibility as Chief of Defence Procurement and Chief Executive of the Defence Procurement Agency.
  The Department has spent £18,074,320 (excluding VAT) on MESAR2. This spend has been incurred over the period August 1995 to date.

  RAF Neatishead
  Mr. Prior
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the future of RAF Neatishead. [109558]

  Mr. Spellar
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 28 January 2000,Official Report, column 382W.

  Gulf Veterans
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to the letter from the Minister of State for the Armed Forces to the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) of 27 January 2000, concerning Gulf veterans, for what reasons he has been unable to obtain adequate material from Canada on depleted uranium testing work; and what further steps he plans to take to obtain adequate material. [110071]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 14 February 2000]: The MOD has repeatedly stated that we are keen to see the evidence from the independent tests carried out in Canada and the US that claim UK veterans were exposed to unusually high levels of DU during the Gulf conflict. We have urged all the scientists involved in testing UK veterans to share their full results with us and the scientific community. We have also repeated our request for details of the work during meetings with, and when writing to,

  483W
  Dr. Durakovic, Dr. Sharma and veterans' representatives. Yet in spite of our requests we have still not seen any robust scientific data justifying the claims.

  The MOD will continue to make requests for robust scientific evidence to support the claims and urges all those involved in these independent tests to make the positive step to provide the evidence so that we can move forward on a scientific basis. In the meantime, we have offered to test the UK veterans who were involved with these independent tests. A draft protocol, under which the testing would take place, is currently being considered by veterans' representatives. We hope that they will soon agree to co-operate in such testing.

  SONAR 2087
  Ms Squire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the timetable for a decision on SONAR 2087. [109390]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 14 February 2000]: This is a matter for the Chief Executive of the Defence Procurement Agency. I have asked the Chief Executive to write to my hon. Friend.

  Letter from John F. Howe to Ms Rachel Squire, dated 15 February 2000:
  I am replying to your question to the Secretary of State for Defence about the timetable for a decision on Sonar 2087. This matter falls within my area of responsibility as Chief of Defence Procurement and Chief Executive of the Defence Procurement Agency.
  Two companies, Thomson Marconi Sonar Ltd and Babcock Defence Systems Ltd, are currently competing for the Full Development, Production and Support contract for Sonar 2087. We expect to make a decision around the turn of the year and to place a contract in spring 2001.

  QARNNS
  Ms Dari Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on plans to alter the current status of Queen Alexandra's Royal Naval Nursing Service; and how this will affect personnel serving within QARNNS. [110522]

  Mr. Spellar
  Following a comprehensive review, the Queen Alexandra's Royal Naval Nursing Service (QARNNS) will be incorporated into the Royal Navy (RN) from 1 April 2000 as the Service's specialised nursing branch. QARNNS is currently a separate Service within the Naval Service.

  This will bring the status of QARNNS into line with that of the Army and RAF. It will also mean that QARNNS personnel commissioned or engaged into the RN from 1 April 2000 will be available for reserve service once they leave the RN. QARNNS ratings currently have no liability for reserve service.

  The terms and conditions of service of existing QARNNS personnel will be unaffected by this change.

  Austria (Bilateral Meetings)
  Mr. Jim Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list those previously planned meetings, and their subject, between his Department and its Austrian counterpart which have been cancelled since the formation of the new Austrian Government. [109901]
  484W
  Mr. Hoon
  There have been no cancellations of previously planned meetings between officials of the Ministry of Defence and its Austrian counterpart since the formation of the new Austrian government.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Nigeria
  Mr. Blizzard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next plans to visit Nigeria to discuss consular relations. [108547]

  Mr. Hain
  I visited Nigeria from 9–12 January and raised the case of my hon. Friend's constituent, Mr. Mark Davey, with the Nigerian Foreign Minister.

  Intergovernmental Conference
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make it his policy at the next intergovernmental conference to resist any extension of qualified majority voting and new EU competences. [108548]

  Mr. Vaz
  The Government have made it clear that they will adopt a pragmatic approach to the extension of qualified majority voting. Where it is in Britain's interests to support QMV, we shall do so. But where key national interests are at stake, we shall insist on retaining unanimity. As for competencies, The Helsinki European Council agreed that the ICG would concentrate on reforming the institutions, not giving them new tasks to perform.

  EU Enlargement
  Mr. Andy King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the prospects for the enlargement of the European Union. [108549]

  Mr. McCabe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the prospects for the enlargement of the European Union. [108562]

  Ms Perham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the prospects for the enlargement of the European Union. [108568]

  Mr. Vaz
  Today, the EU is launching accession negotiations with six applicant countries. They will join six countries already in negotiation. We want applicant countries to accede to the European Union as soon as they are able to meet the obligations of membership. But the EU must prepare for enlargement too. This is why, yesterday, the member states of the European Union convened an intergovernmental conference to make the institutional changes necessary for enlargement.

  Middle East
  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the status of the middle east peace process. [108550]
  485W
  Mr. Hain
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary gave earlier in the House today to my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Savidge).

  Nepal
  Mr. Bill O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he intends to visit Nepal to discuss strengthening relations with the UK; and if he will make a statement. [108551]

  Mr. Hain
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has been invited to visit Nepal and this is currently under active consideration.

  Pakistan
  Mr. Michael J. Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on progress towards restoring a democratic Government in Pakistan. [108552]

  Mr. Hain
  We continue to press General Musharraf for progress towards the restoration of democracy and in January, General Sir Charles Guthrie, Chief of the Defence Staff, took a strong message seeking a route-map to achieve this.

  Kosovo
  Mr. Goggins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with other European Governments about additional funds for the reconstruction of Kosovo. [108553]

  Mr. Vaz
  The UK is in frequent contact with European partners on Kosovo reconstruction. The EU pledged 137 million euros for Kosovo reconstruction in 1999, and has agreed to provide 310 million euros this year.

  Therefore, we welcomed the decision of yesterday's General Affairs Council to provide urgently 35 million euros in emergency support for the budget of the UN Mission in Kosovo.

  Reconstruction is not just about economics. Kosovo's institutions need our help. The FCO is to give an additional £150,000 this month, via the OSCE Mission and the Council of Europe in Pristina, in particular to provide practical support to Kosovo's judiciary.

  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the security situation in Kosovska Mitrovica. [109714]

  Mr. Vaz
  [holding answer 11 February 2000]: Violence erupted last week in Mitrovica, following an attack on a UNHCR bus in which two ethnic Serbs died. Reprisals led to deaths and injuries among Serbs and Albanians in the local population and injuries to troops in the NATO-led Kosovo force (KFOR). Following action by KFOR and the leaders of the United Nations Mission in Kosovo (UNMIK), including the imposition of a curfew, the situation appears to have been brought under control.

  Mitrovica is a particularly acute example of the continuing tensions between the communities in Kosovo. It underlines the importance of international efforts to
  486W
  promote reconciliation and to condemn and act against violence and intimidation. It also emphasises the importance of both Serbs and Albanians working with UNMIK in the new joint administrative structures. The Kosovo Albanians are already participating. We hope the Kosovo Serbs will soon join them.

  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent assessment he has made of the political and security situation in(a) Kosovo, (b) Serbia, (c) Montenegro and (d) Vojvodina. [109712]

  Mr. Vaz
  [holding answer 11 February 2000]: The political and security situation in Serbia clearly is desperate. The ruling coalition continues to intensify its repression of the independent media and of the democratic political parties through administrative and judicial harassment. The recent murders of Zeljko Raznatovic ("Arkan") and Federal Defence Minister Pavle Bulatovic—just the latest in a string of assassinations of high-ranking politicians, officials and businesspeople—show that violence has become endemic in public life.

  Vojvodina, as part of Serbia, is suffering from the same degradation of democratic freedoms and public security.

  In Montenegro, the government of President Djukanovic has made real efforts to introduce democratic reforms and promote the ethnic and social cohesion of Montenegro. However, Milosevic is undermining the economy and therefore the stability of Montenegro by blocking trade and financial transactions between Montenegro and Serbia. He and his supporters are also attempting to intimidate the legitimate government of Montenegro through the formation and deployment of special military units loyal to Belgrade.

  In Kosovo, the security situation has improved since the arrival of the NATO-led Kosovo Force (KFOR) in June 1999. The number of crimes is decreasing. However, the recent upsurge in ethnic violence in the divided city of Mitrovica underlines the fragility of the security situation. KFOR and the UN Mission in Kosovo (UNMIK) are taking measures to tackle extremist behaviour by Kosovo Albanians and Serbs and to maintain peace and security in Mitrovica.

  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the Human Rights Watch report on civilian casualties in Kosovo; and if he will make a statement. [109719]

  Mr. Vaz
  [holding answer 11 February 2000]: We welcome the acknowledgement in the Human Rights Watch Report of "gross violations of international humanitarian law" by the forces of the Milosevic regime. This puts into proper perspective its comments on the consequences of NATO action. NATO intervened, when all other options had been exhausted, to avert a humanitarian catastrophe. The great lengths to which NATO went to minimise civilian casualties are in stark contrast to the carefully planned and brutally executed terror perpetrated by FRY and Serbian forces in Kosovo.

  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is his assessment of the economic impact of the Kosovo crisis on(a) Albania, (b) Bosnia-Herzegovina, (c) Bulgaria, (d) Croatia, (e) FYR Macedonia and (f) Romania. [109716]
  487W
  Mr. Vaz
  [holding answer 11 February 2000]: The international community is committed to helping the countries of south-eastern Europe raise their level of economic prosperity, to bring them into the European mainstream. The International Monetary Fund estimate the Kosovo crisis might have reduced regional GDP by up to 2 per cent. in 1999. However, provided governments of the region push ahead with key economic reforms, the medium-term prospects are bright.

  Helsinki Summit
  Judy Mallaber
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent contacts he has had with the representatives of the six EU applicant countries announced at the Helsinki EU summit. [108554]

  Mr. Vaz
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary gave earlier in the House today to my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Helen Jackson).

  Drugs
  Mr. Russell Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he is taking to improve international co-operation in combating the global drugs trade. [108555]

  Mr. Battle
  The FCO coordinates the international elements of the UK's national drugs strategy, in close cooperation with Keith Hellawell, the UK Anti-Drugs Coordinator. Our efforts are targeted, with other Government Departments, on reducing the production and trafficking of class A drugs to the UK and Europe; and on improving the effectiveness of other countries, including the EU and UN, in dealing with the global threat from drugs and associated crime.

  Angola
  Mr. Eric Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of action taken against those who break the United Nations sanction against UNITA in Angola. [1085561]

  Ms Ryan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of enforcement action against those who break the United Nations sanctions against UNITA in Angola. [108560]

  Mr. Hain
  I am extremely concerned by continuing reports of breaches of UN sanctions against UNITA. It is vital that would-be sanctions busters are forced to recognise that the international community will not tolerate their activities. The UK fully implements these sanctions and takes its enforcement responsibilities very seriously.

  We strongly support the efforts of Ambassador Fowler, Chair of the UN Angola Sanctions Committee and the Expert Panels that have been set up to investigate how these sanctions can be implemented more effectively. We have contributed $200,000 to fund their work. As I told the House on 18 January, I have referred to the Sanctions Committee the details of three individuals I believe to be
  488W
  breaching sanctions. We look forward to the forthcoming report of the Panels and their recommendations on how the sanctions can be made to bite.

  The UK regularly discusses better sanctions with fellow Governments on a bilateral basis, urging them to do all that they can to fully implement the measures and take prompt and effective action in response to allegations of breaches. When I visited South Africa in January, I agreed with Deputy Foreign Minister Pahad, who shares my concerns, that we would work very closely together on this issue over the next few critical months.

  Arms Sales
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on his policy in relation to arms sales to other countries. [108557]

  Mr. Hammond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the application of his ethical criteria to decisions on arms sales. [108561]

  Mr. Hain
  This Government have introduced fundamental changes in the UK's approach to arms exports, while maintaining our commitment to a strong defence industry. We introduced tough new criteria for export licensing. We will not issue a licence if there is a clearly identifiable risk the equipment will be used for internal repression or external aggression. We banned the export of equipment that has been used in torture. We worked for, and got, agreement on an EU Code of Conduct on Arms Exports which is recognised by other member states as the touchstone of EU policy on arms exports. We have started publishing Annual Reports—deliberately inviting scrutiny.

  Malta
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on relations with Malta. [108558]

  Mr. Vaz
  Our relations with Malta are very strong. We continue to build on our common traditions and shared history with close links across a wide range of issues. We are delighted that negotiations for Malta's EU accession were formally launched today.

  Treaty of Nice
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last met the European Commission to discuss the draft text for the proposed treaty of Nice. [108559]

  Mr. Vaz
  There is no draft text for a possible future treaty of Nice. Last month's Commission Opinion is merely a contribution to the IGC negotiations. Treaty change is for member states.

  Austria
  Mr. Bradshaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with his EU colleagues about the new Government in Austria. [108563]
  489W
  Mr. Vaz
  The Portuguese Prime Minister's statement on 31 January, based on consultations with his colleagues in the thirteen other member states of the EU was a signal of our joint concern about developments in Austria. I discussed developments directly with my EU colleagues including the Austrian Foreign Minister at the General Affairs Council meeting in Brussels on 8 February.

  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Austrian Embassy in respect of the formation of the new coalition Government in Vienna; and if he will make a statement. [109125]

  Mr. Vaz
  [holding answer 9 February 2000]: My officials have been in touch with the Austrian Embassy in London and the Austrians are fully aware of Her Majesty's Governments reaction to the inclusion of the Freedom Party in the new Austrian Government.

  I have made very clear over the last two weeks my deep concern and distaste at the inclusion in the Austrian Government of a far-right party which appeals to xenophobia. I have welcomed the fact that the new Austrian Government has committed itself to abiding by the common obligations and values of EU membership, to combating all forms of discrimination, and to dealing constructively with the country's Nazi past. But we will be watching them closely and judging them on whether they fulfil the commitments they have made.

  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will recall the British Ambassador to Austria. [109816]

  Mr. Vaz
  [holding answer 11 February 2000]: We have no plans to recall the British Ambassador to Vienna.

  Human Rights
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the relationship between the proposed charter of fundamental rights of the European Union and the European convention on human rights. [108564]

  Mr. Vaz
  The Charter of Rights should complement the ECHR. The Conclusions of the June 1999 Cologne European Council state that the Charter"should contain the fundamental rights and freedoms as well as basic procedural rights"
  guaranteed by the ECHR. I therefore welcome the attendance of Council of Europe representatives at all meetings of the Charter Convention.

  Chile
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on British relations with Chile. [108566]

  Mr. Battle
  We have kept closely in touch with the Chilean Government since Senator Pinochet's arrest in October 1998. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has met the Chilean Foreign Minister three times, most recently in New York last September. These meetings have all been open and friendly.

  Iraq
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the impact of sanctions against Iraq on the number of deaths of children in Iraq. [108567]

  Mr. Hain
  We are very concerned about reports of increased child mortality rates in Iraq. We continue to support efforts to target the humanitarian effort there towards the most vulnerable who continue to suffer because of the policies of the Iraqi Government. If Iraq had prioritised properly the vast amounts of humanitarian assistance on offer, the suffering of the Iraqi people would have been hugely reduced.

  India and Bangladesh
  Mr. Dobbin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of Her Majesty's Government's visa policy in India and Bangladesh following the recent visit by the Minister of State. [108569]

  Mr. Vaz
  Our entry clearance policy is designed to facilitate travel to the UK by visitors who qualify under the Immigration Rules, and to prevent the entry of those who do not.

  I was impressed by the commitment of our staff in the Posts I visited to offer a fair, fast and firm visa service.

  During my visit I announced the launch of a number of feasibility studies to examine how we might be able to improve the services we offer to people living a long way from our visa-issuing centres.

  Restraints (Exports)
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will place in the Library the report from the US Customs and Excise Service on the availability for sale within the USA of(a) hand cuffs, (b) over-size hand cuffs and (c) leg irons, manufactured by Hiatts of Birmingham, UK. [109482]

  Mr. Hain
  [holding answer 11 February 2000]: During the course of our investigations into the allegations in The Independent newspaper on 16 November that UK-made leg-irons were on sale in the US, we received assistance from US authorities. They did not, however, provide us with any written report.

  I stated in a letter to the Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee on 2 February that we had completed thorough investigations into the allegations but had found no evidence that there had been a breach of the ban on the export of leg-irons. As far as we have been able to establish, it appears likely that the leg-irons in question were old stock dating back to the early 1980s prior to the statement made on 28 March 1984 by the then Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, Official Report, columns 175–76.

  We are also satisfied that the leg-irons mentioned in The Independent articles were not manufactured using oversized individual cuffs exported without a licence from the UK. Although we have no evidence to suggest that such single cuffs have ever been exported, there is a hypothetical loophole and amending legislation to extend controls to cover large individual cuffs is in preparation.

  Montenegro
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent representations he has received from the Montenegrin Government concerning the situation in(a) Montenegro, (b) Serbia, (c) Kosovo and (d) Sanjak. [109711]

  Mr. Vaz
  [holding answer 11 February 2000]: President Djukanovic of Montenegro visited London on 25 January. During our meeting, we discussed the situation across the whole of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.

  Spain-Gibraltar Ferry Service
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last raised the establishment of a new ferry service between Spain and Gibraltar port. [109708]

  Mr. Vaz
  [holding answer 11 February 2000]: We would welcome the re-establishment of ferry links between Gibraltar and Spain. We have regularly drawn to the attention of the Spanish authorities the potential benefits of such links to Gibraltar and to the neighbouring regions of Spain, most recently following the publication of the report of the Foreign Affairs Committee.

  Gibraltar
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when the next meeting in the Brussels process on Gibraltar will take place. [109710]

  Mr. Vaz
  [holding answer 11 February 2000]: We expect the next meeting in the Brussels Process to take place in Spain. No date has yet been fixed.

  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he received the expert team report on a fast patrol boat for the Royal Gibraltar Police. [109709]

  Mr. Vaz
  [holding answer 11 February 2000]: The expert team reported their findings at the beginning of November. As a result of the team's recommendations, HMG and the Government of Gibraltar have agreed to co-fund the purchase of a new vessel.

  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress has been made in negotiations with Spain over the future of Gibraltar airport. [109707]

  Mr. Vaz
  [holding answer 11 February 2000]: The subject of Gibraltar airport has been raised in discussion with the Governments of Spain and Gibraltar, but there are no negotiations taking place at present on the future of the airport.

  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last raised the issue of Gibraltar with the Spanish Foreign Ministry; and what was discussed. [109706]

  Mr. Vaz
  [holding answer 11 February 2000]: We regularly raise a wide range of issues related to Gibraltar with Ministers and officials of the Spanish Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
  492W
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which recommendations of the Fourth report from the Foreign Affairs Committee on Gibraltar, HC366, Session 1998–99, have been implemented. [109705]

  Mr. Vaz
  [holding answer 11 February 2000]: The Government's response to the Foreign Affairs Committee report on Gibraltar was laid before Parliament in October 1999 (Cd 4470). The response included detailed comments on each of the report's recommendations.

  South-eastern Europe (Stability Pact)
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of progress in implementing the Stability Pact for South Eastern Europe. [109715]

  Mr. Vaz
  [holding answer 11 February 2000]: The Stability Pact has made a useful start in refocussing attention on the political and economic needs of the region. The United Kingdom has been an active participant in the Pact, taking forward key initiatives such as the Investment Compact and the Media Charter. We are now working with partners in the Pact to prepare further initiatives which will be considered at a Regional Conference in March. This will be a useful opportunity to take stock of the progress that has been made.

  Russia (Nuclear Weapons)
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent representations he has made to the Russian Government about its decision to lower the first-use criterion for nuclear weapons. [110328]

  Mr. Vaz
  We have made no representations about the new Russian National Security Concept or Military Doctrine, neither of which make significant changes to Russian policy on the use of nuclear weapons. Russia abandoned its no first use commitment in 1993.

  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of Russia's decision to lower the first-use criterion for nuclear weapons; and if he will make a statement on Government policy on this decision. [110327]

  Mr. Vaz
  Our assessment, supported by assurances from Russian officials, is that neither the new Russian National Security Concept or Military Doctrine make significant changes to Russian policy on the use of nuclear weapons. Russia abandoned its declared policy of no first use of nuclear weapons in 1993. There has therefore been no change of British policy towards Russia.

  Falklands
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent representations(a) he and (b) the Falkland Islands' Governor have received from (i) the Falkland Islands Government and (ii) individual Falklands councillors about the withdrawal of the South Atlantic guardship. [110326]

  Mr. Battle
  I refer to the answer of 27 January 2000 from my hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces to the hon. Member for Croydon, South
  493W
  (Mr. Ottaway), Official Report, column 227W. In response to recent press speculation we have assured the Falkland Islands Government that there are no plans to withdraw the Falkland Islands Guardship or otherwise reduce naval patrols in the South Atlantic. The Governor of the Falkland Islands informed Legislative Councillors accordingly. They thanked the Governor for this assurance and expressed the view that it would not be appropriate to reduce such patrols.

  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with the Ministry of Defence about the diplomatic and security consequences of withdrawing the South Atlantic guard ship. [110333]

  Mr. Battle
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and I have had no such discussions with the Ministry of Defence. There are no plans to withdraw the Falkland Islands Guardship or otherwise reduce naval patrols in the South Atlantic.

  Chechnya
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on representations to which he has been a party concerning the prosecution of the war in Chechnya. [108539]

  Mr. Vaz
  We have made frequent representations to the Russian government since the outbreak of hostilities in Chechnya, as has the EU. Most recently I raised the matter with Russian Foreign Minister Ivanov by telephone on 31 December 1999 and 11 January 2000.

  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has received from human rights organisations about the scale of civilian suffering in Chechnya; and if he will make a statement. [110331]

  Mr. Vaz
  We have received representations about the scale of civilian suffering in Chechnya from a wide number of sources, including Amnesty International, Medecins sans Frontieres and other NGOs. We have repeatedly made representations to the Russian government about the indiscriminate use of force in Chechnya and its impact on the civilian population, urging them to seek a political solution. The UK has given £1.4 million to UNHCR/ICRC appeals for humanitarian relief in Chechnya.
  494W
  Other international organisations are also active. The Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly (PACE) debated Russia's human rights performance on 27 January. It passed a recommendation calling on Russia to halt disproportionate military action, including attacks on the civilian population; for a dialogue leading to a ceasefire and a political solution; unhindered delivery of international assistance and access by Russian and international media; and a role for international organisations, including the CoE, in the search for a long-term solution. The relevant documents are available on the CoE website www.coe.fr/index/asp.

  Kosovo and Chechnya (Civilian Casualties)
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about the level of civilian casualties in(a) Kosovo and (b) Chechnya. [110332]

  Mr. Vaz
  We estimate that around 10,000 Kosovo Albanians, many of them civilians, were killed by Yugoslav and Serb forces, between June 1998 and June 1999. This estimate is based on a variety of sources, including debriefing of refugees, eyewitness accounts, reports from NGOs, as well as information derived from more sensitive sources.

  We are concerned over the civilian casualties in Chechnya. We have repeatedly made representations to the Russian government about the disproportionate use of force, most recently on 11 January. We have stressed to the Russians that the human cost of their military offensive in Chechnya is unacceptable and that they must pursue a political settlement. We are working with both the OSCE and Council of Europe to urge Russia to begin such a process at the earliest opportunity.

  Iran
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent representations he has received about the UK's relations with Iran. [108565]

  Mr. Hain
  We regularly receive representations about UK/Iran relations. Recently we have received representations from a number of sources including the Bahai community of the UK, the Jewish community of the UK, the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Iran, a number of British companies and a number of NGO' s with an interest in Iran.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Disqualifications Bill
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will place in the Library copies of the written representations he has received on the Disqualifications Bill; [109061]

  (2) if he will list the persons and organisations he consulted before the Disqualifications Bill was published, giving the dates and times of oral consultations. [109060]

  Mr. Straw
  [holding answer 8 February 20001: I refer the hon. Member to the reply given on 10 February 2000 by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to a question from the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), Official Report, column 240W.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the(a) number and (b) country of origin of asylum seekers who arrived in the United Kingdom in (i) 1998 and (ii) 1999. [109761]

  Mrs. Roche
  The requested information is given in the table.

  Applications 1 for asylum, received in the UK, excluding dependants, by nationality

  1998

  1999

  Europe:

  Bulgaria

  165

  80

  Cyprus

  90

  20

  Poland

  1,585

  1,860

  Romania

  1,015

  1,985

  Former USSR

  2,820

  4,105

  Turkey

  2,015

  2,850

  Former Yugoslavia

  7,980

  14,180

  Others

  2,075

  3,200

  Total

  17,745

  28,280

  Americas:

  Colombia

  425

  1,000

  Others

  550

  1,025

  Total

  975

  2,025

  Middle East:

  Iran

  745

  1,320

  Iraq

  1,295

  1,800

  Lebanon

  155

  240

  Others

  595

  805

  Total

  2,785

  4,165

  Africa:

  Algeria

  1,260

  1,385

  Angola

  150

  545

  Cameroon

  95

  245

  Democratic Republic of Congo

  660

  1,240

  Ethiopia

  345

  455

  Gambia

  45

  30

  Ghana

  225

  195

  Ivory Coast

  95

  190

  Kenya

  885

  485

  Liberia

  70

  65

  496W

  Applications 1 for asylum received in the UK excluding dependants, by nationality

  1998

  1999

  Nigeria

  1,380

  945

  Rwanda

  280

  820

  Sierra Leone

  565

  1,125

  Somalia

  4,685

  7,495

  South Africa

  65

  90

  Sudan

  250

  280

  Tanzania

  80

  80

  Togo

  60

  60

  Uganda

  210

  420

  Zimbabwe

  80

  230

  Others

  895

  2,045

  Total

  12,380

  18,435

  Asia:

  Afghanistan

  2,395

  3,975

  Bangladesh

  460

  530

  China

  1,925

  2,625

  India

  1,030

  1,365

  Pakistan

  1,975

  2,615

  Sri Lanka

  3,505

  5,130

  Others

  650

  1,225

  Total

  11,940

  17,465

  Other and unknown nationalities

  190

  785

  Grand Total

  l46,015

  71,160

  1 Figures rounded to nearest 5

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will ensure that asylum seekers are not kept on a voucher system beyond the six-month target for processing claims. [109569]

  Mrs. Roche
  No. In the White Paper, "Fairer, Faster and Firmer", the Government set a target of delivering, by April 2001, most initial asylum decisions within two months and most appeals in a further four months. In respect of families with children, this target was brought forward to April 2000. For those people who remain on the support arrangements for more than six months through no fault of their own, additional payments of £50 per person will be made every six months to assist with the cost of any replacement items they may need.

  Police Expenditure
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proportion of police expenditure was represented by(a) pay, (b) pensions and (c) staff personnel costs in the last year for which figures are available. [109833]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  According to information on police expenditure published by the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy's Police Statistics for 1998–99, police officer pay and allowances represented 54.5 per cent. of gross expenditure; support services' and other staff salaries 14.9 per cent.; pensions represented 12.1 per cent., and other staff related costs 1.0 per cent.

  Police National Radio System
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what arrangements he has put in place to fund the planned police national radio system. [109830]
  497W
  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Over the next three years the police service will receive an additional £1.24 billion in central Government funding, which is a significant increase for the police at a time when the Government need to maintain firm control over public expenditure. It is a matter for each Police Authority to set its budget and for the Chief Constable to determine how to use the resources that are available. The Government have also relaxed the rules on the use of capital receipts from the sales of assets. Police Authorities now have the freedom to use all proceeds from the sales for capital investment.

  Approximately 80 per cent. of the service charges for the Public Safety Radio Communications Project (PSRCP) is attributable to the cost of the core service which, in England and Wales, is to be funded centrally by means of deduction from the total police grant provision. These charges will be reduced by the £50 million subsidy
  I have obtained from the Capital Modernisation Fund.

  The cost of services additional to the core, the so-called `menu services', which all forces may purchase according to their own requirements accounts for the remaining 20 per cent. Separately from the PSRCP Service charge, forces will need to purchase radio terminals, control room equipment and integration service.

  Police expenditure in the period 2001–02 to 2003–04 will be subject to the outcome of the 2000 Spending Review.

  Speed Limits (Prosecutions)
  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent discussions he has had with the Association of Chief Police Officers on its advice to police forces not to prosecute motorists exceeding the 30 mph speed limit until their speed reaches 35 mph; and if he will make a statement. [109548]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The enforcement of speed limits is an operational matter for chief officers of police. The Association of Chief Police Officers informed the Home Office of the guidelines on its speed enforcement policy before they were published but there were no detailed discussions about the appropriate thresholds for enforcement action. The thresholds provide guidance to police forces. The decision in any particular case will be taken by the police in the light of the individual circumstances of the offence.

  Transsexuals
  Jackie Ballard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what further representations he has received regarding the working group on the status of transsexual people since 19 July 1999; what further meetings he and his officials have had with groups representing transsexual people; and what plans he has made for such meetings in the future. [109393]

  Mr. Straw
  [holding answer 14 February 2000]: Since 19 July 1999, the Interdepartmental Working Group on Transsexual People has received representations from nine organisations and 83 members of the public. A number of hon. Members have also written to me about the work of the Group. In addition, the Working Group had a useful meeting last month with representatives of five organisations representing the transsexual community (the Gender and Sexuality Alliance, the Gender Trust,
  498W
  Gender Identity Research and Education Society, Liberty and Press for Change). Consideration will be given to further meetings as appropriate.

  Criminal Convictions
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proportion of the(a) male and (b) female adult population has a criminal conviction; and if he will make a statement. [109921]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The exact information requested is not held centrally.

  However, from studies of the criminal histories of persons born since 1953 it is estimated that 30 per cent. of males and 7 per cent. of females aged between 18 and 39 have at least one conviction for a standard list offence.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many young people were convicted(a) in each category of recorded crime and (b) in total in each of the last five years; and if he will make a statement; [109915]

  (2) what proportion of crime was committed by young offenders in each of the last five years for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement; [109916]

  (3) what was the average age of offenders in each category of crime and in total for the last year for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement; [109917]

  (4) what is the peak age of offending for (a) males and (b) females; and if he will make a statement. [109920]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The available information on offenders by age comes from the Home Office Cautions and Court Proceedings databases and is given in the tables.

  Table B: Number and proportion of young people aged 10 to under 18 cautioned or convicted at all courts for indictable offences, England and Wales, 1994–98

  Thousand

  Offenders aged 10–17

  Year

  All offenders [=100%]

  Number

  Percentage

  1994

  523.9

  135.9

  25.9

  1995

  504.8

  132.9

  26.3

  1996

  491.4

  124.2

  25.3

  1997

  509.4

  120.1

  23.6

  1998

  533.5

  126.8

  23.8

  Table C: Average age of offenders cautioned or convicted at all courts for indictable offences by offence group, England and Wales, 1998

  Type of offence

  Average age

  Violence against the person

  26

  Sexual offences

  35

  Burglary

  21

  Robbery

  20

  Theft and handling stolen goods

  25

  Fraud and forgery

  29

  Criminal damage

  24

  Drue offences

  25

  499W

  Table C: Average age of offenders cautioned or convicted at all courts for indictable offences by offence group, England and Wales, 1998

  Type of offence

  Average age

  Other (excluding motoring)

  27

  Motoring offences

  29

  Total

  25

  Note:

  The average age cannot be calculated exactly from data in the Home Office Cautions and Court Proceedings databases.

  Table D: Peak age of offending for indictable offences by sex, England and Wales, 1998

  Sex

  Peak age

  Males

  18

  Females

  15

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what percentage of convicted adult offenders were first convicted under the age of 21; and if he will make a statement. [109918]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  From a representative sample of adult offenders convicted during 1997, 54 per cent. had previously been convicted when they were under the age of 21.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the average age of first time offending for(a) males and (b) females; and if he will make a statement. [109919]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  An estimate of the average age for first time offending is not available.

  However, results from the youth lifestyles survey, a self report study of persons aged 14 to 25 undertaken between November 1992 and January 1993, indicated that 55 per cent. of the males and 31 per cent. of the females questioned admitted committing at least one of 23 criminal offences at some time in their life. The same study indicated that the average age at which they started to offend was around 13.5 for both males and females.

  Data on known offending in 1998—that is those who are cautioned by the police or found guilty by the court for indictable offences—show that the peak age for known offending was 18 for males and 15 for females.

  Misuse of Drugs Act 1971
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to amend section 8 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971; and if he will make a statement. [109889]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell) on 1 February 2000,Official Report, column 512W.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) when he will reply to the letters 500W
  dated 25 October, 25 November and 6 January from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton with regard to Mrs. T. Gulzar; [110337]

  (2) when he will reply to the letters dated 29 October, 2 December and 6 January from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton with regard to Bafaiz Shapari. [110338]

  Mrs. Roche
  I wrote to my right hon. Friend on 15 February.

  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will reply to the letters dated 18 October, 19 November and 22 December from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton with regard to Mr. R. Taylor and Jacqueline Taylor. [110339]

  Mr. Straw
  I wrote to my right hon. Friend on 15 February in response to his letters on behalf of Mr. Taylor and Jacqueline Taylor. I am sorry that I was unable to do so sooner.

  Sexual Offences
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the progress and future timetable of his review of the law on sexual offences. [110344]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Sex Offences Review, which started in January 1999, is considering the law on sexual offences. It has held eight consultation conferences and seminars on a number of subjects, and is now drawing together its recommendations. It will be reporting to Ministers this spring, and we hope that the recommendations of the review will be published for public consultation in the early summer.

  Electric Shock Dog Collars
  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the police forces in possession of an electric shock dog collar for use in training, indicating those forces that have used the device since July 1998. [110246]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The following 20 forces in England and Wales possess electric shock dog collars:

  Avon and Somerset

  Cambridgeshire

  Cheshire

  Cleveland

  Derbyshire

  Gloucestershire

  Greater Manchester

  Gwent

  Hampshire

  Humberside

  Kent

  Leicestershire

  Lincolnshire

  Metropolitan Police

  South Wales

  Staffordshire

  Sussex

  501W

  Warwickshire

  West Midlands

  West Yorkshire.

  The following eight forces had used electric shock dog collars in the period July 1998 to November 1999:

  Cambridgeshire

  Gwent

  Humberside

  Leicestershire

  Lincolnshire

  South Wales

  Warwickshire

  West Midlands.

  I understand that the Association of Chief Police Officers is considering whether these devices should be used in future.

  Firearms
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many firearms have been misappropriated over the last five years from(a) the police, (b) the Ministry of Defence police, (c) the Atomic Energy Authority police and (d) the armed forces. [108825]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  [pursuant to the reply, 10 February 2000, c. 249–50W]: Information on the misappropriation of firearms from the police service is not collected centrally, but inquiries of 41 police forces in England, Wales and Scotland indicate that firearms have been misappropriated from the police in only one incident over the past five years.

  On 24 January 1997, an MP5 carbine was misappropriated when the police vehicle in which it was carried was hijacked by armed criminals. The vehicle and the weapon were recovered two days later.

  No firearms are recorded as having been misappropriated from the Ministry of Defence Police or the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority Constabulary during the period concerned.

  The Ministry of Defence have confirmed that the firearms in the following table have been misappropriated from the armed services in mainland Great Britain over the past five years. Their figures run from 1 April to 31 March. Figures in parenthesis are those weapons subsequently recovered by the authorities.

  Firearm

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  5.56mm rifle

  0

  9(8)

  11(1)

  1(1)

  3(1)

  9mm pistol

  2

  7(3)

  1

  1

  1

  .22in rifle

  0

  7(3)

  1

  0

  0

  .77in Air Rifle

  0

  6

  11

  0

  0

  1 This weapon was misappropriated by a soldier and used in a murder. Recovered immediately afterwards when soldier was arrested.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Departmental Consultation
  Dr. Tony Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security 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 502W
  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. [106296]

  Mr. Rooker
  The Department and its agencies are continually and routinely engaged in consulting the public and external stakeholders on a wide range of policy and other matters, both nationally and locally, and through formal written exercises, as well as more informally.

  A list of the main national public consultation exercises on policy matters carried out by the DSS since May 1997 has been placed in the Library. Details of consultation exercises prior to May 1997 could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  We are very grateful to the many individuals and organisations which have taken the time to let us have their views during public consultation exercises.

  All responses to public consultation exercises are categorised and carefully examined by the relevant policy areas.

  The consultation exercises listed cover specific, detailed policy proposals as well as broader aspects of social security policy and the responses served to inform the development of detailed policy.

  Winter Fuel Payments
  Mr. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he will make winter fuel payments to men over the age of 60; if men have to claim these payments; and if he will make a statement. [110033]

  Angela Eagle
  An announcement on the arrangements will be made soon. We will be able to identify some of those newly eligible for a payment through the benefits systems; however the majority will have to make a claim.

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what resources he has made available to the Benefits Agency to expedite the processing of applications by men aged 60 and over for winter fuel allowance; and when application forms will be available to enable claims to be paid in Stoke-on-Trent. [109986]

  Angela Eagle
  An announcement on the arrangements will be made soon. To ensure that payments are made accurately and securely to those who are newly eligible, a project team has been set up to deal specifically with winter fuel payments.

  Pensions
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will obtain a copy of the report on the research undertaken by the Financial Services Authority into the effect of decision-tree approaches to pension choices; and if he will place it in the Library. [109842]

  Mr. Rooker
  We see a key role for decision trees, as part of a package of information, in enabling many of those considering a stakeholder pension scheme to make an informed choice about whether it will be a suitable option for them. We have been working closely with the Financial Services Authority (FSA), which is carrying out
  503W
  a three-stage programme of consumer research aimed at developing an effective decision tree. The final stage is currently under way and is due for completion in April. The FSA will be publishing a report of its completed research in due course.

  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate the number of employees who fall within the target group for stakeholder pensions and who will not be entitled to workplace access to a stakeholder pension because they currently work for a firm with fewer than five employees. [109838]

  Mr. Rooker
  We estimate that the exemption for employers with fewer than five employees will mean that around 750,000 employees, from a target group of over five million, will not have an automatic right of access through the workplace. We expect, however, that some employers will voluntarily offer access. Furthermore, those who cannot join a stakeholder pension scheme through the workplace will be able to join a scheme on an individual basis.

  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what restrictions he proposes on the investment strategies which may be adopted by the managers of stakeholder pension funds. [109840]

  Mr. Rooker
  The position for trustees of stakeholder pension schemes is set out in legislation and mirrors the current requirements on trustees of occupational pension schemes. For example, the trustees will have a duty to consider the need for diversification and the suitability of proposed investments, and to take appropriate advice when making investments. They will also have to prepare a statement of investment principles.

  Details of the rules applying to schemes run by an authorised scheme manager, as an alternative to a trustee board, including any rules relating to investments, will be announced shortly.

  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate for each of the 10 financial years after the introduction of the State Second Pension the number of people receiving the State Second Pension; and of these, how many will also be receiving Income Support. [109839]

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

  It is not possible to provide precise estimates of the numbers of individuals who will receive the State Second Pension for specific years following its introduction. The table shows very broad brush estimates of the numbers who will benefit from the State Second Pension. These are subject to uncertainty and possible subsequent revision. Income Support is means-tested and is paid on a benefit unit basis. Therefore, in order to estimate the overlap between those receiving the State Second Pension and Income Support we would need information on the incomes, assets and family circumstances of the State Second Pension recipients for up to 12 years in the future. No sufficiently reliable estimates of all these factors are available to answer this question.
  504W

  Numbers benefiting from State Second Pension at the end of the financial year

  Year

  Millions

  2003–04

  0.3

  2004–05

  0.5

  2005–06

  0.8

  2006–07

  1.2

  2007–08

  1.7

  2008–09

  2.1

  2009–10

  2.6

  2010–11

  3.0

  2011–12

  3.5

  2012–13

  3.7

  Notes:

  1. The numbers given are the estimated numbers of individuals who will benefit from the State Second Pension at the end of each financial year. For example, with the first year of awards being 2003–04, the entry in the table headed 2003–04 shows the number of beneficiaries after the first full year of awards.

  2. Numbers have been rounded to the nearest 0.1 million.

  3. Figures include people who would receive the State Second Pension payments as well as those receiving contracted—out pensions where they have benefited from higher contracted—out rebates than would have applied under SERPS.

  4. The figures exclude those higher earning individuals who are contracted-out and whose rebates would be the same under the State Second Pension as under SERPS, since such individuals would not benefit from awards of the State Second Pension, nor would they gain from any increase in contracted-out rebates.

  Departmental Initiatives (Grants)
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the initiatives launched by his Department since May 1997 under which specific grants are allocated, indicating in each case and for each financial year the funding provided by central Government. [109315]

  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer 10 February 2000]: No formal grants have been awarded by the Department in respect of new initiatives since May 1997 although the Department does make a small number of grants and grants in aid to voluntary organisations and other outside bodies based on specific legislation established before that date.

  We are reforming the welfare system to encourage work for those who can and to improve security for those who cannot. In delivering this, the Department is already working locally with a number of outside bodies and is looking to extend the involvement of the voluntary sector as its resources and statutory powers permit, including the establishment of a Children's Fund to help voluntary organisations to do more to eliminate child poverty. For existing local schemes, payment is generally on the basis of remuneration for services provided rather than by direct grant, and information on these arrangements is not available centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Austria (Bilateral Meetings)
  Mr. Jim Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) how many bilateral meetings were held between his Department and its Austrian counterpart in each of the last five years; and what was discussed at each meeting since May 1997; [109904]
  505W
  (2) if he will list those previously planned meetings, and their subject, between his Department and its Austrian counterpart which have been cancelled since the formation of the new Austrian Government. [109892]

  Angela Eagle
  Routine bilateral contacts at official level between the UK and Austrian Governments regularly take place in the margins of meetings of Council and Commission working groups. No bilateral meetings between my Department and the Austrian Government were specifically arranged during 1995 and 1996. The information for subsequent years is as shown.

  September 1997:
  DSS officials met their Austrian counterparts as part of a tour of member states in preparation for the UK's forthcoming Presidency on the EU.

  February 1998:
  My hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Bradley), then Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security, met Frau Eleonara Hostach, the then Austrian Minister for Labour Health and Social Affairs. They discussed issues of mutual interest, including the social security agenda of the UK Presidency of the EU and prospects for the forthcoming Austrian Presidency.

  June 1998:
  Austrian officials met DSS officials to review the EU social security agenda to be handed on from the UK Presidency to the Austrian Presidency.

  July 1999:
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State had a discussion on issues of mutual interest with Frau Hostach in the margins of an informal meeting of EU social affairs ministers convened by the Finnish Presidency.

  October 1999:
  The Department's Head of International and EU Relations met his Austrian counterpart to review the two Governments' respective positions on current EU social security business.

  No meetings previously arranged by the Department have been cancelled since the formulation of the new Austrian Government.

  Jobseekers
  Mr. Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what benefits are available to men aged between 60 and 65 years who are out of work and seeking employment. [109679]

  Angela Eagle
  There is a range of Social Security benefits available to help meet a variety of needs. Entitlement to these benefits depends upon the individual circumstances of each case.

  Men in this age group may claim either Jobseeker's Allowance or Income Support, subject to the normal conditions of entitlement, to help meet day-to-day living costs. National Insurance credits may also be awarded to men aged 60–64 if they are not liable to pay contributions or do not receive credits by another route. The credits awarded will count towards Retirement Pension.

  Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit, which are intended to help meet eligible rent or council tax liability, and payments from the Social Fund may also be available. Again, this would be subject to the normal conditions of entitlement. Other help may be available through the benefit system, but this would very much depend upon
  506W
  the circumstances of the individual and whether the basic conditions of entitlement to the particular benefit had been met.

  People in this age group who are unemployed or economically inactive and who have been receiving certain benefits (including Income Support or Jobseeker's Allowance) for six months or more may also have access to a package of back-to-work help through the New Deal 50 plus, which was launched in nine pathfinder areas in October last year and will be available nationally from April 2000.

  Severely Disabled People
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what assessment he has made of the impact of the benefits available to severely disabled people through the provisions of the Welfare Reform and Pensions Act 1999. [109568]

  Mr. Bayley
  Our package of reforms to provision for sick and disabled people is intended to modernise the welfare system and to encourage those who are able to work to do so. Severely disabled people will benefit in particular from the provisions in the Welfare Reform and Pensions Act 1999, which will allow those incapacitated under the age of 20, or 25 in certain circumstances, to qualify for Incapacity Benefit without having to meet the normal National Insurance contribution conditions.

  In addition, the introduction of the new Disability Income Guarantee and the extension of the higher rate mobility component of Disability Living Allowance to three and four year old children will provide additional help for many severely disabled people who have the greatest needs.

  Departmental Expenditure Limit
  Mr. Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what proposals he has to amend his Department's expenditure limit and running costs limit for 1999–2000. [110525]

  Mr. Rooker
  Subject to Parliamentary approval of the necessary Supplementary Estimate for Class XII Vote 3 (Department of Social Security: administration) the Department of Social Security's Departmental Expenditure Limit will be increased by £27,811,000 from £3,265,802,000 to £3,293,613,000. The Supplementary Estimate is the net effect of £20,000,000 (running costs) for expenditure associated with Welfare Modernisation activities, £526,000 (running costs) for additional pensions work, £525,000 (running costs) to meet additional costs of providing a letter forwarding service and £203,000 (running costs) to meet the costs of collecting expenses associated with road traffic accidents in Scotland and Wales.

  Other changes result from an increase of £11,062,000 (running costs) arising from a number of small transfers offset by a corresponding reduction on Class I, Vote 3 (Employment Services), a reduction of £619,000 (Capital) offset by a corresponding increase on Class I, Vote 3 (Employment Services), a reduction of £53,000 (running costs) arising from the continuing effects of the transfer of responsibility for Contributions Agency and Working Families Tax Credit to Inland Revenue offset by a corresponding increase on Class XVI, Vote 4 (Inland

  507W
  Revenue: administration), an increase of £1,250,000 (running costs) for the cost of collecting expenses associated with road traffic accidents offset by a corresponding reduction on Class II, Vote 1 (Hospital, community health, family health and related services, England), a reduction of £60,000 (running costs) towards the administrative costs of the Teenage Pregnancy Unit offset by a corresponding increase on Class II, Vote 2 (Department of Health administration, miscellaneous health and personal social services, England), a reduction of £505,000 (running costs) for costs associated with the recruitment of panel members offset by a corresponding increase on Class V, Vote 1 (Lord Chancellor's Department), a reduction of £304,000 (running costs) for the London Rough Sleepers Unit offset by a corresponding increase on Class III, Vote 1 (Housing, construction, regeneration, countryside and wildlife, England), an increase of £34,000 (running costs) for access to miner's medical records offset by a reduction on Class XI, Vote 1 (Department of Trade and Industry, programmes and administration), a reduction of £20,000 (running costs) for costs associated with Better Government for Older People offset by an increase on Class XVII, Vote 1 (Cabinet Office). There is also an increase of £7,972,000 (running costs) associated with services provided to other government departments on a repayment basis, an increase of (£13,696,000) running costs arising from increased payments of Value Added Tax on contracted out services and a reduction of £10,000 (running costs) as a result of virement to capital expenditure. Appropriations in aid increase by £22,896,000.

  Changes in the Welfare-to-Work provision arise from an increase of £1,204,000 in the administrative costs of measures to help people with a disability or long-term illness move into or remain in work and a net reduction of £213,000 as a result of a number of minor transfers to Class I, Vote 3 (Employment Services).

  As a result of these changes the running cost limit of this Department will be increased by £32,648,000 from £3,009,854,000 to £3,042,502,000 and the running cost limit of the Welfare-to-Work programme will be increased by £991,000 from £10,968,000 to £11,959,000.

  The increase will be offset by transfers from other Departmental Expenditure Limits and also a charge on the DEL Reserve and will not therefore add to the planned total of public expenditure.

  Distributing body

  Number of applications

  Number of awards

  Amount awarded (£)

  Arts Council of England

  1Not known

  3

  22,667

  Film Council

  0

  0

  0

  Heritage Lottery Fund

  8

  3

  551,200

  Millennium Commission

  Not known

  0

  0

  National Lottery Charities Board

  161

  49

  490,318

  New Opportunities Fund

  2Not known

  2Not known

  2Not known

  Sport England

  20

  9

  122,922

  UK Sport

  0

  0

  0

  1 The Arts Council of England has received 15 applications from within the area covered by Torbay Borough Council.

  2 The New Opportunities Fund (NOF) has not received any applications from the Torbay constituency for its Health Living Centre, Out of School Hours Activities, or Digitisation programmes. Funding for the ICT (information and computer technology) programme is allocated by local education authority or library authority, and NOF is unable to provide a breakdown by constituency at present. NOF has allocated £409,044 to schools in Torbay LEA.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he will reply to the letters to him dated 25 October, 2 December and 6 January from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton with regard to Mrs. L. Goode. [110340]

  Mr. Darling
  A reply was issued to the right hon. Member on Friday 11 February 2000.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Clerks
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire, representing the House of Commons Commission, pursuant to his answer of 7 February 2000,Official Report, column 25W, on staff, how many House of Commons Clerks are female. [109603]

  Mr. Kirkwood
  There are presently 18 female Clerks employed in the Department of the Clerk of the House out of a total of 73. Of these, one is currently on secondment to the Cabinet Office.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Millennium Dome (Advertising)
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what representations he has made to the New Millennium Experience Company about the newspaper reviews used in the Dome advertising campaign. [107947]

  Janet Anderson
  The New Millennium Experience Company (NMEC) is responsible for all decisions connected with the marketing of the Dome. Lord Falconer of Thoroton, as NMEC's Shareholder, is kept informed by the Company of all aspects of the Dome's operations.

  Lottery Grants
  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many grant applications to the National Lottery have been received from organisations within the Torbay constituency; how many have been successful; and what was the total amount awarded(a) by each distributing body and (b) in total. [109512]

  Kate Hoey
  The following table shows applications for, and awards of, National Lottery funds in the Torbay constituency by distributing body. The total amount awarded (excluding awards by the New Opportunities Fund) is £1,187,107.
  509W
  Mr. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many applications for National Lottery grants have been received from organisations in(a) Gloucestershire and (b) Tewkesbury since its inception. [109554]

  Kate Hoey
  1,429 applications for National Lottery grants have been received from Gloucestershire since the inception of the Lottery; 212 have been received from Tewkesbury. Both figures exclude applications to the Millennium Commission, and the figure for Tewkesbury also excludes applications to the Arts Council of England, as these bodies do not hold information in the form requested.

  Henry Watson Music Library
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what representations his Department has made to Manchester City Council regarding the proposed closure of the Henry Watson Music Library. [109561]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  [holding answer 11 February 2000]: Officials in my Department at my request have been in contact with their opposite numbers at Manchester City Council to discuss their proposed reorganisation of the Central Library and its effect on the Henry Watson Music Library. No final decisions have been taken by the Council, but under the present proposals the Henry Watson collection would remain intact, and physical access to it would be improved.

  The Henry Watson Music Library of course provides a service which is used extensively in the North West and other local authorities may wish to consider whether it would be appropriate for them to contribute to the costs of maintaining it as allowed by Section 9(1) of the Public Libraries and Museums Act 1964.

  National Lottery
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will list, for each year from 1995 to date, the total amount received by National Lottery winners in Shrewsbury and Atcham; and if he will make a statement. [109924]

  Kate Hoey
  My Department does not hold information on National Lottery prize winners by constituency.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Regulations (Refrigerator Manufacturers)
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to his answer of 2 December 1999,Official Report, column 288W, on refrigerator manufacturers, if he will list the regulations referred to in respect of employment, health and safety and environmental legislation. [104884]

  Ms Hewitt
  A list of the main regulations in respect of employment, health and safety and environmental legislation is as shown. More generally, the overall number of regulations that impact on a business will depend to some extent on the size of that business and its particular sector of industry. The Small Business Service,510W
  which is to be formally launched in April this year, will consider the applicability and impact of regulations on businesses in different circumstances.

  List of main Employment, Health and Safety and Environment Regulations
  Employment Legislation

  The main duties on employers are set out in the:

  Employment Rights Act 1996,

  Employment Relations Act 1999,

  National Minimum Wage Act 1998,

  Working time Regulations 1998

  The Maternity and Parental Leave Regulations 1999

  Discrimination

  Race Relations Act 1976

  Sex Discrimination Act 1975

  Disability Discrimination Act 1995

  Equal Pay Act 1970

  Health and Safely
  The Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974.

  Other main pieces of generic health and safety legislation which may apply are:
  the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999;
  the Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992;
  the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998;
  the Personal Protective Equipment at Work Regulations 1992;
  and
  the Manual Handling Operations Regulations 1992
  the Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations 1995

  Environmental Regulation

  There are three sets of regulations that apply specifically to refrigeration:
  The Energy Information (Refrigerators and Freezers) Regulation (SI 3076–1994)
  The Energy Efficiency (Refrigerators and Freezers) Regulation (SI 1941–1997)
  The Environmental Protection (Control of Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer) Regulations 1996 (SI 506–1996) implementing Council Regulation (EC) 3093–94 on substances that deplete the ozone layer.

  In addition the refrigerator manufacturers also may need to comply with the Framework on Materials in Contact with Food (SI 2487–1990), and potentially with the following regulations on effluent discharge:
  The Water Industry Act 1991
  The Environment Act 1995
  The Environmental Protection Act 1990 (for Integrated Pollution Control); and
  The Pollution Prevention and Control Act 1999 (for Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control).

  Socialist Environment Resources Association
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he last met representatives of the Socialist Environment Resources Association; and what matters were discussed. [108684]

  Mr. Byers
  Socialist Environment Resources Association (SERA) have not requested such a meeting.

  Departmental Contracts
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list, for the financial year 1998–99, the number and total value of contracts let by
  511W
  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. [109062]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 8 February 1999]: In respect of the value of contracts in 1998–99, I refer to the answer given to the hon. Member for Bath on 10 November 1999, Official Report, columns 722–24W. The number of contracts let centrally to external consultants and advisers, as defined in the 1994 Efficiency Scrutiny into the Government's use of external consultants, was 19. Eighteen of these were let following competitive tendering exercises. One was let by single tender action. All 19 contracts were let on a commercial basis. The organisations concerned were:

  GHK Economics and Management Ltd;

  ECOTEC Research and Consulting;

  Risk and Policy Analysts Ltd;

  Public and Corporate Economic Consultants;

  Casson and Crispe Consultants;

  Meitra Martech Ltd;

  Paras Ltd;

  Segal Quince Wicksteed Ltd;

  Roto Conseil Ltd:

  Nottingham University;

  Roger Tym and Partners;

  KPMG Management Consultants;

  Strategem Ltd;

  David Rigby Associates;

  Ove Arup and Partners;

  University of Sussex;

  The Harris Research Centre.

  The above information does not include contracts let by the Department's Executive Agencies. I have asked the respective Chief Executives to reply separately to this question.

  Letter from David Hendon to Mr. Don Foster, dated 15 February 2000:
  The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has asked me to reply on behalf of the Radiocommunications Agency to your Parliamentary Question about contracts let to external consultants and advisors.
  2. The tender route followed for each of the four contracts let by the Agency in FY 98/99 is as follows:
  Competitive Tender
  Quotient Communications Ltd.
  Single Tender

  The Smith Group Ltd.

  Barclay Associates Ltd.

  Quotient Communications Ltd.

  3. The total value (ex-VAT) of the contracts was £330,800. No Agency contracts were let on a non-commercial basis.

  Letter from J. S. Holden to Mr. Don Foster, dated 15 February 2000:
  I have been asked to reply to your recently tabled Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry in respect of Companies House Executive Agency.
  Companies House expenditure on external consultants and advisors for 1998–99 was £2.6M. The major part of this atypically high outlay was for IT supplier companies, substantially to secure Millennium readiness for IT systems.
  512W
  Within the classes requested, expenditure was:

  (a) £1.8M

  (b) £0.8M

  (c) Zero

  Apart from the individual contractor company (IBM) mentioned in (b) there was a large number of contractors involved. The number and names have not been provided because of disproportionate cost.

  Letter from Desmond Flynn to Mr. Don Foster, dated 15 February 2000:
  In Peter Joyce's absence from the office the Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your question about competitive tendering for external consultancy contracts by the Insolvency Service.
  In 1998/99 the Insolvency Service, an Executive Agency of the Department of Trade and Industry, spent £5,000 on a single external consultancy contract, awarded after a competitive tendering exercise.

  Letter from Ian Jones to Mr. Don Foster, dated 15 February 2000:
  You tabled a Parliamentary Question on 4 February to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry about the number and total value of contracts let by his Department with external consultants and advisors, I have been asked to reply in respect of the Employment Tribunals Service (ETS) which is an executive agency of the DTI.
  ETS let the following contracts with consultants in 1998/9:
  Yale Consulting—to assist in the development of an IS/IT strategy for the ETS, a scoping study for a Web Site at the Employment Appeal Tribunal and work on the Service's IT security policy. Total value: £60,881
  Cap-Gemini Ltd—scoping and initial design of an e-mail migration project, and a Year 2000 audit of IT systems. Total value: £31,089
  Drivers Jonas Ltd—Year 2000 audit of ETS embedded systems. Total value: £1,175
  Central Computer Telecommunications Agency—to conduct an IS/IT scoping study. Total value: £15,792
  Mr D Bower—to advise ETS on the development of customer service arrangements with a view to an application for Chartermark. Total value: £3,924
  All contracts were either tendered or let under pre-tendered call-off arrangements.

  Letter from Seton Bennett to Mr. Don Foster, dated 15 February 2000:
  The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has asked me to reply on behalf of the National Weights and Measures Laboratory to your question about the amount spent on external consultants and advisors in 1998/99. In response to a similar question in November 1999 (98/3127), NWML reported that the spend on consultants and advisors in 1998/99 had been £3,800. This figure was wrong, it should have been £68,862.87. This revised figure was made up of three contracts one of which went to competitive tender and two others that were each below the threshold for competitive tender. The three organisations in question were:—
  National Engineering Laboratory

  Parity Resources

  ICL.

  Letter from Alison Brimelow to Mr. Don Foster, dated 15 February 2000:
  I am replying to your parliamentary question tabled 4 February 2000 regarding the number and total value of contracts let for the financial year 1998/99 with external consultants and advisors 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.
  The Patent Office has, under (b) above awarded one contract, to the value of £8k to Mtic Ltd.
  No contracts were let under categories (a) or (c).
  513W
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what is the(a) number and (b) value of contracts let by his Department since May 1997 to external consultants and advisers for the management of competitive tendering processes. [109301]

  Dr. Howells
  Information on this type of contract is not held centrally, and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Post Offices
  Mr. Ashdown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what estimate he has made of the effect on sub-post offices' assigned office payments of the Government's plans to pay benefits and pensions directly into bank accounts starting in 2003; if he will estimate the effect on assigned office payments for each of the years(a) 2002–03, (b) 2003–04, (c) 2004–05, (d) 2005–06 and (e) 2006–07; and if he will make a statement. [109468]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 10 February 2000]: The ability of the Post Office to continue making assigned office payments to subpostmasters is governed by the income levels it receives from its clients, such as the Benefits Agency, for undertaking work on their behalf.

  The effect on Post Office income of payment of benefits and pensions direct into bank accounts from 2003 depends on the detailed plans for the migration. The Post Office's ability to finance assigned payments will depend on its overall level of income from all sources, including new and additional business opportunities generated by the Horizon automated system.

  Newsprint Industry
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will calculate the annual growth of consumption of newsprint in each of the last 10 years; and what proportion of that increase was made up of recycled newsprint. [110106]

  Ms Hewitt
  The information for the yearly change of consumption of newsprint is in the table. The Pulp and Paper Information Centre estimate that the recycled content has increased from 27.3 per cent. in 1992 to 52.4 per cent. in 1998. Over this period, the tonnage of recycled newsprint increased by more than overall consumption.

  Newsprint Consumption

  Year

  Tonnage '000 consumption

  Change per cent.

  19891

  2,055

  7.1

  1990

  1,895

  -7.8

  1991

  1,851

  -2.3

  1992

  1,860

  0.5

  1993

  1,937

  2.0

  19941

  2,312

  19.4

  1995

  2,214

  -4.2

  1996

  2,221

  0.3

  1997

  2,350

  5.8

  1998

  2,497

  6.2

  19992

  2,507

  0.4

  1 53 week year

  2 Estimate

  Source:

  The Paper Federation of Great Britain
  514W
  Due to changes in import classifications figures may not be strictly compatible to those in preceding years.

  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment he has made of the future role of incineration in the United Kingdom newsprint industry. [110102]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Government believe that incineration with energy recovery has an important role to play as one of the options in an integrated waste strategy. It can be the best practicable environmental option where the opportunity for recycling newsprint does not exist. For example, at least one leading paper mill utilises energy from waste.

  The role of incineration was considered as one of the waste options when Regulatory Impact Assessments for the draft Waste Strategy and the Limiting Landfill consultation paper were drawn up.

  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment he has made of the employment implications of newspaper recycling. [110104]

  Ms Hewitt
  While environmental policies can have positive or negative effects on employment in individual sectors there is no presumption that they lead to net (overall) employment gains or losses. Generally, environmental policies are justified on the basis of environmental objectives, taking account of the costs and benefits of the policy.

  TransTec
  Mrs. Browning
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the reasons for his referral of matters relating to grants paid to subsidiaries of TransTec plc to the police. [110051]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 14 February 2000]: In reaching this decision I took account of the information received by the Department, the allegations being made and consultations with the police. I concluded that it was appropriate for the police to consider, independently, the allegations that fraud had been committed against the Department.

  National Minimum Wage
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he expects to publish the latest report of the Low Pay Commission with the Commission's recommendation on a minimum wage for 2000–01. [110208]

  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he received the latest report of the Low Pay Commission; and when he will respond to its recommendations. [110206]

  Mr. Byers
  The Government are grateful to the Low Pay Commission (LPC) for its report. Its findings confirm that the introduction of the national minimum wage (NMW) has been successful in helping take some 1.5 million people out of the trap of poverty wages, with no significant impact on jobs or the economy. The report presents evidence that the minimum wage has had a positive impact on business, in terms of improving performance and productivity, and helping to alleviate
  515W
  some of the worst aspects of low pay. The LPC report finds that the minimum wage has been introduced sensibly and smoothly.

  The report makes 16 important operational recommendations and suggestions, covering aspects of the technical application and enforcement of the national minimum wage, and one recommendation on the treatment of 21-year-olds. It also repeats its view, expressed in the first report, that the main rate should be increased to £3.70 this year.

  The Government have decided, in the light of the positive findings in the report and our own analysis, to accept this suggestion and increase the main rate from £3.60 to £3.70 an hour in October this year. By introducing it in October we will provide time for business to prepare for such an increase. The LPC stressed the importance of a reasonable time for implementation. The Government also accept all 16 of the LPC's operational recommendations and suggestions, subject to the usual detailed consideration of practicality and resources. In addition, the Government confirm that the development rate for young people will rise from its current level of £3.00 an hour to £3.20 an hour from June 2000.

  The LPC report comes just nine months after the introduction of the NMW. Assessing the full impact of the NMW will take a little longer. A more thorough analysis will be possible when more data become available on earnings, compliance and the interaction of the NMW with the Working Families Tax Credit. The Government will therefore ask the LPC to monitor the NMW and produce a further report, including on whether there is a case for an increase and if so to what level, by July next year.

  In its next report the LPC will be asked to take into account movements in earnings and other factors, as well as impacts on the economy, including competitiveness, jobs and on training with particular attention to the youth labour market and the impact on low paying sectors and small firms, as well as the effect of the minimum wage on particular groups of workers. The Government will take decisions on the basis of this report so that any further increase can take place by October 2001.

  The Government have decided not to implement the LPC recommendations that 21-year-old workers should be treated as adults rather than young workers for the purposes of national minimum wage. The Government are not shelving this matter—they will consider in detail the LPC's case for changing the treatment of 21-year-olds when they report on the general case for an increase next year. Copies of the LPC's second report will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Post Offices (Ceredigion)
  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many post offices there are in the county of Ceredigion; and how many of them derive 40 per cent. or more of their workload from Benefits Agency-related work. [110119]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  I understand from the Post Office that there are 73 post offices in the Parliamentary 516W
  constituency of Ceredigion of which 44 derive 40 per cent. or more of their workload from Benefits Agency-related work.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Legal Aid
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many legal aid franchises have been issued in the last five years; how many legal aid franchises there are in each parliamentary constituency; and how lists of these franchise holders will be made available to the public. [109518]

  Mr. Lock
  The first Legal Aid Board Franchises were awarded in August 1994–95 and by the end of that financial year a total of 1,050 solicitors' offices and other organisations had been franchised. This total rose to 1,295 by the end of 1995–96, to 1,820 by the end of 1996–97, to 2,382 by the end of 1997–98 and to 2,780 by the end of 1998–99. In the lead-up to the introduction of civil contracting in January 2000, the numbers continued to rise and on 10 February 2000 stood at 3,697. 2,000 further offices and organisations have applied for a franchise and passed a preliminary audit.

  The Legal Aid Board does not keep information on the numbers of legal aid franchises in each parliamentary constituency. Their franchising and contracting data are structured in line with Local Authority boundaries and Regional Legal Service Committees bid zones.

  Information on franchised solicitors is currently available from the Legal Aid Board's Freephone helpline or on request from any of the Board's offices. On 3 April 2000 the Community Legal Service Directory will be published. All franchised holders will be listed in the Directory and will be marked with a Community Legal Service Quality Mark. Copies of the Directory will be available at all Community Legal Service approved outlets and at other information providing outlets and at other information providing outlets such as main libraries. In addition an electronic version of the Directory will be available via the Internet.

  Family Law Act 1986
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what plans he has to implement Part II of the Family Law Act 1986. [109676]

  Jane Kennedy
  I refer the right hon. Member to the written Parliamentary Answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Dr. Stoate) on 17 June 1999,Official Report, column 213W. The position remains unchanged.

  Circuit Judges
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many circuit judges were appointed from the solicitors' profession in(a) 1992–93, (b) 1993–94, (c) 1994–95, (d) 1995–96, (e) 1996–97 and (f) 1997–98; and if he will make a statement. [109578]

  Mr. Lock
  The information requested is set out in the table.
  517W

  Number of circuit judges from the solicitors profession appointed in the financial year

  Total number of circuit judges appointed in the financial year

  1992–93

  10

  50

  1993–94

  5

  45

  1994–95

  6

  32

  1995–96

  16

  53

  1996–97

  4

  37

  1997–98

  3

  25

  The Lord Chancellor welcomes applications from both solicitors and barristers to be considered for appointment to the Circuit Bench. He considers that the skills and experience needed to be a Judge may as well be shown by a successful litigation solicitor as by an experienced barrister. The Lord Chancellor wants to appoint the Judges with the best potential—regardless of whether they come from the ranks of barristers or solicitors.

  Children and Family Court Service
  Mr. Coleman
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if the new training manual for the Children and Family Court Service is complete; and if he will make a statement. [109560]

  Jane Kennedy
  The Project Team charged with taking forward the development of the Children and Family Court Advisory Service is preparing a training strategy, along with unified National Standards and guidelines for the officers of the new service. In doing so the Project Team will consider the existing National Standards for those services being amalgamated, and take account of any guidelines in existence. It will also consider all submissions on the subject.

  Family Assistance Orders
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what steps he is taking to standardise the issuing of family assistance orders. [109571]

  Jane Kennedy
  Section 16 of the Children Act 1989 enables a court to issue a family assistance order requiring a probation officer or local authority officer to advise, assist and (where appropriate) befriend a child, any parent or guardian of a child, or any person with whom the child is living or who has an order for contact with the child. Family assistance orders last for a maximum of six months. They require the consent of any person named in the order other than the child himself or herself, and may not be made unless the circumstances of the case are exceptional. Consequently, the number of such orders made is small (in 1999 there were 43 in the High Court and 701 in county courts). The decision whether or not a case is exceptional, and whether a family assistance order

  £

  Type of childcare provision

  Number of parents using childcare

  Cost to parents

  Cabinet Office

  Holiday playscheme

  41

  1,951

  Civil Service College

  Nursery

  9

  34,476

  COI

  Holiday playscheme

  3

  112

  CCTA

  Holiday playscheme

  0

  0

  518W
  would be in the best interests of the child, if those concerned agree, is necessarily one for the courts to take in the light of the facts of each case. Standardization would therefore not be appropriate.

CABINET OFFICE

  Departmental Occupational Health Services
  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if Government Departments and agencies provide occupational health services specifically for drug and substance misuse. [109177]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  Responsibility for the provision of occupational health services rests with individual departments and agencies. Precise arrangements will therefore vary from department to department. Most main departments have issued policy statements on the help available to staff with problems of drug abuse.

  In the Cabinet Office, should a case occur, staff would receive counselling from the welfare officer who would be advised by the contracted occupational health services provider. Referral to an NHS programme or another provider would also be considered.

  Departmental Staff
  Caroline Flint
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what childcare provision was made available in the financial year 1998–99 for use by (i) her departmental staff and (ii) employees of executive agencies under the control of her Department; what was the cost to parents of this childcare; and how many parents used the facilities. [108838]

  Mr. Stringer
  The Civil Service as a whole is striving for an improved worklife balance. The report on Civil Service Reform by Sir Richard Wilson to the PM states that the Civil Service is strongly committed to a dramatic improvement in our record on diversity. It attaches a lot of importance to developing policies to enable staff to achieve a better balance between their work and private lives.

  The Cabinet Office is currently running pilot studies on five issues (working practices, working patterns, childcare, long hours culture and alternative working) from which lessons will be emerging early next year. It is essential that the Service responds, not only to bring on women, but also to become more competitive in the general recruitment market.

  As a department, the Cabinet Office places great importance on maintaining and developing a wide range of family friendly policies. Childcare is just one element of these policies.

  The following table shows the type of childcare provision in my Department and executive agencies; the number of parents who used it; and the cost to parents:

  519W

  £

  Type of childcare provision

  Number of parents using childcare

  Cost to parents

  Government Car and Dispatch Agency

  None

  Property Advisers to the Civil Estate

  Nursery

  2

  4,323.20

  Holiday playscheme

  2

  128.88

  Security Facilities Executive

  Holiday playscheme

  0

  0

  The Buying Agency

  Holiday playscheme

  2

  0

  Civil Service College

  Nursery

  9

  34

  Caroline Flint
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office in each of the last five years, what proportion of women employees in (i) her Department and (ii) executive agencies under the control of her Department (a) returned to work after childbirth, (b) returned to work after childbirth before the end of maternity leave, indicating the (1) time-range and (2) mean time, (c) returned to work after childbirth on reduced working hours, indicating the average hours worked and (d) returned to work after childbirth full-time and subsequently reduced their hours. [108968]

  Mr. Stringer
  There is no requirement to keep data on the patterns of women returners after maternity leave. As a result this information is not available for the Cabinet Office, the Civil Service College or the Central Office of Information. Information is available from the following Cabinet Office Agencies.

  CCTA
  1995 one maternity leave case: returned to full-time working
  1996 one maternity leave case: left three months later under VES Scheme before the end of her maternity leave
  1997 one maternity leave case: returned to full-time working, took career break three months later
  1998 one maternity leave case: returned to full-time working, resigned one month later
  1999 four maternity leave cases: three returned part-time (average 18 hrs); one returned full-time

  PACE (PACE records start from its creation on 1 April 1996)
  1996 two maternity leave cases: one returned part-time; one returned full-time
  1997 one maternity leave case: returned full-time
  1998 four maternity leave cases: one returned part-time; three returned full-time
  1999 three maternity leave cases: one returned part-time; two returned full-time

  Security Facilities Division
  two maternity leave cases: one took a 12 month career break immediately at the end of the leave period and returned to her previous part-time hours; one returned full-time
  1998 one maternity leave case: returned part-time two days, previously worked four days
  1999 one maternity leave case: resigned at end of leave period

  TBA
  1995 three maternity leave cases: one returned part-time (16 hrs); two returned full-time
  1996 two maternity leave cases: one returned part-time (16 hrs); one took career break immediately following maternity leave
  1997 one maternity case: returned full-time

  Government Car and Despatch Agency
  Since the Agency was formed there have been no women who have taken maternity leave.

  Caroline Flint
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what provisions are made available to (i) departmental staff and (ii) employees of executive agencies under the control of her Department, for 520W
  (a)maternity leave, (b) maternity pay, (c) paternity leave, (d) parental leave, (e) flexible working hours, (f) part-time work, (g) job sharing, (h) leave to care for sick children, (i) home-working, (j) term-time contracts, (k) annual hours contract, (l) child care allowances, (m) careers leave and (n) career break schemes; and what criteria are used to judge eligibility in each case. [108845]

  Mr. Stringer
  The Civil Service as a whole is striving for an improved work-life balance. The Cabinet Office recognises the importance of policies on work-life balance to the Civil Service Reform programme and is running pilot studies on five issues (working practices, working patterns, childcare, long hours culture, and alternative working). The lessons which emerge from the pilot studies will be communicated to departments and agencies when they are available early next year.

  Within the Cabinet Office and its Agencies the following provisions are currently available;

  (a) maternity leave

  The Cabinet Office and its Agencies give 18 weeks full paid leave to their women employees provided they; a. are in paid service at the time maternity leave begins; b. have completed at least one year's paid service; c. intend to return to work in the Civil Service after their confinement and leave, or after a combination of maternity leave and a career break; d. agree to repay any non-statutory payments made during the maternity leave if they do not return to work; and e. are not employed on a casual basis or on a fixed term appointment of less than two years. Maximum of 52 weeks paid and unpaid leave.

  (b) maternity pay

  The Cabinet Office and its Agencies pay Statutory Maternity Pay within full pay.

  (c) paternity leave

  The Cabinet Office, Government Car and Despatch Agency and PACE allow seven days; CCTA, Civil Service College, Security Facilities Division and TBA allow five days; COI allow two days.

  (d) parental leave

  The Cabinet Office allows all staff with parental responsibility who have one years' service 13 weeks parental leave. Applications for periods of unpaid parental leave above the statutory entitlement would be considered favourably. The Agencies have all implemented the Parental and Maternity Leave Regulations 1999. TBA allow up to five years' unpaid parental leave.

  (e) flexible working hours

  The Cabinet Office operates a formal flexible working hours scheme in some parts of the Department, elsewhere line managers are responsible for agreeing hours of attendance for staff, providing that a core time of 10.00–12.00 and 14.00–16.00 hours is observed and

  521W
  conditioned hours are worked. CCTA, PACE, Security Facilities Division and TBA all operate flexible working hours. Civil Service College operates flexible working hours which is available to the majority of staff below Grade 7, with the exception of some occupational groups eg drivers. COI operates flexible working hours except in areas where operational needs make this impossible. Government Car and Despatch Agency allows flexible working hours to all non-industrial staff.

  (f) part-time work

  (g) job sharing

  Cabinet Office considers all requests to work part-time or jobshare sympathetically and accommodates staff wishes where possible. Under the Departmental Job Advertising Scheme the presumption is that all posts advertised will be open to part-time or job share applicants unless there are specific reasons for restricting it to full time staff only. The Agencies consider requests to work part-time or jobshare on a case by case basis.

  (h) leave to care for sick children

  The Cabinet Office and its Agencies all allow special paid leave under their special leave arrangements for domestic situations.

  (i) home working

  Cabinet Office, CCTA, Government Car and Despatch Agency, PACE and Security Facilities Division members of staff are all eligible to apply for home working. All cases are considered on their merits. Civil Service College have no provisions. COI does not generally have provision for home working as it does not fit in with the work of the agency. TBA consider each case on merit and has a number of staff who are home based.

  (j) term time contracts

  (k) annual hours contracts

  The Cabinet Office, CCTA, PACE and Security Facilities Division will consider cases on merit. COI, Civil Service College, Government Car and Despatch Agency and TBA have no provision.

  (l) child care allowances

  Cabinet Office staff with under school age children who fulfil certain criteria will be eligible for childcare vouchers which were negotiated as part of the 1999 pay agreement. Criteria are still being negotiated with the Departmental Trade Union side. Staff are also able to claim for additional childcare costs associated, for instance, with attendance on a training course. The responsibility for decisions about whether extra costs can be claimed has been delegated to line managers. No provisions exit in CCTA, COI, Civil Service College, Government Car and Despatch Agency, PACE, Security Facilities Division and TBA.

  (m) careers leave

  (n) career break schemes

  The Cabinet Office, CCTA, PACE and Security Facilities Division allow up to five years' unpaid special provided that staff: a. are permanent members of the Cabinet Office with at least one year's service; b. have a satisfactory attendance record; and c. have a good record of performance. COI provides careers' leave on an unpaid basis but there is no provision for career breaks. Civil Service College provide special unpaid leave for careers' leave and career breaks. Government Car and Despatch
  522W
  Agency have no specific scheme in place but consider each case on merit. TBA provide special unpaid leave but consider each case on merit.

  Investors In People
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if she will list (a) those Government departments and agencies which have received certification in (i) ISO 9,000, (ii) ISO 14,000 and (iii) Investors In People; and (b) the status of the remaining departments and agencies; and if she will make a statement. [105527]

  Mr. Stringer
  (a) The following Government departments include agencies or units with:
  (i) ISO 9000 certification:

  Cabinet Office

  Central Office of Information

  HM Customs & Excise

  Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions

  Department for Education and Employment

  Foreign and Commonwealth Office

  Inland Revenue

  Department for International Development

  Home Office

  Lord Chancellor's Department

  Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food

  Ministry of Defence

  Office for National Statistics

  Department of Social Security

  Department of Trade & Industry

  HM Treasury

  Welsh Office/National Assembly for Wales

  (ii) ISO 14000 certification:

  Cabinet Office

  HM Customs & Excise

  Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions

  Ministry of Defence

  Department of Trade & Industry

  (iii) Investors In People:

  Cabinet Office

  Department for Culture, Media and Sport

  HM Customs & Excise

  Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions

  Department for Education and Employment

  Foreign and Commonwealth Office

  Department of Health

  Inland Revenue

  Home Office

  Lord Chancellor's Department

  Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food

  Ministry of Defence

  Northern Ireland Office

  Office for National Statistics

  Scottish Office

  Department of Social Security

  Department of Trade & Industry

  HM Treasury

  Welsh Office.

  523W
  (b) The following Government departments include agencies or units that are working towards:

  (i) ISO 9000 certification:

  Cabinet Office

  HM Customs & Excise

  Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions

  Department for Education and Employment

  Foreign and Commonwealth Office

  Home Office

  Office for National Statistics

  Department of Social Security

  (ii) ISO 14000 certification:

  Cabinet Office

  Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions

  Department of Health

  Home Office

  Inland Revenue

  Lord Chancellor's Department

  Office for National Statistics

  Department of Social Security

  £

  Description

  Actual 1997–98

  Actual 1998–99

  Budgeted 1999–2000

  National Infrastructure Programme (Y2K project)

  —

  3,698,200

  18,671,000

  Local Government Pilot Scheme

  —

  5,000

  10,000

  Better Government for Older People

  —

  51,000

  50,000

  Passport 50 plus

  16,250

  —

  —

  Youth Net—project work with girls

  —

  —

  12,000

  Payment to Disability Partnership for bursary awards

  11,600

  21,000

  28,000

  Total

  27,850

  3,775,200

  18,771,000

  Notes:

  1. National Infrastructure Programme expenditure in 1998–99 was paid to Action 2000 via DTI.

  2. Better Government for Older People exclude amounts in 1999–2000 specifically aimed at reviewing the project.

  3. Youth Net grant is managed by the Home Office, Family Policy Unit.

TREASURY

  Departmental Contracts
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the number and value of contracts let by his Department since May 1997 to external consultants and advisers for the management of competitive tendering processes. [109450]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  [holding answer 10 February 2000]Since May 1997 the Treasury has no record of contracts let for the purpose of managing competitive tendering processes.

  Pensions
  Mrs. Organ
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received on the Inland Revenue's review into the operation of income draw-down on personal pensions and the system of a 75 year age limit on the purchase of an annuity. [110069]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The recent Inland Revenue review of income drawdown considered representations from the pensions industry, regulatory bodies and individuals. We will take all representations into account when deciding if any change to the current system is appropriate.
  524W
  (iii) All remaining parts of departments and agencies are committed to achieving the Investors In People Standard.

  Remploy
  Mr. Caton
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what Remploy products her Department has purchased in the last three years.[109939]

  Mr. Stringer
  None.

  Departmental Initiatives (Grants)
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if she will list the initiatives launched by her Department since May 1997 under which specific grants are allocated, indicating in each case and for each financial year the funding provided by central Government. [109312]

  Mr. Stringer
  My Department's expenditure on grants initiated since May 1997 is given in the table.

  Mrs. Organ
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he will publish the report on the Inland Revenue's review into the mandatory purchase at 75 years of age of an annuity for a personal pension. [110070]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  We are considering the conclusions of the recent Inland Revenue review of income drawdown, which looked at, among other things, the appropriateness of the current requirement for annuity purchase by age 75. An announcement will be made if it is decided that any changes are required.

  Departmental Functions (Food)
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if all food served at his Department's official functions meets the standards of production required of domestic producers. [109785]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  [holding answer 11 February 2000]: Our Department's catering contractor complies with all the relevant provisions of the Food Safety Act. An independent annual audit is carried out to ensure that the required standards are met.

  VAT
  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 26 January 2000,Official

  525W
  Report, column 215W, on VAT, what study he has made of the recent alterations to Annex J of the Sixth VAT Directive regarding the potential it offers for permitting the lowering of rates charged to a private citizen installing energy-saving measures via a contractor; and if he will make a statement. [110201]

  Dawn Primarolo
  This Government have already introduced a reduced rate of 5 per cent. for the grant-funded installation of energy saving materials. Annex K of the Sixth VAT Directive allows member states to adopt optional experimental reduced rates for the renovation and repair of private dwellings, which would cover the related installation of energy saving materials.

  Invest to Save Budget: Round 2 winning bids

  Lead organisation

  Project

  £000

  Central Government:

  HM Customs and Excise

  Integrated intelligence project for anti-fraud investigations

  4,849

  HM Customs and Excise

  Data transmission of CAP export licensing

  737

  Central Buying Consortium

  Joined Up Procurement pilot

  46

  Cabinet Office

  Database for water and sewerage services

  750

  Cabinet Office

  Notification of change of address project

  775

  Department for Culture, Media and Sport

  Integrated website for small tourism businesses to communicate

  50

  Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (DETR)

  Improving the effectiveness of DVLA's vehicle recording operations

  409

  DETR

  Increasing accessibility to DVLA's driver licensing service

  366

  DETR

  Improved coordination of central government information to local authorities

  499

  DETR

  Call centre for Health and Safety communications

  448

  DETR

  Dissemination of nature conservation data and information

  48

  DETR

  Best Practice on Local Authority ICT procurement

  600

  Department for Education and Employment

  New student support system links

  494

  Department for Education and Employment

  One stop shop on equal opportunity issues for business

  1,500

  Department of Social Security

  Better Government prototypes for older people

  76

  Department of Social Security

  Co-Location of Benefits Agency and Local Authority (Lanes)

  142

  Department of Social Security

  Integrated social care advice for prisoners on release

  18

  Department of Trade and Industry

  Small Business Service: electronic regulation service

  10,000

  Department of Trade and Industry

  Consumer advice call centres

  1,200

  Home Office

  Joint response to non-emergency calls focusing on harassment

  118

  Home Office

  Mobile/remote communications data: joint fire brigades approach

  50

  Home Office

  Joint approach to money laundering crime

  2,760

  Home Office

  Data exchange and sharing between the forensic science services

  240

  Home Office

  Database for substance misuse treatment services

  50

  Home Office

  Criminal Justice System—Internet technology

  699

  Home Office

  Development mechanisms for joining up funding and policy development

  48

  Home Office

  Best practice in joint public safety non-emergency call centres

  2,535

  Home Office

  Prison-NHS trust telemedicine links

  199

  Home Office

  Extension of young offender treatment programme

  120

  Home Office

  Joint control room for five fire brigade partners—scoping study

  40

  HM Treasury

  Evaluation of Round 1 ISB Partnership Work

  105

  Inland Revenue

  Occupational pensions data links with DSS

  75

  Inland Revenue

  Citizens school leaver package in Scotland

  104

  Lord Chancellor's Department

  Community Legal Services website

  483

  Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (MAFF)

  Electronic access to integrated rural information

  364

  MAFF

  Live fish movement database/website

  185

  MAFF

  Operation Gangmaster: enforcement approach to sub-contractors

  50

  MAFF

  Single search engine approach to track research information

  50

  MAFF

  Biological innovation demonstrator website

  100

  Office for National Statistics

  A public service census dataset

  2,100

  Office for National Statistics

  Rationalising the existing post code products

  137

  Public Record Office

  Access to Archives

  697

  Public Record Office

  Development of generic IT procedures for government records

  48

  The Met Office

  Electronic delivery of Weather forecasts on Admiralty Chart

  50

  Valuation Office

  Electronic lodgement of appeals

  350

  Other public authority bids:projects

  Birmingham Health Authority (HA)

  Single integrated child health database

  50

  NHS Executive: London Region

  Data transfer of mental health risk assessment

  600

  526W
  The important issue for energy saving materials, however, is do-it-yourself installation, where EC law does not permit a reduced rate.

  "Invest to Save"
  Mr. Russell Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what progress is being made on the Government's Invest to Save Initiative. [110380]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  I am pleased to announce that 104 bids from across the public sector have been successful in Round 2 of the Invest to Save Budget, at a cost of £45m in 2000–01, including consequential funding for the devolved administrations, and £69m in total over the three years to 2002–03. The following list describes the winners of this round:
  527W

  Invest to Save Budget: Round 2 winning bids

  Lead organisation

  Project

  £000

  NHS North Lambeth

  Sexual health advice for young people in Brixton

  50

  NHS West Norfolk Primary Care Group

  One Stop Service Access Facilitators

  275

  North Yorkshire HA

  Prevention and rapid response to rural accidents

  50

  Nottingham HA

  CITYNET: community-based intranet

  900

  Somerset HA

  Integrated information system for mental health

  300

  Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council

  Improving care and treatment of people in their own homes

  918

  Braintree District Council

  Colne Valley Healthy Living Project

  436

  Essex Social Services Department

  Help Line for Health and Social Services

  38

  Gateshead Metropolitan Borough Council

  Beyond 2000—Accessible Information

  50

  Hampshire County Council

  IT to Support Integrated—24 hour—Social Services

  555

  Kirklees Metropolitan Council

  Inter-Agency use of integrated electronic information system

  50

  Leeds City Council

  Community Care Centre

  825

  London Borough of Croydon

  One Stop Facility for older people

  100

  London Borough of Harrow

  Integrated health and social care, delivering a mental health pilot scheme

  1,301

  Medway Council

  Positive Parenting Network for Medway Children

  630

  Stoke-on-Trent City Council

  Communicating with the Community

  451

  Thurrock Council

  NHS Information Sharing

  60

  Trafford Metropolitan Borough Council

  Empowering Parents

  171

  Bedfordshire County Council

  Bedfordshire Online Initiative

  1,238

  Bolton Institute

  Bolton Information Network

  232

  Borough of Lewisham

  Life Events Access Project

  1,200

  Bracknell Forest Borough Council

  Co-ordinated Out of Hours Emergency Response

  777

  Bradford Metropolitan Borough Council

  Bradford Partnership for Joined-Up working

  2,114

  Bury Metropolitan Borough

  Bury's Local Service Centre—Answers

  375

  Cambridgeshire County Council

  Cambourne-Modern Services for a Modern Community

  50

  Carrick District Council

  Intranet linking 27 town and parish councils with other public bodies

  168

  Cheshire County Council

  Project Manager and support research methodology and systems

  470

  City of Nottingham

  Nottingham Electronic One Stop Shop for Planning

  185

  City of Wakefield Metropolitan District Council

  Shared database and geographic information system

  137

  City of York Council

  Improving quality and cost-effectiveness of meals service

  48

  Doncaster MBC

  South Yorkshire Coalfield On Line Project

  545

  Greenwich Council

  IT for domiciliary care service

  159

  Hackney Borough Council

  Developing a mode of seamless public services using IT support

  757

  Huntingdoneshire District Council

  Coordinator for Health Living Centre

  88

  Hyndburn Council

  Pilot Electronic Public Information Network

  46

  Leicester City Council

  Day centre for street drinkers, providing holistic care and services

  247

  Lifeline West Yorkshire

  Closing the Revolving Door: working with ex-drug offenders

  156

  London Borough of Redbridge

  Improving Access for Older People

  50

  Milton Keynes Council

  Needs of young people at risk of social exclusion

  50

  Norfolk County Council

  Integrated Services for Waste Management

  50

  North East Lincolnshire Council

  Improving Community Safety through Recording of Crime

  48

  North Lincolnshire Council

  Address Exchange Project

  276

  Norwich City Council

  Norwich Connect

  1,660

  Oldham Metropolitan Borough

  Oldham Business Management School

  750

  Peterborough City Council

  Manage and develop Pathfinder Circles

  400

  Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea

  Development of Community Extranet

  225

  Southwark Council

  Reducing anti-social behaviour in the Borough

  619

  St. Helens Metropolitan Borough Council

  Pilot project to reduce incidences of victimisation

  241

  Swindon Borough Council

  Crime Reduction Shop

  155

  Telford and Wrekin Partnership

  Inter-agency one stop shop

  500

  The District of Bolsover

  Community Action Network Link

  160

  Vale Royal Borough Council

  Use of IT to combat social exclusion

  48

  Walsall Metropolitan Borough Council

  Walsall PEALS Project

  1,520

  Warwick District Council

  The Open Door

  1,000

  West Lancashire District Council

  Council Services Direct

  45

  Wolverhampton Council

  Co-ordination of Bereavement Services

  313

  Worcestershire County Council

  Integrated communications, offering services/support to 14 to 25-year-olds

  470

  EU Membership Costs
  Mr. Robertson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the financial cost of the United Kingdom's membership of the EU in(a) gross and (b) net terms for each of the last five years for which figures are available; and what estimate he has made of the costs for each of the next three years. [110250]
  528W
  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Details of the United Kingdom's gross and net contributions to the EC Budget for the years 1993–94 to 1997–98 are given in Table 7A of the 1999 Departmental Report of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Departments (Cm 4218). The latest forecasts of the UK's net contributions to the EC Budget for the years 1998–99 to 2001–02 are given in the footnote to Table B12 of the November 1999 Pre-Budget Report (Cm 4479).

  Credit Unions
  Mr. Ruane
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if he will estimate the amount of money saved by those using credit unions in each of the last 10 years; [110244]

  (2) how many credit unions (a) there were, (b) were established and (c) were closed in each of the last 10 years. [110212]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The information requested for Great Britain is as follows:

  Year

  Registrations

  CUs leaving the Register

  CUs at end of year

  Shareholding £000

  1990

  72

  0

  275

  14,968

  1991

  55

  3

  327

  20,478

  1992

  57

  1

  383

  28,505

  1993

  48

  4

  427

  39,492

  1994

  53

  5

  475

  53,706

  1995

  63

  8

  530

  70,012

  1996

  36

  16

  550

  87,686

  1997

  51

  5

  596

  107,394

  1998

  47

  13

  630

  126,721

  1999

  50

  14

  666

  1—

  1 Not available until end 2000

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Lamb Slaughter Charges
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make it his policy to take action to reduce lamb slaughter charges to the EU average level; and if he will make a statement. [101147]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 7 December 1999]: Since these charges relate to the cost of operating the abattoir and providing a slaughtering service, their level is a commercial matter between slaughter house operators and suppliers of lambs. The Government have, however, frozen MHS hourly inspection charges for 1999–2000 at 1998–99 levels—charges which affect the cost of slaughtering all species, including lamb.

  Private Finance Panel
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food which projects relating to his Department that appeared in the Private Finance Panel's list of 29 November 1995(a) have been completed, (b) are still pending, (c) have been dropped and (d) are being pursued by means other than a public private partnership. [105867]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 24 January 2000]: I refer the right hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury on 24 January 2000, Official Report, columns 117–18W.

  Bovine Somatotropin
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received on the use of bovine somatotropin in dairy cows this year; and if he will make a statement. [108579]

  Ms Quin
  One letter has been received this year. Following advice from the independent Veterinary Products Committee, the Government voted in favour of 530W
  a permanent ban in the EU on the marketing and use of recombinant bovine somatotropin. The ban came into effect on 1 January 2000.

  Pet Passports
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will permit the new pet passport documentation to act as(a) an export certificate, (b) an import permit and (c) a rabies vaccination certificate; and if he will make a statement. [108176]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 3 February 2000]: Export certificates for pets are not a requirement of the UK Government, but may be required by countries to which animals are travelling. Such countries are entitled, as is the UK, to set their own requirements for import documentation. There is no requirement for import permits for pet animals entering England under the Pet Travel Scheme. Each such pet will need to be accompanied by a valid Pet Travel Scheme rabies re-entry certificate. Other certification relates to treatment against ticks and tapeworms and no limitation of the pet's travel outside the UK to permitted countries.

  The aim of the Pet Travel Scheme is to permit pet owners to bring their animals back to this country without having to undergo quarantine, while maintaining the protection of public health. The scheme which will commence on 28 February is a pilot: the experience gained from it will be used in framing the full scheme which we are committed to implementing by April 2001.

  Baby Foods
  Ms Shipley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to review his nutritional guidance on packaged processed foods aimed at babies and toddlers. [108585]

  Ms Quin
  MAFF guidance for parents on Healthy Diets for Infants and Young Children recommends that parents choose products which are low in salt and sugar, and use nutrition labelling information to identify these foods.

  Ms Shipley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will clarify the guidance in respect of the Food Labelling Regulations for processed foods targeted at babies and small children. [108583]

  Ms Quin
  The Food Labelling Regulations 1996 lay down rules for the labelling of foods generally, and this includes foods for babies and young children. MAFF has issued Guidance Notes on the Regulations for use by industry and enforcers and kept them under regular review. Responsibility for this guidance will pass to the Foods Standards Agency.

  Flood Defence
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food where members of the public may(a) consult and (b) purchase the flood risk maps which were disseminated to local planning authorities in September 1999; and if they are available in electronic form. [110146]

  Mr. Morley
  These maps may be consulted at the offices of either the local planning authority or the Environment Agency. Paper copies may be obtained from
  531W
  the Agency. The Agency is also developing proposals to place the maps on its website to make them freely accessible to the public.

  Mr. Key
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the names and addresses of the Wessex Regional Flood Defence Committee. [110145]

  Mr. Morley
  Members of the Wessex Regional Flood Defence Committee are as follows:

  (i) Members appointed by MAFF

  G. P. Sturdy—Chairman

  J. B. Bush

  B. M. Chandler

  J. B. Corner

  Dr. J. Gething

  (ii) Members appointed by Environment Agency

  C. R. Rothwell

  P. K. Rees

  (iii) Members appointed by Local Authorities

  A. Massey—Bristol City Council

  F. L. Crutchley—North Somerset Council

  P. Tyzack—South Gloucestershire Council

  Mrs. L. C. S. Bennett—Wiltshire County Council

  J. L. Churchouse—Dorset County Council

  H. P. N. Temperley—Somerset County Council

  H. Prior-Sankey—Somerset County Council

  R. E. L. Lelliott—Bournemouth and Poole Borough Councils

  Northumberland residents

  Deaths

  Accidental1

  Suicide2

  Undetermined3

  1994

  Analgesics, antipyretics and antirheumatics

  3

  1

  2

  Barbiturates

  —

  —

  —

  Other sedatives and hypnotics

  2

  —

  —

  Tranquilisers and other psychotropic agents

  1

  2

  3

  Other specified drugs and medicaments

  —

  1

  1

  Unspecified drug or medicament

  —

  2

  1

  Total

  6

  6

  7

  1995

  Analgesics, antipyretics and antirheumatics

  1

  —

  —

  Barbiturates

  —

  —

  —

  Other sedatives and hypnotics

  1

  —

  1

  Tranquilisers and other psychotropic agents

  —

  —

  3

  Other specified drugs and medicaments

  —

  —

  —

  Unspecified drug or medicament

  —

  —

  —

  Total

  2

  0

  4

  1996

  Analgesics, antipyretics and antirheumatics

  —

  3

  1

  Barbiturates

  —

  —

  —

  Other sedatives and hypnotics

  —

  —

  —

  Tranquilisers and other psychotropic agents

  1

  3

  —

  Other specified drugs and medicaments

  3

  —

  —

  Unspecified drug or medicament

  —

  1

  —

  Total

  4

  7

  1

  1997

  Analgesics, antipyretics and antirheumatics

  —

  2

  —

  Barbiturates

  —

  —

  —

  Other sedatives and hypnotics

  —

  —

  —

  Tranquilisers and other psychotropic agents

  1

  2

  1

  Other specified drugs and medicaments

  —

  2

  1

  Unspecified drug or medicament

  —

  —

  1

  Total

  1

  6

  3

  532W
  Members of the Committee can be contacted do The Environment Agency, Manley House, Kestrel Way, Exeter EX2 7LQ.

  Farm Animal Welfare
  Mr. Peter Atkinson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he has consulted the Farm Animal Welfare Council on the impact of the withdrawal of OP sheep dip. [110287]

  Mr. Morley
  I understand that the Farm Animal Welfare Council is already preparing to consider the likely impact on farm animal welfare of this decision. I look forward to receiving their advice.

HEALTH

  Medicinal Drug Deaths (Northumberland)
  Mr. Ronnie Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people died in Northumberland Health Authority area as the result of the use of medicinal drugs in each of the last five years(a) accidentally, (b) in cases involving (i) suicide and (ii) self-inflicted injury and (c) in other cases; and which drug each death involved. [106824]

  Ms Stuart
  The information requested is in the table.
  533W

  Northumberland residents

  Deaths

  Accidental1

  Suicide2

  Undetermined3

  1998

  Analgesics, antipyretics and antirheumatics

  —

  2

  1

  Barbiturates

  —

  1

  —

  Other sedatives and hypnotics

  1

  —

  —

  Tranquilisers and other psychotropic agents

  —

  —

  1

  Other specified drugs and medicaments

  —

  —

  1

  Unspecified drug or medicament

  —

  1

  —

  Total

  1

  4

  3

  1 Accidental = E850-E858

  2 Suicide = E950 (.0 to .5)

  3 Undetermined = E980 (.0 to .5)

  Source:

  ONS Annual Death Extracts (individual anonymised records based on Death Certificate/any subsequent investigations)

  It is not possible to distinguish between 'suicide' and 'self inflicted injury' since the ICD-9 classification has these as a single category

  It is not possible to determine the specific drugs used—ICD-9 classification gives only categories of drugs

  Scientific and Technical Staff
  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many(a) medical laboratory officers and (b) trainee biomedical scientists were employed by the NHS in each of the last 10 years; and if he will make a statement; [108308]

  (2) how many (a) clinical scientists and (b) biomedical scientists are employed by each health authority; [108307]

  (3) how many people were recruited on to training courses for biomedical scientists in each of the last 10 years; [108221]

  (4) how many people were recruited in each of the last 10 years on to training courses for (a) pathology, (b) pharmacology, (c) cardiology, (d) audiology, (e) respiratory and (f) other medical laboratory officers. [108309]

  Mr. Denham
  Information about the number of scientific and technical staff directly employed by the National Health Service in each health authority, and over the past 10 years, is in statistical bulletins and detailed results from the Department of Health's annual non-medical workforce census, copies of which are in the Library. Information about the numbers recruited on to training courses in the NHS is not available.

  Drugs Costs
  Mr. Hurst
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what are the terms of his referral to the Office of Fair Trading of the cost of drugs to the National Health Service; and if he will make a statement. [109438]

  Ms Stuart
  The matter concerns the supply of generic drugs to the National Health Service. The whole basis of the current arrangements for generic supply is competition in the market place. In the light of disruption to the market last year, we were concerned to establish whether any suppliers of generics were misusing their market power; whether exploitation of the reimbursement system was taking place; and whether there was any implicit or explicit collusion to bring about price rises or shortages. The Office of Fair Trading is carrying out an investigation to see if there has been any contravention of United Kingdom competition law.

  General Practitioners
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what is the average number of patients per general practitioner in(a) rural and (b) urban areas; [109749]

  (2) what is the average waiting time for an appointment to see a general practitioner in a non-emergency case in (a) rural and (b) urban areas. [109750]

  Mr. Denham
  The average patient list size for general practitioners at 1 October 1998 was 1,787 for rural areas and 1,890 for urban areas.

  Figures for average waiting times for an appointment with a GP are not collected centrally although there is information available from the 1998 Patients' Survey for General Practice. This shows that over 56 per cent. of respondents were given an appointment on the day they wanted, while 30 per cent. waited one day or more days. 13 per cent. of respondents reported that they had not minded what day they were given an appointment. There were no significant differences in waiting times between rural and urban areas.

  NHS Direct (Shropshire)
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what recent representations he has received regarding the organisation of NHS Direct in Shropshire; and if he will make a statement; [109845]

  (2) what consultations his Department has held regarding the establishment of NHS Direct in Shropshire. [109824]

  Ms Stuart
  Shropshire Health Authority, in partnership with stakeholders, will shortly submit plans for the extension of NHS Direct to Shropshire to the National Health Service Executive. NHS Direct will be available in Shropshire by the end of October this year.

  Resource Allocation
  Mr. Lilley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what measures he plans for the allocation of resources within the NHS so as to eliminate differences in waiting times and clinical performance between different hospitals. [109759]
  535W
  Mr. Denham
  The objective of resource allocation is to distribute National Health Service funds fairly based on the healthcare needs of populations.

  Premature Deaths
  Mr. Lilley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will publish figures showing the composite index for adverse events/complications of treatment in(a) 1997–98 and (b) 1998–99 for (i) England, (ii) East and North Hertfordshire, (iii) West Hertfordshire and (iv) the health authority in the prospering growth area with the (1) lowest figure and (2) highest figure; [109754]

  (2) if he will publish figures showing the composite index for in-hospital premature deaths in (a) 1997–98 and (b) 1998–99 for (i) England, (ii) East and North Hertfordshire, (iii) West Hertfordshire and (iv) the health authority in the prospering growth area with the (1) lowest figure and (2) highest figure. [109756]

  Mr. Denham
  The 1997–98 figures for the in-hospital premature deaths indicator were published in "Quality and Performance in the NHS: High Level Performance Indicators" in June 1999, copies of which are available in the Library. Figures for 1998–99 will be published later this year.

  Austria (Bilateral Meetings)
  Mr. Jim Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many bilateral meetings were held between his Department and its Austrian counterpart in each of the last five years; and what was discussed at each meeting since May 1997. [109877]

  Ms Stuart
  There was a meeting between my right hon. Friend the then Minister for Public Health and the Federal Minister for Labour, Health and Social Affairs, Mrs. Eleonora Hostasch, on 11 March 1998, when key topics in the European Union public health field were discussed.

  There have been no other bilateral contacts at senior official or ministerial level since May 1997.

  Cleft Lip and Palate Services
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if, in reviewing cleft lip and palate services, he will have regard to(a) the desirability of maintaining different clinical approaches, (b) travelling times to centres of excellence for parents and their children and (c) the practicability of providing adequate specialist nursing support services close to the parents' home.[110010]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 14 February 2000]: Under the new arrangements all centres will be required to participate in national, inter-centre audit. This will, for the first time, collect clinical data on an equivalent basis and allow comparisons to be made of the effectiveness of centres and different techniques. It will be a vital tool in supporting practice and the continuing training needs of clinicians. Arrangements for the appointment of surgeons in designated cleft lip and palate centres, including the selection criteria, will be a matter for employing National Health Service trusts. Those applying for posts will be required to demonstrate evidence of their skills and expertise regardless of surgical technique.
  536W
  The new services will work on a hub and spoke basis. Surgery and other specialised elements of care will be provided at the main centres, but many aspects of care will continue to be provided locally, in close liaison with the main centre. We accept that some patients and their carers will need to travel further for some aspects of their care because it is not possible for the highest standards of care to be provided at every hospital which has previously carried out cleft lip and/or palate surgery.

  It will be for each cleft centre to ensure that patients have access to specialist nursing services. This might be provided on an outreach basis from the main centre or by nurses with specialist skills in spokes working in accordance with agreed protocols.

  Legal and Accountancy Fees
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much his Department has paid to(a) law firms and (b) accountancy firms since 1 May 1997. [110241]

  Ms Stuart
  The Department's records do not separately identify payments to law firms or accountancy firms. This information could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what his target is for answering ordinary written questions from hon. Members; and what percentage of his Department's answers were made within the target time in(a) 1999 and (b) 2000 to date. [110320]

  Ms Stuart
  The Department's target for replying to ordinary written questions is five working days. In 1999 we achieved this 63 per cent. of the time. In 2000 to date we have achieved this 40 per cent. of the time.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he plans to reply to the two questions about NHS Direct tabled by the hon. member for Aylesbury on 24 January for answer on 27 January (refs. 107079 and 107088). [110321]

  Ms Stuart
  Because of the detailed nature of the hon. Member's questions it is taking a long time to compile the data. I shall let the hon. Member have a reply as soon as possible.

  Cystic Fibrosis
  Mr. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the National Screening Committee's advice regarding antenatal screening for cystic fibrosis. [110249]

  Mr. Denham
  The United Kingdom National Screening Committee does not currently recommend the introduction of routine antenatal screening for cystic fibrosis. This is based on the advice of its specialist Antenatal Screening Sub-Group. The aim of any antenatal screening programme would be informed choice and as yet there are too many mutations of cystic fibrosis and too little information on their clinical severity to enable counsellors to facilitate informed choice. The UK National Screening Committee will review this approach in the light of any new evidence.

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

Baroness Greengross
Sally Ralea Greengross, OBE, having been created Baroness Greengross, of Notting Hill in the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea, for life—Was, in her robes, introduced between the Baroness Pitkeathley and the Lord Evans of Watford.

South-East Europe: Stability Pact
2.42 p.m.
Lord Wallace of Saltaireasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are satisfied with the progress so far achieved through the Stability Pact, for south-east Europe and with the funding provided.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Scotland of Asthal): My Lords, the Government are pleased with the progress of the Stability Pact for south-east Europe. It is a relatively new process and activities are being taken forward across its three working tables on democracy, human rights and economic and security issues. However, the Stability Pact is not a funding or implementing agency. Its intended strength is as a catalysing and co-ordinating mechanism for increased regional co-operation.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. I understand that there is to be a funding conference at the end of March and, indeed, that Bodo Hombach, the administrator, stated that this is very much the moment of truth for the Stability Pact. Can the Minister confirm that Her Majesty's Government will be playing an active and positive role in that funding conference and that the necessary funds for the reconstruction and development of the region will be provided?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I confirm that Her Majesty's Government will be playing a full and active part in that conference and will make their necessary contribution when it is assessed.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, is it not most important that the pact should not remain mere diplomatic words? Will the Government assist the parties to integrate their transport and energy systems and to make themselves ready to receive inward investment?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, Her Majesty's Government are co-operating fully in that
1060

regard. I understand the specific points raised by the noble Lord. Perhaps I may say more generally that the UK participates actively and fully in the pact. Following a UK initiative, an investment compact was developed and adopted at the pact's meeting in Skopje last week. We are also contributing £100,000 to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development to provide technical assistance to the countries of the region and to ensure that practical measures needed to implement the compact are carried out. Our contribution is broad and comprehensive.
Lord Clarke of Hampstead: My Lords, can the Minister inform the House about the pact's media task force and the part which the United Kingdom Government are playing in that?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I have already given some information to the House on that point. I am grateful to the noble Lord for raising it. The UK also leads the pact's media task force, which is developing a charter for media freedom. We hope to see that adopted in the near future. Today, at a pact meeting in Sarajevo, in collaboration with one of the regional countries, we shall be putting forward proposals for reductions in security expenditure and greater transparency in defence budgeting.
Lord Moynihan: My Lords, is the Minister aware that World Bank economists, among others, have expressed the opinion that it will prove impossible to boost the economy of south-east Europe and make progress on the Stability Pact while the "black hole" of Serbia remains in the middle of it? What action do the Government plan to take, together with other members of the pact, to overcome this central problem?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, as noble Lords will know, Serbia would be in a position to take advantage of the Stability Pact if internally its systems were changed to enable it to do that. The way remains open for Serbia. The UK was pleased with the sanctions package agreed on 14th February at the General Affairs Council in line with our general policy of smarter sanctions. It is hoped that those sanctions will hurt those who should most be encouraged to change their minds but will acknowledge to the people of Serbia that we are not against them. We very much want them to become engaged and play their proper and full part in reconstruction.
Viscount Waverley: My Lords, can the Minister commit the EU to a long-term commitment to the Balkans?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, standing here, I cannot commit the EU in that regard. However, I reassure the noble Lord that the EU is committed to the stabilisation and association process. It is the principal contribution of the EU at present. It will offer stabilisation and association agreements to the Balkans once they meet EU conditions on democracy,

1061
human rights, market economy and commitment to regional co-operation generally. Such agreements are a way forward. It is hoped that the encouragement will be taken advantage of and will lead to greater stability and security.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that some people—myself among them—wonder whether the Stability Pact is necessary? We already have NATO, the United Nations and the OSCE. Why do we need another pact? Another organisation is likely to be expensive. We should bear in mind that the Russians are suspicious of what is happening in south-east Europe. Is not the development of the Stability Pact likely to worry them even further about activities there?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, we believe not. I hope I have made clear that the Stability Pact is not primarily seen as a funding agency. It is hoped that the agency will be a catalyst; a co-ordinating effort to bring together the donors and suppliers to achieve better synergy between the two. It will be a facilitating process which already has indications of success. Obviously we shall continue to work with it and hope that our aspirations will be realised to produce greater security in Europe.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, can the Minister explain her understanding of the underlying long-term objectives of the Stability Pact? The Prime Minister, when in south-east Europe, spoke in terms of potential full membership of EU and NATO for the countries engaged. Is that really the long-term objective?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, we are very hopeful in that respect. If the arrangements and the agreements are followed through and the Copenhagen criteria can be met by the countries of the Balkans, that is obviously a way forward. We see changes taking place now in Croatia, for example, and we are hopeful that those beneficial changes can be enhanced and nurtured to bear greater fruit. It is a hopeful sign. The door is open for those who wish to take advantage of all the offers that are on the table at present.

Waste Disposal
2.49 p.m.
Lord Hardy of Wathasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will promote both the greater provision of sites and containers where rubbish can be deposited and the effective enforcement of existing legislation.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Lord Whitty): My Lords, waste disposal authorities have a duty to provide civic amenity sites
1062
at which residents can deposit their household waste. Waste collection authorities have the power to provide residents with containers, such as wheeled bins, for their household waste and to provide containers for recyclables and litter bins. The Government expect authorities to operate within this framework to deliver both effective waste management services and a clean environment.
Lord Hardy of Wath: My Lords, although I am grateful to my noble friend the Minister for that reply, perhaps I may point out to him that there is a widespread view that the problem is becoming more unpleasant, increasingly costly and sometimes dangerous. I shall not press my noble friend for a detailed reply this afternoon. However, when the House—as I hope it will—secures a debate on the matter, can he confirm that the Government will give a very detailed response to the problem, not least because existing arrangements and regulations are plainly inadequate?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I am happy to tell my noble friend that, if he secures a debate on this matter, we can no doubt talk a lot about rubbish for some considerable time. I would certainly want to spell out the Government's overall strategy in this respect. However, as far as concerns measurements of cleanliness in authorities, I should like to record the fact that the Tidy Britain Group, which sets up an index for cleanliness in our city areas, especially urban areas, has noted an improvement rather than the reverse over recent years.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, the Minister referred to recycling. Does he consider that enough is being done to encourage recycling? Further, in respect of those materials that cannot be recycled, does he think that enough is being done to ensure that they should be incinerated and converted into electricity?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, it is clear that not enough is being done and that we need to intensify our efforts both in terms of waste management authorities and in terms of commercial and other activities. We have a target for reclaimed waste of 40 per cent, with 25 per cent being recycled or composted. That 25 per cent is well above what we are achieving at present, which is around 8 per cent. However, that target has already been achieved by some of our European partners.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, does the Minister agree that one area where the Government could set an example is in dealing with the increasing amount of waste on motorways and trunk roads? The Highways Agency has a contract in respect of each area for the removal of waste. Does the Minister agree that what is needed is a much more vigorous enforcement of the terms of the contract, with appropriate penalties when contractors leave roads in a filthy state?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I have no doubt that there are such examples on our roads. I can assure the noble

1063
Lord that the Highways Agency will pay attention to enforcing those contracts, but the objective indices that have been drawn up suggest an improving situation on our highways. Nevertheless, I take the noble Lord's point that we could do better.
Baroness Hogg: My Lords, does the Minister accept that a great deal of fly-tipping takes place because sites that are supposedly available for clumping are not open at weekends? Can he say whether the Government's framework requires the sites to be open at weekends?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the requirements for civic amenity tips are that they should be reasonably accessible and open at all "reasonable times". However, the latter is interpreted in somewhat different ways by local authorities. So there will be some tips that are not available during weekends or at other hours that might be more convenient to householders. We expect local authorities to address those problems.
Viscount Simon: My Lords, I take a slightly different tack from that of the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford. Would it not be a better idea not only to enforce the contracts but also to put into force the existing legislation against those people who actually deposit rubbish in the first place?
Lord Whitty: Yes, my Lords. However, the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, referred to motorways. In that case, it may be slightly difficult to identify who deposited the rubbish in the first place. Clearly, where we can identify the offender, severe measures should taken and fines up to £2,500 are appropriate in those circumstances.

Austria
2.55 p.m.
Lord Willoughby de Brokeasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they have expressed any concern about the new coalition Government in Austria.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, Her Majesty's Government have made clear their deep concern and distaste at the inclusion in the Austrian Government of a far-Right party, which appeals to xenophobia. We have welcomed the fact that the new Austrian Government have committed themselves to abiding by the common obligations and values of EU membership, to combating all forms of discrimination, and to dealing constructively with the country's Nazi past. But we shall be watching them closely and judging them on whether they fulfil the commitments that they have made.
Lord Willoughby de Broke: My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister for explaining so clearly the Government's commitment to gesture politics.
1064
However, as the French and the Italian parties and governments are full of re-cycled and unrepentant communists, can she tell us why we did not hear a squeak of protest when they were appointed? Why were the Government so shy about wheeling out their political conscience on that occasion?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, both the Italian and French Governments are constructed in a rather complex way. As regards this matter, we obviously have to respond on a case-by-case basis. The Austrian Government have within their membership an extreme Right-wing element, which is intrinsically against some of the fundamental principles that bind the EU together. We could not be silent. We were silent once before and, internationally, we paid the price.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, perhaps we should try to get away from all the controversy over this issue. Does the noble Baroness agree that this problem about Mr Haider's party arises wholly and solely as the result of proportional representation? Does she still think that it is a good idea?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, each country has to make its choice. It is the way in which Austria has chosen to form the parties. Noble Lords will remember that this was not a problem for Austria for 13 years and the way in which proportional representation brought forward a government seemed to inure to Austria's benefit. Obviously it is a matter of great concern that the construction of its government now is materially different.
Baroness Crawley: My Lords, can my noble friend the Minister say whether the Government are concerned that Mr Haider's FPO party will legitimise and increase support for other far-Right parties in the UK and in Europe?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, we are concerned about that possibility. It is not insignificant that 27 per cent of those who voted for Mr Haider were young males under the age of 30. It is a matter of concern. Other countries in Europe have experienced similar indications. Obviously it is a matter about which we must express concern and upon which we must keep a close watching eye.
Lord Hurd of Westwell: My Lords, perhaps I may press the noble Baroness gently on what she wants to happen next. Presumably, if this is a policy it has an objective. Do the Government want the Austrians to go back to the cosy coalition that they have just rejected? Do they want fresh elections, which might strengthen Mr Haider? If there is no policy objective because, as my noble friend suggested, it is just a gesture tossed into the headlines, can the noble Baroness say how long that gesture will last?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, this is not simply a "gesture tossed into the headlines". Indeed, if I may respectfully say so, to put it that way does not

1065
give value to the seriousness of this particular situation. We are fully committed to the measures that the other 13 EU countries have adopted. We believe that it is important to give a clear signal of our concern at the inclusion of a far-Right party, which advocates xenophobia, in the government of another EU country. We have welcomed the fact that the new Austrian Government have committed themselves to abiding by the common obligations and we shall watch to see whether they deliver. That is an important signal to have given. They have responded in a limited way. We are very much—if I may put it colloquially—"watching this space".
Lord Dahrendorf: My Lords, while I appreciate some of the answers that the Minister has given, there remains one big question; namely, given the fact that the Austrian condition is different from, for example, that of Greece 30 years ago when the colonels took over and where the objective was quite clearly to restore democracy, what exactly will Austria have to do at the end of the day for normal, bilateral relations to be re-established, and for Ministers of Her Majesty's Government to be prepared to be photographed with old colleagues with whom they were frequently photographed smiling in the past?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, one cannot set this in stone but it is quite clear that the threat which is inherent in some of the statements that Mr Haider and others have propagated has to be demonstrated as not having any validity or strength. We simply cannot say that yet. We have had a helpful indication and a commitment from Austria. However, we have to wait to see whether that is worth the paper it is written on. Some noble Lords in this House will remember—this was before my time—someone else saying, "I have a piece of paper". However, Britain discovered what that paper was worth.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, according to the BBC World Service two countries—one of which is Belgium—have apparently made an application for Austria to be suspended from the European Union. I wonder upon what grounds it can be suspended. I think that I know the Amsterdam Treaty and, indeed, the Maastricht Treaty pretty well. There is nothing there which at the present time would justify the expulsion of Austria from the European Union. Will my noble friend confirm that there has been such an application by two countries? What will be Her Majesty's Government's attitude towards that application?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I am not in a position to confirm that there has been any such application. There is nothing at the moment which would indicate that expulsion from the European Union is being contemplated.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, while I fully understand the apprehensions of Jewish communities,
1066
because the army unit which I commanded in 1945 was among those who discovered Belsen, should not the new Austrian Government, which does not include Herr Haider, be judged by their actions and their plans? The noble Baroness has mentioned the Freedom Party espousing xenophobia, but have the Austrian Government yet proposed or done anything that is unethical?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, as I tried to make clear, it has been reassuring to hear the words currently spoken by the Austrian Government. We have to wait to see whether those words are capable of being relied upon. Implicit in the noble Lord's comments is the fact that we have to wait to see whether they will come good. That is what we are doing; we are waiting and seeing. There is a hope that their words can be relied upon, but there is at the moment no confidence that that will be so.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords—
Lord Hardy of Wath: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether she has—
The Attorney-General (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, I think that it is the turn of the Cross-Benchers. However, I respond to my noble friend's gloom by saying that there is plenty of time.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, in view of the preceding question, does not the noble Baroness agree that, rather than waiting to see whether the Austrian Government do everything right, it might be better to wait to see whether they do anything wrong, which so far they have not done? Furthermore, in response to a question on proportional representation, the noble Baroness said that it is up to each country to make its choice. Is it not true that in this case the Austrian people have made their choice? What business have we to interfere in the democratic process of another country?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, as regards the noble Lord's final point, we are most certainly not interfering in the democratic process of another country. It is for each country to decide how it wishes to vote and by whom it wishes to be governed. By the same token, it is for each country to decide whether it wishes to associate itself with any such government once it has been formed. We must not forget that Austria, as it is currently constituted, is one of the countries at the heart of the EU and therefore occupies a special place in terms of importance. We wish to give a clear signal on this matter. The 14 nations have done that in the stance that they have adopted.
Lord Hardy of Wath: My Lords, my noble friend will be aware that over the years Austria has made an enormous contribution to the Council of Europe and to the cause of human rights in Europe. Will my noble friend inquire whether the particular party in question will be accepted in any party grouping within the

1067
Council of Europe? Will she obtain an assurance from the Opposition that the Conservative group in Europe will not under any circumstances accept parliamentary representatives from that particular body?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I understand the anxiety of the noble Lord in that regard. I do not think that I can give a specific answer in relation to it. If the situation were to change, I would be most happy to write to the noble Lord.
Lord Pilkington off Oxenford: My Lords, how will the policy that Her Majesty's Government are adopting apply to the new entrants from eastern Europe? The governments of those new entrants contain people who presided over tyrannies in eastern Europe. Are Her Majesty's Government prepared to apply the same standard to Hungary, Poland and to countries whose governments contain people who have carried out a doctrine of tyranny?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, at this point none of the countries that the noble Lord has mentioned is a member of the EU. I refer to the first Starred Question today. Of course we all know that there is much to be done in order to bring countries into alignment as regards the issues which we hold dear, such as human rights, democracy and transparency. All those challenges still exist. However, I remind noble Lords that Austria has already joined our family. It is important for us to look at the mote in our own eye before we try to remove the splinters from other people's.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, does my noble friend accept that it is part of the duty of any government to express the concerns of their citizens, and that the Government are doing precisely that?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I most sincerely hope that that is precisely what Her Majesty's Government are doing.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, I am quite old enough to remember what the days of Hitler were like and I understand the fear and the anger. But could I suggest that, in paying so much attention to this small, unpleasant creature, Mr Haider, who does not represent his country and is not a member of the government, we are giving him stature, and that is a terrible thing to do; it is a great responsibility? I suggest most strongly that the presence of the Austrian Foreign Minister in the Council should have provided the opportunity for people to speak to her and make it clear that we believe in the good parts of Austria and that we do not believe that Mr Haider—as I say, an insignificant, horrible little creature—represents anything serious at all.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I am always refreshed by the noble Baroness's ability to describe the more unpleasant phenomena, and I cannot but concur with her.
1068
It was important to give a signal. The Government's response has been one of balance. We have given that signal, which has been responded to and taken very seriously by Austria. It is important to continue to reassess the situation and your Lordships will not be surprised to learn that that is what we intend to do. No precipitous act has been taken in relation to Austria; it has merely had a very clear shot across its bows.
Lord Blaker: My Lords, I declare an interest as chairman of the British subsidiary of an Austrian company. Does the Minister recall that last month the Foreign Secretary propounded a policy of building bridges not barriers and of critical engagement with regimes with which we may disagree? Since he is following such a policy in relation to China, Cuba and Libya—which are dictatorships—why is he not following it in relation to Austria, which is a democracy?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, we are certainly following a policy. There is no restraint at all in terms of trade links, and ambassadors are still present in Austria. Ministerial communication has obviously not continued and is in abeyance at the moment, but functioning communication between Austria and ourselves is continuing.
Lord Monson: My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that until a few days ago a xenophobic party was in government in a part of the United Kingdom?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I cannot agree with that.
Lord Moynihan: My Lords, perhaps I may press the points made by my noble friends Lord Hurd and Lord Dahrendorf. Will sanctions be lifted when the Austrian Government have proved their good faith? If so, what guidelines have been laid down for them to do so? Surely such guidelines are known to the Minister. Or is the Government's policy that, as long as the Freedom Party remains in the Austrian Government coalition, it can never be business as usual with Austria as far as Britain is concerned?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, the noble Lord is far too wise to expect me to lay down in stone the Government's response. We want to make a proportionate and appropriate response to the situation as it has unfolded. We have made a clear decision not to continue relations with Austria on the same basis. We have communicated that to Austria and we have set the parameters. Those parameters, at the moment, will not change until there are factors which cause us to reconsider our position.
Viscount Waverley: My Lords, are the Government satisfied that the United Kingdom fulfils the Commonwealth Harare Declaration principles of democratic representation?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: We are, my Lords.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, does the Minister agree that on the whole democracies do not

1069
provoke wars, whereas forced and premature conglomerations of disparate nations nearly always end in conflict? Does she further agree that the European Union falls into the latter category and that the problems which are emerging in Austria are very worrying proof of that and of what may be to come?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I will not and cannot agree with the noble Lord—with much regret, of course.

Business
3.13 p.m.
Lord Carter: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m., my noble friend Lady Farrington of Ribbleton will, with the leave of the House, repeat a statement which is being made in another place on the North Wales child abuse report.

Life Peerages (Appointments Commission) Bill [H.L.]
Lord Kingsland: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to establish a commission to make proposals for the conferment of life peerages under the Life Peerages Act 1958. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.— (Lord Kingsland.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Parliamentary Commissioner (Amendment) Bill [H.L.]
Read a third time, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

Representation of the People Bill
3.14 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Bassam of Brighton): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Bassam of Brighton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Lord Ampthill) in the Chair.]
[Amendment No. 93 not moved.].
Clause 10 [Pilot schemes]:
[Amendments Nos. 94 and 95 not moved.]
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendment No. 96.
Page 11. line 45, leave out ("when.").
The noble Lord said: I should not like to think that the Committee is getting itself into bad habits by not moving amendments.
Amendment No. 96 is a probing amendment which seeks to discuss the question of when people vote. We will discuss—I hope in short debates—"when", "where" and "how", but this amendment seeks to debate "when". Amendment No. 103 is linked with this amendment and addresses specifically the issue of voting on Saturdays and Sundays.
It is interesting that the Bill gives local authorities the power to run experiments. One of the experiments they can run is to change the polling day from a Thursday to another day in the week or, indeed, to a number of days in the week. So we could be voting on a Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, Saturday and Sunday. I believe that some of the experiments concern that issue.
My amendment seeks to give the Minister an opportunity to explain to the Committee the Government's thinking in regard to "when"; what kind of proposals he has received from local authorities; and what he thinks are the advantages of voting over two or three days in a week.
As I said at Second Reading, I am hard pressed to see any advantages. I certainly do not see any advantages for the foot soldiers of democracy—in other words, the people in the political parties who man the polling stations and who get out the vote. They have a busy enough day on a Thursday, from dawn until dusk in the summertime; and from dawn until long after dusk if the election is held in the wintertime. They have a busy enough day manning the polling stations, checking who has voted and pulling out their people.
After all, the motivation behind the Bill is to try to increase the number of people voting. One of the ways in which people are encouraged to vote is by way of the "knocking up" carried out by the foot soldiers of the political parties. I suggest that if polling were held over two or three days, it may be extremely difficult for the political parties to cope because of the amount of effort required. Rather than an increase in the number of people going to the polls, we might see a decrease. So we have to think very carefully about the people who do that work.
It may also be a problem for the people who man the polling stations for the returning officer. It will increase the number of people needed. While at the moment people carry out a very long, one-day shift, from seven in the morning until nine or ten at night, they cannot be expected to do that over two or three days. So serious issues need to be addressed when we discuss the question of whether we should vote over a number of days.
The other amendment I have tabled deals with the question of voting on Saturdays and Sundays. In the part of western Scotland that I come from, and further north into Lewis and Harris—as in Wales and in

1071
England—many people still consider Sunday a special day. Some consider that it is a family day, but they believe it is even more special than that; they believe that it is a day on which work should be done only in extreme circumstances. They would find it very disturbing if they were invited to use their vote on a Sunday, and only on a Sunday.
I accept that continental countries do so, but we have just heard from the noble Baroness from the Foreign Office that all the countries in Europe do not have the same voting systems. We should not interfere with, nor indeed copy, other people's voting systems.
It would not be a good idea to have voting on a Sunday. There are many people, perhaps not a majority, but this Government are supposed to look after minorities—although not all, because the minority of the population which hunts foxes is not looked after and does not have its opinions heard—who believe that we should keep the sabbath and that there should be no compulsion to vote on a Sunday. The same could be said about Saturday when members of the Jewish community may find it difficult to reconcile voting with keeping that day as a holy day. Their numbers may be lower than the size of the population who keep the Christian Sunday, but they are still a minority who will feel strongly about the issue.
My Amendment No. 103 suggests that if any movement is made to the weekend, it should be to both days. I shall have to be convinced by some fairly rigorous experimental work that there is any point in moving from a single day to more than one day. I shall certainly need to be convinced that a move to voting at the weekend is worthwhile. I believe that the number who find it difficult to vote at the weekend, because they may he away from home, may be greater than those who currently experience problems on a Thursday. I propose the amendments in the hope that the Minister will explain government thinking on the issue of "when", and also to lay down a marker to indicate that I for one would be resolutely opposed to picking either a Saturday or a Sunday as the single day of voting in this country. I beg to move.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I am grateful to the noble Lord for his interesting comments. I am particularly grateful for his sympathy towards the foot soldiers, as he put it. Many of my noble friends behind me would be impressed by the salutations in that direction as, no doubt, would many noble Lords in his own and other parties.
I shall speak first to the second of the noble Lord's amendments, Amendment No. 103. I applaud him for having tabled it. It would be very wrong if any changes to our electoral procedures were to result in a particular group being put at a disadvantage. I hope that I can set the noble Lord's mind at rest, and, for that matter, anyone else's.
Perhaps I may begin by quoting from the guidance which the Home Office issued to local authorities
1072
about how to apply to run a pilot scheme. It stipulated that among the material that a local authority is required to include in its application is,
"An assurance that no voter will be put at a disadvantage by the proposed innovation".
That is obviously important. It is quite unambiguous. A local authority which is unable to provide that assurance will not be successful in its application. A scheme that makes it easier for the majority but significantly more difficult for the minority to vote evidently does not meet the test.
Those are not merely words from the Home Office. They have been translated into action. A number of local authorities which have applied to run pilot schemes at the coming May's local elections have had their applications turned down simply on the grounds that a particular religious group might have been put at a disadvantage. Indeed, we have gone even further than the amendment. A number of schemes involving both Saturday and Sunday voting have been turned down because the polling hours were longer on the Saturday than the Sunday—or vice versa—and the Home Secretary rightly took the view that that could have a discriminatory effect.
I should mention that those decisions were taken in consultation with representatives of the opposition parties who are happy with the approach that my right honourable friend adopted. There is widespread support for it. More generally, perhaps I may usefully quote what the Home Secretary said during Second Reading in another place:
"If weekend voting ever became part of the national arrangements, we would have to ensure that it took place on both days. There are members of the Jewish community who would not wish to vote on a Saturday and there are members of other communities … who have strong feelings about the observance of [Sundays]".—[Official Report, Commons, 30/1 1/99; col. 172.]
I hope therefore that I have been able to reassure the Committee that the Government are fully alert to the needs of those of strong religious persuasion and that we shall do nothing that is detrimental to the interests of such people. I hope that that is a clear statement which will give the noble Lord the reassurance he seeks.
I turn now to Amendment No. 96, which goes much further. If passed, it would, as I understand it, preclude the running of pilot schemes which involved early voting, changes in polling hours or voting on days of the week other than Thursdays. I should be grateful for the noble Lord to confirm that that is his intention. I cannot believe that he really wants to rule out—
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: Perhaps it may help if I save the Minister the next two paragraphs. I believed that I had made clear at the beginning that this is entirely a probing amendment to enable us to discuss "when" and to discover exactly what the Government are thinking. The Minister does not need to assume that I intend to press the amendment.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I am grateful for that clarification. However, I was trying to get to the heart of the noble Lord's intent. I cannot believe that he wants to rule out a large number of the proposed

1073
pilots. If that is clear, then I am happy with that. As I explained, I have some sympathy with the restrictions that the noble Lord seeks to place on Saturday or Friday voting, but the wider limitation that he has proposed would make little sense.
Pilots have been put in place to test the arrangements. That is an important issue. I would have hoped that the noble Lord and other Members of the opposition parties would understand the value of the pilots. If we test them and they work, then clearly they can have wider application. It would be unreasonable and unfair at this early stage, when we are trying out new ways of including people in the electoral process, to rule out anything which has value and merit. On that basis I invite the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Fookes: It may of interest to the Committee if I describe briefly a pilot scheme which the city of Plymouth is seeking to introduce on early voting. The scheme seeks to introduce voting on Friday 28th and Saturday 29th April—on Friday from 8 a.m. to 7 p.m. and on Saturday from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m.—at one central location, to be heavily advertised beforehand. I am not sure whether that would be acceptable to my noble friend Lord Mackay, but it may be of interest to consider how one authority is seeking to implement a pilot scheme.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I thank my noble friend for that information, which illustrates one of the problems. I do not know the size of the Jewish population in Plymouth, but some may feel unable to vote on the Saturday. I suppose that the experiment allows them to vote on the Friday. It will be interesting to see whether the Government agree to that pilot and, if so, what are the results. A point arises from that matter, but I shall come to it in a later amendment.
I repeat that this is entirely a probing amendment to try to have a discussion on what the Government mean by "when". The Committee is well used to probing amendments. The intention is not to replace the word "when"; the proposal is merely a peg on which to hang a debate about "when". I am pleased to hear the Minister quote his right honourable friend the Home Secretary on the question of Saturdays and Sundays. That goes a long way to reassure me. I know that it will reassure many people in the United Kingdom who believe either in keeping Saturday as a holy day, or indeed, certainly in the case of the West Highlands, in keeping Sunday as a holy day. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendment No. 97:
Page 11, line 45, leave out ("where").
The noble Lord said: The amendment is entirely a probing amendment in order to discuss the question of what the Government mean by "where". Traditionally in this country we have voted in schools, town halls
1074
and buildings of that nature. I gather that the experiments seek to introduce voting in other places. For example, in the Minister's Written Answer to his noble friend Lord Hardy of Wath on 1st February, reference is made to a "mobile ballot box". Perhaps the Minister will tell us how he conceives of such a thing. I have heard of mobile shops and many other mobile entities, but a mobile ballot box is rather novel. Perhaps the Minister will explain what is meant by it.
I understand also that there are propositions about polls being held in supermarkets, although I do not see any mentioned in the noble Lord's answer to his noble friend. I have some reservations about that. Indeed, I have tabled subsequent amendments in order to make sure that that is done in an above-board manner. Some supermarkets are associated with senior politicians. There is a noble Lord on the Government Front Bench in this House who has a supermarket chain bearing his name. Until very recently one of my honourable friends in the other place ran a major supermarket chain. I am not entirely sure whether the governing party would have been happy if polling stations had been set up in Asda while Mr Archie Norman was still running it. It might have thought that that was not quite right because Mr Norman might use his position to rearrange the shelves near the polling booth or whatever. The same could be true—
3.30 p.m.
Baroness Gould of Potternewton: I find that argument most extraordinary. Is the noble Lord really suggesting that someone would be so devious—someone as senior as those to whom the noble Lord referred—that he would rearrange the shelves in his shops in order to make sure that the polling booth was where he wanted it? That is a nonsense argument and one which I hope is a joke.
Lord McNally: Before the noble Lord admits that to be a joke, given some of the shenanigans we have seen from Millbank over the selection of their candidate, is not anything possible these days?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: Anything is possible these days, as the noble Lord, Lord McNally, said. The shelves would have to be rearranged. Both the supermarkets I go to—they are different chains—have newspaper stands immediately at the entrance. On newspaper stands there tend to be newspapers. On a polling day, especially for a general election, those newspapers would contain political information. In the curtilage of the public buildings where polls are held no political material is allowed. That is right and proper. With all due respect to the noble Baroness, Lady Gould, those are the kinds of questions that would have to be answered in relation to supermarkets. The shelves would have to be rearranged. After all, if I wanted to help, let us say, the Conservative Party—I do not think that it is all that machiavellian—I could arrange that the Daily

1075
Telegraph was the foremost newspaper on the news stands. If I wanted to help the Labour Party, I might make the Mirror—
Baroness Gould of Potternewton: I find this most extraordinary. Local elections are governed by rules. The rules state that there should be no political advertising of any kind within a space round the polling station. Yes, shelves would have to be moved, but that does not mean that it would be possible to put the Daily Telegraph in front of the polling station.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: With all due respect, the noble Baroness is making my point for me. One is not allowed to have that kind of material round a polling station. So I want some kind of explanation from the Minister as to how the Government will put polling stations into supermarkets without doing a lot more than just putting in the polling stations. How will they ensure that the electoral laws axe being obeyed? That is a simple question. I am grateful to the noble Baroness for helping to make it a little clearer.
I am also concerned about the politics of the matter. I know some people who, perhaps quite wrongly, would find it very hard to go into a supermarket run by the Co-operative in order to vote. They might think that that was quite wrong and that they were being asked to go into something which they associate with the Labour Party. That may be right or wrong, but I know that they do that. They might think that that was hardly a neutral place in which to vote. Some people on the Left might think that going into the capitalism of a supermarket was not the right place in which to vote. We have to think very carefully about this matter.
In addition, the supermarket might be quite keen to get the polling station rather than its competitors because that would draw in people to vote in the supermarket on that day. With a bit of luck those people might then do some shopping. That is what supermarkets are about. That is why they give the free offers: "Come and have a free ballot today and then do your shopping". They might even give discounts on shopping on that day to encourage people in. Perhaps that is what is intended in order to try to increase the turn-out.
I should be grateful if the Minister would run through what exactly the Government have in mind when it comes to changing the place of voting. What is a mobile polling station? How do they envisage that working? If we to go into places like supermarkets and shopping malls, how will they ensure that the same rigid rules, which the noble Baroness, Lady Gould has rightly drawn to our attention, are applied in those supermarkets as are applied currently in the public buildings where we are used to casting our votes? I beg to move.
Baroness Gould of Potternewton: I wish to refer to the noble Lord's final point about the buildings in which we are used to voting. I do not know whether the noble Lord has ever voted in a caravan, but I certainly have. We have always had moveable polling stations and we have always managed to abide by the rules that
1076
govern local government when that has happened. It has been done for the convenience of the electors, in order to ensure that they can get to the polling station. I hope that that will continue.
I am very interested in the concept of mobile polling stations. I have spent a good deal of time looking at the new democracies and how they encourage people to vote. I found it fascinating to learn that polling stations are taken to hospitals and old people's homes so that people can register their vote and not miss out by having to go through an absent voting scheme. I should like to hope that we might be as imaginative and as thoughtful as those countries are in providing the best possible means of making it easier for people to vote.
Lord Goodhart: I can go a little of the way with the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, but not as far as he goes. I find a little far-fetched the concept that Conservative-minded supermarket owners might fill the shelves near the polling station with bottles of Haig whisky. Indeed, I would certainly welcome the idea of having mobile polling stations in a shopping mall or set up in a pedestrianised shopping street. The one point on which I feel some concern is having polling stations inside supermarkets or other retail premises. Commercial matters can arise there. It can be regarded as giving that particular supermarket an advantage over its rivals. People may say, "Let's go and vote and do our shopping at the same time". I am not sure that having people going up and down the aisles and checking out at the tills while one is a few feet away casting one's vote is the way I should like to see voting carried out. I have reservations about the idea of polling stations being situated inside retail premises.
Lord Jopling: I have listened to the debate with a good deal of interest. I have been trying to put the comments that have been made by Members of the Committee alongside a most helpful brief I received from the Local Government Association—I imagine that many Members of the Committee have the brief—in which are listed at the back the applications that have already been made for various pilot schemes. Forty-four local authorities have proposed a total of 64 different pilot schemes. I am interested to see that there are only four applications for pilot schemes regarding where one votes out of 64. That does not seem to reflect very much interest. With regard to the debate we had a few minutes ago about when people should vote, there were 27 applications, which seems to be rather a lot. Almost all of those were with regard to early voting and only six were with regard to weekend voting. It is significant that only four applications have been made with regard to where one votes. Interestingly, all had regard to mobile ballot boxes; none covered the siting of polling stations in supermarkets. I agree with the comments of a number of previous speakers. It does not make too much sense to start changing the format of a supermarket in order to embrace a polling station. I understand that those who run supermarkets give huge attention to the use of space. Surely fundamental changes in the supermarket structure would be necessary in order to accommodate a polling station.

1077
Like the noble Lord who has just spoken and the noble Baroness, Lady Gould, I have some interest in "mobile polling stations"; however, I am not sure what is meant by the term. Do we mean a caravan which is moved to a polling area and placed in one spot for the period when the polls are open? Like the noble Baroness, I remember caravans being used as polling stations in my former constituency. There is nothing wrong with that. But when I think of mobile polling stations, I am inclined to think more of the possibility of their being moved around. My former constituency in the Lake District included a large number of elderly people, as there were a large number of retirement homes. I could envisage it being helpful if arrangements could be made for a mobile polling station to call at certain times on retirement homes where the residents could come out and vote in person. I have always found that elderly people particularly like voting in person and much prefer it to a postal vote. All of us with experience of the elderly know their fierce sense of independence and how they like to make the effort to go to the polling station. Such an arrangement would be helpful for retirement homes.
A list of local authorities have made applications for pilot schemes; however, I see practically no interest in anything other than mobile polling stations, and not much interest in those. Therefore, I hope that our thoughts will be concentrated on mobile polling stations and not on any of the other options.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My noble friend Lord Mackay has dealt with this proposal in a particularly even-tempered fashion. To that extent, I think he is wrong. If he reflects on his own political involvement, he will know that, however composed people may be during a general election campaign, when it comes to polling day, emotions tend to be somewhat aroused. Over the past 20 years, I have been engaged in many arcane arguments about whether posters can be leant against the railings of a school as opposed to being attached to them, with the consequence that the local chief constable has been telephoned. All manner of people become extremely excited about these events. Even-tempered as my noble friend may be about this matter, he is absolutely correct to understand that it is an issue that could cause real difficulty. I have never been more vigorously castigated by political opponents than when I once inadvertently entered a polling station wearing my party's favours. I was taken apart by those who were doing duty as polling agents.
Am Ito understand that if a polling station is to be within a supermarket, no one would be allowed to display their party favours; or, on the contrary, among and around the baked beans could we marshal an army of those wearing blue rosettes and that would be legitimate, while five yards away in what was a temporary polling station people were meant to be given the occasion to cast their vote completely freely and without any interference? There is real issue here, and clear rules are needed.
1078
Like my noble friend Lord Jopling, I have no difficulty at all with the idea of mobile polling stations. Indeed, the idea of a caravan being placed in the car park of a huge supermarket such as Sainsbury at Nine Elms where people coming to do their shopping could slip in and vote and around which there would be a kind of cordon sanitaire, presents no difficulty. However, if the idea is that when people enter a polling station there are newspapers and all manner of things around and, frankly, a large number of people milling around with no interest whatsoever in voting, there really needs to be a requirement that we know precisely what would be permitted and what would not. I urge the Committee to note, as those who have engaged in party politics know, that as the day wears on, emotions can become very frayed indeed.
3.45 p.m.
Baroness Fookes: I hope that the idea of mobile polling stations will be pursued vigorously and in detail. I have one concern. If they are to be of the caravan or van type, there may be difficulty for those who are disabled in mounting the steps. They can often be quite steep. One would need to look carefully at precisely the kind of vehicle that would be used.
I, too, like the idea enunciated by my noble friend of having a mobile polling station in a supermarket car park, but certainly not anywhere within the building. A car park is one thing; the supermarket itself is quite different.
Lord Smith of Leigh: First, perhaps I may declare an interest as one of the foot-soldiers of politics who takes a great interest in these matters. The proposal challenges the 19th century assumptions about where people vote. We have always voted in public buildings, often in schools. But nowadays, when we are thinking about raising standards in schools, and whether a day's schooling should be lost, we need to think whether schools are the best places for people to vote.
As my noble friend Lady Gould said, mobile polling stations are not new in political activity. They exist in polling districts where there are no suitable public buildings. I agree entirely with the previous speaker regarding access. That is a critical point in relation to mobile stations. We cannot always obtain the type that are accessible. Certainly, the more people are interested in the idea, the more difficult it may become. We must not assume that mobile stations will be available everywhere when required; we shall all require them on the same day. Therefore, those who need them will have to book early, and the type that have ramps for easy access will tend to go first, leading to problems for the elderly.
I agree with the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Jopling, on the need for the elderly to get out physically and vote. It is an activity that they enjoy. They are much more committed than many of the younger generation. I think the noble Lord's point related not so much to a mobile polling station, but to mobile ballot boxes. That possibility should be examined.
Lord McNally: This debate has given a whole new meaning to "chasing the vote"! I should like to clarify

1079
one point about the term "mobile". We all have experience of caravans being used as polling stations, but do the Government envisage experiments where a mobile station may be located at more than one place during a polling day— for example, at a railway car park during the morning and evening rush hour, and deployed to a shopping centre in the afternoon? Will there be more than one location for a mobile station, or will it simply be in one place?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, for providing us with a good excuse to "go the round" on this one. That is very helpful. I was entertained to hear the noble Lord becoming slightly "moral" in his remarks, but we shall put that to one side.
There have been a number of useful. I contributions. I shall attempt to answer the points made as best I can. The idea of using mobile polling stations is very much targeted on old people's homes (if I may use that term). A mobile facility can be taken to any number of locations during the course of polling day (or days) to assist elderly people to cast their vote. The noble Baroness, Lady Fookes, made the very important point that these structures must give easy access. The Home Office already makes available grants for temporary polling stations to provide easy accessibility. Whether one uses the same mobile facility to visit railway station car parks, bus stations, park-and-ride stops or whatever, is something that local authorities must work out.
I was interested in the comment of the noble Lord, Lord Jopling, about the pilot schemes. He is quite right that there are not many schemes which do other than seek our endorsement of early voting systems, which is understandable. In this field it is still early days. There are some interesting innovations; for example, electronic counting and voting, and so on. Applications for mobile voting have been received from two very different authorities: Windsor and Watford. We must study carefully how they make progress with the mobile facilities during local elections this year.
A concern was raised about supermarkets. Brighton and Hove Council is first in a number of areas. Last year it used Asda. No doubt a good Labour council has contributed to the profits of the former employers of Mr Norman.
Lord Jopling: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. The noble Lord referred to requests for mobile voting facilities from Windsor and Watford. According to my list, those authorities also include Sunderland and Norwich.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I am grateful to the noble Lord for that correction. Having checked my list, it includes both local authority areas, together with other initiatives.
The Asda supermarket polling station was very successful and increased the turn-out in that locality, which was a marina site and a popular place for second homes. That was a helpful and well-conducted
1080
exercise. We seek to bring forward in the pilots new and different initiatives. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser of Carmyllie, was absolutely right. These initiatives can lead to a good deal of heated discussion and debate. We must be careful that in introducing them we do not upset people—for example, that the job of those who staff them is not made more difficult—or overburden the police, who have a difficult task to perform on polling day.
If the guidelines are followed and the returning officer is satisfied that the polling station arrangements comply with the statutory requirements, I see little difficulty. A screened-off area in a discrete part of a building can work wonders. Last year I voted in a pub located just round the corner from the home of my noble friend Lady Gould. That polling station was screened off from the pub and was open all day. Although there were not floods of people—it was the euro-elections—the polling station was popular with, and well used by, those who knew where it was and wanted to participate.
It is strange that we have a history of voting only in draughty school halls and old church buildings. The distribution of those buildings is not necessarily best suited to today's diverse communities. If we encourage people to vote because the buildings that we make available are more accessible and better used, that is a good thing. That is what the pilot schemes attempt to achieve.
I hope that my response has given the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, an idea of the scope of our thinking. I am grateful to him for tabling a valuable probing amendment which appears to have elicited from all parts of the Committee a good deal of support for new and different places in which to vote. If that means that we can have longer polling times, that is all to the good. I hope that on this occasion the noble Lord will feel able to seek leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Earl of Sandwich: Before the noble Lord sits down, I wonder whether he wants to reply to his noble friend who asked whether a search should be made for an alternative to schools. It is a matter of pride not only for school governors and staff but for children that their schools are the centre of attention, at least for one day. Schools conduct their own mock elections. Often those activities are focused on general and local elections, both of which are significant events for schools.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: The noble Earl makes a useful point. In many areas, school buildings are the only major community facilities. They are a source of great pride and interest and become a focus for community activity. All that we seek to do in this legislation is to provide an opportunity for alternative premises to be used in addition to school buildings. Sadly, some school governors take the contrary view. They do not want the school to close for the whole day and the building to be used in this way; they want to carry on the normal routine. One understands that point of view, particularly if it enjoys the support of parents. School buildings will retain their importance

1081
in the conduct of democracy, both nationally and locally, but we should look for alternative buildings so that we have a good range, and perhaps a better distribution, of buildings to be used for the purpose.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I am grateful to all Members of the Committee who have taken part in the debate. This is a necessary debate if we are to move away from the traditional voting system. Perhaps I may give the Minister a small piece of advice based on his last point. For very obvious reasons, the one way to make the noble Lord and his Government deeply unpopular with schoolchildren would be to decide not to locate polling stations in schools. It might even make them deeply unpopular with school teachers, but let us leave that to one side!
We have made a little progress on the question of supermarkets. Although perhaps I attempted to treat it in a light-hearted manner, my noble and learned friend Lord Fraser of Carmyllie reminded me of some of the battles that had been joined as to where party literature and posters could and could not be placed. Such matters would give rise to difficult issues in supermarkets. The concept of the reds, blues and yellows going into various shopping alleys to look for particular products may provide entertainment for a little while. One may have a game as to what they are shopping for as they mill around, and take the whole day to do it. However, there are serious problems if one uses buildings in which there are people present for other legitimate reasons.
Mobile facilities will give rise to difficulties; for example, the identification of those who have voted. I do not think it can ever be said that people must vote between 10 o'clock and 12 o'clock at the mobile station at their old folks' home. One would need another fixed polling station. There would have to be a relationship between the two polling stations to identify who had voted. That probably takes us into the realm of electronic voting, which I understand is also to be the subject of trials in some local authorities.
We have had a useful debate. The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, tempted me to believe that voting in supermarkets would be a splendid idea. Close to the entrance to a supermarket, for example, there might be a display of alcoholic refreshments from my native country, bearing the slogan "Don't be vague, vote for Hague". I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 98 and 99 not moved.]
4 p.m.
Lord McNally Lord McNally moved Amendment No. 100:
Page 12, line 1, at end insert ("and
(c) the system of voting;").
The noble Lord said: When we debated the issue last night the Minister was clear that the Greater London elections were local elections. Who am I to deny him that? It is strange, therefore, that the largest of all local elections will be conducted under a system of proportional representation. The Bill is supposed to
1082
encourage experiment on the when, where and how of voting. Yet the Government have held back from experiment with the system of voting.
Let me confess, before the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, reminds me, that during our debate on the European Parliament elections, I was overly optimistic about the impact of proportional representation on the willingness of the electorate to vote. That is why there is need for further experiment. There is no doubt that local elections are bedevilled by low turn-out. I shall not make the ambitious claims that I made at the time of the European elections: that proportional representation at local level will immediately galvanise the population to use their vote. However, I believe that it is worth putting that concept forward as regards one of the experiments. If the London elections show a higher turn-out than other local elections, I hope that we shall be entitled to draw comfort from that impact of proportional representation.
Proportional representation in our local government might be a way of removing some of the abuses that have emerged in what have become one-party states dotted around our local government system. I shall not go into the details of that as regards PR but it is a factor to bear well in mind. It would be interesting to know why the Government pulled back from allowing some experiments in PR in local government elections.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I looked at the list of amendments to see whether there was one on proportional representation; and I was not disappointed. I should have been surprised if the noble Lords on the Liberal Democrat Benches had not brought forward such an amendment.
The Bill's scope is limited to the ideas of the working party on electoral procedures. The purpose of the Bill is to give life and effect to those ideas. The working party was clear that its recommendations related only to electoral procedures. It did not consider electoral systems. I venture to suggest that there would probably have been little scope for agreement across all the parties involved in the working party had that been part of its remit. I suspect that the noble Lord will acknowledge that.
I do not dispute that the issue of voting systems is important. However, most people would argue that that matter should be dealt with in primary legislation which is fit for the purpose. That was the case with the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly and the European Parliament elections. I am grateful to the noble Lord for rehearsing the customary arguments. I understand the point about some of the abuses that the provision might check in some parts of local government where one party predominates exclusively for long periods of time. That is an important issue. Whether the amendment is necessarily the right way or the only way to deal with that issue is a broader political question.
There will be continued debate in this field. We have not yet seen the end of discussion and debates about proportional representation as an important feature of

1083
constitutional developments in the UK. We shall await with considerable interest the outcome of the Greater London Authority elections which rest in part on a form of proportional representation. So there is a continuing debate. It is not the end of the story and no doubt we shall return to the matter time and again. Perhaps the noble Lord will consider withdrawing the amendment.
Lord McNally: I appreciate the Minister's constructive response. I make one point. For Liberal Democrats it is no longer a matter of pleading poverty. In many local authorities we are the beneficiaries of a distorting electoral system. It is not simply that we are a third party. In many local authorities we are now the first party and benefit considerably from the winner-takes-all nature of politics.
However, the Minister responded in a constructive fashion, for which I thank him. The noble Lord, Lord Mackay, remained silent, for which I thank him. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 101 not moved.]
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendment No. 102:

Page 12, line 4. at end insert
("( ) No more than one such new scheme, at any one time, shall be approved in a given electoral area.").
The noble Lord said: The amendment provides that, where experimentation takes place, no more than one experiment at a time should occur so that one can assess the result of one change without the distortion of other changes. I referred earlier to the Written Answer to the Question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Hardy of Wath. Some local authorities propose two or three experiments. In some cases they are doing so ward by ward and that will probably meet my concern. However, in others the position is not entirely obvious. For example, the North Hertfordshire District Council would have Saturday voting, early voting and change to absent vote arrangements. If all three were allowed, and let us assume that there is an increase in the turn-out, these questions would then have to be asked. Was the position evenly balanced? Were all factors involved? Was only one factor involved and did not the others come into play?
If we are to learn from these experiments we have to be careful that they are conducted in a scientific way. One would not conduct a scientific experiment by including a number of variables in the experiment, but with only one variable at a time.
This is a probing amendment to see whether the Government have given some thought to the matter. If not, they should do so before deciding to agree on the experiments put forward to them by the local authorities. I beg to move.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I have some sympathy with the noble Lord's comments. However, I invite the noble Lord to consider this point. He is right that a number of authorities have come up with multiple
1084
options for encouraging people to vote through the pilot schemes. My notes tell me that some 11 authorities seek to carry out more than one pilot. There are some 60 different schemes. Therefore we have the opportunity to see how they play in multiple schemes and in a single instance. So we have opportunities to understand how the multiple effect might affect turn-out; or the effect of a pilot scheme conducted in a discrete area. We can compare and contrast. That may well provide us with some clues as to the best way to encourage the electorate generally to participate in local democracy, or, at some future stage, in national elections. While I understand the noble Lord's concern, I believe that it is misplaced. What we are attempting to do here is to get the best out of having many flowers blooming at one instance and comparing that situation with isolated and discrete pilots. I trust that if the noble Lord takes on board those comments, he will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I am grateful to the noble Lord the Minister for his response and I am pleased to hear that he appreciates my point. Although I understand what he is trying to say, I have my doubts about whether one could legitimately come to hard and fast conclusions if a number of variables had been introduced in the same area. One would then have to look to other areas where there was only one variable in order to appreciate the impact. I hope that the Government will not favour multiple variables over the whole field. When they agree these proposals, I hope that they will make sure that they have enough single variables so that they and we can come to a proper conclusion about the results of these different variables in the voting system. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 103 to 106 not moved.]
Lord Jopling Lord Jopling moved Amendment No. 107:
Page 12, line 15, leave out ("the authority concerned shall prepare a report on") and insert ("an independent assessment shall be made of").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 107. We come now to consider what will happen once these pilot schemes have been tried out. A local authority will clearly wish to make a report. My amendment removes the duty to do so, but I do not believe that, in practice, any authority that has applied to carry out a pilot scheme would not wish to make a report. I do not see any point in saying that they must do it. If they do not want to do it, so be it.
The key point is that, once a pilot scheme has been carried out, there must be an independent assessment of it. Those of us who have had experience of local government know that a report would have to be approved by a local council, and no doubt at the end of the day the content of that report by a local council would be biased in favour of what the majority party on that council wanted to see, for electoral reasons, coming out of the pilot. For that reason, a report by

1085
a local authority alone would be utterly inadequate in assessing the benefit of these pilot schemes. It is essential, therefore, that there should be an independent assessment of each pilot scheme, which can then be submitted.
My noble friend Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish has tabled another amendment in relation to what should happen to a report by independent assessors, to which he will no doubt speak in a moment or two. However, the point that I wish to make as strongly as I can is that all these schemes must have independent assessments, which must start at the planning stage of the pilot scheme. The independent assessments must examine the conduct of the pilot scheme as it is carried out, monitor it, and then monitor the results at the end of the day. Simply to have a report by a local authority would be totally inadequate. We must have it done by an independent body.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My noble friend Lord Jopling has made a very valid point. He has mentioned my amendment, which is grouped with his. My amendment simply proposes that the Secretary of State should lay a copy of any report on any experiment before each of the Houses of Parliament together with a statement of his assessment of the experiment. Frankly, I am less worried about getting the Secretary of State's assessment. I am much more concerned with obtaining some form of independent assessment. I would like to see a local authority submitting its proposals for the assessment as well as its proposals for the experiment.
I shall not take up too much time, but I draw the Minister's attention to a briefing that we have received from the Local Government Association on this Bill, in which, at paragraph 5, it states:
"We understand some of the potential concerns around the roll out provision. For this reason, we have been keen to ensure that there is a proper independent evaluation of the pilots before a decision to roll them out is made".
There is currently no provision for that. I doubt that I would accept an assessment from the local authority whose pilot it was, nor, dare I say with all due respect to the Home Office, from Home Office Ministers. Rather, I would want an assessment from some form of independent body. There are many universities that would, I have no doubt, be more than happy to conduct independent assessments of the various systems with which we shall be experimenting. It is therefore important that we should have some independent assessment before we ever consider rolling out any local experiment more widely to elections throughout the country.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I have quite a lot of sympathy with the thought behind both of these amendments. However, I do not believe that at this stage either of them is necessary, and I shall now attempt to argue why that may be the case.
1086
The noble Lord, Lord Jopling, is understandably anxious to ensure that pilot schemes are properly evaluated and has suggested that reports on the pilots should be prepared not by the local authorities that are running them but by independent assessors. As I understand it, he is concerned that a local authority may take too subjective a view of its experiment and may not produce a report which gives the Secretary of State enough information on which to take a view of the success or otherwise of the innovation which has been piloted.
I do not, however, believe that this needs to be a real worry. Local authorities will carry out their evaluations in line with guidance issued by the Home Office, and that is very important indeed. If we have clear guidance in place, people will be able to understand exactly what we are seeking. There should not be too many problems, and we should therefore be satisfied with the way in which it will work.
The reports will have to provide factual information on turn-out and they will have to consider the take up of particular measures and the cost. The reviews will also involve structured interviews; they will seek the views of voters and, as importantly, non-voters, electoral staff, candidates and parties on the effects of the change being piloted and sampled. I do not believe that there is a risk that a report of this sort will be unduly coloured by the subjective views of local authorities. After all, they will be compiled by professional officers, and there will be a limited scope, in a sense, for members to become directly involved, which might add that extra element of subjectivity, important though that can be in some of these piloting arrangements. The local authorities will be in the best position to collect and collate all the material that is required. There is no real reason why they should be required to buy in outside help if they do not wish to do so. The local authorities have a duty and an obligation to operate quite properly and correctly within the guidance that will be issued by the Home Office.
I entirely understand the concerns of the Local Government Association. It is very enthusiastic for this legislation. It is very enthusiastic for pilot schemes, and I can understand why it may wish to bring in an independent element. In the future, of course, we shall only be able to roll out the pilots on a recommendation of the electoral commission, in legislation which comes later. That may well help us in this regard, and we can say more about that when we discuss Clause 11.
I hope that what I have said about the form in which the assessments are to be made will offer the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, some reassurance. I also repeat the assurances that have been given by my colleagues in another place about the publication of the evaluation reports. All the reports—not only those on schemes which we consider have been a success—will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses of Parliament and will be made available, without restriction, to anyone who wishes to see them, either at local level or centrally. To that extent, the noble Lord's amendment will, of course, be superfluous.

1087
So, too, would be a further assessment by the Secretary of State. The evaluation reports produced by local authorities should provide all the information needed to reach a view on the success or otherwise of the various pilots. There is no need for the Secretary of State to put a further gloss on the material. Indeed, I do not believe that that would be right or desirable.
I hope that with those reassurances, my comments about the electoral commission and the way in which we would expect professional officers within the local authority to operate, the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Jopling: I am most disappointed with the Minister's reply. It is not realistic. It is all very well saying that we can rely on the officers of local authorities to make proper and correct reports, but those reports will be produced by members of the council, who are biased. In almost all cases throughout the country, they are members of political parties and they will look upon the pilot schemes with half an eye to their political advantage. I believe that the Minister has been complacent in his reply.
It is a matter to which we must return at a later stage and I hope that the Minister will consider more carefully the problems to which the reports could give rise. It is a pity that he has not been able to be more specific about the electoral commission. The Local Government Association has proposed that there should be three reports: one from the local authority; one by an independent assessment; and one from the electoral commission. I am not sure that we need as many as that, but if the Minister could undertake to ensure that the legislation dealing with the creation of the electoral commission will include a duty to provide independent assessments of the pilot schemes, that would go a long way to satisfying us.
I am most dissatisfied, but I shall listen to what the Minister is about to say.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: Perhaps my answer was not clear. In future, we shall be able to roll out pilots only on the recommendation of the electoral commission. Therefore, it will have a distinct role in engaging and assessing the way in which pilot schemes have operated and their future prospects. I should have thought that that would satisfy most of the noble Lord's points.
I have considerable sympathy with the points which he and the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, made. As the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, accurately said, many academic institutions have great expertise in making such assessments, having been involved in best-value pilot assessments and so forth. We understand the points, but we believe that we should try to make best use of the electoral commission when it is in place. It will have an important role to play in this respect.
Lord Jopling: I hope that the Minister's sympathy can be turned into something solid at Report stage. We must raise this matter again because it is vitally important. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 108 not moved.]
Clause 10 agreed to.
Clause 11 [Revision of procedures in the light of pilot schemes]:
Lord Goodhart Lord Goodhart moved Amendment No. 109:
Page 13, line 13, leave out ("relevant elections of any description") and insert ("local government elections in England and Wales").
The noble Lord said: This is the last of what I see to be the three crucial amendments to the Bill. The first related to the free mailshots for the London elections; the second related to the right of access to the full electoral register for commercial organisations; this is the third and, in constitutional terms, it is the most important. It raised considerable concern on these and the Conservative Benches at Second Reading.
The issue of when, how and where we vote is extremely important. Previously, in its central principles, it was always dealt with by primary legislation. The schedules to the Representation of the People Act 1983 contain detailed rules about voting which in any other field would be left to secondary legislation. The rules set out in the schedules extend even to prescribing the equipment which must be present in polling stations. The constitutional importance of rules about voting was illustrated by the fact that when this Bill was debated in the other place, the whole of the Committee stage was taken on the Floor of the House.
Clause 10, which we have just debated, allows pilot schemes to be tried out in local government elections. There is no parliamentary control on the Secretary of State's approval of particular pilots. We did not object to that because it is right that the Secretary of State should have a reasonably free hand in deciding what is to be dealt with in pilot schemes in a small number of locations. However, Clause 11 allows pilot schemes to be made permanent and applied across the board not only for local government elections—the only kind of elections in which they have been tested—but for elections to Westminster, the EU Parliament, the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly and the Northern Ireland Assembly.
We believe that long-term alterations to the voting system should have full parliamentary approval through primary legislation. That applies not only to the franchise and voting system, but also to the mechanics of voting. Secondary legislation is not enough. That is particularly true, even if it is the affirmative resolution procedure, in view of the proposals in the Wakeham report to restrict the powers of your Lordships' House to block statutory instruments.
The Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Deregulation recommended that the powers under Clause 11 should be restricted to local government elections; and that the read-out from the pilot schemes could be applied without primary legislation in local government elections, but in other cases could be applied only with primary legislation.
The amendments in the group are intended to achieve that. They would leave the Government free to introduce under Clause 11 secondary legislation to roll over the pilot schemes into permanent form, but primary legislation would be required for elections to the other place and to the other bodies which I mentioned.
Even in respect of local government, the reports from the local authorities operating the pilot schemes are not an adequate basis for a Clause 11 order. In that, I echo the points made on the previous group of amendments by the noble Lord, Lord Jopling. Therefore, the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee proposed a further safeguard that consultation with the electoral commission should take place before the Secretary of State could make an order even in relation to local government.
I was encouraged to hear from the Minister that in future there will be consultation with the electoral commission. I can quite see why that cannot be put into this Bill because the electoral commission is to be set up under the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Bill which is further back in the queue of waiting legislation. But it is plain that the electoral commission should be consulted about all these regulations under Clause 11. That would require an amendment to Clause 6 of what I call for short the political parties Bill, under which, for example, the electoral commission is required to be consulted about the making of any regulations under the Representation of the People Act 1983 for which the affirmative resolution procedure is required. Regulations made under this Bill should also be added to that list.
In summary, we say that Clause 11 should not apply to any elections except local government elections in England and Wales, and should only apply to them after consultation with the electoral commission. I have said that I recognise that that cannot be dealt with in this Bill because the electoral commission is to be set up by a future Bill. But I hope that the Government will not use their powers under Clause 11, even as regards local government, until the electoral commission has been set up and is ready to advise. I ask the Government to undertake to amend Clause 6 of the political parties Bill and not to exercise their powers under Clause 11 before Clause 6 of the political parties Bill is in force.
I recognise that in practice that means that Clause 11 cannot be exercised in time for the local elections in the year 2001 because the electoral commission not only has to be set up by statute but also has to recruit staff and have members appointed. It will take some time before it can come into operation. Therefore, in practice, I believe that the electoral commission cannot operate until the year 2002. I believe that that is acceptable and even desirable. These are extremely important issues. There is no need for great urgency. I believe it essential that the electoral commission is involved in the process and that Clause 11 powers should not be exercised until the electoral commission is
1090
in a position to play its part. Having said that, I re-emphasise that this applies only to local government elections. We believe that Clause 11 powers should not be used at all other than as regards local government. I beg to move.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Brougham and Vaux): I have to advise the Committee that if Amendment No. 110 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 111. Likewise, in this group of amendments, if Amendment No. 115 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments Nos. 116 or 117.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I support Amendments Nos. 109, 112 and 115. I shall not take much of the Committee's time. I wholly agree that there should be full parliamentary approval of primary legislation as stated by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart. At Second Reading I took the stand that Clause 11 could not stand part of the Bill, as drafted—I remain of that opinion—in the sense that it was applicable to all types of elections referred to in Clause 11(7). But if Clause 11 is amended to relate exclusively to revision in the light of pilot schemes limited only to local government elections, well and good. As I understand it, that is broadly the effect of these amendments. That is why I support them. If these or similar amendments to such effect are not acceptable to the Government, then in my view this clause should not stand part of the Bill.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: On reaching Clause 11, I read it two or three times. I could hardly believe that the Government were bringing forward such a proposal. It seemed amazing to me then, and still does, that on the basis of local government elections in certain parts of England and Wales, and experiments conducted in those elections, the Secretary of State should seek the power by order, even an affirmative order, to roll out these experiments not just over the whole of England and Wales, but also for parliamentary elections, European Parliament elections, elections to the Scottish Parliament and the National Assembly for Wales, and elections to the Northern Ireland Assembly and local government elections in Northern Ireland.
I am not entirely sure what has happened to poor old Scotland as regards local government but it seems unbelievable that, on the basis of experiments conducted only in England and Wales, there should be a roll out in Northern Ireland local elections and in the Northern Ireland Assembly elections, the Welsh Assembly elections and the Scottish parliamentary elections besides the European parliamentary elections.
On studying the clause further I thought that it might be arguable—I still use those words—that the affirmative order would be sufficient for rolling out over the whole of England and Wales the experiments conducted in local government in England and Wales; in other words, in respect of elections of a similar kind in the same part of the country. I therefore tabled my raft of amendments which would achieve pretty much

1091
the same as the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart. So we are absolutely at one on the issue. I am not sure whether the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, believes that it would be fine and satisfactory if the roll out were only to local government elections and by affirmative order. I have to be persuaded about that; I believe that I could be. However, I certainly cannot be persuaded that they should be rolled out to parliamentary elections.
That leads me to the position that one either amends the clause along the lines of the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, or those that I have proposed, or a mixture of both. Alternatively, one takes the advice of my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway and votes against the whole clause and removes it from the Bill. I shall be interested what the Minister has to say.
I then thought to myself that the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee would not like that. Indeed, it did not. I am not surprised. Some Members of the Committee may know that I was one of the founder members of that committee, now the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee, which probably explains why I missed out the word "Deregulation" in first mentioning it. We started off by looking at secondary legislation in a very serious way, considering whether it was right to do something by that method or by the affirmative or negative procedures.
Shortly after the committee was established, I was asked to join the government and became the recipient of some vigorous comments from the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee. I believe I am right in saying that I took all the criticisms on board. I believe I am also right in saying that the last government, of which I was a member, took all the criticisms of that committee on board and attempted to accommodate them. It is fair to say the present Government have done the same. I therefore say to the Minister that we expect the Government on this issue to take the opinions of the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee to heart and make the necessary changes.
It is only fair that I should conclude by simply reading out what the committee said in order to reinforce the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart. When referring to such powers, it states in paragraph 25 of the, fourth report of 9th February:
"Such a power would be unacceptable to this committee.
The issue of where, when and how people vote is a matter of great importance. The House may wish to consider amending the bill to limit the power so that it extends only to elections in the category in which the pilot was conducted and covered by the report, namely local government".
I do not need to add anything to that statement, except to say that if the, Government do not take cognizance of what the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee has said here they will face a difficult debate once we examine the Bill on Report.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: We have had a useful debate on this clause and I note all the important and interesting contributions that have been made. I
1092
acknowledge also the strong feelings which some noble Lords have expressed. Equally, I, too, have read carefully the report of the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Deregulation, to which several noble Lords have referred.
The Government do not dismiss such views lightly and I would therefore like to explain to noble Lords why the Government believe that Clause 11, in its present form, should remain part of the Bill. As noble Lords are aware, Clause 10 of the Bill allows local authorities to apply to run pilot schemes at particular local elections. All such pilot schemes will need to be fully evaluated and, as I said earlier, a copy of the evaluation report must be sent to the Secretary of State within three months of the election concerned. I am happy to repeat the undertaking that has already been given that all such evaluation reports will be published. We shall certainly place copies in the Libraries of both Houses, so this will be a fully open and transparent process.
I ask noble Lords to consider what would happen if a particular innovation is a great success. Perhaps it has been tried in several local authorities of different demographic compositions and in each case turn-out has increased and the evaluation has shown that the electorates concerned welcomed the innovation. In such cases, we would want to apply the change more widely as quickly as possible. After all, speed is of the essence.
This is not only a theoretical argument. As many noble Lords will know, some 20 local authorities— both metropolitan and district councils—have applied to run early voting trials at the local elections in May of this year. The schemes have been well thought out and planned and, of course, will be fully evaluated. All told, several million voters will be given the opportunity to vote early. I contend that this is a large enough sample on which to make a judgment as to whether early voting does indeed make it easier for people to vote and, perhaps more important, whether it encourages people who would not otherwise have voted to do so.
If this clause were to be removed from the Bill, we could not introduce early voting or any other innovations that have been successfully piloted, except by introducing further primary legislation. Noble Lords know very well that demand for legislative slots always exceeds the amount of parliamentary time available. Who knows when my right honourable friend the Home Secretary might be able to secure a slot for the necessary legislation? I dare say that those who had already tried out the successful innovations would find it difficult to understand why they would have to wait for them to be available at other elections.
It is our hope that we shall have a steady stream of pilots over the next few years. It is quite possible that, each year, one or more successful innovations will emerge. However, the chances of securing several legislative slots in the next few years to apply such successful innovations more widely seems remote, to put it mildly. Instead, we have provided that any innovations which are shown to be a success can be

1093
rolled out more generally by order. Such orders will be subject to affirmative resolution procedures in both Houses, so Parliament will have ample opportunity to express its view, and, as I have already said, the evidence on which to form a judgment will be freely available.
Several of these amendments suggest that, because pilot schemes have been tried out in local elections, it should be possible only to roll them out to local elections; and indeed the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee has suggested something along similar lines. However, I cannot see the logic of this. If a particular innovation is a success and if it is popular with the public, why should its use be restricted only to certain types of election?
There would also be practical problems with this approach. In many areas, local elections take place much more frequently than any other kind of election, so the electorate would get used to being able to vote early, electronically, or over several days, using whatever method had been chosen. Imagine the confusion among electors if, when the general election came, they suddenly found that they could only vote in the traditional way. Many might well be caught unawares and might find themselves unable to vote at all.
It gets worse. Imagine that various innovations have been rolled out to local elections and so applied—perhaps, for example, to Brighton and Hove, a council close to my heart. However, imagine that it so happened that on the same day a by-election was scheduled to take place in one of the Brighton parliamentary constituencies. The effect of that could be that electors in one half of Brighton and Hove would be able to vote using the new, improved and innovative electoral procedures, while voters in the other half would not. That strikes me as being a recipe for confusion. For those reasons, we do not believe that a partial roll-out option is a sensible one.
The Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee also suggested that the electoral commission should have a role in determining whether pilot schemes should be rolled out. I can assure noble Lords that that is the intention of the Government. As I have explained in responding to previous amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, we do not believe that we can refer to the electoral commission in this Bill since that body does not yet exist; the Bill before us is the earlier of the two Bills.
However, I can assure noble Lords that we shall be bringing forward an amendment to the other electoral Bill—the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Bill—to provide that the Secretary of State will only be able to make an order under Clause 11(1) of that Bill—rolling out a pilot scheme—on the recommendation of the electoral commission. That is quite unambiguous; a roll out will be able to take place only if the electoral commission has recommended it.
1094
Finally, I should point out that the notion of pilot schemes originated with the Working Party on Electoral Procedures. It is worth quoting from paragraph 3.1.14 of the working party's final report in which it states:
"Any legislation should in our view be framed to allow successful pilots to be rolled out widely without the need for further primary legislation".
We have followed that recommendation in framing this Bill. No member of the working party, including the Conservative and Liberal Democrat representatives, dissented from the recommendation. The working party recognized—
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I thank the noble Lord for giving way. Perhaps the Minister should refer to Recommendation 28 of the working party's report, which makes no suggestion in support of the case for extending this beyond local government elections. The Minister has referred to one part of the working party's report, but perhaps he should refer to paragraph 18 or 28—I regret that I cannot quite remember which; at Second Reading my noble friend Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish referred to paragraph 18.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: Whether it is paragraph 17 or 18, the Government have framed their view around paragraph 3.1.14. When I referred to it during the debate on Second Reading, I thought that the reference was quite unambiguous.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I am grateful to the noble Lord for allowing me to intervene. As my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway has just said, I referred to this at Second Reading. I am referring to the final report of the Working Party on Electoral Procedures. Reading the paragraph concerning the rolling out of pilot schemes, there is nothing that leads one to believe that such rolling out of pilot schemes should be applied to all elections. On reading the paragraph again, no forms of election are mentioned other than local elections. It refers to,
"arrangements in pilot schemes in local elections",
and over the page it refers to rolling out more widely.
While I accept that the noble Lord might be able to argue that that means that such schemes should be rolled out to all kinds of elections, it is equally arguable that it means rolling out more widely across local government elections in England and Wales. I regret that, as regards the final report of the working party, there is not much comfort for the Minister.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I am happy to rely on the paragraph from which I have quoted. I, too, have been studying the paragraphs; I think that our position is unambiguous and I believe that the position of the working party was unambiguous. As I have already said, no member of the working party dissented from the conclusion, which represented views from across the political spectrum. Indeed, the working party recognised the difficulty—I believe that this is an important point—of finding parliamentary time for

1095
electoral procedures legislation. I hope that the Opposition parties will recognise the importance of modernising electoral procedures.
Viscount Cranborne: I apologise for interrupting the noble Lord. I have listened with great care to his arguments for not following the recommendation of the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee. I believe that the noble Lord was not a Member of this House before the last general election when, as Leader, sometimes against the strong inclination of my government colleagues, I always tried to ensure that the recommendations of that committee were followed by government. Indeed, I am sure that noble Lords opposite who were Members of this House at that time will remember that the then opposition were absolutely adamant that that was the right thing to do.
Does the noble Lord agree that, so long as the convention remains in place, this House does not vote against secondary legislation? So long as the government of the day retain a substantial working majority in another place, it is very difficult to argue that an order-making power, whether by negative or affirmative procedure, can be anything except a transfer of power to the government provided that it is not possible for what is being approved to be approved through primary rather than secondary legislation. Therefore, the noble Lord's argument that it is adequate to give this House and another place the opportunity to look at these important matters, which are the absolute grist to our method of government, and that they should not be given the opportunity for primary legislation in fact constitutes a great transfer of power to the government of the day over our basic electoral procedures.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I believe that the noble Viscount makes a clever point. Of course, I would hope that the convention about secondary legislation and order-making powers would hold. However, no doubt that is something for the future. I believe that it is fair to say that, of course, it would be preferable if matters such as this—ideas for improving and modernising the electoral procedures—were to be approved by primary legislation. However, I believe that the argument which we are putting forward in this case is about flexibility. I would argue that this is an exceptional case. I believe that the process of scrutiny—rigorous as it is in both Houses but particularly rigorous here—is very important.
I apologise for speaking at such length on this matter. However, I recognise, as, clearly, do all Members of the Committee, that this is a most important matter. As I have already said, the scheme in this Bill will provide both Houses of Parliament with a full opportunity to debate the merits of any proposal to roll out an innovative electoral procedure. A recommendation from the electoral commission will be required. I believe that those are strong and important safeguards which we should develop and on which we should rely. Therefore, I hope—
Viscount Cranborne: I apologise for interrupting the noble Lord again. If it is true that he would like this
1096
convention to continue to be observed and if it is true that the government of the day have a working majority in another place, how can the affirmative procedure be a safeguard?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: There is a matter of tradition and history here. I am sure that the noble Viscount will be the first to agree that throughout 18 years of government by his own party it was proven to be a very effective safeguard. I have no doubt that he would argue that case. I believe that we must rely on the process of scrutiny to see us through such issues. Therefore, I hope that Members of the Committee will agree to the inclusion of Clause 11 because of the beneficial impact that the pilot procedures will have on extending and modernising our democracy. Because of those very important reasons, I believe that the Committee should support the inclusion of Clause 11 in its present form in the Bill.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: Before the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, winds up and decides what he should do with his amendments, perhaps I may intervene briefly in response to what I believe was an extremely disappointing speech from the Minister. He seemed to believe that we should be satisfied by his promises about the commission. In fact, the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee asked for that as well as primary legislation. I hope that the Minister will consider very carefully what he has done. I believe that he will go into the record books as the first Minister who refused resolutely to take on board the recommendations of the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee. Equally, if the pilots were a great success and if all the political parties agreed, there would be no great trouble in getting a piece of primary legislation through both Houses of Parliament. The Government have plenty—
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I did make the point that we had already accepted one of the proposals from the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee. That was in relation to an important consideration: the position of the electoral commission. I hope that the noble Lord will accept that point.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: Yes, I have accepted it and I believed that I had made that clear. I welcome that part but, frankly, it was not an either/or issue. It did not say that either one has primary legislation or one asks the electoral commission to deal with it. I am profoundly disappointed in the Minister's reply. I am profoundly disappointed in the attitude of the Government. If they will not listen to the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee, perhaps they should simply come forward with an amendment to wind it up. It is there to advise this House—and that means advising the Government. In this case, the Government seem to ignore that advice. I am not sure that the House will ignore that advice.
Lord Goodhart: The Minister will not be surprised to hear that I, too, found his response seriously

1097
unsatisfactory. I believe that the point which hit me was when he said that speed is of the essence. It is absolutely plain that when it comes to important and long-lasting constitutional reform, speed is not of the essence. It is important to give all these issues full and proper consideration. On any basis, I believe that it would be inappropriate to make permanent changes in the methods of voting simply on the basis of one-year trials in a few local authorities. We would need much more prolonged trials than that and in a properly selected number of different parts of the country.
We should also ensure that, before any change is made, there is an opportunity to seek the advice of the electoral commission. I certainly welcome the noble Lord's statement that the political parties Bill will be amended to provide that a roll-out can take place only on the recommendation of the electoral commission. Of course, that can happen only after the electoral commission has been set up. My understanding was—the noble Lord will correct me if I am wrong—that the Government were not proposing any kind of self-denying ordinance to say that they would not introduce roll-outs of any sort before the electoral commission has been set up. If they are not willing to give that undertaking, the position is that, within the next year or so before the electoral commission is up and running, the Government could, by secondary legislation, change the electoral system, not only for local government but for the next general election, which many people believe is now quite likely to take place on the same day as the local elections in 2001.
Finally and above all, the Minister will have heard the very strong support that he has been given, both from this party and from the Conservatives, with regard to the essential importance of reserving primary legislation for changes to any form of election other than local government elections. That being the case, I do not believe that this is the appropriate occasion on which to seek to divide the Committee. However, the Minister must be quite sure that we shall return to this matter on Report and that this is a very serious and important amendment. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 110 to 117 not moved.]
Clause 11 agreed to.
Lord Bach: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

North Wales Child Abuse Report
5 p.m.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, before I begin, I should like to place on record that I was a
1098
member of the Association of County Councils from 1981 until 1996 and that I chaired the association in 1995.
With the leave of the House, I shall repeat a Statement made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Wales. The Statement is as follows:
"With permission, I should like to make a statement about the report of the tribunal of inquiry into the abuse of children in care in the former county council areas of Clwyd and Gwynedd since 1974. Copies of the tribunal's report are available from the Vote Office.
"The report includes the testimony of many people who made allegations of physical and sexual abuse and gives an insight into the appalling suffering they endured as children. It is a tragedy that such treatment should have been meted out to children in care.
"The background to the inquiry is complex. Allegations about poor treatment of children in North Wales first emerged in 1986. One result was an intensive investigation by the North Wales Police in 1991 which resulted in a number of convictions. However, speculation continued that the actual physical and sexual abuse of children in care in the former Clwyd and Gwynedd was on a much greater scale. When in 1996, on legal advice, Clwyd County Council did not publish a report that it had commissioned, there was increasing concern in North Wales and in this House, and renewed speculation in the media, leading to calls for a public inquiry.
"The then Secretary of State for Wales, the right honourable Member for Richmond, informed the House on 17th June 1996 that there would be a judicial inquiry, under the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act 1921. Given what has emerged, I think the House will applaud his decision. Sir Ronald Waterhouse was appointed as chairman, with Margaret Clough and Morris le Fleming as the other members.
"The tribunal sat for 201 days between January 1997 and April 1998. Two hundred and sixty-four witnesses gave oral evidence and 311 submitted written evidence. The work of the tribunal was difficult and harrowing. I place on the record our gratitude to the tribunal for the work it has done and deep admiration for the courage of the many complainants who were willing to relive their childhood experiences.
"The report records the testimony of the witnesses in detail and with great sensitivity. Recounting past events will have been distressing to some. I have made arrangements for the services of the Bridge Child Care Development Service, which provided a witness support team throughout the proceedings, to be available again from today to witnesses and their relatives or partners for a period of up to six months.

1099
"In its report the tribunal has named many people: alleged abusers, convicted abusers, local government officers, elected members and Welsh Office officials. It has not named complainants or some alleged abusers. The tribunal set out its policy on the naming of names and did so in the knowledge that its report would have the absolute privilege afforded by the Parliamentary Papers Act 1840.
"The tribunal has also confronted the serious questions which arise about the management and safeguarding of children in care. There are 95 conclusions. Those relating to the abuse of children are: that there was widespread sexual abuse of boys and, to a lesser extent, of girls in local authority and privately run children's residential establishments and schools and in an NHS psychiatric unit, in Clwyd between 1974 and 1990; that there was no evidence of persistent sexual abuse in children's residential establishments in Gwynedd; that many children in children's residential homes were subjected to physical abuse; that sexual and physical abuse also occurred in a small number of foster homes in Gwynedd; that,
'There was no evidence presented to the Tribunal or to the North Wales Police to establish that there was a wide ranging conspiracy involving prominent persons and others with the objective of sexual activity with children in care'.
"However, the tribunal also says that,
'During the period under review there was a paedophile ring in the Wrexham and Chester areas in the sense that there were a number of male persons, many of them known to each other, who were engaged in paedophile activities and were targeting young men in their middle teens. The evidence does not establish that they were solely or mainly interested in persons in care, but such youngsters were particularly vulnerable to their approaches'.
"On the role of the police, the local authorities, the Welsh Office and central Government, the tribunal concludes broadly: that with few exceptions, the police carried out investigations properly; that standards of care and of education in children's residential establishments were deficient, and that failures in the care system were widespread and at all levels—including local authorities, the Welsh Office and central Government, embracing staff recruitment, supervision and management; qualifications and training; complaints and investigation procedures; registration and inspection; and policy making, implementation and monitoring by local authorities and government.
"There are 72 recommendations. On the detection of, and response to, abuse, the tribunal recommends that an independent children's commissioner for Wales should be appointed and that every social services authority, not only in Wales, should be required to appoint an appropriately qualified or experienced children's complaints officer.
"There are recommendations on advocacy services; complaints procedures and whistleblowers; on assessment and care planning; on inter-agency working when abuse is suspected; on the recruitment and training of staff and foster carers;
1100
on inspections and regulation of private residential schools and all forms of children's residential care; on common standards of care; and on support for young people leaving care.
"The tribunal makes recommendations on the expertise required in social services management; on the responsibilities of local authority members for monitoring services to children; on the need for a wide-ranging review of children's services in Wales; on monitoring residential and fostering services across Wales; and on the appointment of an advisory council for children's services in Wales.
"Many of the recommendations are specific to Wales and the National Assembly will receive the report today for the first time.
"Many of the recommendations have wider implications. We have already put significant new work in hand to secure real improvements in the standards of care we expect for children living away from home. As the tribunal recognises, there have been many far-reaching changes over the past decade, in particular flowing from the changed perceptions introduced by the Children Act 1989.
"More recently we have taken a number of important steps to raise the quality of care for children, in response to People Like Us, the report by Sir William Utting on the review of safeguards for children living away from home which was commissioned at the same time as the inquiry.
"The Protection of Children Act 1999 will create a statutory register of individuals deemed unsuitable to work with children. Regulated childcare providers will be required to check the names of anyone they propose to employ in posts involving regular contact with children against the statutory lists kept by the Department of Health and the DfEE.
"The Care Standards Bill will introduce improved arrangements in England and Wales for the independent regulation and inspection of local authority, voluntary and private sector services on an even-handed basis. Those will cover inspection of all children's homes, including those with fewer than four children; fostering agencies; voluntary adoption agencies; residential family centres and welfare arrangements in boarding schools.
"The Bill will also establish new care councils for England and Wales which will set out enforceable codes of conduct and practice for all social care employees. They will set standards and regulate the workforce, helping to ensure that staff get the training and qualifications they need.
"The Children (Leaving Care) Bill will put in place extensive new support arrangements to ensure that young people over 16 leaving care will continue to be supported until they are ready and able to stand on their own. There will be a duty placed on local authorities to assess and meet needs and to keep in touch with care leavers. Our plans for more general youth support, through the Connexions programme just launched in England, and a broadly

1101
similar scheme for Wales, will offer children in care, and others, a range of support in education, careers, housing and personal relationship issues.
"The Government have launched major new programmes, Children First in Wales, and Quality Protects in England, to improve the management and delivery of children's social services, including a distinct role for local councillors.
"Revised guidance on inter-agency working to safeguard and promote the welfare of children, the revised Working Together, was issued in England in December 1999 and will be issued in Wales in March.
"The tribunal's report adds impetus to this programme for change, but also makes significant new recommendations. We shall be looking hard at these to see how they complement changes we are planning or are already implementing, or whether a change of direction of emphasis is needed. At the top of the list is the tribunal's call for the appointment of a children's commissioner for Wales. The National Assembly is already working up detailed proposals for such an appointment, and we shall be considering how best to take this forward.
"Our key concern now must be to satisfy ourselves, so far as we can, that people who abused children are not in a position to do so now.
"Those individuals named in the report who are still working in one of the successor local authorities in North Wales have been traced and risk-assessed. However, given the time-span covered by the report, there are a number of individuals against whom findings are made in the report who are no longer working for one of the successor local authorities and whose current whereabouts are unknown. We are working together to establish the current whereabouts of these individuals and to ensure that they do not currently pose a risk to children or to other vulnerable groups.
"In order to achieve that, the Government are taking additional immediate action. We are today extending the consultancy index to permit the inclusion of names in the list otherwise than following a referral by an employer. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Health will announce today that a number of individuals named in the report who have been convicted of offences against children or against whom the tribunal has made a finding of having harmed children, or of being unsuitable to work with children, are to be included on the extended index on a temporary basis with immediate effect. This is an interim measure pending representations by those individuals which will be carefully considered by the Secretary of State before deciding whether they should be included on the extended index on a permanent basis.
"We are taking immediate steps to establish the current whereabouts of individuals named in the report who have been convicted of offences against children, or against whom findings of having
1102
harmed children or of being unsuitable to work with children, have been made by the tribunal but whose current whereabouts are unknown. The Department of Health and the National Assembly have today written to all chief executives of health authorities and local authorities in England and Wales asking them to check their employment records immediately to verify whether such individuals whose whereabouts are unknown are currently working with children or other vulnerable groups within their authorities. If such individuals are found to be working with any authority, that authority will be required to inform the Department of Health in England or the National Assembly of this fact and of the action which the authority proposes to take.
"The report is being sent to all local authorities, police authorities, health authorities and NHS Trusts; to voluntary sector bodies, area child protection committees and other bodies which have a key role to play in the protection of children. That will enable checks to be made where appropriate. To ensure that the messages in the report are widely read, greater numbers of a summary report are also being issued.
"The programme of action we have already put in train is a demanding one for all levels of government. We are determined to see it through and to use this report as a warning of the constant need for vigilance. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Health will be directing the Government's work to drive through this programme with advice from the ministerial task group on children's safeguards, which includes local government, voluntary sector and young people themselves.
"Sir Ronald's report catalogues deeds of appalling mistreatment and wickedness; of sexual, physical and emotional abuse; and of the total abuse of trust. To those whose lives have been shattered, to the families of those who have died and to all decent-thinking people, of course we all say "sorry". But sorry is not enough and we are determined that this report will lead to a society where young people can be cared for in safety and where they can truly enjoy their childhood just as most of us in this House were able to do".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating this sad Statement which will clearly have repercussions far beyond North Wales. I join the Minister in thanking Sir Ronald Waterhouse QC for undertaking the mammoth task of conducting the 16-month inquiry spanning the period from 1974 to the mid-90s, and in complimenting him on the thoroughness of his report. It is a veritable compendium. The summary alone consists of 227 pages.

1103
I also express our profoundest sympathy to the victims of abuse. Some of the abusers have already been convicted and punished for their wrongdoing. Others are being pursued so that they will never again be employed in childcare.
Does the Minister agree that the report clearly and amply justifies the decision of my right honourable friend William Hague when he was Secretary of State for Wales to set up a full-scale inquiry and bring all the allegations into the open so that their validity could be properly assessed and tested? All the local authorities concerned, including the Welsh Office, where I was a Minister for much of the time, were closely examined.
The substantial report covers a long time-span, administrations of both major parties, and different local government arrangements. Can the Secretary of State confirm that throughout the period—indeed, ever since the Children Act 1948—the main duties and responsibilities relating to public childcare were vested in the local authorities and that they were responsible for allocating adequate staffing and resources for that purpose?
Can the Minister also confirm that the powers of the office of the Secretary of State throughout the period were largely powers of supervision, refined in the Children Act 1989 as being to provide a statutory and regulatory framework for the local authorities to exercise their responsibilities? Does she agree that the reformulation of the duty in that Act as being to safeguard and promote the welfare of children was a major step forward, as acknowledged in the report?
Does the Minister agree that while the report deals largely with the past and may result in further legal proceedings, its greatest value lies in its provision of a basis of knowledge and experience upon which central and local government can avoid the mistakes of the past and plan a better framework for the care of children in future?
While I fully appreciate, like all noble Lords, the value of the actions taken by the Government in the Care Standards Bill and in the Children (Leaving Care) Bill and the report's recommendations that there should be a children's commissioner with an advisory committee and a complaints officer in each social service department, perhaps I may suggest that these safeguards will only be as effective as the individuals who occupy the posts that will be established. Every effort should be made to secure staff of the highest quality and integrity.
Child abuse has not been confined to North Wales. This report, devastating as it may be to those who have some responsibility for the childcare system in Wales, is to be welcomed as a very revealing and instructive report, which will be studied both far and wide.
5.20 p.m.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, I, too, should like to thank the Minister for repeating the Statement and for the assistance that the department has given us today. I should also like to congratulate Sir Ronald Waterhouse and his inquiry team on producing a painstaking and rigorous analysis of a huge body of
1104
evidence, which has faced up squarely to all the issues that have been disturbing the public, especially in my home town of Wrexham and in North Wales, for a long time. Sir Ronald has produced comprehensive findings and recommendations. This report is the reverse of a whitewash: he has faced and enunciated unpalatable truths with clarity.
Perhaps I may also declare something of an interest. As I said, Wrexham is my home town and it would be surprising if I did not know anyone who was named in the report. I have personal knowledge of the five individual care assistants from Bryn Estyn, who were known as the "rugby set". Indeed, I gave advice initially to one of them who was subsequently prosecuted and acquitted, although I did not act in the case. As for the others, they were not charged and are not seriously criticised in the report.
If only to dismiss the public fear in my part of Wales that matters were hushed up by reason of some dire conspiracy among those in authority—whether in the North Wales Police or in local authorities—to prevent investigation of paedophile offences, perhaps I may articulate that this inquiry report categorically finds that there was no evidence of the existence of a wide-ranging ring of prominent persons targeted at care centres. It also totally acquits the North Wales Police of failing in its duty to investigate complaints. Indeed, the investigation of 1991–93 is described as being "thorough" and states that the North Wales Police showed every willingness to prosecute, as many of the offenders were prosecuted.
It seems to me that there are three outstanding features of this report. First, there is the lack of adequate structures and strategies for the inspection and supervision of care establishments. Criticism is made in the report of both the Welsh Office and the existing county councils at that time. Although I heard what the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, said about the Welsh Office, the report specifically found that it did not take any initiative of its own that was relevant to the possible occurrence generally of child abuse in either children's residential homes or foster homes. It also says that the office's response generally to information available by the end of 1986 was "lethargic", despite the gravity of the risk. Those are severe criticisms and, as I said, the report faces up to them. The county councils also receive their share of blame.
Secondly, the report reveals the casual way in which care staff were recruited to these establishments. One of the people to whom I have already referred was taken on as a care assistant at the age of 21, without any training or background whatever. He was left to fend for himself in an establishment which, according to the report, had this culture of violence and sexual abuse within it. That casual recruitment must never be repeated.
Thirdly, there was the culture of silence in which all those who were in authority were complicit. Another of the people to whom I referred, Robert Jones, whom I know well, complained to the headmaster after witnessing one episode of physical abuse. However, his

1105
complaints were not heeded. He then wrote to the social services department of the county council and received a letter in response saying that it was taking no action about the matter. If that is the sort of response that the staff were getting when they endeavoured to make complaints, one can well understand why it was that no hint of these problems within such establishments in the county of Clwyd, where I live, ever came to public attention. Instead of these matters percolating through to people in authority who could do something about it, it is terrible to note that complaints—even those from staff—were stifled rather than acted upon.
Looking to the future, I greatly welcome the introduction of a Care Standards Bill, which will set up care councils, and the Children (Leaving Care) Bill. However, I have a number of questions for the Minister. First, in repeating the Statement, the noble Baroness emphasised the importance of tracing those who are named in the report. That is of vital importance. When they are traced a risk assessment is to be carried out, but the report is not clear as to who will be responsible for that task. Can the Minister say who will carry out such an assessment?
My second question relates to compensation. I know that the Government frequently say how concerned they are about the victims of crime. Therefore, I should be grateful to know what arrangements have been made for the proper compensation of those who have suffered under these terrible regimes. Further, is that simply to be confined to the restrictive tariffs of the provisions that apply to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board?
Thirdly, I welcome the proposed appointment of a children's commissioner for Wales and the recommendation that there should be child complaints officers in every local authority. But can the Minister say when this will happen? I note that the National Assembly will quickly be charged with the duty to appoint such a person, but can the noble Baroness assist by telling us when this will take place and what sort of guidelines will be given to the very important position of children's commissioner?
Noble Lords will appreciate how difficult it is for someone from this community to have to face up to a report of this nature. But I am grateful to Sir Ronald Waterhouse, who, indeed, comes from the same community, for the tremendous task that he has undertaken.
5.28 p.m.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, perhaps I may thank both noble Lords for their contributions. Of course, I fully echo the sentiments that they have expressed about the work of Sir Ronald Waterhouse and his fellow members of the tribunal; and, indeed, of all those involved. They undertook a mammoth task in order to produce this very comprehensive report.
Perhaps I may begin by referring to the situation with regard to a children's commissioner for Wales. There is all-party support for this and the Assembly is
1106
working to develop the scope and remit for such a post. The Government will consider an appropriate legislative vehicle when the Assembly brings forward its proposals. A children's commissioner could have a wider role in children's matters than that contained in the Care Standards Bill. There is also scope for the Assembly to establish a children's rights director within the care standards directorate in Wales.
The noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, raised the issue of compensation for victims. I understand that a large number of civil claims have been lodged against the local authorities and others responsible for establishments in which abuse took place. Some claims have been settled out of court. I prefer to write to the noble Lord on the subject of the tariff that would apply in those circumstances.
Both the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, and the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, have rightly drawn attention to the need to ensure that children will be dealt with properly in future. We have made significant improvements in safeguards by improving the vetting of all childcare staff; by putting the consultancy index on to a stronger and more comprehensive basis; by supporting advocacy schemes so that children's voices are heard; by improving support for training for foster carers; by better training for childcare social workers; and by preparing revised guidance on interagency working. However, we can never be 100 per cent sure on this matter. Paedophiles who are determined to abuse children can be devious and skilful in evading detection. The noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, identified the fact that people who live in a community may be highly respected and yet—to the shock and dismay of other members of the community—may, after many years, be found to have abused the trust placed in them.
I was also asked about risk assessment. For those in employment, the risk assessment must be carried out by the employer. The Government have set a strict timetable against which this must be done. The noble Lord, Lord Roberts, was absolutely right to say that his right honourable friend Mr Hague was fully justified in setting up the inquiry. The noble Lord, Lord Roberts, also asked why this happened and who was to blame. The report outlines serious and systematic failures in the care of children. The primary blame lies with the abusers who are individually responsible for their actions. However, the report also reveals failures on the part of the Welsh Office and local authorities. The Welsh Office failed to provide leadership and guidance to ensure that the provision and administration of social services were given appropriate priority, and failed to inform itself adequately of what was happening to those services in relation to North Wales. The social services departments failed to provide effective and positive leadership at the most senior level and some managers failed to act on allegations of abuse. Children and some staff were not listened to.
The noble Lord, Lord Roberts, said that this is not, sadly, a problem that has occurred only in one area. I refer to the problem of child abuse in residential settings. Between January 1998 and

1107
January 1999, 32 police forces in England and Wales investigated allegations of institutional child abuse. Realistically, we are unlikely to eradicate child abuse altogether. Much has happened since the implementation of the Children Act 1989 to create a safer environment. Sir William Utting's key recommendations are being implemented. The Protection of Children Act, which is to come into effect later this year, will require regulated childcare organisations to undertake comprehensive vetting procedures on applicants who work with children.
I have tried to answer the points raised by noble Lords. If I have failed to answer any point in detail, I shall, of course, write.
5.34 p.m.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, those of us who live in North Wales must be deeply affected by these appalling events. We are also grateful to Sir Ronald Waterhouse and to his colleagues for the report.
I do not propose to make a speech as I have not yet had the opportunity to read the report. However, I am impressed with the comments of my noble friend. The Government have taken helpful action. Perhaps my noble friend can tell the House what action they are taking immediately to try to resolve some of the problems. We are grateful to my noble friend for her comments today. However, we shall want a full debate on this matter in due course when we know what the Government have achieved in this area.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend Lord Cledwyn that time will need to be allocated to consider the report in full. However, we shall waste no time in looking at the detail. Many of the conclusions are directed at Wales and at the National Assembly for Wales, which received the report only this afternoon and will decide how best to take it forward. However, the most immediate action that needs to be taken is to ensure that every means available is used to trace those who may still be working with children and who need to be prevented from doing so.
Lord Hooson: My Lords, although the report is largely a matter for the Welsh Assembly as it was commissioned within Wales, nevertheless its implications are great and the subject is of importance to everyone. Will the Minister bring all her influence to bear on the Leader of the House and on the Chief Whip to enable an early debate to be held on this subject?
I have a summary of the document which is about a quarter of the size of the report itself. All of us who know Sir Ronald Waterhouse will be aware of how thoroughly and how conscientiously he will have gone into the whole subject. However, two points stand out. These complaints were probably ignored for years because of the cloak of respectability that surrounded the headmasters and some of the foster parents who may have been regarded as respectable people. Complaints were made by children which were
1108
disregarded and probably not sufficiently appreciated by anyone. I suspect that the cloak of respectability prevented proper inquiry for years and years.
My next point has appeared several times in the past few days in various articles. I have had some dealings with children in the course of my life. It is important that every child should have someone in whom he or she can confide and who can offer them the love and the care to permit that to occur. Often the bureaucratic organisations that we set in train to deal with these kinds of problems select the wrong people to establish contact with the child. Much thought will have to be given to the best means of appointing a children's friend, as it were. That may be a good natured, entirely trusted mother in the neighbourhood who has children of her own and the necessary patience to listen when a child has something to impart and wants to confide in someone.
I recollect that the Minister said that in 1996 Clwyd County Council, on legal advice, did not—
Lord Burlison: My Lords, only 20 minutes are allowed for questions on the Statement. I hope that noble Lords will keep their questions short so as not to deny others the opportunity to ask questions.
Lord Hooson: My Lords, there is reference to a report commissioned by Clwyd County Council. Will the House have an opportunity to see the report?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: No, my Lords. The inquiry found that, because of its nature, it was totally inappropriate for the report to be published. Detailed work is being carried out with the Local Government Association in order that any future local authority inquiry is established in such a way that its report will be in a form that can be published. The ministerial task group on children's safeguards will be discussing this matter at its next meeting on the 13th.
As to the question of a debate on this issue, that is a matter for the usual channels. I agree in the main with the other points made by the noble Lord.
Lord Laming: My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement made in another place. It is particularly helpful to have the Statement repeated because, as other noble Lords have said, this is by any standards a substantial document to read and to study. It will no doubt require careful consideration by all.
The Statement confirmed what many of us feared—that many children in North Wales experienced a dreadful catalogue of abuse and exploitation. All noble Lords will recognise that many of the children who come into the care of local authorities have already experienced considerable disadvantage in their young lives. Many will have had disturbing and destructive experiences; many will have had their confidence and self-esteem seriously undermined; and many will have been let down by the very adults they had a right to look to for their care and protection. Because of this, many of these young people will crave

1109
affection, recognition and reassurance. It is for that reason that some of them will find that this can be expressed only through physical contact.
Does the Minister agree that we should bear in mind the key points in the report: that this was essentially a failure of management; a failure to set and uphold good standards of practice; a failure to properly monitor performance; a failure to provide proper safeguards; a failure to be vigilant; and, most of all, a failure to listen to children and young people?
Does the Minister agree that one of the lessons we should learn is that we need to persuade all those who have a responsibility for the services which look after children and young people to have the courage to tackle inappropriate and unacceptable behaviour?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Laming.
Lord Crickhowell: My Lords—
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords—
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, perhaps we should hear first from the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, for at least two reasons.
Lord Crickhowell: My Lords, I join in the expressions of gratitude to the noble Baroness for making this horrific Statement. She will understand that I feel extremely uncomfortable about it because it states that the first complaints emerged in 1986, some months before I left the Welsh Office. Therefore I am clearly concerned about the criticisms made about the Welsh Office.
Does the Minister agree that one benefit has come out of this appalling tale, and that is that we have brought the situation into the open? It is clear that if Ministers and leaders of local government had had at the time even an approximation of an understanding of the facts, action would have been taken much sooner. We now have the opportunity to move forward on the basis of knowledge.
Perhaps the Minister can answer one specific point. We have had quite a lot of information about those who have been named in the report and the actions being taken. The noble Baroness said that some alleged abusers who had not been named had given evidence. Can the Minister say whether they have not been named because they are innocent? If that is not the case and some of them may have been abusers, can I have the Minister's assurance that appropriate action will be taken to ensure that no further abuse takes place from that source; that action will be taken to ensure that those people do not take up positions; and that, in appropriate cases, prosecutions will take place.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, there is a detailed analysis in the report as to why the tribunal felt it should take a particular line and policy with regard to names. It was unable to interview some of the
1110
people referred to because they were at that time being investigated by the police, and some of them were sent to prison. I can assure the noble Lord that the judgments made by the tribunal will not lead to anyone against whom allegations were founded being able to work with children. As to the request for a debate, that must be referred to the usual channels.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend and the Government on the Statement and on the steps that they have taken on this vital issue. Does not my noble friend agree that the nub of the problem is this: we are issuing mandatory requirements, we need more mandatory requirements, but the mandatory requirements of the Children Act 1989, to which my noble friend referred, have been neglected and not implemented by many councils? Does she not agree that the challenge now is to ensure that the new legislation and the existing legislation are fully implemented? If that does not happen, the whole thing falls to bits.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, that is one of the problems with all legislation. In this case, my noble friend has made an extremely important point. For example, not only are local authorities now responsible for risk assessment when they identify individuals, but that process is to be monitored—in the case of Wales by the Assembly. I understand many local authorities have already commissioned the NSPCC to undertake that work on their behalf.
Lord Carlile of Berriew: My Lords, I apologise to the noble Baroness for my negligent discourtesy earlier. As someone who has had the unhappy experience of examining witnesses in North Wales, Cheshire and Liverpool institutional child abuse cases on behalf of the prosecution and, in other cases, on behalf of the defence, perhaps I may offer two important practical conclusions from the Waterhouse report.
First, the observation by those who have experience of these cases that there is far less danger of abuse—and of false accusations of abuse, which do occur—if children in institutions at any given time are under the supervision of both men and women working together, rather than men, or for that matter women, working alone.
May I also offer the observation for the Minister's consideration that a modern disciplinary code is needed as a matter of urgency, which would include as a specific disciplinary offence the failure of a professional carer to report sexual abuse by another carer in the same institution.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, the noble Lord raised the issue of a modern disciplinary code. It is my recollection that that is in the report. As regards men and women working together, I agree that that is less likely to lead to a problem. But, I repeat, people can be extremely manipulative, convincing and devious.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, does the Minister agree that sometimes prisons have better

1111
facilities and safeguards than care homes for children? Does she further agree that there should be a board of visitors—consisting of interested people who love and care for children, such as mothers and retired people—which would be able to go into care homes to defend the children and to watch out for child abusers, as we did as members of boards of visitors to prisons.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, the noble Baroness raises a very interesting proposition. I am sure that it will be given proper consideration. As many of your Lordships who have worked with the voluntary sector will know, one of the problems is that it is liable to infiltration. I remember the shock I felt when I discovered that one of the Scout leaders in an area where all three of my children had gone camping with the Scouts was found guilty of child abuse, sexual abuse. I assumed that my children would tell me. Setting a framework in which children feel that they can speak about matters which may make them feel guilty is extremely important. I am sure that other noble Lords heard on the radio this morning the young man describe how, as a boy, he went to his head teacher and was further abused.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I thank the Minister. It has not been an easy Statement for the Minister to read out, certainly as a parent and mother herself. It is a shocking report. I am sure that any noble Lord who has listened only to the Statement will now read the report carefully.
I am not only concerned about those in a position of trust, who really cannot be forgiven for what they did and for the way in which they let down the children in their care. Paragraph 52.36 of the report states,
"We draw the attention of Parliament also to the abuse suffered by B between the ages of 16 years and 18 years, in circumstances which appear to have made him question his own sexuality for a period. Much of the later abuse was not inflicted by persons in a position of trust in relation to him and there can be no doubt that he was significantly corrupted and damaged by what occurred".
It is clear that people who are not in a position of trust specifically relating to those young people were in fact guilty of abusing them.
The Bill lowering the age of consent being read in another place, which makes it a criminal offence for anyone in a position of trust to have a sexual relationship with a boy or girl between the ages of 16 to 18, needs now to be strengthened to the effect that any person who has sexual relations with a young person in such circumstances will be considered to have acted criminally. The difficulty is that lowering the age of consent will make children all the more vulnerable to people who will always prey on them. There is a passage in the report that I hope the Minister will agree makes disturbing reading. It leads one to the conclusion that when the Bill comes before this House, it will need to be considerably strengthened or not supported at all.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, in reply to the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, in my experience I have never seen any evidence that there is
1112
a greater percentage risk of boys and young men being abused by homosexuals than of girls and young women being abused by heterosexuals. In my experience—and, I know from the noble Baroness's work, in her experience too—far too many vulnerable young people are outside the framework of a responsible professional adult and out in the wider community where they are prey to people. The support and aftercare of children who have been in care is extremely important in that context.
I agree on one matter with the noble Baroness: that young people between 16 and 18, be they homosexual or heterosexual, may be preyed upon. We need only look at the problems of young female prostitution in the streets to see that. I believe that the noble Baroness is going to draw me into far too lengthy a discussion of those issues.
Baroness David: My Lords, I congratulate Sir Ronald Waterhouse and his tribunal on proposing that there should be a children's rights commissioner. A great number of us have wanted a commissioner for children's rights for a long time. I hope that the example set by Wales, if it carries out that recommendation, will be followed by England.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, in England it is proposed that a children's rights director should be established as a senior post within the national care standards commission. It will be a senior appointment concerned with promoting high standards and safeguarding the welfare of children within the remit of the commission. In Scotland, consultation is under way on the legislative programme for autumn, which will end in March. Proposals are being considered. There is no government initiative on a children's commissioner, although a memorandum is soon to be presented to the Scottish parliamentary committee. In Northern Ireland, work has begun on a Bill which sets out to achieve the same ends as in England and Wales. I hope that noble Lords will forgive me, but I believed it important to put that on the record.

Representation of the People Bill
5.55 p.m.
House again in Committee.
Clause 12 [Changes relating to absent voting at elections in Great Britain]:
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendment No. 118:
Page 14, line 13, leave out (", Wales and Scotland") and insert ("and Wales").
The noble Lord said: The amendment is very much a probing amendment. I understand the first half of Clause 12(1), but I do not understand the second. I understand that Schedule 4 will have effect in parliamentary elections,
"in relation to England, Wales and Scotland".

1113
I have no problem with that. It seems correct that any changes at parliamentary level, which I hope will be through primary legislation, will apply throughout the whole country. However, I have difficulty with subparagraph (b), which establishes that Schedule 4 will have effect as regards local government elections in Scotland.
I have two problems. We rehearsed the first before the Statement. I shall not go into it again, but I simply mention it: it seems wrong that experiments conducted only in England should be rolled out in local government in Scotland. My stronger concern is that local government in Scotland is, of course, no longer the responsibility of this Parliament. It has been devolved. I have before me the Scotland Act 1998, which makes it perfectly clear in Part II, Section 3 of Schedule 5 that this Parliament has responsibility only for elections for membership of the Commons and of the European Parliament. There is one exception in local government terms, which is the franchise at local government elections. In fact, all the other matters concerning local government and local government elections in Scotland have been devolved.
My question is therefore: is this Parliament taking back a power which the Scotland Act gave to the Scottish Parliament? I suggest that the Minister is careful in his answer, because I warn him that if that may be done in this case by the executive, I shall use it as a precedent for amendments to other legislation on any matter devolved to the Scottish Parliament when such matters come before the House with regard to England and Wales. I should be grateful for some explanation of why this Parliament can legislate for something which we have devolved to the Scottish Parliament. I beg to move.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: The noble Lord, Lord Mackay, is indeed a canny Scot. He has played close attention to the script. I am delighted that that is the case. I am absolutely over the moon that he has been fully converted to the good cause of devolution. He is protecting, as he rightly should as a Scot, the rights of the Scottish Parliament.
I believe that I can set his mind at rest. Elections to the other place are, as he says, a reserved matter. It is right that provisions relating to absent voting at parliamentary elections in Scotland should be included in the Bill. As the noble Lord has informed us, the conduct of local elections in Scotland is a devolved matter, and quite rightly too. Accordingly, when preparing the legislation, we consulted the Scottish Parliament about whether provisions relating to Scottish local elections should be in the Bill.
Perhaps if I read to the Committee the text of a resolution passed by the Scottish Parliament, the noble Lord may be satisfied on that point. It states:
"That the Parliament endorses the principle of ensuring consistency of absent voting arrangements for parliamentary and local elections in Scotland as set out in the Representation of the People Bill and agrees that the relevant clause to achieve this end in the Bill should be considered by the UK Parliament".
1114
There we have it—the agreement of the Scottish parliament that in order to achieve consistency the matter should be considered in this Bill in the UK Parliament. It is for that reason, and for no other sinister purpose or reason, that the Bill includes provisions relating to absent votes at Scottish elections. On that basis, I am sure that the noble Lord will want to reconsider his amendments.
6 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I am deeply grateful to the noble Lord for that explanation. I just wonder idly why, in the interests of having a uniform system in the United Kingdom, the question of student fees is not coming back here. I certainly thank the noble Lord for that explanation. It would appear, as the late Enoch Powell said, that power devolved is power retained. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 12 agreed to.
Baroness Fookes Baroness Fookes moved Amendment No. 118A:
After Clause 12. insert the following new clause—
IDENTIFICATION AT POLLING STATIONS
(" . Prior to the issue of a ballot paper, the presiding officer shall require each elector to identify himself by one of the following items of documentary evidence—

(a) a valid United Kingdom or European Union passport.

(b) a valid United Kingdom or European Union driving licence.

(c) a Department of Social Security pension, unemployment or family credit benefit book,

(d) a National Health Service medical card.

(e) a certificate of verification as issued by the electoral registration officer, or

(f) other such documentary evidence as may in the reasonable opinion of the presiding officer concerned constitute such evidence of the matters provided for within this section.").

The noble Baroness said: I hope that this new clause will be crystal clear in its intention. The idea is that before voting every voter should give some proof of identity. I have framed the amendment in this way because I felt that if it was left to the discretion of the presiding officer as to whether or not he asked for proof of identity, it might be tempting to do so in relation to someone who was shabbily dressed or suspicious looking. That could then be regarded as discrimination. If everyone walking into the polling station has to provide means of identification, that charge could not be brought.
I have suggested various official documents which I hope people will consider reasonable—a driving licence, a passport, social security documents, and the like; or anything else which the presiding officer considers reasonable in order to prove the identity of that person. I do so because the present system has an in-built weakness in as much as the presiding officer really cannot challenge anyone's identity by asking for evidence. I believe that in Northern Ireland proof of identity is required to deal with the specific problem, which it has had in the past and may still have for all I

1115
know, of personation on a fairly wide scale. When we are making all these changes and we are invited to think afresh on electoral systems, that is a good moment to repair what I believe to be a weakness.
Indeed, I suspect that the weakness will become greater as we embark on the various experiments which may well become general and universal. If, for example, we have one central polling station, or if there are the mobile polling stations about which we spoke earlier today, that may make it less easy for presiding officers to determine the identity of voters. Moreover, we are going to have people who have no specific address but are considered to have some connection with a locality, which makes it even more difficult to decide who they are without other means of identification.
Furthermore, there are likely to be increasing numbers of referenda on specific topics. That does not particularly appeal to me, but if a referendum is to take place on an issue about which people feel very strongly, we may well see personation and fraud on a greater scale. One has only to think of the fury that is engendered by the issues of fox hunting, abortion, or whatever it may he, to know that people become infuriated and uptight. Such referenda will provide a greater temptation.
I understand also that when we have given advice on elections abroad, we have suggested that means of identification should be part and parcel of the whole system. My suggestion therefore seems to be a sensible and not very radical one. I gather that most European countries ask for means of identification before voting. I hope that the Minister will look kindly on what I believe to be a reasonable and sensible suggestion. I beg to move.
Lord Norton of Louth: I should like to add my voice in support of what my noble friend said. I hope that the Minister will look sympathetically at the amendment. My noble friend has made out a persuasive case. What she proposes would help to protect the integrity of the electoral process. That is extremely important. I addressed that point at Second Reading and I do not want to rehearse the arguments that I put forward then.
I can anticipate the Minister's response. I suspect he will say that there is no evidence of any significant abuse. However, we know that no systematic study has been carried out to determine whether there is a real problem. There is some evidence that occasionally there has been a problem, as we know from Winchester at the previous election, but no study has been carried out to see whether there is a serious problem.
In the absence of such a study, there are two reasons for having the safeguard proposed by my noble friend. The first is as a reassurance. Electors should know that there is a safeguard. That is important to the integrity of the process. The other is as a deterrent: to deter anyone who may be tempted to abuse the system. What my noble friend proposes would help to protect the integrity of the process.
1116
At Second Reading I put forward a slightly different way of addressing the problem. But I think that my noble friend's amendment is a step in the right direction and I hope that it gets a fair wind.
Baroness Gould of Potternewton: Perhaps I may make one or two comments about this subject. I have some sympathy with the sentiments behind the amendment. I hope that we can give the matter further consideration because I am not absolutely certain that what is in the amendment is the right way of tackling the problem. I agree that we have to be careful about abuse and that we have to have safeguards.
I should like to make one point about the European elections, particularly with regard to the elections conducted in the new democracies. They were very different because all those countries have identity cards. The noble Baroness's amendment raises that whole question. Therefore, I suggest that we need to give the matter further consideration.
I do not have a problem with identity cards, but I understand the reasons why other people do. I came back from so many of my visits to eastern Europe absolutely enthused about the identity card, and for one reason: people could register on election day because they had an identity card. It meant that people were not precluded from voting. It seemed to be a sensible system. There is merit in thinking about how we can ensure that there is not abuse. I cannot remember the other suggestion made by the noble Lord, Lord Norton, in his Second Reading speech. I shall have to look it up. I hope that the Minister will agree that we should look at this matter again.
Lord Biffen: I welcome the debate initiated by my noble friend Lady Fookes. There is widespread unease about the state of electoral registration with regard to those who are entitled to vote and those who never go through the process of getting on to the register. I have the instinct that those who do not register today comprise a far greater number than would have been the case five, 10 or 15 years ago. We have no hard evidence. We know that those who are registered then turn up at a general election. But the percentage abstaining or the percentage not voting is tending to increase; and against the rather surprising background of there now being wider political coverage by formal political parties than has been the case hitherto.
In those circumstances, there is a feeling of, "How do we make voting easier?" I am not sure that that really is the correct question. There is much merit in trying to attach to the whole process of voting not effort but certainly a qualification; something one holds in one's hand without which one cannot vote. My noble friend Lady Fookes has expressed not a restrictive attitude; it is an attempt to make voting a rather formal exercise of a privilege that has been fought for over the years. It would be no bad thing if we tried to restore that sense to voting—a sense that would certainly have been entertained before the First World War, when gaining the vote was still in recent

1117
memory. Having to, as it were, claim your vote is a very sensible gesture. I wish my noble friend well in her pursuit of that objective.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My noble friend Lady Fookes has done us a service in introducing the amendment. When we discussed the Scottish and Welsh referendum rules, I raised the question of identification. The debate ended unsatisfactorily. It was perfectly clear that if a presiding officer had some doubts, he was entitled to say, "You are Mr Smith?", but when the person said, "Yes, I am Mr Smith", that was an end of the business so far as I could see. The electoral officer had no entitlement to ask the person to prove his identity. A voter who is impersonating Mr Smith will of course say that he is Mr Smith. So there is a problem.
I live in the constituency of Glasgow Govan, where these matters are something of a worry. Indeed, there is no doubt that personation has taken place in that constituency. It is more a matter of who organises it, not whether it takes place—there is no doubt that it does. The only way to stop that happening is to ask for some means of identification. We must begin thinking about that.
If we are to go down the road of electronic voting and of people voting at different polling stations, not only in their own area, there is a fair chance that presiding officers over much of the country will either know the person voting, or have a vague idea when they look at the register that people were not who they had thought them to be.
If we are to introduce mobile polling stations and people are able to vote at any station, in a school, a supermarket or whatever, and if we have electronic voting—which is what we should have to do in order to achieve that—identification becomes a much more important problem. I shall be surprised if the Minister accepts my noble friend's amendment. However, I hope that he will indicate that, as we move to new voting systems, the need for identification may well increase.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Bach: This has been another fascinating debate, distinguished by the powerful group of noble Lords who have spoken to these two amendments. The noble Baroness, Lady Fookes, asks whether her amendment is clear. It is indeed very clear in its form. I pay tribute to the noble Baroness's distinguished record as a member of the Home Affairs Select Committee in another place for a number of years.
I cannot resist the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Biffen, on the importance of voting. He is absolutely right. It is an important event. He spoke about the First World War and the time before that. I should like to bring the noble Lord slightly further forward and point to the fact that women under 21 did not have the vote until the 1929 general election. I mention that for the personal reason that I am fortunate enough to be the
1118
great nephew of Mrs Pankhurst. She would understand completely, as will all women, what the noble Lord is saying and how important the vote is.
Having made those helpful remarks, I am not sure that I can be quite as helpful in the rest of what I say. All of us share the noble Baroness's desire to prevent electoral fraud. Her motives in tabling Amendment No. 118A are good. The noble Baroness is right. A requirement to provide documentary proof of identity before being issued with a ballot paper already exists in Northern Ireland. That is a reflection of the special difficulties with electoral fraud that have been experienced there.
However, I must tell the Committee that there is no evidence of similar problems occurring in Britain. Our minds are never closed on this subject; however, the Government would be most reluctant, without very good cause, to introduce new measures which would make it harder for people here to cast their vote.
The Working Party on Electoral Procedures, which had representatives of political parties and electoral administrators among its members, examined all aspects of electoral procedure but saw no need to make a recommendation of this kind. More pertinently in this case, the Home Affairs Select Committee in another place specifically considered this issue as part of its inquiry into electoral law and administration. Reporting in September 1998, the committee concluded (at paragraph 102):
"We broadly agree that there is at present no great problem with impersonation in British elections outside Northern Ireland, and we do not see a need to introduce any additional requirements to prove identity before being given a ballot paper".
Amendment No. 136, tabled by the noble Lord, is obviously prompted by the most impeccable of motives. But is it necessary? All or many Members of the Committee are no doubt assiduous voters in local elections. Some Members of the Committee, including myself, will recall voting in general elections, although, alas, that is not something that we are able to do now. So your Lordships will have considerable experience of what happens in a polling station. I imagine that experience is similar to mine. If you have taken your polling card with you, the presiding officer will generally ask you to confirm the details on it. If you have forgotten to take your polling card, you will be asked for your name and address.
That is normally the end of the matter. However, if the presiding officer has any reason for doubt, he can put the statutory questions that are set out in Rule 35 of the Parliamentary Election Rules. That seems to us at present to be a perfectly satisfactory system and there is no reason to require the presiding officer to put those questions to every single elector, as we believe would be the effect of the noble Lord's amendment.
The Working Party on Electoral Procedures, to whose report the Bill gives effect, had, as I said, experts—both administrators and representatives of political parties— among its membership. They saw no need to make a recommendation for change in this area either.

1119
Having said all that, we shall of course keep a close watch on what happens to the electoral process in the years that lie ahead. I invite the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment; however, I do so not on the basis that that is the end of the argument for ever—it clearly is not. We are not minded at present to go down the route that she suggests, but our minds are not closed to the issue. I do not say that we shall return to it during the course of the Bill, but it is certainly something that the Government will keep very much in mind.
The Earl of Onslow: Before the noble Lord sits down, the words "shall require" in the amendment could be replaced with "may require", and subparagraphs (a) to (e) could be removed. That would leave only the provision in sub-paragraph (f). In other words, if the elect oral officer had any doubt, he could ask for documentary proof as evidence, which could be a credit card or any other form of identification. That would remove the valid point made by the noble Lord; namely, the need to ask every elector for proof of identity, which would be a waste of time. It would give the electoral officer a fallback position if required and it would not clog up the system, which the amendment might otherwise do. I am trying to be helpful.
Lord Bach: I accept the noble Earl's intervention as helpful, as always. I should like to consider the point. We are not minded to give such a power to the presiding officer, although it may well be that, as part of the questioning that he can undertake with any voter whom he suspects, he can ask for identification. I shall have to check that out before giving a proper answer to the noble Earl. I should like to consider his suggestion and perhaps write to him with something that I hope may satisfy him.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: I was interested to hear the noble Lord's lineage and I congratulate him on the distinction that lie enjoys. In the circumstances, I am disappointed that this does not provide a suitable opportunity for him to demonstrate the militancy which may be expected of him in view of his distinguished forebear.
I long have suspected that the Home Office does not believe that there is any source of good ideas other than within its own walls. The noble Lord shakes his head. I hope that he will provide evidence to prove me wrong; if so, I shall much enjoy it. The particular observation of the noble Lord which worried me was that the Government would keep a close watch on the situation. That is one of those "bromide" phrases which mean absolutely nothing. I wonder what would be said by those on the other side of the Committee, who are so much more eloquent than I, if a Minister from these Benches stood up to say that he would keep a close watch on the matter. That would provide no satisfaction to noble Lords; and I do not expect that it will afford my noble friend, who moved this amendment with such clarity and skill, any lasting sense of satisfaction.
1120
Perhaps the noble Lord will think again and take away the amendment, not merely say that the Government will not accept it. It will not cost the noble Lord anything to do that, but it will give the impression, albeit perhaps a rather shallow one, that every now and again the Home Office is prepared to give a little thought to ideas that come from another source.
Lord Bach: I am most distressed that the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, believes that the Home Office is closed to ideas. That may have been so at the time he was such a distinguished member of the previous government. Perhaps in his day the reply that I have given would have been considered as nothing more than a "bromide" form of words.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: I assure the noble Lord that it makes very little difference to me from which party a particular government come. I am quite capable of making the same kind of comment about either.
Lord Bach: I should like to ask the noble Lord whether that was always so.
Noble Lords: Yes!
Lord Bach: I accept from those who know the noble Lord much better than I do that it was always so. I am sorry that I am not militant enough for the noble Lord's purposes; the time may come when I am. To a certain extent, the noble Lord's contributions in this Chamber sometimes make up for my lack of militancy. My response is not meant to be a "bromide"; the Government have an open mind on this matter. However, for the moment we want to leave matters as they are and consider how they work out in the next couple of years.
Baroness Fookes: I wondered why the Minister referred so flatteringly to my time as a member of the Home Affairs Select Committee; later in his speech I realised why. I do not accept everything that the Home Affairs Select Committee may decide subsequent to my membership of it—or even, on occasions, when I was a member of it.
I am slightly disappointed. I believe that the Government could take this matter further than they are prepared to do. I am willing to accept some of the assurances given by the Minister in the face of all the evidence. Having seen both main parties in government over the years, that is very trusting of me—far more so than my noble friend Lord Peyton, who I believe never gives anyone the benefit of the doubt. I hope that the Minister will do more than simply keep an open mind and that he will look at the matter more closely.
I should like to put one question to the noble Lord. In connection with another amendment, I made reference to a pilot scheme being undertaken by the City of Plymouth. Plymouth wants early voting and a single centralised polling station in the centre of the

1121
city. What I did not quote then (because it was not relevant) but quote now is its suggested voting procedures, which state:
"(c) ii) The elector must produce a poll card or some other proof of identity before a ballot paper is issued".
Do I take it that when this comes before whoever is to make a decision on this matter such a procedure will not be accepted, even for a pilot scheme?
The Earl of Onslow: The Minister does not know the answer.
Lord Bach: The noble Earl is right: I am quite prepared to admit that I do not know the answer. However, we shall look at the form of the consent to that pilot scheme to discover whether it has been accepted in full or whether that part has been left out, and write to the noble Baroness. I congratulate the noble Baroness on saving that particular shot until the end of the debate.
The Earl of Onslow: Before the noble Lord sits down, the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, said recently that answers in the form of letters to Peers were of interest only to Peers. This appears to be an important answer which should somehow appear on the record rather than be simply placed in the Library. I do not know how that can be arranged.
Lord Bach: Perhaps the best way to do it is by means of a Written Parliamentary Question, in which case it will be on the record. We shall do our best to assist the noble Baroness.
Baroness Fookes: I do not believe that we can go any further tonight. On the assumption that I am unlikely to win a Division if I seek to call one, somewhat reluctantly I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. I hope to fight again another day.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 4 [Absent voting in Great Britain]:
[Amendment No. 119 not moved.]
Lord Bach Lord Bach moved Amendment No. 120:
Page 34, line 49, at end insert ("by reason of his attendance on a course provided by an educational institution or that of his spouse, or").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 121 and 122 not moved.]
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendment No. 123:
Page 38, line 7. at end insert—
("(12) When a nominated proxy is approved by an electoral registration officer to hold a permanent or particular proxy vote for an elector, the election registration officer shall write within three working days of the application to the elector to confirm the name and address of the appointed proxy and the duration of the appointment of the proxy vote.").
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 123 relates to proxy voting. It is clear from the previous debate that, for understandable reasons, we do not have much of a
1122
clue how much personation goes on. Equally, we probably do not have much of a clue about the extent to which fraudulent use of proxy votes occurs. I am advised that it is relatively easy to apply for a proxy without the particular elector being asked to give his consent. Obviously, a person who is intent on doing this will select someone who has, to that person's knowledge, left the country, or who will be away on polling day or, in the case of a Jehovah's Witness, who may be registered but is known not to vote.
It has been put to me that there may well be a serious loophole here that can be closed by incorporating something like my amendment on the statute book. When someone asks for a proxy vote, the registration officer should write to the elector concerned and ask whether he has appointed the person as a proxy. The matter is fairly self-evident and I am sure the Minister understands the point that I seek to make. I beg to move.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I have considerable sympathy with the amendment. As Members of the Committee will be aware the Working Party on Electoral Procedures looked at the whole question of absent votes in considerable detail. It made a number of recommendations to make it easier for people to obtain and cast postal votes, and these are reflected in Schedule 4 to the Bill.
However, the working party did not feel able to make any similar recommendations, for good reasons, in relation to proxy votes because, as it put it,
"there are a number of current police investigations being held into allegations of proxy vote abuse".
The noble Lord, Lord Mackay, is as aware of those as I am.
Perhaps I may digress briefly. About eight or nine years ago in a closely fought, perhaps somewhat bitter, by-election in my locality there was a terrible abuse of proxy voting. A proxy vote had been stolen from someone suffering from Alzheimer's. That person was a long-standing Labour voter. Someone claimed a vote in a form which was wrong and quite wicked. The individual was entirely defenceless.
A system in which the elector on whose behalf a proxy has been applied for is sent a letter confirming their proxy appointment would certainly deal with the first of these mischiefs and, possibly, the second. An elector who had not applied for a proxy but who had received such a letter could raise the alarm.
We would need to be sure of the practicalities. I am conscious that it could represent a significant burden to the electoral registration officers during an election period when they will be at their busiest, particularly if it means that they will have to speak to administrators generally to seek their views on whether it can be done.
Accordingly, I invite the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment for the time being but on the clear understanding that I am sympathetic to the purpose behind it. We shall try to bring back some provision to cover that eventuality. As I said, the police are continuing with their inquiries. The working party has

1123
spoken on the issue. There is cross-party agreement that we must do all we can to stamp out abuse and fraud. I believe that, as I am sure the noble Lord does.
Baroness Gould of Potternewton: I thank the Minister for those comments. I support the principle underlying the amendment, although not the wording. If the Home Office and others are looking for suggestions, they might turn to page 42 of the 1993 report of the Labour Party's working party on electoral systems which gives a number of suggestions as to how this issue could be resolved.
The Earl of Onslow: First, I congratulate the Minister on the first really good answer I have heard him give during his time in this Chamber. If that sounds somewhat patronising it is not intended to be.
The noble Lord mentioned that police inquiries are continuing. Because police inquires are going on, why does that mean that one cannot change the system? The logic of that would mean that police inquiries could continue until the third millennium. Something may be wrong but one cannot change it because police inquiries are going on. I cannot follow the logic. I may just be being stupid; it is well within the bounds of possibility.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I am prepared to accept the noble Earl's congratulations. I am sure that he would not dare to patronise me in any sense, shape or form.
The importance of the police conducting their inquiries is that something can be learnt from those inquiries. I agree with the noble Earl. We do not want to hold up improvements to the system. For that very good reason, I said from the Dispatch Box today that we are happy to consider ways in which we can make some progress. The letter writing scheme may well be one way to achieve it. But we need to speak, through our officials, to the electoral administrators to see what we can come up with which will satisfy the precise point.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I am grateful to the Minister for his understanding on the issue. Perhaps I have a lesson to learn: that the shorter my introductory speech the more chance there is that my ideas will be listened to sympathetically! I may try it again shortly.
The noble Lord underlined the problems I sought to address. I did not go into the detail; I did not think that necessary. I am grateful to the Minister for his comments. I think that we should address the issue. It is interesting that the working party did not wish to see proxy voting extended because of the problem of abuse. Perhaps the Bill will give us an opportunity to tighten up the provision. For some people proxy voting is still an important way to exercise their vote. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 4, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 13 [Assistance with voting for persons with disabilities]:
[Amendment No. 124 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Lord McNally Lord McNally moved Amendment No. 125:
Page 14, line 34, at end insert—
("() In rule 25 (provision of polling stations) after subparagraph (1) there shall be inserted—
("(1A) The returning officer shall not provide as a polling station any place which is not accessible to people in wheelchairs or otherwise with restricted mobility and cannot reasonably be made accessible to them by temporary ramps or other equipment."").
The noble Lord said: In moving the amendment, I speak also to Amendment No. 127. In an age in which we are legislating for access to taxis, buses and all public places, the amendments are self-evident. I wish to ensure that during the experiments provisions for the disabled are not omitted, perhaps resulting in inaccessible polling stations. I beg to move.
Baroness Gould of Potternewton: Perhaps I may make one addition to the amendment. Problems with access do not relate only to getting into the polling station from outside. In some polling stations the ballot box is placed so high that someone in a wheelchair cannot reach it; and sometimes cannot reach even the tellers' tables. We should consider extending the provision to include access inside as well as outside the polling station.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I appreciate the motives underlying the amendments. The noble Lord is to be congratulated on moving them.
The first of the amendments, on the face of it admirable, may not assist. In certain circumstances the amendments could result in lower overall turn-out in certain area—exactly the opposite of what the Bill intends to achieve.
Amendment No. 125 would require returning officers to ensure that all designated polling places have all-disabled access. Returning officers are already required, as far as reasonably practical, to designate as polling stations only places which are accessible for voters who are disabled. I cite the Representation of the People Act 1983 as amended in 1985. That is to assist them in identifying and assessing such places. There is Home Office guidance on minimum standards.
In practice, most polling places are in public buildings which already have good disabled access. Most other buildings can be temporarily adapted, and I shall say more about that in a moment. There remain, however, a few places which cannot reasonably and practically be made accessible and where there is no alternative building in the area. That is the problem. In these cases the returning officer has a rather difficult choice. He can either designate that polling place for use in the knowledge that, should a disabled voter turn up, he or she may not be able to gain access; or he does not designate it. The amendment would mean that the building could not be used. In turn that could mean

1125
inconvenient and perhaps lengthier journeys to other polling places for all electors in that area with the consequent effects on the overall turn-out.
Therefore, although desirable, and a splendid and admirable amendment, it could have a self-defeating element: it could discourage other voters who might have to travel much further. Returning officers have a duty to do all they can reasonably and practically to provide access for voters who are disabled. But they also have a duty to the wider electorate. The amendment would restrict their flexibility and may result in greater disadvantage for a wider population.
We want to do everything we can to assist disabled voters in gaining access to the electoral process. But this amendment could cause greater harm than good.
I turn now to Amendment No. 127, where polling places are not accessible but can be made so. Here returning officers are obliged to take all reasonable and practical steps to do that, for example by providing temporary ramps. I take the point my noble friend Lady Gould made about addressing not only external but also internal access; and that is a matter which is carefully thought through.
In the current situation the procedures are such that assistance can be sought both in terms of Home Office guidance and in the form of direct grants. Local authorities have been very enthusiastic in taking up the 50 per cent grants that we make available to cover the cost of adaptations. I shall read some figures. The Home Office has since 1992 given grants for temporary ramps totalling £315,000, £120,000 of which has been given in the last two years. That amounts to a total spending on temporary ramps of more than £650,000 over the last few years. One can probably buy a lot of ramps for £650,000, so those adaptations have made a very big difference indeed. We want to encourage more local authorities to come forward and claim their percentage from the Home Office.
There is therefore some indication that, where necessary, these facilities are being provided because of a combination of existing legislation which already requires them and government assistance of which returning officers take full advantage. In view of my comments and the assurances that I have given, I hope that the noble Lord will accept that Amendment No. 127 is not necessary and will not press it.
The Earl of Onslow: I again seek information. The noble Lord has perfectly reasonably said that there are some polling stations which it is extremely difficult to make wheelchair friendly. How many?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: That probably is a question from hell! I am ever ready to try to match the questions that are pitched at us over the Dispatch Box. However, I could not even promise to undertake to have a survey completed to satisfy that one.
The Earl of Onslow: I accept that it is a question from hell. The point is that the noble Lord has been briefed by his officials, perfectly reasonably, that this is a problem. Therefore, they must have evidence of the problem. Has he sifted it? Is it genuine? If it involves one polling station in Caithness, I suppose we can just about live with it. If it spreads wider than that, we perhaps should not. I am asking what the breadth of the problem is. If it is broad, it should be dealt with through the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord McNally. If, on the other hand, it is so small as to be immaterial, the noble Lord's amendment can almost be accepted anyway.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: There is a problem. Local authorities are charged with the responsibility, through their registration service, of assessing the extent of the problem. Both governments have in recent years made generous grants available, and we wish to encourage as much adaptation as is reasonably practicable in the circumstances. There will be circumstances in which it is not practical, and the effect of the amendment which the noble Lord has moved could be self-defeating. I do not know how many of those instances there may be. It would be difficult to estimate. In my opinion, we have to proceed on the basis of goodwill. There is a great deal of encouragement from central government, there is an enormous amount of guidance and help given by the Home Office, and there is a tremendous amount of goodwill in the local authorities to tackle these issues. We have the fundamentals in place to make it easier.
We discussed earlier the practicalities of having mobile polling stations so that people who may be disabled or perhaps less mobile because of their age are able to get to a polling station. I believe that we can tackle these issues in the practical and hard-headed way that we have outlined by way of example today.
Lord McNally: The Minister is probably fortunate that the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Manchester, is not in his place. Had he been, I believe that he would have intervened with some vigour.
I take the point that a tremendous effort has been made in recent years. However, one of our concerns is that in a period of experimentation where new polling practices and new polling stations are established, they should be disabled friendly. In the case of disabled persons who go into the car parks of large superstores, for example, it would be outrageous if as part of the experiment we added to the problem rather than diminished it. There may, as has been said, be such polling stations.
The Home Office could well give guidance to returning officers that where polling stations are clearly non-disabled friendly, they should be thinking of phasing them out so that they are narrowed down to a minimum. However, I do not doubt the department's goodwill or the efforts of local authorities. I therefore beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendment No. 126:
Page 14, line 45, at end insert ("and any assistance given shall be in a form which will not enable the identity of the voter to be revealed").
The noble Lord said: I can move Amendment No. 126 fairly briefly. We are dealing in this part of the Bill with,
"a device of such description as may be prescribed for enabling voters who are blind or partially-sighted to vote …"
I have asked for the addition of the words,
"and any assistance given shall be in a form which will not enable the identity of the voter to be revealed".
I have in mind the traditional ballot paper. I shall start with the nonsense examples: it quite clearly cannot be an enlarged ballot paper, because that would obviously identify the voter at count; it cannot be a ballot paper in Braille; it cannot be a ballot paper which has in any way been marked by this device, whatever it may be.
My amendment would reinforce the need for privacy, and I de not see any harm in accepting it. But it is really tabled in order to seek an explanation and an assurance from the Minister regarding the device. I presume that one is contemplated. Otherwise, why put it in the Bill? I would like an assurance that the device will in no way leave marks on the ballot paper which would allow the identity of the voter to be discerned. I beg to move.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: The reference to "a device" sounds rather painful. I do not believe that this is quite as draconian as a "device". I am nevertheless grateful to the noble Lord for tabling the amendment. As he listens, I am sure that he will get the reassurance that he seeks.
One important change which the Bill introduces is that blind and partially-sighted people will in future be able to vote using a template. As I explained at Second Reading, we have in mind something like a cardboard sleeve into which the ballot paper could be slotted. The sleeve will have holes cut out of it, so that the boxes for marking a vote will be visible. The voters will then be able to feel where to put their crosses. When I recently described this plan, somebody responded by saying, "What a simple idea! Why did we not do it years ago?" I am sure that your Lordships will probably be equally positive. It seems to me a very simple way of achieving the objective.
We do not need to be overly formal about this. Unlike voters who are assisted by a companion, no other people are involved, which in turn means that no signatures or lists need to be involved. We believe that the template can simply sit on the presiding officer's table and that a voter who wants to use it can simply ask for it. He will not have to say why he needs it, nor will he have to fill in any unnecessary paperwork—no added bureaucracy. The electoral register will not be marked in any special way. Therefore, there will be no way at the end of polling day of identifying those who have used the facility. As far as I can discern, a
1128
cardboard sleeve as a device will not leave any kind of mark on the ballot paper. I trust that those assurances will sufficiently meet the noble Lord's concerns and that he will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: That satisfies me and I therefore beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 127 not moved.]
Clause 13 agreed to.
Lord McNally Lord McNally moved Amendment No. 127A:
After Clause 13, insert the following new clause—
ACCEPTANCE OF NOMINATIONS: MISLEADING NAMES
(" . In Schedule 1 to the 1983 Act (the parliamentary elections rules), in rule 6 (nomination of candidates) at the end there shall be inserted—
"(4) The returning officer shall refuse to accept the nomination of a candidate in a name which has been adopted by the candidate and appears to the returning officer to have been adopted with a view to causing confusion among electors between that candidate and any other person who is or is likely to become a candidate in the same election."").
The noble Lord said: I freely confess that the Liberal Democrats are deeply scarred by the experience of name changes, having had to fight a by-election with two Roy Jenkins and at a European election facing a "Literal Democrat"! Name changes can sometimes be seen as amusing. I am reminded of the story of the man whose name was Billy who became so fed up of being called "Silly Billy" that he changed his name to George, whereupon everybody called him "Silly George"! So in some cases, name changes and such like can be seen as amusing, but, on the other hand, we have had to become used to tomfoolery with our electoral system. I am told that returning officers are often reluctant to take action because they do not want to become embroiled in litigation, the cost of which falls on their own local authorities. Therefore, where there is room for abuse, there may be a case for ruling it out in order to protect returning officers and their discretion.
As the Minister may have gathered, I do not intend to seek to divide the Committee on this issue, but I wonder whether the Home Office has considered it. I beg to move.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I, too, have experience of name changes. As leader of Brighton and Hove Council during the previous general election, I faced the same problem. Someone wanted to stand as the "Conversative" candidate, aping the name from the "Conservative" candidate and we had to go to law to try to sort it out. Therefore, I have a great deal of sympathy with the amendment.
However, we believe that we have tackled the problem. Praise is due to dear old Brighton and Hove Council and to dear old me. I wrote a telling article on the subject, going through our experience, shortly after the general election. Of course, the new, listening, sensitive, incoming Government have tackled the issue

1129
and believe that the Registration of Political Parties Act, which we introduced some two years ago, put a stop to that.
I have not seen new and fresh abuses since then, but if there are any or more imaginative ways of impersonation which so distract the electorate that one party suffers, we should like to hear about them. It is something we cannot tolerate in our electoral process because it frustrates democracy, as it did in the famous and celebrated European elections which caught the eye.
We do not believe that further statutory provisions are required. Although I sympathise with the concerns raised by the noble Lord, I suggest that it would be appropriate to withdraw the amendment.
Lord McNally: The only aspect of the Minister's explanation which amazes me is that anyone in Brighton during the last election should be trying to impersonate the Conservative candidate.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: Given the nature of the candidate, I am tempted to agree with the noble Lord, but that would be most unfair of me.
Lord McNally: After that clarification, I gladly beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clauses 14 and 15 agreed to.
Clause 16 [Citation, construction, commencement and extent]:
Lord Bach Lord Bach moved Amendment No. 128:
Page 16, line 41, at end insert—
(""local government area" has the meaning given by section 203(1) of the 1983 Act;").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 129 not moved.]
Lord Bach Lord Bach moved Amendments Nos. 130 and 131:
Page 17, line 14, after ("4.") insert—
("( ) paragraph 6 of Schedule 5,").
Page 17, line 20, leave out ("and 13") and insert ("to 13C").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 16, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 5 [Minor and consequential amendments]:
Lord Bach Lord Bach moved Amendment No. 132:
Page 40, leave out lines 18 and 19 and insert ("any relevant election.").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 132, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 133. These government amendments relate to the new false particulars offence which the Bill contains. The Bill makes it an offence to submit a nomination paper which includes a false name or address of a candidate. However, as the Bill stands, this new offence contained in Schedule 5 does not include cases where candidates have forged the signatures of their subscribers or coerced people to sign a nomination paper without the signatory being aware of what it was. These
1130
amendments correct that omission and I hope that they will be welcomed by the Committee. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Bach Lord Bach moved Amendment No. 133:
Page 40, line 24, at end insert ("; or
(b) anything which purports to be the signature of an elector who proposes, seconds or assents to, the nomination of such a candidate but which he knows—

(i) was not written by the elector by whom it purports to have been written, or

(ii) if written by that elector, was not written by him for the purpose of signifying that he was proposing, seconding, or (as the case may be) assenting to, that candidate's nomination.

(2) In this section "relevant election" means—

(a) any parliamentary election, or

(b) any local government election in England or Wales."").

On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 134:
Page 40, line 24, at end insert—
(" .After section 66 insert—
"Prohibition on publication of exit polls.
66A.—(1) No person shall, in the case of an election to which this section applies, publish before the poll is closed—

(a) any statement relating to the way in which voters have voted at the election where that statement is (or might reasonably be taken to be) based on information given by voters after they have voted, or

(b) any forecast as to the result of the election which is (or might reasonably be taken to be) based on information so given.

(2) This section applies to—

(a) any parliamentary election; and

(b) any local government election in England or Wales.

(3) If a person acts in contravention of subsection (1) above he shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months.
(4) In this section—

"forecast" includes estimate;

"publish" means make available to the public at large, or any section of the public, in whatever form and by whatever means;

and any reference to the result of an election is a reference to the result of the election either as a whole or so far as any particular candidate or candidates at the election is or are concerned." ").
The noble Lord said: I can be brief. The amendment gives effect to a commitment made by my ministerial colleagues in another place to bring forward a government amendment to prohibit exit polls where voting takes place over more than one day.
There is concern, and rightly so, that where voting takes place over a number of days, the results of exit polls may influence those electors who have not yet cast their vote, whether that be how they vote or whether they choose to vote at all. We cannot allow that.
The amendment will stop that by preventing the results of any exit polls being made public before the final close of poll. Normal opinion polls and parties telling activities will remain unaffected. I trust that that will satisfy Members of the Committee. I recall that the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, raised the issue at Second Reading and that other noble Lords expressed concern. I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I welcome the Government's attempt to try to deal with a problem we identified at Second Reading. I want to make two points. My first relates to the text of the amendment. Subsection (2) of the new clause states:
"This section applies to … any parliamentary election".
Notwithstanding my complaints about Clause 11, do I take it that that includes elections to the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly and the Northern Ireland Assembly? After all, a roll-out of a three-day poll could easily happen to them. Furthermore, the Minister explained why Scotland was included in earlier parts of the Bill, but why is it not included in new subsection (2)(b), which refers to:
"any local government election in England or Wales"?
My second point is a little more serious. Have the Minister and his department considered whether the amendment accords with the European Convention on Human Rights? Article 10, paragraph 1, of Schedule 1 to the Human Rights Act 1998 reads:
"Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers".
I do not expect an answer tonight, but I flag up the issue. It would be better if the Minister considered with his legal advisers whether the provision would accord with the convention.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I am grateful to the noble Lord. I am not sure that he will be happy with my answer, but we think—I stress, "we think"—that the provision complies with the ECHR. However, I am determined to check that with officials and I shall ask them for a further view.
The subsection to which the noble Lord referred does not apply to Scottish and Welsh elections because they have separate election orders which will need corresponding amendment. The answer to his second question is that the Scottish Parliament has not asked for this provision. That is a matter on which it may want to reflect further, but that is the situation. I shall be more than happy to correspond with the noble Lord in order to tie up any other queries.
7 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I accept the point about the European Convention on Human Rights. I notice that the Minister avoided telling me whether the Government have considered the matter as regards this amendment. I shall not press him any further. I will assume that they have. If the Government have not done so, they certainly will now.
As regards the Scottish point, I fully accept that the Scottish Parliament has perhaps not asked the Government to include Scotland. Dare I suggest that perhaps they do not know that a prohibition on the publication of exit polls has been put into the Bill? Therefore, my question is this: have they been asked if they wish this Parliament to legislate on the matter?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I will pursue the point somewhat further. The noble Lord, Lord Mackay, has made a very witty and useful intervention.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendment No. 135:
Page 40, line 38, at end insert—
("( ) Omit rule 20.").
The noble Lord said: The Committee will know Rule 20 by heart. It is the official mark which is placed on ballot papers. I raised this matter as regards the Scottish referendum election. I suggested that it was an obsolete rule. I raise it again very briefly to say to the Minister that I still believe it is an obsolete rule. I do not believe that it stops any infringement taking place. In fact, the last time we debated this matter nobody suggested that it did. It was almost a question of, "We've always done it this way and let us carry on with that". I do not believe that it stops infringement.
Any infringement that one could imagine that the mark would prevent would have to be of the nature of people stealing a wedge of ballot papers and, without the official mark, adding them to a box. Dare I suggest that something would be badly wrong with the tallies at the end of the election if such an event happened, because there would not have been enough "score offs" on the electoral register?
In addition, we all know that at various elections a certain number of papers are, for inexplicable reasons, spoiled. I suspect that in the rush the clerks at the table simply forget to put the mark on the ballot paper. Frankly, most electors do not bother to look, because, apart from people like ourselves, I doubt whether many electors realise the significance of the official mark. Ballot papers get through without the official mark. Indeed, although it is a painful business, the Winchester argument was over the question of official marks. There did not seem to be any doubt that about 25 electors had properly marked their ballot papers, but because the official mark was missing they were not counted.
I believe it is time that we scrapped this procedure. Interestingly enough, I have in my defence the Winter 1999 newsletter of the Association of Electoral Administrators. In addition to wishing everyone a

1133
happy Christmas and a prosperous New Year, the newsletter says this. I shall read out the whole passage because the first part encourages the Minister.
"At last we see proposals for electoral change. Many of the recommendations in the new Representation of the People Bill reflect the AEA's document Vote for Change which was published some time ago and demonstrates just what a leading role the association has played in producing the new agenda. Somewhat disappointingly, though, some of the practical issues such as the abolition of the stamping instrument, have not been mentioned. But maybe a couple of unstamped ballot papers resulting in an election petition during the pilot scheme might get the Home Secretary to think again".
Without waiting for a couple of unstamped ballot papers and an election petition, I ask the Home Secretary's representative in the House of Lords to think again. I beg to move.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, on his continued mastery of selective quotation. I can see that he has had a very gripping Christmas read. The amendment raises some important issues about the official mark. I am very mindful of the Winchester case. I know that it caused a great deal of distress in certain circles.
The official mark has its virtues. It dates back to the Ballot Act 1872, so it has a long history of some kind. I believe that we should be thankful for that mark because it has probably prevented many fraudulent instances in local and general elections.
However, the noble Lord is quite right. I believe that the Home Affairs Committee in another place, in its inquiry into electoral law and administration, discovered that at every recent general election between two and three thousand ballot papers have been rejected because they lack the official mark. That is not a fantastic number of people who have lost their votes in consequence of the official mark not being in place. Nevertheless, it cannot be right. We ought to have something which prevents a person's vote being cancelled because of an inadvertent error by a member of the polling staff.
We believe that there should be more effort to consider the issue. I am not sure that the noble Lord will be entirely satisfied when I say that he should take comfort from the fact that the Home Office is seized of the need to see whether a suitable replacement can be found for the official mark. The noble Lord is a very imaginative fellow. I am sure that he will produce a suitable replacement even if we do not. On that basis, I invite him not just to withdraw his amendment, but to come forward with some good ideas also.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I believe that I am grateful to the Minister for that reply, at least as far as it went. My suggestion is that we do not need to have a mark at all. Therefore, I do not need an alternative mark. I noticed his phrase,
"the Home Office is seized of the need".
It is a good thing that my noble friend Lord Peyton of Yeovil is no longer here otherwise he might have lighted on that as a variation of "keeping it in mind". I appreciate that the Minister sees the point. He was a
1134
little unkind to say that my quotation was selective, because I read out the whole of the paragraph, which included some laudatory comments on what was happening in this Bill.
The Minister made the point about the Ballot Act. I say to him that, given all the changes that the Government have made to the British constitution, claiming that we have to rest on the Ballot Act 1872 rings a tinge false to those of us who went through the referendum Bill, the Scottish Parliament Bill, the Welsh Assembly Bill—
Lord Bassam of Brighton: Will the noble Lord accept on this one occasion that the process of modernisation does not always have to be entirely current and that sometimes we can borrow from history?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: That may be so, but it certainly cannot be claimed as a new idea if in fact we keep a ballot mark from 1872. I have listened to the noble Lord's assurance. I believe that the Home Office should have a serious look at this matter so that perhaps by the time the Bill leaves this House we shall have dropped what I believe is a pretty useless exercise as regards the ballot paper. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 136 not moved.]
Lord Bach Lord Bach moved Amendments Nos. 137 to 140:
Page 41, line 32, leave out ("and 13") and insert ("to 13C").
Page 41, line 33, leave out ("In section 5 (manner of voting), after") and insert ("—(1) Section 5 is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (1), omit "or local government".
(3) In subsection (5), omit "or, as the case may be, electoral area".
(4) After").
Page 41, line 42, at end insert—
("(5) In subsection (6), omit "or local government" (wherever occurring).
(6) For subsection (7) substitute—
"(7) In this section and sections 6 to 9 of this Act "appropriate rules" means the parliamentary elections rules." ").
Page 41, line 43, leave out paragraph 13 and insert—
("13.—(1) Section 6 (absent vote at elections for an indefinite period) is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (1)—

(a) omit ", at local government elections or at both"; and

(b) in paragraph (a), for "elections to which the application relates" substitute "parliamentary elections".

(3) In subsection (2), omit—

(a) "or local government", and

(b) paragraph (aa),

and, in paragraph (c), after "his spouse," insert "or by reason of his attendance on a course provided by an educational institution or that of his spouse,".
(4) Omit subsection (2A).
(5) In subsection (3), omit paragraph (a).
(6) In subsection (4), after "in pursuance of" insert "a declaration of local connection or".
13A.—(1) Section 7 (absent vote at a particular election and absent voters list) is amended as follows.

1135
(2) In subsection (1), omit—

(a) "or local government"; and

(b) in paragraph (b), "or, as the case may be, local government".

(3) For subsection (2) substitute—
"(2) Subsection (1) above does not apply to a person who is included in the record kept under section 6 of this Act, but such a person may, in respect of a particular parliamentary election, apply to the registration officer—

(a) for his ballot paper to be sent to a different address in the United Kingdom, or

(b) to vote by proxy,

if he is shown in (he record so kept as voting by post at parliamentary elections."
(4) In subsection (4)—

(a) omit "or local government"; and

(b) in each of paragraphs (a) and (b), for "elections of the kind in question" substitute "parliamentary elections".

13B. —(1) Section 8 (proxies at elections) is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (1), omit "or local government".
(3) Omit subsection (3A).
(4) In subsection (4), omit "or local government".
(5) In subsection (5), omit ", or at the same local government election in any electoral area,".
(6) In subsection (6)—

(a) omit ", at local government elections or at both"; and

(b) in paragraph (a), for "electors for elections in respect of which the application is made" substitute "parliamentary electors".

(7) In subsection (7), omit—

(a) "or local government"; and

(b) in paragraph (a) "or, as the case may be, local government".

(8) For subsection (9) substitute—
"(9) The appointment may be cancelled by the elector by giving notice to the registration officer, and shall also cease to be in force on the issue of a proxy paper appointing a different person to vote for him at any parliamentary election or elections (whether in the same constituency or elsewhere)."
13C. —(1) Section 9 (voting as proxy) is amended as follows.
(2) In each of subsections (1) and (3), omit "or local government".
(3) In subsection (4), omit—

(a) ", at local government elections or at both"; and

(b) in paragraph (a),",or electoral area,";

and in paragraph (b) for "the same area" substitute "the same ward".
(4) Omit subsection (5).
(5) In subsection (6), omit paragraph (a) (including the final "and").
(6) In subsection (7), omit "or, as the case may be, electoral area".
(7) In subsection (8), omit "in respect of elections of the kind in question".
(8) In subsection (9), omit—

(a) "or local government"; and

(b) in paragraph (a), "in respect of elections of the kind in question".

(9) In subsection (10)—

(a) in paragraph (a), omit ", local government electors or both (as the case may be)"; and

1136

(b) in paragraph (b), for "elections of the kind in question" substitute "parliamentary elections".

(10) In subsection (11), in paragraph (b), omit ", or electoral area,".").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 5, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 6 [Repeals]:
Lord Bach Lord Bach moved Amendments Nos. 141 and 142:
Page 42, line 20, column 3, at end insert—

("Section 49(1)and(2).")

page 43, column 3, leave out line 26 and insert—

("In section 5—

(a) in each of subsections (1) and (6), the words "or local government" (wherever occurring), and (b) in subsection (5), the words "or, as the case may be, electoral area".

In section 6—

(a) in subsection (1), the words ", at local government elections or at both",

(b) in subsection (2), the words "or local government" and paragraph (aa), and

(c) subsections (2A) and (3)(a).

In section 7—

(a) in each of subsections (1) and (4), the words "or local government", and

(b) in subsection (1)(b), the words "or, as the case may be, local government".

In section 8—

(a) in each of subsections (1), (4) and (7), the words "or local government",

(b) subsection (3A).

(c) in subsection (5), the words ", or at the same local government election in any electoral area,",

(d) in subsection (6), the words ", at local government elections or at both", and

(e) in subsection (7)(a), the words "or, as the case may be, local government".

In section 9—

(a) in each of subsections (1), (3) and (9), the words "or local government".

(b) in subsection (4), the words ", at local government elections or at both" and, in paragraph

(a), ", or electoral area,",

(c) subsection (5),

(d) in subsection (6), paragraph

(a) (including the final "and").

(e) in subsection (7), the words "or, as the case may be, electoral area",

(f) in each of subsections (8) and (9)(a), the words "in respect of elections of the kind in question".

(g) in subsection (10)(a), the words "local government electors or both (as the case may be)", and

(h) in subsection (11), the words ", or electoral area,"'.")

On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 6, as amended, agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with amendments.

Learning and Skills Bill [H.L.]
7.9 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department for Education and Employment (Baroness Blackstone): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Baroness Blackstone.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (The Countess of Mar) in the Chair.]
Clauses 46 to 49 agreed to.
Schedule 6 [The Adult Learning Inspectorate]:
Lord Rix Lord Rix moved Amendment No. 181:
Page 66, line 34, at end insert ("for specific classes of inspection").
The noble Lord said: The purpose of this amendment—which has all-party support—is to discover something of the Government's plans for the arrangement of inspections under the new adult learning inspectorate. I am probing generally for an assurance that the new inspectorate will appoint specialist inspectors who have expertise in particular fields and, more specifically, that that expertise will be developed in assessing quality standards in courses for people with learning difficulties, which of course will include people with learning disabilities.
While one would expect something of a common training for staff working for a new inspectorate, I, and indeed the Disability Consortium, believe there is a strong case for developing specialisms in assessing courses for students with learning difficulties. It is crucial that inspectors understand the problems and barriers that disabled students have had to overcome in coming to the educational training and provision and of the responsibility placed upon providers, both by the new learning and skills councils and by the Disability Discrimination Act, to ensure that reasonable adjustments are made to ensure equal participation.
It is also important that the nature of adult learning is seen as different from the processes of learning experienced by children, particularly in relation to adults with learning difficulties. Many adult students have a wealth of informal and incidental life experiences to build upon and they are often filling gaps in their knowledge and skills. Their learning needs and aspirations rarely follow an easy and smooth path. Inspectors evaluating provision made for disabled adults must recognise this and be sensitive to the nature of learning in adulthood and for the need for ever more creative and sophisticated approaches to meeting such diverse experiences and expectations.
A related question is whether lay inspectors will have a role once the new adult learning inspectorate opens its doors. There is some evidence that lay inspectors with direct personal experience of disability have added value to the process of inspection. This has
1138
worked best in instances where lay inspectors have been fully prepared and have been involved in drawing up the agreed inspection framework with regard to disability issues. It would be a shame if, in our efforts to improve the inspection process, schemes of this kind are diminished.
Noble Lords may be aware that I made similar points in relation to the new inspectorate being introduced under the Care Standards Bill. In that debate, the Minister was able to respond positively and recognise the importance of retaining and developing specialist inspectors. I hope that the Minister will be minded to do the same today. I beg to move.
Lord Addington: I rise briefly to support the amendment and to say that a certain degree of specialist knowledge of the particular problems in this area is essential if the job is to be done properly. The noble Lord has already pointed out that in certain types of cases a little specialist knowledge is needed. More knowledge will need to be acquired as the inspection process develops. Introducing categories for certain types of knowledge to match certain types of inspection will be essential or the process will not work well.
Baroness David: The noble Lord, Lord Rix, has made the case for this amendment extremely cleverly and fully and I do not need to add to what he has said. However, it seems to me to be obvious that it is essential to use inspectors who have specialist knowledge of those with learning difficulties. I hope very much that the Minister will be able to give the Committee a positive response.
Baroness Blatch: I too, have added my name to this amendment and I am pleased to support it. When examining the new framework for inspection, a difficulty may arise over the manner in which the two cultures for inspection are brought together. Ofsted works within one framework and the ALI will operate under a different system; these two groups will approach inspection from very different bases. It is not only a question of accommodating the two cultures and then dovetailing them into a common framework, but also a question of ensuring that they are particularly sensitive not only to those with special needs within the school system, but also to those with learning difficulties in the adult learning environment. Nothing I have yet seen in the Bill gives me any comfort that the system will work as sensitively as it should.
Will the noble Baroness clarify for the Committee how these two separate inspection systems, with different cultural backgrounds and practical approaches towards inspection, will work with one common purpose; namely, to be sufficiently sensitive to be able to deal with those with learning difficulties both pre-16 and post-16?
Baroness Darcy de Knayth: Unfortunately there was not enough room to enable me to add my name to the amendment. However, I should like to associate

1139
myself with it and support all that has been said in this debate. I echo the plea of my noble friend that the particular knowledge of inspectors currently involved in examining specialist residential colleges is not lost but is put to good use.
7.15 p.m.
Baroness Blackstone: I regret that there was no room on the Marshalled List for the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy de Knayth, to add her name to this amendment. However, the noble Baroness knows that we always associate her name with amendments of this kind.
I have listened carefully to the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Rix, and others in this short debate and I believe that I can provide the Committee and all those who have contributed with the assurances that are being sought.
Paragraph 4 of Schedule 6 provides a power for the adult learning inspectorate to,
"appoint such employees, including inspectors, as it thinks fit".
The amendment would add to this to ensure that specialist inspectors are appointed. No doubt noble Lords want to ensure that the adult learning inspectorate has all the expertise necessary to assess standards in courses for students with disabilities and learning difficulties.
I agree entirely with the principle that the inspection teams must have the collective experience and expertise to allow effective scrutiny of all aspects of provision covered by the inspection agenda. It is obvious that this principle could not possibly be fulfilled if no expertise is available within the provision of inspection for those with learning difficulties. Our commitment to good provision for such students, indeed our commitment to inclusive education, could be compromised if the adult learning inspectorate did not have the specialists that are needed in this vital area.
The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, referred to the common inspection framework and spoke of the different cultures within the ALI and Ofsted. Of course, the ALI is completely new and so in a sense does not have a culture, although I readily accept that the FEFC and training inspectorates have had somewhat different approaches. However, all three inspectorates have been working extremely closely to devise a common framework. I am confident that this will work well. The common inspection framework will set out the necessary principles about inspectorate expertise. To that end, I have received clear assurances from the three current chief inspectors—those of Ofsted, the Training Standards Council and the FEFC—that their teams will have all the necessary specialist skills and that this will be set out clearly in the framework.
Provisions relating to the framework are set out in Clauses 66 and 67 and it will be a statutory document, which will be subject to a preliminary consultation in the spring and a more formal one after Royal Assent. I hope that that is helpful and that it will allow
1140
Members of the Committee to comment. It will enshrine these and other principles. Therefore, there is no need for them to be explicit on the face of the Bill.
In summary, we intend that there should be no gaps in the inspection agenda, particularly in provision for people with learning difficulties and disabilities. Therefore, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Rix, and other Members of the Committee who put their name to this amendment for bringing forward these points because that has allowed me to clarify the policy. I hope that, in the light of what I have said, the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Baroness Blatch: Before the noble Baroness sits down, perhaps I may ask a question, again, relating to the two cultures. One is a self-evaluative approach; the other is very much an observational approach. How will that be dealt with? Will Ofsted be required to become more self-evaluative or will ALI inspectors who are on the common team become more observational? That seems to me to be most important, especially when dealing not just with those without learning difficulties who are in pre and post-16 education but also when dealing with those with learning difficulties who operate in a situation very different from that of adult learning and in the workplace, which is covered by the Bill.
Baroness Blackstone: Here we want to see the best of both worlds brought together. I believe that there is a case for both an observational approach and for some self-evaluation. Self-evaluation obviously is a good motivator for people. At the same time, I entirely accept that some external scrutiny and observation is required. I believe that the two inspectorates will work together. One—Ofsted—obviously will rely rather more on the approach that it has used in sixth forms in the new role that it will play in relation to full-time 16 to 19 year-olds in sixth-form colleges. At the same time, the rather different, work-based environment on which the adult learning inspectorate will focus may need a slightly different approach. Perhaps may reassure the noble Baroness that the three chief inspectorates are working together to develop this common framework. As I said, there will be an opportunity for further consultation on that issue.
Lord Rix: I warmly welcome the Minister's assurance in the matter of the three inspectorates. I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, is assured that there will be a specialist approach to Ofsted inspectors, too, in this regard. The assurance from the Dispatch Box is one which certainly I can accept, and I hope that other Members of the Committee can do likewise. Therefore, I have the greatest pleasure in begging leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 6 agreed to.
Clause 50 [The Inspectorate's remit]:
[Amendment No. 182 not moved.]
Baroness Sharp of Guildford Baroness Sharp of Guildford moved Amendment No. 183:
Page 20, line 17, leave out ("for persons") and insert ("provided in the further education sector which is suitable to the requirements of those").
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 183, I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 184, 185, 194 and 195. The purpose of this set of amendments is to rationalise and simplify the inspection system proposed for post-16 education. As set out in the Bill, the system seems to be extraordinarily complex. As my noble friend Lord Tope said at Second Reading:
"Why on earth do we have the anomaly of two inspection agencies falling over each other to inspect the provision? Why do we need complex rules about 'joint inspection' and a 'common inspection framework'? The obvious and radical answer is to have a single inspection agency for all post-16 education and training which will see its work in the context of lifelong learning".— [Official Report], 17/1/00; col. 939.]
Essentially, these amendments provide the framework for such an agency. They extend the remit of the adult learning inspectorate to cover post-16 education and training in the further education sector and limit the remit of the Chief Inspector of Schools in England to the schools sector. The Minister responded at Second Reading by saying:
"No single inspectorate could encompass the enormous scale and variety of post-16 education".—[Official Report, 17/1/00; col. 946.]
Yet, the same might be said of the role of the Chief Inspector of Schools in England, whose remit, I believe, is now extended to cover playgroups and babyminders. In this age when, increasingly, inspection means hiring a team of inspectors with the relevant skills and competencies, I cannot see that that is an obstacle. In both bureaucratic and cost terms, it seems unnecessary to have two teams of inspectors invading one institution simultaneously.
As it is, the proposals before us will mean that in nearly all circumstances there will be joint inspections. Ofsted, seemingly, will be responsible for inspecting the education side of provision and ALI will be responsible for the training side of provision. From these Benches, we fail to understand why the Government have pursued this route and we look forward to hearing the Minister's response. Genuinely, we do not understand the logic behind it. Implicitly, is there a feeling that where learning and skills council money goes, the adult learning inspectorate must go, too? Thus, sixth forms, whose learning and skills money is being routed through the LEAs nevertheless must be inspected by the adult learning inspectorate as well as by Ofsted and, likewise, Ofsted must have entry into the further education sector. I gather, for example, that of the 250 responses in the consultation, only one—from the Further Education Funding Council—supported the idea of joint inspections. Was that because the Further
1142
Education Funding Council was worried about the issue of accountability? I should be glad if the Minister could elucidate that issue for us.
I believe that we are not alone in worrying that the Ofsted methodology is not appropriate for the mix of experience and learning that takes place in many further education colleges. The CB I expresses doubts as to whether such a methodology can cope adequately with the different circumstances of different institutions and, in particular, the workplace. The British Chambers of Commerce, headed by Chris Humphries, who chairs the Government's National Skills Task Force, goes further and calls the proposal to give Ofsted responsibility for inspecting provision in further education colleges "an inappropriate decision". The evidence continues:
"The idea that it is either feasible or valuable to inspect young learners' experience separately from that of the majority of adult learners in the same FE college or training provider programme and classroom is unsound and costly".
The factors which shaped the approach, methods and style of Ofsted are not the same as those which have shaped the existing Further Education Funding Council Inspectorate or the Training Standards Council Inspectorate. For example, adult learners bring a much greater diversity of experience of work, civic and domestic responsibility for their learning than do children. Many are most likely to participate in learning on a part-time basis or intermittently for short periods. They are much more likely to be constrained as to where and when they can study. They often contribute to the cost of learning from their own disposable income. Many participate voluntarily, with the exception of some in workplace training. That can mean high levels of motivation, but also a greater likelihood that they will cease to participate if they are unconvinced of the learning's relevance or of value for money. They may be unclear about their learning needs and about whether particular courses of action will help them to meet their desired goals. Usually they have wider-ranging and more complex motivations for studying than do the young. They may have unhappy or negative experiences from the schooling system.
All those are good reasons why Ofsted should not look into the further education sector. Yet, the whole tenor of Clauses 66 to 68 makes the Chief Inspector of Schools in England the senior partner in the proposed joint inspections. The adult learning inspector's junior role immediately places work-based learning and vocational learning in colleges at a disadvantage. In our earlier debates on the Bill, the Government and the Minister said that they did not want to separate education from training. This provision does just that. It puts academic education on a pedestal and vocational education and learning at its feet.
When we debated the earlier clauses of the Bill, the Minister claimed that the Government wanted to overcome that binary divide between academic and vocational education and training and to treat education and training holistically. But the sort of thinking set out in the Bill underlies the divide between the adult learning inspectorate and the role of the Chief Inspector of Schools.
The FE21 group of colleges put it rather well in its evidence when it said:
"We believe that the implication of Ofsted taking the lead in the inspection process is that providers, especially colleges, will be compelled into following the existing 16–19 model by the achievement oriented ethos of this inspection regime. This will be to the detriment of encouraging non-traditional learners into education because it does not appreciate the differences between the strategies for adult and young learners".
It adds that in any case, the majority of learners in colleges are over the age of 19.
We support the Government in their emphasis on providing high quality education and training for our young people and for the continuing education needs of our nation. We acknowledge the role that inspection plays in maintaining and raising the quality of such provision. But these proposals, as they stand, are a mess. The further education sector has developed a range of quality control mechanisms. They are already subject to inspections from the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority, from the Audit Commission and from the further education and funding inspectors who would, we assume, form the core of the adult learning inspectorate.
But now, in addition to that, it is proposed to add Ofsted to the further education sector and to make it the senior partner, even though it has no experience of that field. Surely it is better to do as we suggest: to make a clean break between schools and the further education sector; leave Ofsted where it is, in the schools sector; and give ALI the prime responsibility for inspection in further education. I beg to move.
7.30 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: It falls to me to resort to colloquial language to describe this part of the Bill. It really is a dog's breakfast. There is no other description for it.
The noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, has been more elegant but equal her criticism of the provisions in the Bill. Although the Association of Teachers and Lecturers welcomes some of the measures in the Bill, it is really welcoming the cultural approach which I described earlier of the FEFC inspections; namely, a process of self-evaluation. I believe that the Association of Teachers and Lecturers hopes that the ALI will subsume that approach to inspections and that the ALI will be given the responsibility for sixth-form inspections. There are so many options which one could go for if one is dismissing the proposals set out in the Bill.
The provisions are extremely complex. They will cause great confusion. A school will be visited by Ofsted for the purposes of inspecting a school for 11 to 18 year-olds but it will be inspecting only the 11 to 16 age group part of the school. There will be a separate and distinct approach to inspecting the sixth forms in that school. Then arrangements will be made for inspecting 16 year-olds in the workplace. Different arrangements will apply to 16 to 19 year-olds in further education. The Bill proposes that the adult learning inspectorate will work together with Ofsted, with Ofsted in the lead. As I say, Ofsted has a very clear observational role.
1144
In her response to the previous amendment the noble Baroness attempted to explain how the joint system would work. She said that all the bodies would work happily together; that it would be extremely effective; that there would be no confusion whatever; and that it would all be very meaningful. But the noble Baroness did not say whether the observational approach of Ofsted will have to change and whether the ALI will either subsume the evaluative approach or whether the ALI, which will be subservient to Ofsted in joint inspections, will absorb the observational role. I believe it was hinted that there would be a bit of each. Ofsted does not take that approach at the moment so it would have to change quite dramatically the way it approaches an inspection.
What does that mean for a school catering for 11 to 18 year-olds? The same inspectorate will inspect the school in the way in which it has traditionally inspected it until now, but then it will inspect the sixth form on a very different basis. It is a kind of mix and match of the two cultures. That simply is not good enough.
I have not studied sufficiently carefully the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, who is trying to bring some clarity to the way in which the inspections will take place. There is an argument for all education and training which takes place either in further education and/or at the workplace to be inspected by one inspectorate and in one way using one methodology. School-based inspections should be carried out as they have been hitherto.
Certainly, the Association of Teachers and Lecturers would be making the case that there is an argument for adopting the approach which the FEFC has operated and which it assumes and believes that the ALI will adopt. If it would prefer an evaluative approach, that is a different argument. That argument needs to be put to government so that a judgment is made on it. I suspect that some research has been done which indicates which process of inspection is the most effective. Would schools benefit from a self-evaluative approach? I do not know. But the argument is not that we should have this mish-mash of inspections, with 16 year-olds, depending on where they are being educated, being inspected differently. Rather it is that there should be a change of culture in school inspections. It would be worth hearing a case for that. If there is a good case for it, what would be the Government's plans to change it?
This is a complete mess. When I talk to people in the adult education world and in the 16-plus world in the school sector, they say that they would like some clarity. They, too, would like to see less confusion than there is set out in the Bill. As I said, some bodies, like the ATL, welcome an evaluative approach but that is not what is provided in this Bill because the Bill provides a mix of the two.
It is incumbent on the Government, and certainly on the Minister, when she replies, to try to bring some clarity to this issue. That would mean changing the Bill as it stands. However, the Government seem to be

1145
reluctant to change any dot or comma in the Bill, so I am not hopeful that that will be the case. I believe that we are adopting a seriously messy approach to the inspection of 16-plus education. The rationale of the Bill is to bring coherence to 16-plus education. That will not be achieved by this method of inspection.
Lord Dearing: I did not intend to speak to this amendment but I do so having listened to the arguments of the noble Baroness. The present structure of the inspections as set out in Clause 68 is not really a partnership or joint inspection. It is an inspection under the direction of Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools to a plan determined by Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools producing a report offered by Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools and following a composition of an inspectorate determined by Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools.
That particular approach puts the ALI in a totally subordinate position. Therefore, it is most unlikely to attract the quality of inspector required to be effective and will be at risk of losing that distinctive contribution which is needed for a community of learners which is adult rather than young, part-time rather than full-time, and possibly needing greater encouragement to engage in education and upskilling. After all, we are trying to create an adult learning society. If the Government are set on this particular approach, the result may be damaging to the Government's aspirations.
Therefore, while I am minded to support the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, in his amendment, I express great concern at the approach adopted both in the combination of the present clauses, and including, in particular, Clause 68.
7.45 p.m.
Baroness Blackstone: We appear to be moving away from the amendments under discussion. I do not want to enter into debates which will come later. As I have said before, it is important in Committee that we do not have a Second Reading debate about a particular aspect of the Bill, such as inspection, but that we focus on the amendments tabled.
The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, said that our proposals are a mess and that they would be incoherent. Perhaps I may say to the noble Baroness that we have a rather incoherent system at present. The Government intend to create a much more coherent system than that established by her government.
I turn to the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp. I am grateful to her for indicating that she will not be moving Amendments Nos. 182 and 187 which would give ALI a remit for inspecting school sixth forms. I am glad that she and her colleagues have realised that that would not make a great deal of sense.
The amendments spoken to by the noble Baroness would fundamentally change the character of the Bill. Amendment No. 183 would exclude the inspection of
1146
colleges outside the FE sector, including specialist provision for students with learning difficulties and disabilities which we have just discussed and about which her noble friend Lord Addington expressed concerns. The noble Baroness may want, on reflection, to acknowledge that that was not her intention.
Amendment No. 184 extends the remit of the adult learning inspectorate so that it has sole responsibility for post-16 inspection other than sixth forms. As a consequence I understand that Ofsted's role in post-16 inspection would be restricted to only school sixth forms. I believe that is what the noble Baroness has in mind.
Perhaps I may address the fundamental points of principle which the noble Baroness called the logic behind our approach. I hope that that will help, too, in answering some of the points raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, will forgive me if I do not pick up on his interjection. I believe that that is much more relevant to the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Haskel which we shall reach later.
I turn to our own proposals which, despite the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, are coherent. Our provisions will build on the best of the three existing inspection systems. I cannot understand why the noble Baroness finds that unacceptable.
I pay tribute not just to Ofsted, which is well known for its work in raising standards in education, but also to the important work of the FEFC Inspectorate and the Training and Skills Council Inspectorate. They have done sterling work across the spectrum of post-16 provision, which we should acknowledge. We want to build on and draw on that sterling work in the new structures we are creating. Our proposals will combine the best traditions of the three existing inspectorates and produce a system far better than that we have at present.
It is wrong to suggest that the two new inspectorates will be falling over each other. They will not; they will be working together. No single inspectorate could encompass the range and variety that has to be inspected in the whole of the post-16 provision of learning for both academic qualifications and, indeed, vocational skills.
At Second Reading, and in the debate on the earlier amendment tonight, I explained that we shall have a common inspection framework. I believe that this will be a new, valuable and visionary document compatible with the quality improvement strategy at the centre of the work of the LSC. The collaboration of the two inspectorates—ALI and Ofsted—both using the common framework, will add considerable value. The new regime will also have rigour so that the inspectorates can take a penetrating look at standards across all streams of learning. Members of the Committee will appreciate that on standards generally there is considerable room for improvement.
It may be helpful at this point if I say a little more about the common inspection framework. It will include a series of common principles for inspection,

1147
set out by the chief inspectors. I expect to see, for example, that inspection will give priority to judgments about teaching and that it will place emphasis on the standards achieved. It will also address continuous self-improvement and internal quality assurance.
Perhaps I may say to the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, that I believe that internal quality assurance is a matter which FE colleges, sixth-form colleges, work-based training and school sixth forms should be able to embrace. There will also be principles relating to practical issues; for example, that joint inspection teams must reflect the expertise needed to inspect the range of provision, and that the balance of provision in the institution must be reflected within the inspection team. I refer, for example, to the proportion of inspectors from each inspectorate.
There will also be a series of quality statements or judgments explaining what inspectors will be looking for in particular areas. The inspectorates also anticipate producing a handbook of practical arrangements to go alongside the statutory framework.
Perhaps I may say to the Liberal Democrat Benches that the restriction of Ofsted's role in post-16 inspection would be a considerable mistake. The experience and rigour of Ofsted, building on its expertise in school sixth forms, is surely relevant to sixth-form colleges. The benefit of that rigour would be lost. I am not sure whether the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, supports the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, and wants Ofsted to be removed from this work or whether she takes a somewhat different view. The noble Baroness shakes her head so I assume that she takes a different view from that put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp.
Ofsted has brought together its considerable experience in number of influential reports on effective sixth forms, modular A-levels and GNVQs. We have to remember that some 40 per cent of all students studying for A-levels and GNVQs are in the FE sector. So, there is a great deal of advantage to be gained from Ofsted being able to inspect across the two sectors in these important areas.
For all those reasons, I should be reluctant to accept the amendments tabled in this group which restrict Ofsted's role in post-16 work. As I have said, drafting on the common framework is being done by the inspectorates. At this stage, the Government have no formal role. That must be right and in keeping with the tradition of the independence of the inspectorates. However, I hope that the consultation in spring will coincide with a related consultation on the quality strategy of the LSC. I accept that that document, and the common inspection framework, will need to be compatible and, coherent.
As regards the two consultations on the framework, in the spring we hope to have the one to which I have alluded. There will also be the statutory three-month consultation under the procedures set out in Clause 67. That can take place only when the Bill is enacted. I
1148
believe that that will give ample opportunity for those with an interest in this area to comment upon it. It will mean that the framework will also quickly become a familiar document—all providers will know what it contains and what to expect when they are inspected.
The amendments that have been spoken to by the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, are substantial. However, in my view, the arguments against them are more substantial. I urge the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Blatch: Before the noble Baroness decides what to do about the amendment, perhaps I may return to a few points. I begin with the criticism that, somehow or other, we were making Second Reading speeches. It was almost impossible to discuss these amendments without mentioning the inspection framework, because such amendments would disturb that framework. Therefore, I make no apologies in that respect. I certainly was not making a Second Reading speech. Nevertheless, it is important for us to understand precisely what the consequences of acceptance of these amendments would be.
The Minister referred to a very "incoherent" system that the Government have apparently inherited. Can the noble Baroness say, quite specifically, in what way Ofsted has failed, given the fact that it has been responsible thus far for inspecting sixth-form education as part of the inspection of schools as a whole? Can she also say in what way the FEFC is incapable—or, indeed, its successor, the ALI would be incapable—of inspecting the quality of the teaching and the learning, as well as the training and its effect on adult learning environments? I simply do not know.
The noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, raised an important point; namely, that it is not possible to extend the remit of any one inspectorate body to inspect right across post-16 education simply because you cannot extend Ofsted's remit any further. The very valid point was made that Ofsted now has almost cradle to grave responsibilities in any event. Indeed, that starts from nursery education, baby minding and carers and will now also include all 16-plus education under the extension already encompassed within the Bill. Answers to such questions are important to the debate.
Baroness Blackstone: I am not sure whether the noble Baroness is opposed to Ofsted having a wider role. It is the Government's intention that it should and that it should begin with nursery education and playgroups, extending right through to the provision of further education. I believe that that will create a more integrated and better system of inspection.
In implying that the present system is not terribly coherent, I was not in any way criticising Ofsted, the FEFC or the Training Standards Inspectorate. I am saying that the structure is poorly integrated. In effect, you have one group of inspectors inspecting A-level provision in schools and a totally different group of inspectors inspecting A-level provision in FE colleges. That is the what the Government are addressing: we want a single group of inspectors taking the lead in

1149
inspecting 16 to 19 provision and a single group of inspectors taking the lead in inspecting the specialist aspects of work-based training and adult education. They will use their respective expertise but work together in a team.
Perhaps I may also mention something that I meant to pick up earlier. I believe that the noble Baroness suggested that schools would have separate inspections; in other words, that there would be a separate inspection of the sixth form from that applying to 11 to 16 provision. That will not be the case. Schools will have a single inspection right across the whole range of what they provide. For example, if we are talking about a school that provides for 11 to 18 year-olds, the inspection of the sixth form will take place at the same time as the inspection of the 11 to 16 aspect of its work. I hope that I have clarified that point.
Baroness Blatch: If that is the case and inspections will take place exactly as they do at present, the particular nature of such inspection will not change. Therefore, as I understand it from what the Minister has just said, a 16 year-old doing A-levels in school will be inspected in exactly the same way as hitherto. However, someone taking an A-level in an adult learning situation will be inspected differently by the successor to the FEFC inspectorate. You cannot have it both ways: you cannot argue coherence and uniformity on the one hand and then, on the other, argue that nothing will change in an 11 to 18 school.
Baroness Blackstone: I did not say that "nothing will change". The noble Baroness needs to listen to what I say. I said that such a school would not have a separate inspection. It would not be inspected one year as regards the sixth form and then be inspected at a totally different time regarding the 11 to 16 provision. Under the new common framework there may be some changes to the way in which Ofsted carries out its inspections. It will need to take into account the slightly different approach that has been used in the further education sector. That will be all to the benefit of everyone. As I said earlier, we shall benefit from the approaches used by the different inspectors in creating this new system. On the basis of what I have said, I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: I thank the Minister for her extended reply to the various points that have been raised. However, I am sure she will recognise that I am not convinced by what she said. It seems to me that the Minister fails to understand the point that we on this side of the Committee have been trying to get across; namely, the simplicity of having one set of inspections, led by one group, for a particular type of education provision.
There is a very different ethos in the further education and adult education sector from that in schools. Yes, the Minister is quite right. By not moving Amendment No. 182 (and thereby removing
1150
Amendment No. 187 from this group) we have withdrawn the earlier suggestion that the adult learning inspectorate should have the right to go into sixth forms. I do not believe that that was a coherent idea. We now have a coherent set of inspections in the schools—indeed, Ofsted now rules from the cradle through to the end of schooling. But the way in which Ofsted looks at such things is very different from the way in which the further education world looks at them.
As regards A-levels, I take the Minister's point that we want a coherence in terms of the standards that are applied. However, I return to the argument that I put before the Minister. The way in which inspections are carried out these days is to bring into one's team people with competence in different areas. In the adult learning inspectorate it is extremely likely that we shall have the same people inspecting A-level provision as we shall have inspecting school A-level provision. Quite frankly, it would make much more sense to have a coherent framework run by the adult learning inspectorate covering the whole of the further education sector, with Ofsted being restricted to the school sector. That is what we propose.
I shall withdraw my amendment for the moment. However, I think it very likely that we shall return to the issue on Report. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 184 and 185 not moved.]
Lord Bach: I beg to move that the House be now resumed. In moving this Motion, perhaps I may suggest that the Committee stage begin again not before 8.45 p.m.
ed accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Social Security Benefits Up-rating Order 2000
7.58 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Baroness Hollis of Heigham)The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Baroness Hollis of Heigham) rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 31st January be approved [8th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, as noble Lords are aware, this annual order and the other standing in my name on the Order Paper are an important part of DSS business. The order increases most of the social security benefit rates from this April. Most national insurance and non-contributory benefits will increase by an RPI of 1.1 per cent. Most income-related benefits will increase in line with the Rossi index of 1.6 per cent.
As is usual, the increases are based on the change to the retail prices index from September to September, with the increase for the income-related benefits

1151
adjusted to remove the element of housing costs. As Your Lordships know, housing costs for those on the income-related benefits are met separately through housing benefit and income support mortgage interest. The Rossi index most closely reflects the spending of these individuals.
Last year our main focus was on helping people of working age move back into work by providing greater employment opportunities and introducing policies that ensured that work paid. This year we are building on our policies to provide real security for the most vulnerable in our society. We are particularly concerned about the levels of poverty and exclusion experienced by children and by pensioners. We recognise the importance of giving young children in the poorest families the best possible start in life so we have decided to equalise the rates of child personal allowances in the income related benefits. Families will now receive as much for a child under the age of 11 as they do for a child aged between 11 and 16.
This will take place in two stages and the first stage was implemented last October. Full equalisation will take place from this April when the rate for children from birth to age 16 will increase to £26.60. This follows on from a substantial rise in the rate for children under 11 in November 1998 and means that between April 1998 and April 2000 the amount paid in respect of children under 11 will have risen in two years by over 50 per cent.
Last year, in line with our commitment to fight child poverty, there was a significant increase in child benefit, and benefit for the eldest child was increased from £11.45 to £14.40. To allow the poorest families to gain fully from this substantial increase, the family premium in the income-related benefits was increased by the same amount.
A further increase over and above normal RPI uprating will be made for the second year running taking the rate of child benefit to £15 for the eldest child, and £10 for the second and subsequent children. The family premium in the income related benefits will again be raised to reflect this.
Our policies are proving effective. Measures in the previous two Budgets will lift some 800,000 children above half average income levels. However, to be truly effective in changing people's lives we need to ensure that we can help their parents move back into work. Poor opportunities and low expectations lead to poverty in later life. Therefore we also need to tackle those issues and I am sure that we shall debate them tomorrow.
I turn now to the position of today's pensioners. This group is least able to improve their income through employment. Between 1979 and 1996–7 the incomes of the richest 20 per cent of single pensioners rose by 76 per cent. In comparison the incomes of the poorest 20 per cent rose by only 28 per cent in real terms. This difference is mainly due to the increase in occupational pensions and SERPS, with the poorest having least access to pensions other than the basic state pension and income support. We are determined to tackle the current levels of inequality and poverty
1152
among pensioners. Our strategy is twofold: first, to provide help for today's least well off pensioners; and, secondly, to make sure that people have a decent pension in the future.
Despite the rise in national prosperity, the poorest 1 million single pensioners and the poorest 1 million couples have been left behind. Therefore we are targeting extra help on the 2 million pensioners who have lost out. All pensioners will benefit from other measures such as the fivefold increase in winter fuel payments, which have been extended to all households with someone over the age of 60.
Later this year we shall introduce free TV licences for the older pensioners who tend to be among the poorest. In addition we have restored free eye tests to everyone over 60 and removed the burden of paying income tax from 200,000 pensioners. Now two-thirds of all pensioners pay no income tax at all. And a 10p starting rate will help many more. Under this Administration the least well-off older pensioner will gain over £500 a year. By the end of this Parliament an additional £5 billion will be spent on pensioners.
This £5 billion also allows us to help the poorest pensioners who need most help. The minimum income guarantee will be increased in line with earnings for the rest of this Parliament. We are setting a decent base for pensioner incomes. By targeting our resources where they are most needed we shall boost the incomes of the least well-off to £78.45 for single pensioners (an increase of £8 since 1998–9) to £121.95 for couples (an increase of £12.60 since 1998–9) and, for the older pensioners, to £86.05 and £131.05 respectively for singles and couples (an increase of £8.50 and £13.15 respectively since 1998–9).
Many people, including some in your Lordships' House, have requested that the earnings link be restored for the basic state pension. However, this would do nothing for the poorest pensioners on means tested benefits because they would lose their income related benefits pound for pound, and would be most advantageous to those individuals whose incomes have already risen dramatically. Uprating the basic pension by earnings would cost £7.5 billion by 2010. However, under that policy pensioners on means tested benefits would still see no gain. But they are already seeing the benefits of the minimum income guarantee. We will have given poorest pensioners at least £5 a week more in real terms since 1998. An earnings uprating of the basic pension would have given the poorest, on income-related benefits, precisely nothing. The guarantee sets a minimum income for pensioners of over £78 a week. Pensioners should not be worse off than this. We want to ensure that all those who are entitled will get it.
Although the basic state pension is the foundation of the pensions system it has never been enough on its own. That is why the graduated pension scheme was introduced in 1961 followed by SERPS in 1978. But even those measures did not do enough because SERPS is earnings related. That is why we are changing it to the state second pension in a Bill which I hope will reach this House before Easter.
To ensure a better income in retirement, people have always needed to save. That is reasonable. We want to make it easier to save than ever before. Low inflation levels protect the value of savings. We shall provide stakeholder pension schemes that are good value, flexible and secure. Through the state second pension we shall increase the help that the state gives to low earners with incomes under £9,500 a year, to carers and to disabled people with broken work records. We shall help them get a better pension. Someone earning £6,000 a year now would get £14 a week under SERPS. Under our proposals for the state second pension that person would get £54, not £14. That is £40 more and has huge implications for someone's standard of living in old age.
Providing work opportunities remains the main way to tackle poverty. People cannot save if they do not have a wage. The action we are taking now on a whole array of initiatives will get more people into work, will reduce poverty now, and will help prevent them taking poverty from their working years into their old age. We have a strategy for tackling poverty and social exclusion. We are determined to eradicate that in every instance for children, for people of working age and for pensioners. The uprating order, by providing price protection, ensures security and for vulnerable groups such as children and pensioners ensures even greater security. I therefore commend the orders to the House.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 31st January be approved [8th Report from the Joint Committed].—(Baroness Hollis of Heigham.)
Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, the House will be grateful for the Minister's announcement of, and explanation of, the orders. I propose to respond taking the Social Security Benefits Up-rating Order 2000 and the Guaranteed Minimum Pensions Increase Order 2000 together.
First, I make it clear that we shall not vote against the orders because we do not want to stop the uprating of benefits. However, we are concerned that the 1.1 per cent rise, which amounts to 75 pence in the basic rate pension, is significantly less than the Minister's department's spending plans published in March 1999 which assumed a 1.3 per cent increase in the basic state pension from April 2000. We calculate that this difference amounts to a £90 million saving from pensioners. We should like to know what has happened to that sum. Is this a clear sign that the Government have decided to ignore once and for all their manifesto commitment to retain the basic state pension as the "foundation of pension provision"?
The Government certainly appear to prefer to announce eye catching gimmicks such as the free television licence for a selected group of pensioners. Indeed, that was the only new benefit pensioners received in the previous so-called "pensioners' Budget" of November 1999. Then there is the universal winter fuel payment, another provision that has no statutory protection and could therefore be dropped at any time. In addition, actual delivery continues to be a
1154
problem. Over the 1997–98 winter it was almost summer before payments were received. This year we understand that the Government do not know precisely to whom it must be paid following the recent ruling in the European Court of Human Rights which decided that men and women are equally entitled to receive it. We are pleased that payments will be backdated to 1997 for those who are entitled. However, can the Minister say to whom and when this payment will be made?
It is not only the delivery of the winter fuel payment that is causing concern. The breakdown of the national insurance computer system (NIRS2) has caused misery to thousands of pensioners who have not received their proper entitlement. In September 1999, one year after the Secretary of State first stated that the computer problem would be resolved in—I quote from a "Dear Colleague" letter dated 11th September 1998—"the next couple of weeks", only two thirds of cases affected had been identified.
On 17th January 2000 the Minister of State in another place, the right honourable Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr, stated that there are,
"83,000 cases outstanding and we expect all to be settled this year".—[Official Report, Commons. 17/1/00; col. 569.]
Can the Minister give a clear indication today of when this mess will be cleared up since upratings are of little significance or encouragement to all those still affected by this administrative incompetence.
Returning to the new Labour pre-election manifesto, in addition to championing the basic state pension it also stated,
"we believe that all pensioners should share fairly in the increasing prosperity of the nation".
How can the Minister reconcile this commitment with a £5 billion a year tax on pension funds and the abolition of the most popular savings vehicles of all time—namely, TESSAs and PEPs—such that now the amount of money that people can put away tax-free each year for their future prosperity, for their retirement, if they so wish, has been halved?
In addition, with the abolition of dividend tax credits, 300,000 pensioners whose income is so low that they do not pay income tax will have to pay, on average, an extra £75 a year in tax.
Further, in the 1999 Budget, having given the impression that pensioners would retain the married couples allowance, the small print revealed that those turning 65 after next April will not be able to claim the allowance and that this will cost them an extra £500 year in tax that they had neither expected nor planned for.
It is also important to note that the Government have now abolished the allowance granted to widows aged 60 to 65 following their husband's death and simply replaced it by a payment which will only be available to widows under pensionable age.
Even the disabled are having a raw deal now that the Government are means testing incapacity benefit for the first time. Individuals who have a modest pension will lose their entitlement to incapacity benefit. This

1155
will discourage people on low incomes from saving while penalising those who have been able and prudent enough to save for their future. This change also attacks the contributory principle.
It is true that, thanks to our policies when in government for encouraging investment and occupational pensions, more pensioners currently enjoy higher incomes and so are less dependent upon the basic rate pension. However, given the Government's erosion of pensioners' investments and occupational pension schemes, we are deeply concerned that the pendulum is beginning to swing in the other direction since it no longer pays to save and we will see a growing dependency upon the basic state provision—that is the basic rate pension—for the long term. To make matters worse, we on these Benches believe that the Government's stakeholder pension scheme will drive people out of existing occupational schemes and into stakeholding instead.
In contrast, a crucial incentive to pensioners would be to raise the capital limits in order to match them more closely to current interest rates. The limits have not been increased since 1990. I now urge the Minister to respond to promises made in another place during previous uprating debates going back to 1998, and referred to by my honourable friend, the Member for Havant, in another place when these orders for 2000 were debated on 7th February. For example, he said:
"In February 1993, the then Under-Secretary of State for Social Security, the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington … said: 'I do not dissent from the view that there are problems with capital and disregards. In our review of benefits and the general review of the welfare state, capital and disregards will have to be considered'.—[Official Report, Commons, 7/2/00; col. 35.]
Moving to the substance of the Guaranteed Minimum Pensions Increase Order 2000, our response to this extension of means tested benefits is that its practical effect is to act as a severe disincentive for saving into retirement for people on low incomes, thereby resulting in increased state dependency among pensioners. Given the minimum pension guarantee and the Government's pledge to raise it in line with earnings, some people who save, for example, in a stakeholder pension, could be better advised not to bother saving at all. Why does the Government seek at every turn to undermine those who are prudent and want to prepare to support themselves with private provision in retirement?
We on these Benches believe in protecting pensioners' savings and increasing their incomes from funded pensions. Our fundamental objection to the Government's strategy is their undermining of pensioners' incomes by their stealth attacks on pension funds, coupled with a patent reluctance to do more than tinker with the system. Where is the genuine commitment to welfare reform that we heard so much about before the last election? These uprating orders to not provide pensioners and those genuinely in need with anything more than disappointment.
Earl Russell: My Lords, the debate puts me in a little difficulty. By long tradition, this occasion has been
1156
used for a general discussion of the state of the social security system. However, I shall be doing that tomorrow.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I am sorry. It is not my fault.
Earl Russell: My Lords, it is not the Minister's fault, nor mine either. It is just one of those things. But since I am not the young lady named Bright, I do not intend to arrive on the previous night. I must therefore find a few other things to say.
I thought that I might pay some attention to the general principles upon which uprating should be based. The Minister may remember that we on these Benches abandoned the principle of uprating in line with earnings a good while before her party did. I can remember an occasion in the days "BT"—"Before Tony"—when the noble Lord, Lord Carter, asked me to put my name to an amendment of his to change uprating so that it was in line with earnings. I told him very quietly that I would rather sit that one out. The noble Lord, Lord Carter, looked like a hurt spaniel. So we can see that there are difficulties in affording uprating in line with earnings.
It also seems to us clear that if uprating is in line with prices and not with earnings, then there will be a steadily widening gap opening up between people on benefit and the rest of us. That must mean that, as resources allow, from time to time there must be upratings which go above prices, and occasionally well above prices.
I wonder whether this might be regarded as such an occasion. I have read the report of the Government Actuary with some care. It is a highly encouraging report. There is a generally beneficent economic climate—or, at least, there has been—which is international as well as national. It owes a great deal to the success in overcoming the Far East crisis of 1998. There was a single year surplus of £1.5 billion and a balance in hand of £16 billion.
The Minister may perfectly well say—she probably will—that benign economic conditions do not always last, but what encouraged me most in the Government Actuary's report was its concluding sentence:
"However, even quite substantial alterations in economic conditions should not cause the balance in the fund to fall below the levels seen in some recent years".
That is the kind of statement that actuaries do not make very often.
It has presented the Minister with an opportunity not only for some uprating a bit above prices but also to review the pattern of the relationship between one benefit and another. Gaps open up in different places at different times, and it would have been worth taking the chance to review the way things have developed since 1988.
I agree entirely with everything that the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, said about the need to uprate pensions by more than the proverbial 75 pence.

1157
On Marie Antoinette principles, pensioners would find it difficult to use that to buy a piece of cake unless it was a rather poor quality cake.
I take the Minister's points about winter fuel and free TV licenses. But will she tell me whether a provision exists anywhere in legislation or regulation whereby the benefits may be uprated in some future year? If it does, I am not aware of it.
The Minister talked about the minimum income guarantee—MIG—which she regards with great enthusiasm. I shall be grateful if she will tell me whether she has discovered any secure means of delivery for the minimum income guarantee. How does she get the money to those who need it? Unless she can answer that point, the value of the minimum income guarantee is perhaps greater in the course of conducting a debate than in the course of feeding a pensioner. If the Minister has an answer to that, I should be pleased to hear it.
The Minister talked about children. I welcome the increases, but I wonder whether the form of her statement that she had lifted 800,000 children above half the average earnings illustrates the danger of taking one single target for poverty, which is a great invitation to benefit those just below the target level—to float them off—while leaving those in much deeper poverty entirely alone. It is a danger of taking one single yardstick to measure a problem. One needs to consider also those in much deeper poverty.
I wonder also whether the Minister might have done well to consider the relationship between single people and couples and that between the young and the old. She may remember signing an interesting Written Answer to me on 19th January, which dealt with the rates of income support as a percentage of average earnings. I concede at once that average earnings are not the same thing as average income and that income support pays out housing benefit. Nevertheless, some of those rates are quite striking. The income support level for single young people aged under 25 is 10.15 per cent of average earnings—not particularly generous. For single people over 25 it is a little better: 12.82 per cent of average earnings. Those rates are hardly princely.
Furthermore, the tendency to hardship is exacerbated by the longstanding principle—at least, since 1988—that special hardship payments are not normally made available to single people. I have never understood at all why being single means that one is incapable of experiencing severe hardship. Hunger is just as painful and the ground is just as cold to sleep on. If the Minister has an answer to the question of why single people cannot obtain hardship payments, I should be glad to know what it is. That is a matter that she might have addressed.
The differential between young people's and old people's rates of income support is a further matter that might have been addressed. It is an effect of percentage increases that if an equal percentage increase is given to two unequal sums, the differential widens. In terms of pounds as distinct from
1158
percentages, the difference between income support for people under and over the age of 25 has been widening slowly since 1988. In some year or other, something should have been done to prevent that gap from widening much more quickly. This year, with a surplus in hand, might have been a good year to do it.
Finally— I am sure that I should have surprised the Minister a great deal more by not saying this than by saying it— I must, probably for the 20th or 30th time, express my deep regret that she has taken no advantage of the opportunity to uprate the capital limits on savings. Those have not been uprated in most cases since 1988, which means that the principle of a protected level of savings is itself in danger of coming so near to disappearing that it becomes nugatory. Someone with a good enough grasp of political history to remember the first Wilson administration will understand what I mean when I pronounce the words, "dog licences".
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, we have had a short, but, as usual, to-the-point debate, with some detailed questions. I shall do my best to answer the points raised. I have been scribbling away during the debate. If I have overlooked any points, I shall follow them up with correspondence.
The noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, did a splendid attacking job, although I hope that she will accept that perhaps not all the attacks landed. But let us not worry about guerrilla warfare on these occasions. She asked about the 75p increase in the basic rate pension and the implications of a lower departmental spending plan. She asked also where the missing money—in the region of £90 million—had gone.
The matter needs to be set in context. Because inflation and therefore RPI levels and unemployment are under control, the expected level of growth is less than half of that we inherited from the previous government's spending plans. As a result, the 75p increase properly reflects the RPI. Overall expenditure on the social security budget is down because of reduced unemployment and reduced economic inactivity among lone parents.
The noble Baroness asked to whom and when winter fuel payments would be made. They will be paid to an extra 1.5 million people or 1 million couples at a cost of some £85 million. It is complicated because a number of the relevant men over the age of 60 are in work. That was not the intention behind the original fuel payments. We shall be making announcements later about those payments because we do not have the automatic figures that we would have had for pensioners, for whom the payments were originally intended. We shall be contacting people with the details and the method of payment. They do not need to contact us.
The noble Baroness made some points about pension funds and the abolition of TESSAs and PEPs. She referred also to the attack on annuities and stealth, going back, I believe, to ACT. I understand why people complain that their pension fund has lower interest rates and now returns a lower annuity rate

1159
than they might have expected, but that must be understood in terms of three factors. First, one only receives a return of 5 per cent rather than 10 per cent compared to what one would have received in the 1980s. Secondly, inflation must be taken into account. Thirdly, we almost never hear about the resultant growth in the size of the fund, but it must be taken into account.
Perhaps I may give an example. In 1990, someone on half the average earnings might have retired with a pension pot of £31,000, which would have brought him an income of £92 per week, equivalent to £119 per week at today's prices. By 1998, although annuity rates had fallen from around 15 per cent in 1990 to 9.5 per cent, someone with the same earnings and contribution patterns would have accumulated a fund of £97,000 because of the growth in the equity value of his pension pot, enough to provide an income of around £175 per week. That is a good 50 per cent—indeed, nearly 75 per cent—more than he would have received in 1990.
Such a person can now expect the real value of his pension to be maintained because inflation has fallen below 2 per cent. The reason for that is the high returns achievable on equities during the 1990s, for which, indeed, the previous government must take the credit, which I should wish to pay. The point is that one needs to look not only at annuity rates falling, even though inflation has fallen even more, but also at what has happened to the growth of the equity value of the pension pot. As a result, pensioners are receiving a lower return, but on a much higher pension pot to meet a much lower level of inflation than they would have done in 1990. Therefore, they are much better off. Their expectations may be somewhat different, but those are the facts.
The noble Baroness then moved on to incapacity benefit and referred to some of the issues that were raised when we debated the Bill last summer. There may just be a fundamental difference between us. Incapacity benefit, with which the noble Baroness's government replaced invalidity benefit, was not designed to be a top-up to an early retirement pension. It was meant to be an earnings replacement benefit for those who were struck down in theft working life and needed an earnings replacement benefit which was more generous than the ordinary unemployment benefit. That was the purpose of it. It became instead, on the one hand, a replacement for unemployment benefit for those who had no recent, connection with the labour market and, on the other, a top-up for pensions. Our reforms were designed to bring it back to its original intent.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I hope the Minister will not encourage us to resume arguments on which we have spent a good deal of time already.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I am doing my honourable best to answer the points raised by the noble Baroness. Had she not raised invalidity benefit and what she regards as the inappropriate response of
1160
government, I would not now be seeking to respond to her points. If I am guilty of anything, it is of attempting to answer the noble Baroness's question.
Finally, the noble Baroness raised, as did the noble Earl, Lord Russell, a point about capital limits. I take the point entirely that they have not been raised since 1990. I wish that that point had occurred to the Benches opposite—the government at the time—in 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996 and even in the Budget of 1997, when they could have tackled the problem which they now draw to our attention as lying so long in neglect. We are committed to raising those capital limits as resources allow. We have reviewed them, and so on. But as and when will be determined not by the Department of Social Security but by the Chancellor of the Exchequer at the time that he judges appropriate.
I turn now to the points raised by the noble Earl, Lord Russell. He conceded that the Liberal Democrat position has always been that old age pensions should rise not in line with earnings but with prices, and he accepts, as I do, that that presents us with a problem. What happens is that, as average earnings increase, although pensioners do not fall behind in real terms, nonetheless there is widening inequality. As earnings rise higher, there is, by definition, a wider stretch of incomes. That is true and it is certainly true of pensioners. We have seen pensioner incomes overall increase by around 68 per cent—incomes in the country as a whole by around 30 per cent—so that pensioners on average have done much better than the rest of the country.
However, the noble Earl is absolutely right to say that there is a particular problem for poorer pensioners. The bottom two deciles, who for the most part are single widows over the age of 75 with no access to occupational pension schemes and not much access to SERPS because they were not themselves in the labour market, have fallen behind. That is why— the noble Earl is right to press us on this point—we are putting so much effort into the minimum income guarantee. We hope and believe that that is a short-term problem in the sense that now there are as many women in the labour market as men so they will be coming forward in the future as a cohort with their own pensions, to float them off those bottom deciles. We have a temporary problem while existing pensioners—mainly older single women and widowed women—have no access to other than state benefits. That is why the minimum income guarantee is important.
The noble Earl asked about the secure delivery of MIG. We are working on that. We are working on automatic delivery and we are working on the national campaign. We hope to make statements fairly quickly.
The noble Earl's final point was about the average earnings of young people and income support as a percentage of income of those in work. I was muttering to my colleagues on these Benches "10.1 per cent". I knew where that point was going to come from. The noble Earl was right to say that those figures exclude housing benefit, which in many cases effectively more

1161
than doubles the income. But, if taken after housing costs—it is perfectly proper to take it after housing costs— I would draw to the noble Earl's attention this point. I know that we are probably rehearsing tomorrow's debate. There are wide differences between the replacement ratio of income support or JSA to earnings for young single people compared with families with children.
The noble Earl will accept that the figures for families with children are different from those of single people. What matters is not just the level of benefit income but the length of time someone spends on that benefit income. It is the persistence of poverty that scars rather than any one snapshot point in time. I would remind the noble Earl— I am sure that he does not need reminding from me—that two-thirds of men on JSA are off JSA within six months. In other words, being on JSA or income support at those levels is fortunately a temporary phenomenon for most people. The people who remain—that is where poverty lingers—are those of working age who are lone parents, their children and of course the poorest pensioners whom we have already mentioned.
There is of course the severe hardship scheme. I would again seek the noble Earl's help in publicising it because, to my knowledge, well over 80 per cent of all claims going in for severe hardship payment are successful. Therefore, it is a decent scheme. It is perhaps not as fully used as it ought to be. Whether it is the exceptional scheme, the severe hardship scheme or the hardship scheme—there are three different schemes for different benefits—all have a very high ratio of success to application. If the noble Earl can help us to encourage people to apply for those, he will be doing them a service.
I hope that I have answered the points raised by the noble Baroness and the noble Earl. On that basis, I ask the House to accept the order.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Guaranteed Minimum Pensions Increase Order 2000
8.35 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I beg to move the second Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. I have already spoken to it.
ed, That the draft order laid before the House on 31st January be approved [8th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Baroness Hollis of Heigham.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 8.53 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 8.36 to 8.53 p.m.]

Learning and Skills Bill [H.L.]
House again in Committee on Clause 50.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 186:
Page 20, line 26, leave out paragraph (e)
The noble Baroness said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 188.
Education and training are the remit of higher education, not further education. Therefore, it is my view that teacher education falls outside the scope of the Bill. The Secretary of State should not be able to use the subsequent regulations, which I understand is the plan, to extend inspection to areas that are not properly within the scope of the Bill. I do not know what the Minister will be able to say in order to discount my assumptions in my reading of the Bill.
Furthermore, the adult learning inspectorate should not be able to inspect within an LEA sixth form, and schools should not be subject to two different inspection bodies. We have already debated at length the way in which schools would be subject to inspections.
In response to a previous amendment, the noble Baroness talked about a single inspection of a school. She said that Ofsted would continue as now, but would, as I understood her, inspect sixth forms differently. The inspection cannot be the same, given the noble Baroness's explanation that there has to be coherence between the inspection of 16-plus young people in sixth forms and 16-plus young people in FE taking similar courses. In that case, the nature of the inspection of sixth forms by Ofsted would be different from the inspection that Ofsted would do at the same time—the noble Baroness's point was that the inspections would be simultaneous—for 11 to 16 year-old pupils, unless the nature of that inspection is also going to change, consistent with the inspection of 16-plus schoolchildren. In that case, the whole nature of inspection in schools will change. It is important for schools to know that.
The paragraph in Clause 50 which I suggest should be deleted refers to,
"such other education or training (which may, in particular. include training of or for teachers or lecturers) as may be prescribed by regulations".
It would be helpful if the noble Baroness would explain the reference to "other education"—because the provision refers only to training for teachers or lecturers.
Clause 51(5) states that,
"The Chief Inspector is to have such other functions in connection with education and training within the Inspectorate's remit, including functions with respect to the training of teachers, lecturers and others".
The clause refers to the functions of the inspectorate and the chief inspector, and a similar reference is included in the inspector's remit in Clause 50.
There are two issues here. One is that the provisions extend the confusion already referred to. The second is the whole issue of encroaching now, not on the school sector, but on the higher education sector. I beg to move.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: We do not support the noble Baroness on this amendment. My reading of the clause is that it relates to in-service training on the part of teachers and lecturers. It is extremely important that we endorse the basic principle that all teachers and lecturers need to go on training. Having been in a university where the assumption was that one basically taught oneself, I think it is extremely important to recognise that training needs to continue throughout one's life.
Lord Bach: I shall do my best to answer the points raised in the amendments. The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, seeks to remove an important power from the Bill; namely, to extend the remit of the adult learning inspectorate through regulations.
We agreed that the Bill's provisions generally exclude higher education, but the scope of the Bill does allow minor miscellaneous provisions relating to higher education. The Bill's scope will not, therefore, exclude the use of this power, if needed, to cover the training of teachers if that is what the Government decide in due course.
We described the reasons for seeking such a power in our memorandum to the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee. We indicated that the power at Clause 50(1)(e) is designed to allow minor additions to the principal remit to ensure that the expertise of the adult learning inspectorate can apply to other relevant areas of education and training as provision develops over time. It is impractical to have a full list of these types of education and training on the face of the Bill, but the regulation-making power will allow the Secretary of State to add to the remit if that proves appropriate. That may be the case, for example, because of the fast-changing nature of post-16 education and training, particularly with the growth of "virtual" or distance learning; and with provision being made increasingly in new, non-traditional locations.
The remit may also need to be extended because of the possibility of partnership with new types of provider. Clause 50(1)(e) already mentions the possibility of using this power to prescribe the training of FE teachers. We see this as a possibility, but it will be sensible to determine the extent to which ALI will be involved in new areas only when ALI is established and able to demonstrate its capacity.
The regulations made by means of the power will represent only comparatively minor additions to ALI's remit. This provision is analogous to the power to confer supplementary functions on the LSC as described in Clause 18(4), which we debated the other day. As with that provision and its precedent in the 1992 Act, the negative procedure is appropriate in this case.
1164
The Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee was completely satisfied with my department's memorandum. It commented that,
"The comprehensive nature of the department's memorandum and its sensitive appreciation and application of the criteria to govern the control of delegated legislation has enabled [the Committee's] report to be shorter than might have been the case".
It saw no reason to draw to the attention of the House the Government's proposed use of secondary legislation, nor their proposals for parliamentary scrutiny through the negative procedure.
The noble Baroness may have thought that the Government have a hidden agenda for this regulation-making power. I can assure her that that is not so. I hope that in those circumstances the noble Baroness will withdraw her amendment.
9 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: I do not believe that the Government have a hidden agenda; the matter appears fairly openly on the face of the Bill. The noble Lord has answered my concerns about the Bill by referring to procedure. I do not criticise the procedure. If it is the Government's intention to inspect teacher training and/or education the provisions appear to be a perfectly proper way to do it. Regulations which are subject to the negative procedure are entirely in order, and I have no quarrel with the procedure. It is not the job of the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee to concern itself with how the Government intend to use the power as long as the process by which they use it is set out properly, as it is.
My concern is linked with a point raised just now by the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp. The noble Baroness understood the provision to refer to formal and informal training, including in-service training, undertaken by teachers as part of professional development. My understanding, based on the noble Lord's response, is that the provision is concerned with teacher training and education. If that is what it is and the Government have it in mind to extend the powers to areas which include this one—therefore, it is just one of the activities to be covered—this is a substantial matter. Therefore, it would be helpful if the Minister could indicate whether that is what he really means.
Lord Bach: If the noble Baroness presses me for a specific example, I refer to prison education. The FEFC and TSC already inspect prisons on behalf of the Home Office. That is a specific example where ALI's work and expertise may be appropriate. I ask the noble Baroness to consider whether it is sensible to provide on the face of the Bill that ALI can do this work if required to do so.
Baroness Blatch: It may please the noble Lord to know that I believe it to be entirely sensible to extend ALI's remit to the quality of education in prisons, which is a subject close to my heart. I have no quarrel with that. I look at the words on the page,
"(which may, in particular, include training of or for teachers or lecturers)".

1165
Do the Government intend to inspect the
"training of or for teachers or lecturers";
in other words, the training colleges for teachers within the compass of higher education? Is it intended that when an individual is under training to become a teacher and, for the purposes of inspection, comes within higher education, the remit of ALI is extended and that function is taken away from the higher education inspection system?
Lord Bach: The best I can do is to repeat what I have already said. The remit may be extended. Clause 50(1)(e) already mentions the possibility of using this power to prescribe the training of further education teachers. I stress that we see this as a possibility, but it will be sensible to determine the extent to which ALI will be involved in new areas only once ALI is established and able to demonstrate its capacity. That is about as far as I can take the matter this evening.
Baroness Blatch: I am grateful for that response as far as it goes, but the provision does not refer to further education teachers but simply to teachers. Does it mean only further education teachers or lecturers, in which case why does it not say so?
Lord Bach: It is intended to mean all teachers in the post-16 age group.
Baroness Blatch: It does not say that either. The provision now reads,
"training of or for teachers or lecturers".
If it refers to teachers or lecturers of 16-plus students that is rather different. If one is talking about those who are trained to teach in schools then they are teachers of 11 to 16 year-olds, not just 16-plus. For example, when teachers are under training for secondary education, is it intended under this Bill that they should be inspected by ALI?
Lord Bach: I am reminded that we are talking here of further education teachers. I have now repeated myself two or three times.
Baroness Blatch: The noble Lord may have repeated himself. In the spirit of Pepper v. Hart, it will be on record that the Government mean further education. If that is so, the Government should promise to table an amendment to make that absolutely clear beyond a peradventure. If it is not clear perhaps I should table an amendment myself. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Addington Lord Addington moved Amendment No. 186A:
Page 20, line 28, at end insert—

("( ) facilities for providing information, advice or guidance about education or training or connected matters secured by the Council under section 12(5) of this Act or by the Secretary of State under section 9 of the Employment and Training Act 1973 for persons over the age of 19").
The noble Lord said: The amendment concentrates on adult career and course guidance. The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, used the expression "a dog's breakfast". If one is charitable one could use the term "guidance" as being "the longest salad bar in the world". Everyone seems to be undertaking work on adult guidance and course guidance.
It is more difficult to give guidance to adults because they may not have the same structure of career goals. The amendment aims to bring adults within the remit of the ALI. The initials "ALI" make me think of a distinguished boxer rather than an inspectorate!
The Government give money for certain aspects of this area. However, the more I read regarding the amendment the more confused I became. Surely the inspectorate oversees the quality of advice given and therefore we may achieve a more coherent system. Adults will always have more diverse personal circumstances, employment histories and needs. They may be looking for occasional work, part-time work career choices, career breaks and so on. It will always be a more difficult area. Some careers companies choose whether they will take on adults as part of their remit.
I believe that the amendment is a step forward in clarifying the position. I beg to move.
Baroness Blackstone: As the noble Lord explained, Amendment No. 186A would place the inspection of information, advice and guidance about education and training within the remit of the adult learning inspectorate. We intend, however, that the inspection and quality assurance of information, advice and guidance provision should be carried out by the independent Accreditation Board that was set up last year by the Guidance Council with support from my department. So there is an existing body with specialist expertise available to carry out this work.
Providers of guidance in receipt of public funds will be required to comply with the Guidance Council's quality standards, which command wide support among practitioners. The role of the Accreditation Board, in return for a fee from individual providers, will be to assess whether those providers do indeed comply with the relevant standards.
There are several reasons why it is most appropriate to secure the inspection and quality assurance of information, advice and guidance for adults through the route I have mentioned. First, the delivery of information, advice and guidance for adults is extremely diffuse. It is delivered by an extremely wide range of organisations, including community and voluntary organisations and libraries as well as employers. So it is quite unlike much of the other provision that is being inspected. The plans we have been discussing with the Guidance Council are based on the assumption that up to 1,500 provider organisations will need to be accredited between now and the end of 2001–02.
We need a light-touch accreditation regime of the kind that is already in operation. Placing the relevant responsibility with ALI would increase significantly

1167
the number of organisations with which the inspectorate would have to deal, for little obvious gain. Secondly, and most importantly in responding to the noble Lord, information, advice and guidance is a specialist activity. Many of those providing information, advice and guidance are not learning providers. They operate in a quite different context.
Thirdly, the arrangements with the Guidance Council that I have described are already in place and are now established. Placing responsibility for inspecting that provision with ALI would delay the implementation of a good, high quality regime for this area. I do not believe that that would be in the interests of clients.
Following that explanation, which I hope has been helpful, perhaps I may urge the noble Lord not to press the amendment.
Lord Addington: There is no real disagreement that there is a problem. The Government believe that the independent Accreditation Board set up by the Guidance Council is the correct way forward.
I should have preferred a more central and holistic approach which seeks to bring together the many outside bodies into one unit. The Minister referred to libraries. That makes me think of the numerous leaflets that are handed out in place of a proper guidance service.
However, the Minister meets me at least half way in our thinking. I shall consider whether at a later stage we can improve upon the provision. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 187 not moved.]
Clause 50 agreed to.
Clause 51 [Functions of the Inspectorate and Chief Inspector]:
[Amendment No. 188 not moved.]
Clause 51 agreed to.
Clause 52 agreed to.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford Baroness Sharp of Guildford moved Amendment No. 189:
After Clause 52, insert the following new clause—
AREA INSPECTIONS BY THE CHIEF INSPECTOR
(" .—(1) The Chief Inspector of Adult Learning may, on his own initiative, conduct an inspection of—

(a) the quality and availability of a specified description of education or training, in a specified area of England, for persons who are aged 16 or over;

(b) the standards achieved by those receiving that education or training; and

(c) whether the financial resources made available to those providing that education and training are managed efficiently and used in a way which provides value for money.

(2) The Chief Inspector of Adult Learning must carry out such an inspection if asked to do so by the Secretary of State.
(3) If the Learning and Skills Council or a local education authority has applied financial resources in respect of education or training which is being inspected under this section, the inspection
1168
may extend to considering the manner in which the Council or that authority has applied those resources and whether they have been applied in a way which provides value for money.
(4) The education or training that may be made the subject of an area inspection is any education or training within—

(a) the Adult Learning Inspectorate's remit; or

(b) the remit of Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools for England.

(5) If, in connection with an area inspection, the Chief Inspector asks Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools for England for advice on a matter relating to education or training within his remit, he must give such advice as he considers likely to be appropriate for the purposes of the inspection.
(6) A person providing education or training which is the subject of an area inspection must provide the Chief Inspector with any information reasonably asked for by him in connection with the inspection.
(7) Any local education authority whose area, or part of whose area, is within the area which is the subject of an area inspection must provide the Chief Inspector with such information as the Chief Inspector may reasonably ask for in connection with the inspection.
(8) "Area inspection" means an inspection under this section.").
The noble Baroness said: In moving this amendment, I speak also to Amendments Nos. 190 and 191 and to the Motion that Clauses 62 to 64 shall stand part of the Bill.
The purpose of these amendments is to place on the Chief Inspector of Adult Education a responsibility, analogous to that given to Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools in England, to initiate and undertake area inspections which relate to his remit of inspecting all further and adult education institutions in England.
Our reasons for putting forward these amendments are similar to those which I have already discussed in relation to amendments that we have tabled for extending the adult learning inspectorate's remit to all further and adult education institutions outside the school environment.
It may be obvious that the learners, the teachers and the planning and delivery of learning opportunities for adults all differ significantly from schools. The factors which shaped the approach, methods and style of Ofsted are not the same as those which have shaped the existing Further Education and Funding Inspectorate and the Training Standards Council Inspectorate. Ofsted's experience of inspecting post-16 education outside schools is limited and it has hitherto shown itself to have little interest in developing its existing remit to inspect adult education.
The 1992 Further and Higher Education Act specified that the Chief Inspector,
"shall have a general duty of keeping the Secretary of State informed about the quality of education provided in local education authority institutions; the educational standards achieved in such institutions, and whether the financial resources made available to such institutions are managed efficiently".
This is not a role to which Ofsted has attached much priority. Between 1992 and 1998, Ofsted conducted just 12 inspections of local authority adult and community education. During 1998 and 1999, Her Majesty's Inspectorate carried out full inspections of just three LEA adult services. Her Majesty's

1169
Inspectorate also inspected access to adult learning in 13 local authorities and family learning in 28 authorities. This contrasts with 4,520 Section 10 inspections in that year: 3,508 of primary schools, 704 of secondary, 239 of special and 69 of pupil referral units.
In contrast, in its first year of operation, the Trading Standards Council carried out 300 inspections of work-based training between May 1998 and February 1999 in 14 different occupational areas ranging across agriculture, manufacturing, engineering, retailing and health care.
It is for these reasons that these amendments seek to give the new adult learning inspectorate powers to conduct area inspections, so as properly to ensure that, whatever the level of public funding provided by the learning and skills council, area inspections can be carried out to investigate the coherence of provision within the area. I beg to move.
Baroness Blackstone: In speaking to these amendments, I underline the importance of Clauses 62 to 64, which the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp of Guildford, has indicated she will oppose. Instead of Ofsted being responsible for leading area inspections of 16 to 18 provision, we should have broadly analogous provisions making the adult learning inspectorate responsible for area inspection of provision for all ages. I am grateful for the opportunity to reiterate our position on this rather important issue.
Area inspections represent an important new policy. The focus of our concern is the very pressing need to raise the standard of 16 to 18 provision in certain parts of the country. These are mostly, but not exclusively, urban communities where both participation in full-time education and, I am afraid to say, attainment are particularly low. The inspections will make a major contribution to raising the standard and relevance of provision for young people who must have access to high quality education and training if they are to obtain jobs and remain employable.
It is perhaps worth explaining further that these inspections will provide the means by which we can judge whether the entitlement that we have given to young people between the ages of 16 to 19 is being discharged properly. If young people are being let down in a particular area, if resources are being misapplied, we need to instigate action on their behalf.
The same issues do not arise in post-19 learning. As the noble Baroness probably knows, our intention is to expand greatly the number of adults in learning and certainly to improve the quality of learning that is available. But, where there is no entitlement to education and training, we do not have quite the same requirement for inspections such as those intended in the clauses.
In replying to earlier amendments, I explained how essential it is for Ofsted to be involved in post-16 work. Let there be no mistake: Ofsted already makes a crucial contribution to the inspection of 16 to 18 education. It has inspected every school with a sixth
1170
form. Using this extensive inspection database, it has published influential reports on the characteristics of effective sixth forms and on level 3 qualifications; and it is one of the most potent levers we have for raising standards.
That is why Clauses 62 to 64 are constructed on the principle that Ofsted will lead area inspections, albeit with the assistance of the adult learning inspectorate. I cannot accept a series of amendments which would give this vital work to the adult learning inspectorate alone, to the exclusion of Ofsted. The logic is absolutely clear: Ofsted not only has the most extensive expertise in this area, it has the majority of the 16 to 18 remit under the Bill's provisions. Ofsted should lead. It would be ludicrous to cut Ofsted out of the equation or to make its role a very minor one.
Area inspections are needed to ensure that local providers meet local labour market needs; to see that we get best value for money from the substantial public funding being invested; and that where standards need to be raised, there is a sound basis for intervention.
The role of Ofsted is essential for the same reasons that we need Ofsted to take on the 16 to 18 remit. At the risk of repeating arguments, let me once again stress the existing crucial contribution it makes to the inspection of 16 to 18 school education. It knows what to look for and it will do the bulk of the work. I have every confidence that Ofsted, ably assisted by ALI, will make a massive difference to the educational and eventually economic well-being of these disadvantaged areas.
We shall need the provisions in Clause 63 in full. There must be a single report made by Ofsted, as it is the lead inspectorate, but the report will of course reflect the views of ALI where it has made a contribution to the area inspection. I do not believe that the noble Baroness has argued against the principle that we need single reports to be handled in this way—only on the question of which inspectorate should lead. For the reasons I have given, the duty to make the report needs to fall to Ofsted.
It is also self-evident that we need action plans after area inspections. At present, there is no obligation for anything to happen once an area report is received. The clause will make sure that the funding bodies—the LSC and the LEAs—in consultation with schools, colleges, employers and all other relevant bodies concerned with education and training in the area, take matters forward. The issue of ensuring good 16 to 18 provision is far too important to allow the possibility of inertia.
Those are the arguments why Clauses 62, 63 and 64 must stand part of the Bill. Therefore, I hope that the noble Baroness will withdraw her amendment and agree that those clauses should stand part of the Bill.
Baroness Blatch: Before the noble Baroness decides what to do about her amendment, perhaps I may press the Minister further to define what the Government see to be the problem. I understand the Bill to bring coherence to 16-plus education. Much has been said about raising standards, not only among those not

1171
attaining an education, but also among those who could do better. No one can argue with that mission. However, it would be interesting to know what evidence and survey work the Government have done to let the world know that standards are not as good as they should be and must be improved. What in the Bill is destined to raise those standards? Perhaps the Government will put that information in the Library.
I have always had enormous admiration for the colleges of further education. One of their predominant tasks is to take up those young people who, for all kinds of reasons—health, poor family support, or the chemistry has not been right, for one reason or another, between the individual and pupils in the school—have not gained what they should have done from school between the ages of 11 to 16, or even between the ages of 11 to 18 years.
Therefore, the colleges of further education have had to take up those people in addition to those who genuinely move out of school-based education into further education as a stepping-stone either into the field of work or into higher education. It would be helpful to know from the Minister what has been failing there and also what is the evidence for that. I would like the noble Baroness to tell us what in this Bill is destined to raise those standards.
Thirdly, as regards the world of work and the national training organisations, seen from the outside, as providers they do a pretty good job. Therefore, one wonders what there is in this Bill that will raise those standards in training for the world of work. We know that there are employers who take their responsibilities towards young people in training very seriously. There are others who leave them to get on and hope that they will pick up the skills and training that they need on the way.
I am at a loss to know what the noble Baroness defines as the problem which underpins the need for this Bill and then link it to the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, to bring some coherence to area inspections. Can the noble Baroness say why it is, from that purely observational culture of inspection, Ofsted should be given the remit to carry out all the area inspections which take into account all these various forms of education, training and skills training?
These questions are not playing politics with the Bill, but arise as a result of genuine bemusement about the definition of the problem and the specific pointer in this Bill to tell us how this Bill will make life different. What will make the institutions behave differently? Can the noble Baroness say in what the way these different inspection cultures are going to make sense of what is happening for 16 to 19 year-olds?
Baroness Blackstone: I am not going back into the issue of different cultures. We have been through that. I will do my best to answer the new questions that the noble Baroness has raised. She asked about the evidence that school sixth forms are inadequate. I suggest that she looks at the recent annual report of the
1172
Chief Inspector, Mr Chris Woodhead. It sets out very clearly how he perceives the situation. One of the great problems is that there are enormously wide variations in the quality of what is provided in sixth forms from the very best, which is superb, to the to tally inadequate.
The noble Baroness asked about further education. I was given what I believe to be a slightly odd definition of the intake of the further education college sector. She suggested that it is those who did not get what they hoped from their schools and those needing a stepping-stone into the world of work. That is a rather strange definition of its composition.
Baroness Blatch: I included also those going through further education into higher education. There are people who are making up lost time in school education; those moving through further education into higher education and those going through that sector into the world of work.
Baroness Blackstone: If the noble Baroness will let me finish, I could then comment on the third point that she made. The further education sector is filled with students who have made a choice, not because they are students whom the schools have failed, or going into further education as the route to the world of work or because they are returning in order to go into higher education. They are people who sometimes live in areas where are there are only schools for the 11 to 16 year-olds in any event and there is a tertiary solution to the provision of education for 16 to 19 year-olds.
However, I should like to move away from what is perhaps a red herring and turn to our proposals to address the problems and then improve the quality and standards of further education. Unfortunately, retention figures in some FE colleges are inadequate; attainment figures are poor and overall standards need to be improved. In some areas, we have a mix of provision, some of which is in good sixth forms, some in bad sixth forms, some in FE colleges and some in sixth-form colleges. The whole purpose of the area inspections—which, adding to my earlier response to the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, address 16 to 19 provision rather than adult provision—is to seek to come up with better solutions for those areas where the provision is poor.
The inspections will examine those areas where outputs are poor and devise solutions for raising standards; making recommendations for more collaboration across the different sectors or possibly making recommendations for mergers where that would provide better value for money. More choice should be made available to individual students within an institution.
I should like to make a final point. The national training organisations to which the noble Baroness referred are not providers. They do not provide education and training. They are central bodies offering advice based on employers' needs in a particular sector to the actual providers in FE colleges

1173
and training organisations. That is a different matter and not relevant to this group of clauses and the proposed amendments.
9.30 p.m.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: I thank the Minister for her reply to the amendments. We do not dispute the need for area inspections; nor do we dispute that at present there is far too much variation in the quality of provision across areas and that improvements need to be made. However, we are concerned that in such area inspections, Ofsted will always take the lead, as specified in Clauses 62 to 64. However, when looking at the country as a whole, it is clear that in many areas school sixth forms play only a minor part in the provision of post-16 education. For that reason, we feel that the chief inspector of adult learning should be given at least an equal role to that of the Chief Inspector of Schools. That is the burden of these amendments. The chief inspector of adult learning should be put on a par with the Chief Inspector of Schools and should be able to call on the schools inspector to provide advice and guidance in relation to school sixth forms when necessary.
I say again that we do not dispute the need for a team effort here. However, under the provisions of Clauses 62 to 64, there is no doubt that the chief inspector of adult learning will play second fiddle to the Chief Inspector of Schools. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment, but we may want to return to this on Report.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 190 and 191 not moved.]
Clause 53 agreed to.
Clause 54 [Right of entry and offences]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 192:
Page 22. line 24. leave out paragraph (b) and insert—
("(b) a right of entry to premises used in connection with the provisions of that training and development;").
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 192, I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 193. I return here to a debate we have had on a previous occasion on rights of entry to premises where there is a suspicion that resources are being abused or something else may be amiss. Those rights of entry and the definition of offences are the subject matter of Clause 54.
I am not principally concerned here about the importance of ensuring that public resources are protected and that the interests of taxpayers are paramount, but I am concerned about rights of entry to the premises of a person; namely, to a teacher's or lecturer's own home. In other words, I am concerned about the home of the teacher or lecturer who is providing that education—not the premises on which the education takes place—and about the right of entry to premises of the person who provides the education and training used in connection with that provision.
Clause 54(2)(c) deals with a "right to inspect" and extends to taking copies of,
"any records kept by that person, and any other documents containing information relating to the education or training, which the inspector requires for the purposes".
Subsection (3) goes on to deal with,
"The right to inspect records conferred by subsection (2)(c)",
to which I have just referred, and
"includes the right to have access to, and to inspect and check the operation of, any computer and any associated apparatus or material which is or has been in use in connection with the records in question".
I am trying to separate two things: first, the rightful pursuit of wrong-doing; and, secondly, the personal privacy of the individual person—the teacher and/or lecturer—who provides the education. It may be that I am missing something here, but I am reading the words on the page and I have read the Explanatory Notes. I am concerned about what appears to be a very wide power.
In addition, if someone has committed an offence and a right of entry is forced, which one has to assume might in some circumstances be so, my understanding is that that is done by police with a warrant and not by just anyone; that is, by a member of the inspectorate or someone whom the inspectorate determines should do it. Therefore, it would be most helpful to hear from the Minister exactly what is the extent of this power, what protection there is for the individual teacher and/or lecturer, and what right anyone has to hack into personal equipment which may or may not have been used for purposes relating to the education provision.
I am concerned that the only way that one can find out whether or not a piece of equipment has been used is by hacking into it, thereby discovering either that there is nothing on it or that something on it has been secreted away, indicating that the person has been up to no good. Therefore, I am concerned about including a mechanism which will deal with the protection of the individual teacher or lecturer and the circumstances under which that will take place. I beg to move.
Lord Bach: These amendments relate to access to premises and to computers. The noble Baroness argues that we are giving the adult learning inspectorate unreasonable powers. We do not believe that to be true. As she said, this is "round two" of the debate that took place last Tuesday on access to computers. She will recall that I agreed to write to her about that following the Committee stage and I shall, of course, do so.
My first point is fairly fundamental. There is good precedent for the provisions which she seeks to amend or to delete. The wording in Clause 54(2) and (3) follows very closely the provisions of Sections 2(8) and 42(a) of the School Inspections Act 1996. I am not making a cheap point and I do not believe that it answers all that the noble Baroness said by pointing out that that was, of course, a Bill passed by a government of which she was a leading member. In making that point I am trying only to say that in effect

1175
we are replicating here the powers which previously have been given to Ofsted in respect of schools of all types. We are not doing anything new.
There is no dispute between the noble Baroness and myself as regards the principle that all inspectors must have reasonable access to provision to carry out their duties. The issues raised by the noble Baroness relate to how the powers will be exercised. The answer is that they will be exercised reasonably by the inspectorate, as happens now. There is no question of breaking and entering into private property, which was the expression used by the noble Baroness last week. Clause 54 gives a right of access only at reasonable times and for the purpose of carrying out an inspection. So breaking in at three in the morning is not an option. Indeed, if ALI were to act unreasonably in the exercise of any of its statutory powers, it would be susceptible to review by the courts. Let there be no doubt. ALI has a right of entry at reasonable times in order to carry out its statutory functions. In doing so, it must behave reasonably.
The current TEC licence or contract requires providers to permit the Training Standards Council, as the representative of the Secretary of State, to examine documents and records; to provide oral or written explanations and all other reasonable assistance at any reasonable time. The FEFC inspection handbook similarly sets out clearly the expectation that FEFC inspectors will have access to records, marked work, registers, teaching materials and so on wherever they are held; and that there will be meetings on the premises between inspectors, managers and governors.
The point is that reasonable access is an integral part of inspection. Providers are used to it. We have no reason to doubt that ALI will use the powers in Clause 54 with circumspection and reasonably for the purposes of inspection. If there are any doubts whatever about this, I remind Members of the Committee that the Secretary of State may use his powers under Clause 51(6) to advise ALI on that point.
I turn to the details. Amendment No. 192 would not give ALI the right to enter the premises of a provider of further education which were not used directly in the provision of education. For example, the effect would be that where a college maintains its records on a site separate from but perhaps adjacent to its classrooms, ALI would not have a right of entry to that site. It could not be sure of access to those records. I do not know whether that is what the noble Baroness had in mind or intended but that would be the consequence if her amendment were passed.
The extent of the provision in Clause 54(2) is necessary because it allows ALI access to education and training provision which is sub-contracted. The premises where education and training takes place may not be owned by the provider. It is reasonable also for inspectors not only to be able to see education and training taking place, in whatever setting, but also to visit and talk to the provider at head office about that
1176
education and training. Clause 54(2)(b) secures that for the avoidance of all doubt. The amendment does not do that.
The person providing that education or training in Clause 54 is not the individual teacher or lecturer in a college. Otherwise, there would be dozens, even hundreds, of providers running an institution. The provider would be the college.
As regards, Amendment No. 193, it is obviously necessary and reasonable for the inspectorate to have access to records including, for example, records of student attendance. That information may be stored electronically. Because of the increasing likelihood that people will undertake distance learning, the inspectorate will need access to such relevant materials however they are stored. Of course it may be possible and easy to download the material into an accessible format; or it may not. But whichever way it is clone the inspectorate really must have access.
This is not a draconian power. Obviously in most cases—the vast majority of cases—the inspectors will have easy and simple access to the material they need to see. Indeed, we are not aware of any problems or disputes in that area during inspections by the FEFC Training Standards Council, which has the same powers as are intended in the Bill. There is no hidden agenda here. We are not planning to invite the inspectorates to conduct forensic audit or detailed fraud investigations. ALI is not the KGB or even the Stasi. I am sure it will want to ensure at all times; that providers do not face unnecessary burdens. I hope that having heard my comments, which are now on the record, the noble Baroness will consider some of her fears unfounded and withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Blatch: I am left with one or two questions. First, the Minister said that ALI would have to act reasonably. The word "reasonable" refers to the times of day, not the action. Subsection (2) provides:
"has, at all reasonable times".
The Minister rightly referred to the fact that breaking and entering would not be done in the middle of the night but at reasonable times of the day. I totally accept that. However, there is not an obligation to act reasonably or to have reasonable access. The access would not necessarily be reasonable. If ALI really wanted to get in, it would do so. It has the power here to force entry, if absolutely necessary.
Secondly, I have no argument with the Minister about the importance of the inspectorate receiving all the information and data it needs in order to carry out its job and function of being the protector of public moneys and of the people who provide those public moneys; that is, the public. The difficulty I have, which may be due to my lack of understanding, is that the right of entry is not simply, as in (a),
"a right of entry to premises on which the education or training being inspected is provided",
but a right of entry to the premises of the person providing the education. If I am a lecturer, and I am the person providing the education, my premises are

1177
my home. Is the Minister stating that the premises of the person are what I think they are, or does this have some other connotation? I simply do not understand.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: I rise to support the noble Baroness. I believe this is another occasion where the drafting is extremely sloppy. I am delighted to have the Minister's assurance that ALI will not only enter such premises only at a reasonable time but will do so in a reasonable way. Nevertheless, if it is for the purpose of carrying out its functions, that should be stated on the face of Bill rather than the provision being left vague and sweeping.
Lord Bach: I shall do my best to reply to the points raised by the noble Baronesses. There has recently been much reference in this Chamber to the term "reasonableness". The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, will know that in public law a body with a statutory function must always act reasonably. If it does not, it is susceptible to judicial review and is in danger of being subject to court proceedings.
The person in this context is a legal person; that is, the college. The term is not intended to cover individual natural persons who work for the college. I hope those two points satisfy the understandable concerns raised by the noble Baronesses.
Baroness Blatch: No, I am afraid they do not. Subsection 2(a) refers to the college premises. It refers to:
"a right of entry to premises on which the education or training being inspected is provided".
That relates to the institution where the education takes place: the college, the workplace or wherever the education takes place. In addition to the right of entry to the college premises, subsection (2)(b) refers to the right of entry to the premises of the person providing the education. That can have only one meaning. If I am the lecturer and there is a right of entry, in statute, to the premises of the person providing the education, if the person means the college, that right is subsumed in subsection (2)(a). I simply do not understand the meaning of the wording in (b).
Lord Bach: Perhaps I may give the example I gave when addressing the Committee earlier. The effect of the amendment would be that, where a college maintains its records on a site separate from but perhaps adjacent to its classrooms, ALI would not have a right of entry to that site. We need to ensure that ALI has a right to enter a site which may not be used directly in the provision of education but where its records are maintained. That is why subsection (2)(b) is necessary.
Baroness Blatch: In that case, perhaps I may suggest that the wording should be,
"premises other than that on which the education is directly provided but which are related to the provision of education".
1178
When the subsection refers to,
"a right of entry to premises of the person providing that education",
there is only one connotation that one can put on it. If I understand the noble Lord correctly, he is saying that there may well be information and data stored in an area that is not directly used for the provision of education, but which is, nevertheless, related to the provision of education. Therefore, the reference ought to be to premises other than those used directly for the provision of education but which hold information and data related to the provision of education. The paragraph should not speak of,
"entry to the premises of the person providing that education".
I believe that to be sloppy wording. I hope that the Minister will agree that it needs to be reconsidered.
Lord Bach: For once, I have to say that I disagree with the noble Baroness. I think that the wording is fairly clear and I cannot agree to look at it again on this occasion.
Baroness Blatch: I wish to test the opinion of the Committee.
9.50 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 192) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 24; Not-Contents, 56.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Astor of Hever, L.

Lyell, L.

Blatch, B.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Boardman, L.

Mancroft, L.

Buscombe, B.

Montrose, D.

Byford, B.

Moynihan, L.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Northesk, E.

Dundee, E.

Pilkington of Oxenford, L.

Fookes, B.

Roberts of Conwy, L.

Henley, L, [Teller]

Seccombe, B, [Teller]

Hooper, B.

Skelmersdale, L.

Lamont of Lerwick, L.

Tugendhat, L.

Luke, L.

Walker of Worcester, L,

NOT-CONTENTS

Ahmed, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Alli, L.

Gale, B.

Amos, B.

Goudie, B.

Ashton of Upholland, B.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Bach, L.

Harris of Haringey, L.

Blackstone, B.

Haskel, L.

Bragg, L.

Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

Burlison, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Carter, L.[Teller]

Howie of Troon, L.

Christopher, L.

Hoyle, L.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Dealing, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Desai, L.

Judd, L.

Donoughue, L.

Kennedy of The Shaws, B.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Lipsey, L.

Dubs, L.

McCarthy, L.

Evans of Watford, L.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

1179

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

[Teller]

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

Smith of Gilmorehill, B

Orme, L.

Smith of Leigh, L.

Patel, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Thornton, B.

Peston, L.

Whitaker, B.

Pitkeathley, B.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Winston, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Woolmer of Leeds, L.

Rea, L.

Young of Old Scone, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
9.58 p.m.
[Amendment No. 193 not moved.]
Clause 54 agreed to.
Clauses 55 and 56 agreed to.
Clause 57 [The extended remit]:
[Amendments Nos. 194 and 195 not moved.]
Clause 57 agreed to.
Clause 58 agreed to.
Clause 59 [Inspection of further education institutions]:
On Question, Whether Clause 59 shall stand part of the Bill?
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: I have already spelt out in some detail why on these Benches we consider it ill advised to extend the remit of Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools in England to include institutions in the further and continuing education sector. I do not want to repeat the arguments that I have already given.
We are of the view that the experience of education and training in this sector differs markedly from school-based experience. The experience of Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools in England is wholly school based. His remit within that sector is already wide. Clause 59 would give Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools in England the residual (or "mopping up") responsibility of inspecting any institution in the further education sector which did not fall wholly within the responsibilities of the adult learning inspectorate.
Under our proposals, ALI's responsibilities would be widened to include all further and adult education establishments. Therefore, the residual role is, by definition, that of ALI rather than that of the Chief Inspector of Schools. Clause 59 is therefore, in our eyes, redundant and should not stand part of the Bill.
Baroness Blackstone: This clause places a duty on Her Majesty's chief inspector to secure the inspection of institutions within the FE sector, except where the responsibility is solely within the remit of the adult learning inspectorate. There are also provisions for reports of such inspections and for the writing and publication of action plans by providers, where an inspection report has been produced, which are analogous to those applying to ALI under Clause 51.
1180
I understand why the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, opposes the clause: it runs counter to her alternative proposals, which were debated earlier, that ALI should be the only post-16 inspectorate. But that amendment was withdrawn and I am a little surprised that the arguments are being reopened. For the avoidance of doubt, let me again explain briefly why this clause must stand part of the Bill.
I have argued that two inspectorates will be better than one to cover the vast range of post-16 provision; that the common framework will add value by providing clear principles for the new regime, allowing all providers to know what the inspectorates are looking for; and that co-operation and collaboration will bring additional benefits.
Ofsted is integral to our proposals. As I have already said, it has a vast wealth of relevant experience in 16 to 18 provision through its work in school sixth forms. It would be wasteful and, indeed, irresponsible, to ignore that experience: the database of inspection evidence from every school; the way in which those data have been distilled into influential reports on what makes sixth-form provision effective; the reports on modular A-levels, and so on. All that expertise would go to waste.
Finally, Ofsted has substantial influence on standards in schools. It can have the same influence across the new remit set out in Clause 59. I therefore urge the noble Baroness to withdraw her opposition to the clause.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: The Minister is right in remarking that the debate on whether Clause 59 should stand part of the Bill should really have taken place on the first group of amendments that I moved this evening. In that sense, I accept that we have already discussed the issues. As I mentioned before, we may well return to them on Report. For the moment, I withdraw my opposition to the Question that the clause stand part of the Bill.
Clause 59 agreed to.
Clauses 60 to 67 agreed to.
Clause 68 [Joint inspections]:
Lord Haskel Lord Haskel moved Amendment No. 196:
Page 29, line 9, after ("England") insert (", where the majority of the students attending the institution are aged under 19; or
(b) the Inspectorate, where the majority of the students attending the institution are aged over 19,").
The noble Lord said: At Second Reading, the Minister spoke about the overlapping responsibilities of the two inspection regimes; that for 13 to 18 year-olds and that for those over 19. Indeed, we have had a lot more discussion on that subject this evening. The Minister told us that the adult learning inspectorate will be responsible for the inspection of adult work-based training and adult provision in FE colleges and that Ofsted will be responsible for other inspections.
As we have heard, there will be joint inspections of FE colleges and at work-based training where both adults and young learners are being trained. However,

1181
there must be a leading inspection body. It seems that there will be some turf wars, in particular, at the FE colleges, where both inspection teams may apply. Other noble Lords have referred to the possible difficulties.
The purpose of the amendment is to try to be helpful over such a possible conflict. It is reasonable for the relevant inspectorate to be determined by whichever is the largest group of learners to be inspected; Ofsted where the majority are under 18, and the adult learning inspectorate where the majority are over 18.
My amendment will relieve teachers at FE colleges of having to prepare for two inspections. The Minister will be well aware of the amount of effort that goes into preparing for inspections. For a start, there will be only one lot of paperwork. My proposal will be more efficient and effective in raising standards of preparation at FE colleges and in building a working relationship with the inspectorate. In that way, the Government can avoid the risk of the two inspection regimes having unequal status and so avoid the turf wars. After all, there are two different cultures to inspect: the part-time adult students and the full-time young learners. Each inspectorate has something to contribute and so they should be equal, as the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, said earlier. I hope that the Government find the suggestion helpful. I beg to move.
Lord Dearing: I rise to speak in broad support of the amendment. I have been involved in education for a number of years and throughout that period I have been concerned that we have had two cultures: the culture of what I describe as academic education and the culture of vocational—applied—learning. There has been a tendency for each to engage in disparagement of the other, to be proud of its own culture and not to profit from what the other has to offer. It is in pursuance of that feeling that in one report in which I was engaged I recommended to the previous government that the body I chaired—the School Curriculum and Assessment Authority—should merge with the National Council for Vocational Qualifications, so that the two cultures could learn from each other to the benefit of students. That recommendation was accepted and there is now one body comprehending both segments of learning. I was also engaged in a report in higher education, which was concerned with developing a unity and a coherence throughout the whole field of learning. Therefore, contrary to what others have argued, I see positive advantage in drawing on the expertise of both inspectorates—HMI-Ofsted and the FE Inspectorate. Each can profit by working with the other.
It was only because of my concerns about the specific provisions of Clause 68 that I spoke on the earlier amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp. In contradistinction to Clauses 66 and 67, where the Bill proposes that the two heads of the inspection regimes should collaborate in working out an approach, under Clause 68, without qualification, Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools is put in the
1182
lead. It is for him to direct the inspection; it is for him to make a plan; it is for him, under the draft regulations, to determine how many from each inspectorate should be engaged; it is for him to make the report. I wonder why the Government should have concluded that the adult learning inspectorate should be placed in such a subordinate position when it is, I presume, the repository of the greatest experience and expertise of inspection in FE colleges.
It might be that one thought that the FE Inspectorate has not established the reputation—the well deserved reputation—of Ofsted for forthright, hard and effective inspections. Yet when I looked at the last annual report of the FE Inspectorate I did not find that it was a soft, punch-pulling report. Indeed, had the head of the FE Inspectorate the same remarkable talents of Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools to capture public attention and to catch the headlines, a remarkable critical headline could have been derived from his last report. Having said that 11 per cent of colleges did not have effective leadership, the report went on to say that,
"we do not have a sufficient number of effective principals if the management of one in nine colleges (11%) is unsatisfactory".
As I read that, he was saying plainly that 50 principals were not up to their job. That is tough talk.
I do not see evidence in the report that the FE Inspectorate is a soft number. I am therefore concerned that there should, in this clause, have been a decision to put Her Majesty's Inspector of Schools unequivocally in the lead in every aspect of the inspection.
I invite the Government to consider, as the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, has proposed, leadership according to where the majority of the students are. I understand that in further education there are 4 million students, of whom 3 million are adult and 1 million are young people. That suggests that there might be scope in relation to the needs of pupils for the FE inspectorate to be in the lead.
The Government may consider that suggestion over-adventurous. They may be prepared to consider importing the principle that they have adopted in the two preceding clauses; namely, that there should be joint leadership of the inspection. Is that impossible? I cannot see why. For example, it is proposed in the draft regulations that the chief inspector must reflect the collective judgments of the inspectors who have conducted the joint inspection. If it is a requirement to reflect the judgment of the inspection team, which is a collective one, I cannot see a problem in the report not being that of Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools but a joint report by the two inspectorates.
I wonder whether the Government feel it essential, in advance of any actual experience of joint inspection—which, as I have argued, has much to commend it, bringing the experience of two cultures to bear— I wonder whether they feel it imperative, to enshrine so much of the detail of the arrangements in the main statute rather than in regulation. Are the Government prepared to consider at least—so as not

1183
to demean the standing of the adult learning inspectorate and thereby discourage first-rate people from applying to be its members (no one likes to be cast permanently in a subordinate role in one's career)—that the reports should be joint reports, and that the composition of the team should reflect the balance of the students in the institution?
While I should like to support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, I suggest to the Government that, if that provision is too much, there are lesser proposals that could be offered. I invite the Government to consider whether, on Report, they would see merit in moving from their present position.
10.15 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: There was a chief education officer in Cambridgeshire, when community education was first being piloted, who used to sit around the table with worthy people who used to talk stratospherically about education, ideas, and piloting this, and piloting that. Every now and again, he used to say, "What about the children?"—and brought everyone back to discussing what the whole thing was about.
I understand that this provision ought fundamentally to be about the quality of the teaching and learning of the students who are passing through the system, whether they are attending a school or college, or training in the workplace. The point made by the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, is material to one of the real issues; namely, the practical delivery. We can all use fine words about what we should like to see, how we should like people to work together, and how co-operation is better than being at odds with each other. But we are talking about two very separate cultures; and the way in which they interact practically on the ground is very important. The question I ask myself is: what about the institutions and the impact of what is happening on the students passing through them?
The point made by the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, relates to preparation for inspection. It is a very real issue in schools. It has been said by the chief inspector, and with some force, that many schools over-prepare for inspection. After all, the inspector is coming to make judgments about the quality of the teaching and learning in a school and to form a view about the outputs of that effort. Often, for very good reason, teachers are earnest and anxious to do the best and to show off their schools in the best possible light. But in order to prepare for the inspection, they overdo it. I have heard descriptions of vast numbers of laundry baskets lined up in halls filled with documents which the inspectorate team may want to see. The tradition of FEFC, which one presupposes ALI will follow, is very different. Preparation for that kind of inspection is also very different. It takes place over a long period and involves more visits to look at the systems in place and to test their robustness. If they are to merge in a practical sense so that individual inspectors work together in a single team within the same framework, something somewhere must change. Not only the inspectors and the framework within which they operate must change, but the way in which the very
1184
people in the institutions prepare for inspections must change. I do not believe that thought has been given to that. Certainly, there is no suggestion that there are to be regulations to that effect.
There are many in the school system— I referred earlier to the Association of Teachers and Lecturers—who look over the fence and see that the grass is greener on the other side. They rather like the adult approach to inspection and the idea of testing on the basis of self-evaluation. But if the Government are to put that system in place, it is important to spell out the way in which it is to work in practice. Schools, colleges and workplaces must change in order to prepare for what may be a very different form of inspection. One cannot simply put together the observational and evaluative-type cultures and expect nothing to change. If there is to be change, the nature of that change needs to be spelt out; the dots and commas must be in place. Because these institutions are very hard pressed because of the other demands on their time, not least their core task of teaching and training the young people who pass through their doors, the Government must say rather more than they have said up to now.
Baroness Blackstone: The noble Baroness has returned to points that she made earlier in relation to previous groups of amendments. I repeat what I have already said. This will be spelt out not by the Government but by the chief inspectors in the consultation documents which will be available to the noble Baroness and many others for comment when the time comes. My noble friend Lord Haskel, with the support of the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, set out his arguments in a helpful way, and I am grateful to him for providing me with an opportunity to explain these provisions. I am particularly glad to have the support of the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, at least for our overall approach which is to have a common framework in which two inspectors work together. That is extremely helpful at this point.
I turn to the issues raised by my noble friend Lord Haskel. I begin by clearing up an important preliminary point. There should never be two inspections of an FE college, one by ALI and one by Ofsted. Every college, like every school, will have a single inspection that involves one team, usually comprising some ALI, and some Ofsted, inspectors. There will be a single report. In a few sixth-form colleges with no adults, there will be a sole inspection by Ofsted; and in a few adult colleges with no 16 to 18 year-olds, there will be a sole inspection by ALI.
In supporting the amendment, noble Lords have argued that in the case of joint inspections, the lead inspectorate should be determined according to whether 16 to 18 year-olds or adults are in the majority. I can see the logic of that. Unfortunately, it is not quite that simple. If we rely on a headcount of students above and below the age of 19, we shall have a completely misleading guide to the work of the two inspectorates. Nearly all 16 year-olds in FE are full-time students. In contrast, nearly all adults are part time, typically taking courses which amount to one-fifth, perhaps one-quarter, or occasionally one-third,

1185
of a full-time course. In terms of "full-time equivalent student numbers"—what we might term "volume of provision"—the split between the two inspectorates is approximately equal.
I shall illustrate the problem with some practical examples. In terms of headcount, there are only 87 colleges—one fifth of the sector—with more 16–18 year-olds than adults. Virtually all these are sixth form colleges. Yet noble Lords may be surprised to note that not all sixth form colleges have such a majority. Over 20 in fact have more adults than young people. And many others have nearly as many adults as 16–18 year-olds.
The explanation is that many sixth form colleges have considerable numbers of part-time adult evening class students, perhaps studying for as little as two hours a week. This may be completely worthy and desirable community education, but I should be very surprised if any sixth form college regarded this as its main mission. And in terms of hours of taught provision it will of course be less than the A-level and advanced GNVQ work in the sixth form college. It would be completely wrong, therefore, for the ALI to direct inspections in these circumstances, although I would expect an Ofsted-led team to have good support from the ALI in looking at the quality of the evening class provision to which I have just referred.
These arguments are not confined to sixth form colleges. In many general FE colleges, tertiary colleges and agricultural colleges there will be a similar pattern of large numbers of 16–18 year-olds on full-time courses; and numerically more part-time adults. But the volume—and volume is important here—of 16–18 provision will be greater in at least half of all colleges. Even where the numerical balance seems overwhelmingly in favour of adults, there are caveats. For example, at Bracknell and Wokingham College there are nearly 12,000 adult students, compared with only 1,100 16–18 year-olds. But the number of 16–18 year-olds is still greater than in very many sixth form colleges. It is therefore right that Ofsted will have a very substantial role in the inspection of these colleges. These are practical illustrations of why the amendment would not be acceptable, but I wish also to make a few points of general principle.
First, the Government do not intend to prescribe responsibility by formula, either on the face of the Bill or in subsequent regulations. Let us imagine for a moment a college where the provision is almost equally divided between adults and young people. It would make no difference whether we were using headcounts, full time equivalents or any other formulation. Let us imagine that a few weeks before the inspection, it is discovered that the proportion of adults to young people is 51 per cent to 49 per cent. The ALI therefore prepares to direct the inspection. But at the time of inspection, because of new enrolments, the proportion may have changed to 49 per cent-51 per cent the other way. The ALI no longer has the vires to lead, and the law is brought into disrepute.
1186
A numerical formula, however constructed, simply would not work. And because of the wide variation in character in colleges, alternatives such as giving Ofsted the lead for sixth form colleges and the ALI the lead for general FE colleges would not be workable. A lot of general FE colleges—tertiary colleges in particular—have a major focus on 16–18 provision. Only in the case of minimal overlap of remits—for example, in the adult residential colleges where there would be at most a tiny handful of 16–18 year-olds, should the ALI take the sole lead.
The Government want to avoid formulaic prescription, and to give the two chief inspectors a good deal of operational freedom, so that the complex planning for joint inspections in FE colleges can be done on a case by case basis. The general principle of having inspection teams composed in a way which broadly reflects the volume of provision is a good one, and I intend that this shall be enshrined either in the regulations made under Clause 68 or in the common inspection framework. In this way, using a harmonised approach with multi-disciplinary teams working collectively, joint inspections will be highly effective operations and, I hope, potent levers, which is something that we all want, to raise standards.
Nonetheless, in a joint inspection process there has to be some clarity about who is in the lead. That is why I have some reservations about what the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, has recommended. I believe that colleges will expect such clarity. If we did not set out clearly in the Bill who should lead, we could properly be accused of ducking the issue. The Government have chosen Ofsted. I do not in any way detract from the experience and skills of the other two inspectorates. However, unlike the ALI, Ofsted is already fully established with a proven track record of improving standards.
I have spoken at some length because this amendment raises important issues. For both practical reasons and those of principle, the Government have set out a clear policy. I recognise that the choice we had to make was a difficult one. However, I believe that it is a clear solution which will be acceptable. Reluctantly, therefore, I cannot accept my noble friend Lord Haskel's amendment and I hope that he will not press it.
10.30 p.m.
Baroness Seccombe: Before the Minister sits down, perhaps I may ask about the position of the 11 to 16 schools where adults sit in the same classrooms as young people under 16 and where there is a high proportion of adult learning in the evenings.
Baroness Blackstone: The adult learning that goes on in the evenings is simply a matter of schools letting their premises to adult and community provision. That kind of letting of premises is not relevant, except in that the adult learning inspectorate should, of course, inspect the adult community provision that happens to be in schools, as in a church hall, as in an FE college or anywhere else. With regard to schools that have a very small number of adults sitting in, normally at the

1187
top end of schools, Ofsted will continue to inspect that provision because the numbers would be very small and they will presumably be undertaking courses of the same kind as those being undertaken by school pupils.
Lord Haskel: I thank the noble Lords who have spoken to my amendment. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, for the benefit of his experience and the way in which he made his point.
I believe that it is, very important to make clear to the colleges what my noble friend has just said, because it was an FE college that prompted me to put down this amendment. I therefore hope that my noble friend will take whatever steps she can to ensure that the FE colleges understand what the regime will be, how Ofsted will take the lead, yet how Ofsted and the ALI will hopefully be on an equal footing, and how the system of joint inspections will work. That matter was not understood by the people who asked me to table this amendment. I thank my noble friend for the explanation and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 68 agreed to.
Clauses 69 and 70 agreed to.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Boston of Faversham): I must point out to the Committee that, if Amendment No. 197 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 198.
Clause 71 [The Extended Remit of the Chief Inspector for Wales]:
Lord Roberts of Conwy Lord Roberts of Conwy moved Amendment No. 197:
Page 30, line 38, leave out paragraph (b).
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 198.
My first purpose is to find out what the Government have in mind for the single inspectorate proposed for Wales. It makes sense to combine the administration of the adult learning inspectorate with the schools inspectorate in Wales, as proposed in this and subsequent clauses, provided, of course, that those who carry out the inspections are qualified in their field for the tasks that they are to perform. It is quite clear that, to inspect the training provided by an employer in the workplace, different inspectors will be needed from those required for sixth forms or the Careers Service. Having said that, I hope there will be a cross-fertilisation of ideas and that the inspectorate as a whole will not become too fragmented or excessively sectionalised.
Perhaps I may return to the detail of the amendments. Subsections (1)(a) and (1)(b) are virtually identical, apart from the word "contemplating" in line 39. Those two paragraphs could have been combined without too much difficulty. Are the providers given financial support in paragraph (a) of the same genre as
1188
those to whom financial support may be given in paragraph (b)? What lies behind these subsections, which could so easily have been rolled into one?
We could speculate ad nauseam, but it would be easier to listen to the Minister's reply. I should be grateful if she could also tell us what additions are expected in the staffing of the inspectorate to undertake the additional tasks consequent upon the extended remit. Out of kindness, I draw her attention to subsection (2)(b), which does not make much sense to me and I am sure will not make much sense to anyone else either. I beg to move.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: We on these Benches support the extension of the existing remit of Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools in Wales to this type of education. We share the puzzlement of the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Conwy, about what precisely is meant by the additional paragraph (b). I hope that we shall receive enlightenment.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: Driving up standards and quality are key factors in the Bill and I know that the noble Lords, Lord Roberts of Conwy and Lord Thomas of Gresford, will agree that that is the correct approach. It is also right for us to ensure that prospective providers of education are up to the quality mark that we would expect to see. Therefore, it is wholly appropriate for Estyn to be given the power to conduct preliminary inspections of prospective providers where publicly funded education is being considered. That may answer the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Roberts. It is to cover the eventuality of funding provision, then inspecting and finding that the provider is not of the appropriate quality. The preliminary inspections will provide the CETW and the National Assembly with reassurance that public funds are not being directed towards prospective providers whose offerings are inadequate.
The noble Lord asked about staffing levels. That will be a matter for the chief inspector following an imminent review. That is essential to establish the appropriate levels and the level of individual skills and experience. I hope that, with that explanation and the fact that the provision was inserted at the request of the National Assembly, the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: I am grateful to the Minister for explaining what the Government have in mind. I quite understand that some authority is required for a preliminary inspection of a prospective provider. But my criticism of the drafting is still valid in that both these paragraphs could have been rolled into one. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 198 not moved.]
Clause 71 agreed to.
Clauses 72 to 77 agreed to.
Clause 78 [Inspections of education and training provided under 1973 Act arrangements]:
Lord Roberts of Conwy Lord Roberts of Conwy moved Amendment No. 199:
Page 34, line 22. leave out (", at the request of the Secretary of State or the Adult Learning Inspectorate.").
The noble Lord said: At first sight it appears odd that the Secretary of State for Education and Employment— I am sure he is meant here, although it could be any Secretary of State or indeed the adult learning inspectorate for England—should request an inspection in Wales. But I believe that the clause is intended to enable some current ongoing work to continue. Perhaps the Minister will enlighten me.
I personally welcome such co-operation across the border. We could all learn, including inspectors, from each other. I beg to move.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment has responsibility for education and training under Section 2 of the Employment and Training Act 1973. That includes, for example, the New Deal for the unemployed aged 18 to 24. The adult learning inspectorate will have a duty to inspect such provision in both England and Wales.
In Wales, Estyn has no remit to conduct inspection of provisions such as the New Deal. If we had left it at that the adult learning inspectorate would become involved in the inspection of all provision under the New Deal across Wales and Estyn would be excluded from such inspection. That would cause confusion among providers and make poor use of resources. Therefore, our policy is to ask Estyn, where it agrees, to inspect New Deal provision in Wales. Estyn will of course be fully competent to conduct such inspection. With that reassurance I feel fairly confident that the noble Lord will be able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: I thank the Minister for her explanation, which is clearly intended to benefit the inspectorate in Wales. I certainly welcome that. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 78 agreed to.
Clauses 79 to 83 agreed to.
10.45 p.m.
Baroness Blackstone Baroness Blackstone moved Amendment No. 200:
After Clause 83, insert the following new clause—
PRELIMINARY TRANSFERS: FEFC FOR ENGLAND
(" —(1) The Secretary of State may make a scheme providing for the transfer of any of the property, rights and liabilities of the Further Education Funding Council for England to any of the listed transferees.
(2) The listed transferees are—

(a) the Secretary of State;

(b) Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools in England;

(c) the Adult Learning Inspectorate.

(3) A scheme under this section may include such supplementary, incidental, consequential or transitional provisions as the Secretary of State thinks are appropriate.
(4) A scheme under this section comes into force on the day it specifies for it to come into force.
(5) When a scheme under this section comes into force it has effect to transfer (in accordance with its provisions) the property, rights and liabilities to which it applies.
(6) The day specified by a scheme under this section for the scheme to come into force must fall before the day appointed under section 116 for the commencement of section 83.").
The noble Baroness said: In moving this amendment I am also speaking to Amendments Nos. 202, 245, 250 and 258. I recognise that these are significant government amendments to bring forward, but the scale of the changes that we are making put a premium on ensuring that effective transition arrangements are in place. We have been working closely with partner organisations at national, regional and local level both before and after the introduction of the Bill to identify and address the key transition issues. These amendments, which reflect those discussions, create the essential legal framework for a smooth transition.
Since publishing the White Paper we have put a major effort into managing the transition process effectively. The detailed transition plan we published alongside the White Paper was a sign of our commitment to doing so in line with "Modernising Government" principles. It sets out what needs to be done, by whom and by when. It was produced jointly with the DTI and sets out clearly who within each department is leading on each aspect of the plan.
Since that plan was published, we have continued to develop and refine it with the support of a wide range of partners at national, regional and local level. We have set up a range of mechanisms to ensure that we learn from the experience and expertise of a wide range of organisations, including TECs, local government, careers services and the FEFC. I am very grateful to all of those bodies and other organisations for the positive and constructive help that they have given.
We published an updated version of our transition plan in November and we shall continue to review it in the light of experience. This process has also helped us to identify the necessary legal provisions we need to make which are now contained in these amendments. We recognise that the scale of the changes we are making requires a significant financial investment in the transition process. The work we have done with partner organisations has also helped us to develop a clearer assessment of the transition costs.
We currently estimate that the transition costs of establishing the LSC and ALI over the next two years will be between £60 and £65 million. These costs include the development of new IT systems, premises and, of course, a significant investment in staff training and development. There are also likely to be some restructuring costs in the DfEE and government offices.
It is too early to be precise about TEC transition costs. The position depends greatly on decisions yet to be made on LSC premises and the location of small

1191
business services franchises. It also depends on how many staff transfer under TUPE to the LSC and other successor bodies.
In the coming year we shall be making available £25 million to meet the start-up costs of the LSC. This up-front investment will ensure that the LSC gets off to the best possible start. We shall meet the remaining costs from the savings we shall make and from reprioritising other work. This investment in transition will quickly be repaid by the savings we intend to make. In Committee last week, the noble Baroness, Lady Match, questioned the level of savings. To me it is self-evident that the changes will create a system more efficient than that which has gone before. We are moving from 73 organisations developing their own funding systems to one. We are moving from over 80 sets of premises to fewer than 50. Furthermore, we are moving from duplication and overlap to a single and more coherent approach.
We are confident that at least £50 million-worth of savings will be made each year and we shall invest those savings in the quality of learning. The budgets we set for the learning and skills council will reflect this.
The noble Baroness also raised a number of specific issues about the transition for TECs, which we promised to address today. We recognise that this is a challenging period for TECs and we have been extremely impressed by the commitment and hard work of TEC board members and staff both in managing difficult transition issues and in helping us to develop the new arrangements. The fact that TEC performance continues to hold up well is a great credit to them.
Many TECs have evolved over time into complex organisations with a wide variety of functions. Some have merged with chambers of commerce, others have a Business Link as part of the same company, while others have developed wider commercial activities. We are therefore working with each TEC to agree a detailed transition plan which will take into account both the nature of the organisation and local circumstances.
We recognise that one of the important issues for TEC staff is to get a clear understanding of their position in respect of TUPE. Depending on the nature of the TEC, current functions may well be transferring to the LSC, the Employment Service, a new small business service franchise, or another successor body. We have made it clear that we expect many TEC staff to transfer under TUPE to the LSC, to the Employment Service, or to other bodies to which functions are to be transferred. We are working with TECs, the FEFC, the Employment Service and other partner organisations to map out a detailed process for handling transfers and we shall publish that next month. Given the complexity of TEC structures and their status as independent companies, we believe that the detailed position on TUPE can be resolved only on a TEC-by-TEC basis.
The noble Baroness also asked about the position in respect of TEC assets. Under our contract with TECs, certain assets purchased out of funds provided by the
1192
Secretary of State must be returned to him on termination of the contract. It is our intention that such assets, if appropriate, should be made available to the LSC for the continued benefit of the local community. These amendments will allow the Secretary of State to do so.
Before I explain each of the amendments in turn, first, I shall say a few words about their general purpose. They contain essential provisions to ensure that the assets, rights and liabilities of the two funding councils can be transferred as appropriate to the successor bodies. They will also allow the Secretary of State to make available other assets, such as those returned to him by TECs, which I have just mentioned, and the Training Standards Council to the LSC and ALI. They also ensure that the LSC can make the necessary preparatory steps before it assumes its full functions. The amendments do not cover LEA assets. Until this legislation comes into force, LEAs continue to have a duty to secure adequate facilities for further education outside the scope of the Further and Higher Education Act 1992. Under this Bill, LEAs will continue to make an important contribution to community and adult education.
The Government are also guaranteeing that each LEA will receive funding in the first two years of the LSC's operation at a level comparable with their current spend provided they produce and implement suitable plans which at least maintain their current spend. The effect of these arrangements is that LEAs will need to ensure that the necessary assets continue to be available within their areas to provide the facilities which local people need. Therefore, there is no need to cover LEA assets in the Bill.
I now turn to the amendments themselves. Clause 83 provides that on the day that the FEFC is dissolved, its property, rights and liabilities will transfer to the LSC. In practice, the situation will be more complex as some assets which are linked with the FEFC's current inspection work are likely to be transferred to the new adult learning inspectorate or Ofsted. Therefore, Amendment No. 200 provides for transfer schemes so that the Secretary of State may make any necessary transfers of FEFC assets, rights and liabilities to the department, Ofsted and ALI in advance of the dissolution date. Any assets, rights and liabilities of the FEFC which are not covered by such a scheme will then transfer on the date of dissolution to the LSC by virtue of the provisions of Clause 83.
As I mentioned a moment ago, under the terms of the licence agreement between each TEC and the Secretary of State, any property and assets which were issued to the TEC or funded under the licence are to be returned to the Secretary of State on termination of the licence. Amendment No. 202 provides for schemes whereby the Secretary of State can transfer any such former assets, rights and liabilities to the appropriate body once they have been returned to him by TECs or by the Training Standards Council. It will also allow for any necessary residual transfers between the LSC, ALI and Ofsted. The right of the Secretary of State to transfer new liabilities to the LSC is limited to three years after the appointed date.
As we set out in our Explanatory Notes to the Bill, the LSC will be established before it takes on its full functions in April 2001 in order that it can make the necessary advance arrangements. As it stands, Clause 116 enables the Secretary of State to confer upon the LSC such powers as he considers will help it to carry out its full functions. The National Assembly similarly is enabled to confer such powers on the CETW.
However, the transition between the two funding councils and the new councils will be complex and we must make transitional provisions for the LSC and the CETW to take responsibility for a number of the FEFCs' remaining statutory functions or other responsibilities. They include requirements—for which the amendment makes specific provision—to complete the final accounts of the FEFCs; to make a report to the Secretary of State and the National Assembly on the previous year's provision for disabled people under the terms of the requirements of the Disability Discrimination Act; and to take over the FEFCs' responsibilities in any legal proceedings in which they may be involved at the point of dissolution.
Amendments Nos. 245, 250 and 258 provide for that period of transition before the LSC and the CETW assume their full functions from April 2001. The LSC and CETW can become legal entities once the first two council members—namely, the chairman and the chief executive—are appointed. They also provide the framework to enable the FEFCs for England and for Wales to help in that process.
The amendments provide the necessary provisions for an orderly and efficient transfer to our new structures and I commend them to the Committee. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for such a detailed explanation of those arrangements. Perhaps I may ask some residual questions which arise from them.
First, the noble Baroness will understand that those members of staff throughout the country who work for TECs will be very anxious at this moment about precisely what the future holds for them and whether or not they will be in a job. The noble Baroness has given us a great deal of detail this evening, but it would be helpful to know what is the time-scale for them knowing whether or not there is a future for them with the new bodies and the time by which they will have some indication of where they stand.
Secondly, it is my understanding that TECs are predominantly made up of voluntary members. I am not sure of the arrangements for paying allowances and expenses of one sort or another. But my understanding is that the members of the national skills council will all be salaried. I am not the only person who was fairly shocked this week to learn that the salary for the RDA chairman for only two days per week was £44,500 rising to £66,000 for three days per week. That is even more than the salary for a Member of Parliament. It would be helpful to know what salary
1194
the Government have in mind for the chairman, the chief executive and other members of the national board.
Thirdly, is the noble Baroness in a position to say what budget has been set aside for the two standing committees: the young people's committee and the adult learning committee? They may be the forerunners of many others. What is the budget for paying those allowances as set out in the schedule, for the housing and servicing of those committees and for the logistics of keeping those committees in being?
Fourthly, there are to be 47 councils with more than a dozen members on each plus the members for the national council. That will involve a massive recruitment campaign. It would be helpful to know from the Minister when that campaign will start. The Minister has referred to chairmen and chief executives, but it will be a huge campaign. As I understand it, all the appointments will be subject to Nolan procedures. The applications must all be processed. We were told by one Minister in another department this week that the appointment of the latest replacement for Jennie Page at the Dome could not be subject to the Nolan procedures because it would take too long; that it would take about six months to complete the process. What is the time-scale envisaged by the Government to have all the members of each of those committees in place, ready to do their job, having completed the sifting of the applications, the recruitment, and compliance with the Nolan procedures for approving those appointments? Each and every appointment not only of those on the boards of the local and national skills councils but also of every single member of staff who is to work for them—must be approved by the Secretary of State if one accepts what is written on the face of the Bill.
There are some other important points. The Minister explained in part the TUPE arrangements. I understand that the negotiations in relation to that are still ongoing. But at the end of the day, those in most immediate need of information are those who are presently working with and for the TECs who may be in or out of work as a result of these changes.
11 p.m.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: I rise to endorse the statements made by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, and to thank the Minister for the clarification given in the draft clauses about the transition arrangements.
I echo the concerns expressed about the position of people in the TECs. There is real concern among those employed by TECs as to where they will be. I urge the Minister to speed as much as possible the issuing of the requisite regulations so that people may know what their position will be.
Baroness Blackstone: I am grateful to both noble Baronesses for listing a number of questions. As regards the staff in the TECs, I entirely accept the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch. They are bound to be anxious about their future; that will

1195
always be the case when major changes of this sort are being made. She asked about the timescale. As I have said, we shall be publishing a timetable for handling transfers by the end of March, a copy of which I shall send to the noble Baroness. I hope that that will provide answers to many of the staff who may want to make a transfer under TUPE during the summer and early autumn.
Perhaps I may clarify another point raised by the noble Baroness. The staff of the council are not appointed by the Secretary of State, only the council members. With the exception of the chief executive of the national council, which will be an appointment made by the Secretary of State, the staff will be appointed by the councils.
Baroness Blatch: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for giving way. Schedule 1(5)(1)on page 56 states:
"The Council may appoint such employees as it thinks fit".
However, subparagraph (3) states:
"A determination under this paragraph requires the Secretary of State's approval".
Baroness Blackstone: The staff of the learning councils, whether national or local, will not be appointed by the Secretary of State but by the council members when established.
The noble Baroness also asked about salaries. The salaries of the successful candidates must obviously be commensurate with the extensive responsibilities they are likely to undertake and will vary a great deal. They will depend on the size of the LSC and the number of staff employed. However, we would expect the salaries of chief executives of the local learning and skills councils to range between £50,000 to £80,000. The members will be paid expenses but there is no present intention to pay them salaries.
The noble Baroness asked about the budget for the adult and young people's standing committees. That will be a matter for the LSC when established.
Baroness Blatch: Again, I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. Under the heading "Salaries, pensions, etc", Schedule 1(4) states:
"The Council must pay in respect of its members such salaries and fees and such travelling, subsistence and other allowances as the Secretary of State may determine".
Baroness Blackstone: That is exactly right and is what I said. I said that this would be a matter for the Secretary of State to determine. I mentioned that expenses would be paid. We will pay salaries to national council members. I correct myself on that point. However, the amount has not yet been determined by the Secretary of State.
I turn to the budget for the standing committees. That will be a matter for the national LSC to determine.
The noble Baroness also referred to the issue of recruitment to the 47 councils. Of course, this will be a very onerous task. Again, plans are already in place for
1196
this recruitment. It will take place during the summer, through to the autumn. I hope that that answers the noble Baroness's question.
Baroness Blatch: I thank the Minister for that correction. However, could she now refer back to paragraph 5 of Schedule 1, which appears under the heading of "Staff", and explain something to me? The paragraph reads as follows:
"The Council may appoint such employees as it thinks fit … A person is to be appointed as an employee of the Council on such terms (including terms as to remuneration and allowances) as the Council may determine… A determination under this paragraph requires the Secretary of State's approval".
Can the noble Baroness tell me what that means?
Baroness Blackstone: The general terms and conditions of the employment policies of the LSC need approval by the Secretary of State, but not the individual staff who will be appointed. I hope that that explanation helps the noble Baroness.
We have not yet published or decided on some of the details on which the noble Baroness is now asking for information. However, we shall be publishing such details as soon as decisions have been made. I shall ensure that the noble Baroness receives the information that she has requested.
Baroness Blatch: I am partly grateful for that response. However, my understanding of paragraph 5 is as follows. Paragraph 5(1) says:
"The Council may appoint such employees",
and paragraph 5(2) refers to remuneration, allowances and conditions. Subparagraph (3) says:
"A determination under this paragraph requires the Secretary of State's approval".
Therefore, anything under subparagraph (3) requires the Secretary of State's approval, including the appointments, the conditions and the level of remuneration and allowances.
Baroness Blackstone: I have just said that this paragraph implies that the general terms and conditions of the employment policies of the LSC will need approval. It is not that the Secretary of State will give approval to the appointment of the individual staff. I hope that that clarifies the position.
Baroness Blatch: It is just symptomatic of the drafting of the Bill. I shall not take this matter any further, but there are many questions begging about the drafting here. There is some concern about the appointment of 5,000 staff who will have to undergo the Nolan procedures all in the space of the summer holiday months when most people are out of their offices in any event. In particular, it seems to me that it will be people from local authorities and public authorities who will be making applications—
Baroness Blackstone: The Nolan procedures apply to the appointment of members of the councils, both locally and nationally. The appointment of staff is a rather different matter.
Baroness Blatch: I was referring to the appointment of members. I did in fact say that I was talking about

1197
the 5,000 people who will be appointed as members. There will also be an issue as regards staff. This does not apply just to members; a procedure will have to be undertaken for the appointment of staff.
The noble Baroness said that it would be end of March before the Government would publish a paper dealing with the transfer of staff from the TECs to the new councils—or not, as the case may be. That is fine for those who will be transferred because their future will be secure. However, can the Minister say what period of notice will be given to those who will not be transferred?
Baroness Blackstone: I am not quite clear as to where the noble Baroness derived the figure of 5,000 members. That is why I was somewhat confused and thought that she was referring to the appointment of staff.
I can tell the noble Baroness that the issue of those who will not be transferred will be decided during the course of the period in which people make applications for posts in various different parts of the system. Where people apply for posts will depend on their particular expertise, and whether they are appointed will depend on whether that expertise is needed in the particular organisations and in the localities where they are working. I cannot really say any more than that at this point in time.
Baroness Blatch: I understand that. I am culpable as regards the confusion over the figure of 5,000. My figures referred to staff and members. However, there is a real issue as regards using the Nolan procedures to appoint all the members and have them in place by the autumn and to recruit staff simultaneously. My concern with regard to the staff of TECs is not so much with the process of transferring staff from TECs to the new councils, as it will be a matter for the staff concerned whether they wish to apply for that; I am concerned about those who either are not eligible to apply or who are unsuccessful when they apply. What form of notice will they be given and what will be the severance terms if they are to lose their jobs?
Baroness Blackstone: That would depend on the circumstances. All the staff of TECs have their own terms and conditions. Their contracts will determine the notice period. There is no single system. Training and enterprise councils across the country vary a great deal in this respect. The position will depend on the individual contracts that have been drawn up by individual TECs.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 84 [Dissolution of FEFC for Wales]:
Lord Roberts of Conwy Lord Roberts of Conwy moved Amendment No. 201:
Page 36, line 19, leave out paragraph (a).
The noble Lord said: I should not like to see the Further Education Funding Council for Wales dissolved without some tribute being paid to it for eight years of excellent work under the direction of
1198
Professor John Andrews CBE, who is due to retire in May. I had a hand in its establishment as a council in May 1992, along with the Higher Education Funding Council for Wales. Currently both operate within the overarching structure of the Welsh funding councils.
The National Committee of Enquiry into Higher Education, chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, saw Wales as being very much in the lead in bringing about a truly comprehensive post-16 lifelong education service. As a consequence, the committee commended the Welsh concept of a joint executive bringing further and higher education more closely together. On 1st April 1999, a joint executive for the Scottish funding councils for further and higher education came into being which follows the model successfully adopted by the Welsh funding councils. It is not often that we are able to teach the Scots a trick or two!
I am glad to say that the Education and Training Action Group in Wales has recommended that,
"the existing joint secretariat embracing Higher Education and Further Education should be maintained and built upon".
As I understand it, that is to happen under this Bill.
There have been enormous benefits from the establishment of the Welsh funding councils with a joint executive, not only with regard to the integration of support functions, such as audit, management information systems and financial health monitoring, but also in extending the links between the further and higher education sectors. By 1996—well before FE institutions in other areas of the UK—all Welsh FE sector colleges were connected to the resources of the Joint Academic Network (JANET), and thus to the Internet, via higher education institutions in Wales. The Welsh funding councils are now planning a video services network for further and higher education institutions in Wales which will benefit all clients of the institutions, students and employers.
Successive annual reports have shown the progress of the FEFCW year by year. I have a formidable list of the council's achievements, but at this late hour I shall spare the Committee recital of them. Nevertheless, there has been a first-class list of achievements in eight years.
I am sure that the Minister will wish to endorse my appreciation of the Further Education Funding Council for Wales and its work. I hope that she will tell me what will replace it and how it will be replaced. I beg to move.
11.15 p.m.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: Perhaps I may begin by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, for inviting me to endorse the tribute that he paid to the FEFCW. I understand the concern he raised. Quite rightly, the noble Lord is seeking assurances about how its dissolution and the transfer to the new regime is to be handled. I am very pleased that he has given me the opportunity to clarify the position.
In Wales, the situation is somewhat more straightforward than it is in England. All the assets, rights and liabilities of the FEFCW will be transferred

1199
to the CETW on the day appointed for its dissolution, when the CETW takes on its full functions. There is no need for transfer schemes equivalent to those provided for England through Amendment No. 200.
However, the Assembly needs to take action to deal with such property and other assets as are returned to it by TECs under the terms of their contracts with the Assembly. Such property should be used for the benefit of future education and training provision in Wales. It may well be that we shall need some provision similar to that for England which is set out in Amendment No. 202. However, the Assembly is currently considering its position, and if it decides that such provision is necessary, the Government will bring forward the necessary amendments at a later stage.
With that explanation and assurance, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: I am grateful yet again to the Minister for explaining what is to happen when the Further Education Funding Council for Wales is dissolved. She will know that what concerns me is the maintenance of the quality of service that the FEFCW has given. I do not think that one can put that into statute. None the less, I am sure that the Minister shares my hope that such excellence will continue to thrive under the new arrangements. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 84 agreed to.
Baroness Blackstone Baroness Blackstone moved Amendment No. 202:
After Clause 84, insert the following new clause—
TRANSFERS: ENGLAND
(".—(1) The Secretary of State may make a scheme providing for the transfer of any of his property, rights and liabilities to any of the listed persons.
(2) The Secretary of State may make a scheme providing for the transfer of any of the property, rights and liabilities of a listed person to any other listed person.
(3) The listed persons are—

(a) the Learning and Skills Council for England;

(b) Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools in England;

(c) the Adult Learning Inspectorate.

(4) A scheme under this section may include such supplementary, incidental, consequential or transitional provisions as the Secretary of State thinks are appropriate.
(5) A scheme under this section comes into force on the day it specifies for it to come into force.
(6) When a scheme under this section comes into force it has effect to transfer (in accordance with its provisions) the property, rights and liabilities to which it applies.
(7) If a scheme under subsection (1) includes provision for the transfer of liabilities, the day specified by the scheme for it to come into force must not fall after the end of the period of 3 years starting with the day appointed under section 116 for the commencement of section 83.
(8) The day specified by a scheme under subsection (2) for the scheme to come into force must not fall after the end of the period of 3 years starting with the day appointed under section 116 for the commencement of section 83.
(9) This section applies in relation to England only.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 85 [Persons under 19]:
Baroness Sharp of Guildford Baroness Sharp of Guildford moved Amendment No. 202A:
Page 37, line 2, at end insert ("provided that subsection (2) shall not apply to any course intended to promote the personal, social, moral or physical development of an individual").
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 202A, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 202B.
These amendments are essentially probing amendments. As it stands, Clause 85, supplemented by Clauses 87 and 88, would seem to preclude the funding body—defined either as the learning and skills council, the LEA or any other body designated by the Secretary of State—from funding any course of education or training for a 16 to 19 year-old which does not lead to an externally recognised qualification. Subsection (4) clearly makes allowance for modular courses, but they still need explicitly to be part of an externally recognised qualification system.
Amendment No. 202A seeks to make explicit that students who need to add to their current qualification programme should have the right to funding for enrichment programmes. In addition, other young people aged 16–18—and, in some cases, the socially excluded—should have access to funded courses that may have the function of building confidence or of beginning to address basic skill needs in order to encourage them on to further stages of learning. That would require the provider to ensure that the provision passed the test set out in the original stem Act and therefore would not be frivolous in nature. The LSC would set a tariff system which would ensure that funding was provided on an equitable basis for all such learners. The amendment would not force the LSC to fund beyond the funds at its disposal.
I turn to Amendment No. 202B, which picks up the same issue in relation to the old Schedule 2 and non-Schedule 2 issues. As I understood it, the purpose of the Bill was to abolish that distinction. Yet it would seem that Clause 86, by creating a list of qualifications and restricting the powers of the funding body in relation to any other provision, effectively recreates Schedule 2. The practical effect is that any course leading to a qualification of any kind that is not externally approved will be difficult for the funding body to support, because it will have difficulty in ensuring that the public moneys it disburses are not used to pay for the qualification—fees, assessment costs and so forth.
The purpose of the amendment is to recognise that, where an employer or an individual makes a substantial contribution to the cost of his learning, he should not be completely precluded from accessing public support. It would permit providers to offer adult and community learning in its broadest sense—which will be of use to the learner—with some support from public funds within the range of the LSC's budget. That budget will be set by the LSC in relation to its own priorities and the range of provision that it

1201
is able to support. In other words, the amendment would not mean that the LSC would have to fund all learning.
The restriction to funding only externally approved qualifications will inhibit the growth of new qualifications, which will not be able to be offered until they have been approved. That would stultify the development of new qualifications and could impact on the development of open and distance learning in particular. As it stands, an unemployed person attending a course at a college cannot access public funds for the qualification—fees, assessment costs and so forth—because there is no mechanism to support him. Around 60 per cent of current qualifications are outside the national qualifications framework. Although that will change as more are approved, it is by no means clear that they all will be. That has serious implications for a large number of current students.
From these Benches we cannot believe, given the emphasis on the social exclusion agenda, that the wider areas of education and training covered by the amendments would be precluded from funding. We greatly hope that the Minister will be able to clarify the situation and to give us an assurance that that is not what is intended. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: My Amendment No. 202C is in this group. We are back with the issue of local flexibility and institutional autonomy. As Clause 86 is drafted, it requires the LSC to seek to secure that public funding is not used to pay for the cost of qualifications from external bodies which are not approved by the Secretary of State or a body designated by him. It does not directly prohibit the LSC from providing funding for courses leading to such outcomes, but there is a great deal of concern that in practice it may well have that effect.
That may arise simply because, although there are other mechanisms which the LSC could use to try to ensure that its statutory obligations are met, such as imposing a condition for funding on providers not to spend LSC moneys on non-approved qualifications, any such mechanisms would be cumbersome to police and difficult to justify. For example, audit systems will need to check how providers have used LSC resources. In practice, it will be difficult to tell whether LSC or other moneys have been used to pay examination or assessment costs. In addition, in an environment in which the LSC is likely to face more demands than it has resources available to meet, it will always need to face the question of priorities. In such circumstances, it will be hard to justify funding a provision which does not lead to a nationally approved outcome, even where some form of certification of that outcome may be of benefit to learners. That point was made by the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp.
The effect of the clause is likely to be that the LSC will be driven to funding either a provision which leads to an externally approved qualification or one which leads to no certificate. If the LSC follows that path, it is likely to steer providers towards not offering certification routes at all to those who would currently
1202
gain a certificate which may not be considered an externally approved qualification. That would lead to a diminution in the opportunities available for adults for whom a certificate can provide a passport into a job, further study or increased self esteem, and it could also result in a diminution in the skills that employers need, both in technical areas which may not fall into obvious national categories, and in key or basic skills which underpin effective performance at work.
Exclusion from funding support of provision leading to a qualification which does not satisfy national approval criteria also fails to recognise the many thousands of courses that currently gain certification but are unlikely to gain the status of an external qualification. Sixty per cent of the courses studied by adults in further education colleges currently stand outside the national qualifications framework—that is, those courses accredited by QCA. While it is accepted that some diminution and streamlining of existing courses should take place, it would clearly be inappropriate to lose funding for a vast number of courses that are of considerable value to learners, have come through an approval process by an awarding body but are unlikely in all cases to gain accreditation via the QCA.
It will also be important to know whether or not courses— I shall give an illustrative list—which appear in current Schedule 2(a) will receive funding from the LSC under Clause 86, and indeed whether such courses will receive funding in full, as they do now, or whether support will be curtailed in some way. I shall give an illustrative sample of the courses: electrical installation; data processing and information systems; the Edexcel National Certificate in Civil Engineering Studies; the Institute of Legal Executives Certificate in Charity Administration; the Institute of Welfare Officers Certificate and Diploma in Welfare Studies; the Maritime and Coastguard Agency Fishing Vessel Deck Officer Class 2; National Proficiency Tests Council course in farm maintenance; the Basic Certificate in British sign language; Units in Desk-top Publishing, History of Theatre, Study Skills and Choral Singing; Photography; Certificate in Food Safety; Developing Childminding Practice; and Basic Expedition Leader Award.
As I said, that is no more than an illustrative list. But not only would any restriction of that list have an adverse effect on existing learners and their employers, it would negate the whole effect of abolishing the current divide between approved and non-approved learning embodied in Schedule 2. The purpose of abolishing that distinction was understood to be to open up a much wider range of learning opportunities than currently exist and in doing so to enrich and deepen the learning culture. If the Government intend to continue with an approach which seeks to draw a distinction between approved and non-approved types of learning, at what point do they draw the line between courses and qualifications, between those which lead to certification and those which do not? Or do they have some other definition in mind? It would be helpful to know what that is.

1203
Again we come back to local flexibility—reading the local skills and needs market—and actually providing those courses that not only lead to approved qualifications, but also enhance the learning experience of many people in the local area, which, as I understand it, is one of the aims of the Bill.
Baroness Blackstone: I am grateful to both noble Baronesses for tabling what are essentially probing amendments. I very much hope that what I am able to say will provide them with the necessary reassurance. The social exclusion agenda is extremely important to the Government and we have every intention of pursuing it with not just commitment but passionate commitment. That includes courses like basic skills for adults. I entirely accept that there is a need for some local flexibility. We shall expect the local learning and skills councils to look at the needs of the local labour market and respond to it.
The amendments are not necessary. In giving the reason, perhaps I may begin with the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp. Clause 85 applies only to those courses that lead to external qualifications; that is, qualifications which are awarded or accredited by an outside body. It does not apply to courses which do not lead to external qualifications, even if they are accredited in some other way, as is the case, for example, with the Duke of Edinburgh's Award. Such provision, of course, forms an essential part of the curriculum and there is absolutely no intention to preclude it from funding. Since the approval mechanism set out in Clauses 85 to 91 will not apply, it will simply be for the department and the LSC, for the National Assembly and the CETW, to make decisions about funding for this kind of activity. We very much welcome the work that is done under this provision.
Turning to Amendments Nos. 202B and 202C, I should start by saying that I believe that the noble Baronesses, Lady Sharp and Lady Blatch, may have slightly misunderstood our intentions. That is understandable; I think I should have done the same given the technicality of the clauses. Let me repeat my earlier reassurance. Clause 86 does not apply to, and therefore does not affect, the availability of public funding for learning provision other than external qualifications. It does not apply to the costs of providing courses. And it does not apply to the costs of non-external qualifications—that is, those that are less formally certificated. Decisions about the funding of this kind of provision will be determined by the LSC and CETW, together with my department and the National Assembly respectively. I hope that that reassurance is helpful.
For adult learners, we want to ensure that payments made from public funds to awarding bodies for the costs associated with taking an external qualification provide a sound investment for the future. We therefore believe that such payments, whether or not they meet the full cost of the fees, should be made only in relation to external qualifications which have met robust approval criteria. Again, that is a matter of ensuring that the qualifications are worthwhile and
1204
worthy, so that students are not misled and are not taking qualifications which have not met those approval criteria. While QCA accreditation is a valuable and straightforward mark of quality, approval will reflect the appropriateness of the qualification for attracting public funding.
Although the funding framework is still being determined through consultation, it is clear that for most working adults, 100 per cent public funding will not be available in most cases. That has always been the case. There is an expectation that adult learners will contribute to the cost of their courses in further education. It will be important that public funding bodies such as the LSC, CETW and LEAs exercise control to ensure that any funds which are used for payment of fees to awarding bodies are used only in respect of approved external qualifications.
I hope that that reassurance is adequate and that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
11.30 p.m.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: I am grateful to the Minister for her reassurances on these issues. In the light of her remarks, and now that they are on the record, I am glad to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 85 agreed to.
Clause 86 [Persons over 19]:
[Amendment No. 202B not moved.]
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 202C:
Page 37, line 39, at end insert—
("( ) The requirement in subsection (2) above shall not apply to any programme of study leading to a certificate or other award which does not constitute a qualification.").
The noble Baroness said: I beg to move Amendment No. 202C. Before I decide whether to withdraw the amendment, perhaps I may clarify two matters. First, I was unsure whether the Minister suggested that the points I sought to make were in the wrong place. The noble Baroness appeared to suggest that Clause 86 was not the appropriate place. Therefore, is it simply a matter of these points being attached to the wrong clause, or are they dealt with more appropriately elsewhere in the Bill?
Secondly, currently 60 per cent of the courses studied by adults in further education colleges stand outside the national qualifications framework; that is, courses accredited by QCA. Does it mean that that will not be the case in future and unless they are approved by the Secretary of State they will not qualify even for partial funding?
Baroness Blackstone: I did not intend to imply that the amendment moved by the noble Baroness was not in the right place. If I gave that impression I apologise. In answer to her question, "qualification" is defined in the legislation in the context of an external

1205
qualification. The term "qualification" has not been defined because it is difficult to sum up what it is in a few words. At its simplest, it is a report, certificate or other record specifying the attainment of the holder and intended to be used as evidence of that attainment. But that says nothing about what has actually been attained. A qualification could also be described as a recognition that a required standard of knowledge, skill, aptitude or capability has been demonstrated, but that says nothing about the conditions, systems and processes surrounding the demonstration of attainment and the assessment of moderation; for instance, pre-determined criteria to measure attainment to the appropriate level and to ensure that there is objective measurement to assure performance standards at the time and over time. All these things matter. Therefore, we shall continue to leave the term undefined in legislation and instead rely on the quality assurance measures taken by the QCA for accreditation to determine the nature of qualifications. I thought that I should add that, although I am not sure that it directly addresses the questions that the noble Baroness puts.
Under the existing arrangements the Secretary of State must approve qualifications of the kind that the noble Baroness listed. Although we are now abolishing the difference between vocational and non-vocational qualifications, from the point of view of the funding regime it will be necessary for approval to be given. I reassure the noble Baroness that there is no intention that courses of this kind will not continue to be funded; they will be.
Baroness Blatch: I do not know whether it is due to the lateness of the hour or that we are so far through the Bill that I have become muddled by the Minister's response. Sixty per cent of the courses stand outside the framework and are accredited by QCA. I am not sure whether that system is to be replaced and courses will come within a framework whereby they must all be approved by the Secretary of State. I know that it is the intention of the Government that there should not be any less education going on out there and that all the courses that people want to do, and which meet the skills need of local people, should be provided. While I am aware of the aspiration, I am concerned about what it means in practice. Which of these courses is likely to be vulnerable under the new system?
Baroness Blackstone: I can give the noble Baroness the assurance that the courses will not be vulnerable under the new system. They will not be subject to approval and they can otherwise fall within the scope of funding by the LSC. Therefore, Clause 86 does not apply to them and they can continue to be funded by the LSC.
Baroness Blatch: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Addington Lord Addington moved Amendment No. 203:
Page 38, line 15, at end insert—
("( ) Payment may also be made for the Open College Network course activity other than that leading to external qualifications in respect of—

(a) devising, administering, verifying or certifying the qualification;

(b) setting or moderating examinations for the purposes of qualifications—

(c) registering, assessing or examining candidates.").

The noble Lord said: This amendment is designed to extract from the Government an indication as to whether the workings of the national Open College Network courses are safe under the provisions of the Bill. Having listened to the Minister, I think that the answer is "yes". If the noble Baroness will confirm that, I shall happily withdraw the amendment. I beg to move.
Baroness Blackstone: I am happy to confirm that. I shall conclude on that note.
Lord Addington: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn
Clause 86 agreed to.
Clauses 87 to 92 agreed to.
Clause 93 [Qualifying accounts]:
Lord Roberts of Conwy Lord Roberts of Conwy moved Amendment No. 204:
Page 40, line 32, at beginning insert—
("( ) In its application to Wales this section is to have effect as if references to the Secretary of State were to the National Assembly.").
The noble Lord said: In moving the amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 206, 208, 213, 219, 227, and 229 to 233.
Members of the Committee will have noted that Clause 94, which empowers the Secretary of State to make regulations authorising grants to individuals, applies to Wales. Subsection (7) enables that. A similar subsection at the end of Clause 110 deals with assessments relating to people with learning difficulties, but a raft of clauses around those two apply to England only. I am, frankly, mystified. In order to gain clarification, I have applied the enabling subsection to probe why those clauses do not apply to Wales.
Clause 93 relates to qualifying accounts held by an individual or an institution, and the conditions attached to such holdings which may be specified by the Secretary of State in regulations. Why cannot the National Assembly make such regulations in Wales? If it is necessary to empower the Secretary of State by primary legislation on the face of the Bill, why is it not necessary to empower the National Assembly similarly by primary legislation? Are the Government applying a different interpretation to primary legislation in England from in Wales? In other words, are the Government saying that what requires primary legislation in England does not require primary

1207
legislation in Wales; and that the same legislative requirement can be achieved by secondary legislation in Wales? If so, the definition of primary and secondary legislation, and the scope, need to be looked at afresh by legal and constitutional experts.
What I have said about Amendment No. 204 to Clause 93 applies to Amendment No. 206 to Clause 96. That clause enables the Secretary of State by order to establish a further education corporation. It does not apply to Wales. My amendment seeks to empower the National Assembly to take over the Secretary of State's powers should the need arise. We may not currently foresee such a need, but who can say that it will not arise in future?
The absence of a Welsh application of this clause contrasts with the clear application of Clause 98 and the rigours of Schedule 7 to Wales. I conclude that the prospect of the closure of sixth forms up and down the land is more imminent than the likelihood of establishing new further education corporations. I doubt whether the educational world has yet woken up to that.
Clause 97, about the designation of FE institutions for funding purposes, is not applicable to Wales. My Amendment No. 208 seeks to make the provision apply. Again, I should like a comment from the Minister.
Clauses 99, 100, 102, 103 and 108 come under the heading of support for 13 to 19 year-olds. None of those clauses applies to Wales. I have sought to amend each to enable them to be so applicable. They are important clauses relating to the provision of services to encourage, enable or assist effective participation by young people in education or training. Are these services not to be provided through the National Assembly for Wales?
Clause 100 provides for consultation with the authorities listed. Is such consultation not required by the National Assembly for Wales? What is the position of the local education authorities empowered in Clause 101? Welsh local authorities cannot take advantage of this clause because it refers back to Clause 99, which refers to England only. Clause 102, which I have also sought to apply to Wales, also refers back to the introductory Clause 99, so that educational institutions in Wales will not be obliged to provide information as the clause requires. My Amendment No. 227 seeks to deal with that situation.
I do not believe that it is the Government's intention to exclude young people and authorities in Wales from these arrangements; neither can it be right to leave matters to the Assembly and to let the Assembly duplicate these clauses in secondary legislation. That would be wasteful in time and effort. There are clear-cut issues here which involve people's rights. They are being resolved for England but not for Wales. I therefore submit that the Bill is totally inadequate as far as Wales is concerned.
Clause 103 deals with the inspection of services provided under Clause 99. I am again seeking to make it applicable to Wales. In doing so, I am, of course, showing the huge gaps in the Bill as far as proper
1208
legislative provision for Welsh needs is concerned. I find it difficult to understand the Government's thinking in this area. Are they deliberately encouraging differences to develop between the arrangements in England and in Wales or simply trusting that Wales will follow England's lead? Whatever the real explanation, I believe that they have got it wrong. They should look at the whole issue again before this Bill leaves Parliament.
I speak to my Amendments Nos. 232 and 233 to Clause 108. At the risk of being accused of tedious repetition, I reiterate that there should be a subsection to Clause 108 to ensure that careers services in Wales can be inspected as they will be in England. I believe that that covers the totality of the arrangements. I should certainly appreciate a comment from the Minister. I beg to move.
11.45 p.m.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: I have listened with interest to the points that have been rightly made by the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Conwy. On each of these points, I await an explanation as to whether there is no intention to create primary legislation on these aspects for Welsh matters.
I make the point which I have made before, and which I shall continue to make, in relation to the subsection to which the noble Lord referred; namely, subsection (5) of Clause 110, which says:
" In its application to Wales this section is to have effect as if references to the Secretary of State were to the National Assembly".
That is highly unsatisfactory. My belief is that it is wrong to try to reinterpret a clause by inserting the words "National Assembly". Subsection (1), for example, would read:
"Subsection (2) applies if … (b) the [National Assembly] believes that the person will leave school at the end of his last year of compulsory schooling".
It is a difficult enough concept that the Secretary of State should have a belief, but for the whole of the National Assembly to have a specific belief is an extremely difficult concept. I believe that the drafting of that clause, whatever may or may not be the merits of the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Conwy, should be looked at again.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: Clause 93 sets out the conditions that will allow an account to qualify as an individual learning account. Broadly speaking, it is concerned with financial services-type matters. It has been a principle of the devolution settlements with both Scotland and Wales that financial services and similar matters have not been devolved. In the case of Scotland, such matters are reserved under the Scotland Act. In the case of Wales, no powers to make regulations in this field have been transferred to the Welsh Assembly. This means that the Bill should not confer these regulation-making powers directly on to the Welsh Assembly.
Of course, this in no way means that in the future and in the light of any changes to the devolution settlement an order could not be made under the

1209
Government of Wales Act transferring these regulation-making powers to the National Assembly. I hope therefore that the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, will not press his Amendment No. 204.
I turn to Amendments Nos. 206 and 208. The noble Lord, Lord Roberts, rightly draws our attention to the importance of ensuring that where powers under any Act have been transferred to the National Assembly for Wales, the power will remain transferred if the Act is amended. As always, the Committee benefits from his expert and close reading of the Bill. I hope that he will agree that this is a complex matter to resolve, especially in the very first year after devolution took place.
I can also assure him that we will bring forward an amendment in due course which will broadly secure that where the Bill makes an amendment to any provision under the Further and Higher Education Act 1992, which confers a power on the Secretary of State, the power will continue to be exercisable by the National Assembly in respect of Wales. I hope therefore that the noble Lord will not feel the need to press these amendments at this time.
I turn finally to the group of eight amendments dealing with youth provisions which the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, treats in a similar way. Once again, I am grateful to him for giving me the opportunity to clarify the position with respect to youth provisions in Wales. The National Assembly intends to secure services to support young people, tailored to the particular circumstances in Wales, but is still finalising its proposals. As soon as the National Assembly has completed its work, we shall be introducing amendments in due course. I am pleased to be able to assure both noble Lords that, in line with the reference made earlier by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, to local flexibility in the case of Wales and the Assembly, we are seeking to work carefully to ensure that the appropriate arrangements are made.
The noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, asked about Clause 110(5). It applies all of Clause 110 to Wales. I do not know whether that answers his question with clarity, but I fear that I cannot go further tonight. If it has not, I shall be only too happy to write to him.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: I am grateful to the Minister for her reply and I am delighted to understand that an amendment will be tabled in respect of my Amendments Nos. 206 and 208. With regard to youth provision, I am bound to repeat that I believe that the National Assembly should have completed its deliberations on all aspects of the Bill before it came to Parliament. We are well aware of the fact that when we had the Second Reading the National Assembly's plenary session on the policy behind the Bill had not taken place. The Minister has been honest enough to tell us that the Assembly still has not completed its work on the youth provisions, but that when it does an amendment will be presented. Once again, I believe that the lesson is very clear. It must go out from here
1210
that if the National Assembly requires legislation of us in Parliament, then we must surely be able to consider its views in advance of Committee stage.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: Before the noble Lord withdraws his amendment, may I endorse everything that he said. It seems to me that we have to get the machinery right. It is extremely difficult for those of us who are seeking to deal with Welsh affairs to have to consider amendments before the National Assembly has come to any conclusion. It is very difficult indeed, when one is trying to put primary legislation into place, not to have the views of the National Assembly first. I hope that the Minister will convey to the Assembly our concern that it concludes its deliberations before the matter is brought before this House.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, for his support. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 93 agreed to.
Clause 94 [Holders of accounts: grants]:
Lord Boardman Lord Boardman moved Amendment No. 205:
Page 42, line 4, leave out from ("by") to end of line 6 and insert ("the Council").
The noble Lord said: I have not been an active participant in this Bill, but having read it and spent several hours sitting in Committee here, I have reached the conclusion that it is the most unfortunately drafted Bill I have come across in the 20 years I have been in this House. It is full of complexities and potential bureaucracy.
I turn to my own amendment to part of Clause 94. It is an example of the bureaucracy and the confusion that arises. The clause authorises or grants the Secretary of State authority to make grants. There is a list of regulations subject to conditions which must be fulfilled. There are further regulations which may be imposed and so forth.
I have tabled an amendment to subsection (5). That states,
"Conditions as to the kinds of education or training which qualify may include provision for the kinds to be specified—
(a) by the Secretary of State in a way he thinks fit"—
I make no complaint about that—
"or (b) if he so decides, by a person who (at the time of the specification) is designated by the Secretary of State and who specifies in a way the Secretary of State stipulates".
Here we have further delegation of responsibility. My amendment states that it can be expressed by the Secretary of State—fair enough—or, if he so decides, by the council. The council established by Clause 1 of the Bill has responsibility for setting out the type of training required and so forth. The Secretary of State, having accepted various regulations, some of them binding and some not, and their conditions, then goes on to say that it will eventually be decided by a person designated by him.
There is plenty of room for simplicity in the Bill, but on this matter it should be decided by the Secretary of State or, if he so decides, by the council. I beg to move.
Midnight
Baroness Blatch: I rise to support my noble friend in his quest to introduce a little simplification. The Secretary of State is designated in many Bills as being primarily responsible for almost all actions. If every Secretary of State physically took on the jobs for which he was technically responsible, he simply would not be able to do the job he is properly there to do.
We all know that where the Secretary of State approves every post or plan and so forth, a row of mandarins are in place to do that job in his name. He is only technically the person to carry out the specific task, which will be done by others. First, will the Minister tell the Committee why, as in subsection (5)(a) the Secretary of State may specify "as he thinks fit" and so a great deal of latitude has been provided for, it is necessary in subsection (5)(b) to provide on the face of the Bill that,
"if he so decides, by a person who (at the time of the specification) is designated by the Secretary of State and who specifies in a way the Secretary of State stipulates"?
Secondly, will the Minister give examples to the Committee of the kind of person and the kinds of tasks which would be so delegated?
Lord Bach: we have admired the patience of the noble Lord, Lord Boardman, this evening. He has been sitting, silent as a lamb, waiting for his amendment. It is an important amendment and if I respond to it fairly briefly, I hope that the noble Lord will not take that as a discourtesy. I cannot speak for the 20 years of experience gained by the noble Lord, but I doubt whether the Bill before us is the worst example of drafting he has ever come across. Certainly this particular clause has been deliberately worded in this way. It is not a mistake, bureaucracy gone mad, or an error of drafting. This clause is meant to be so drafted and I shall take a few minutes to explain why.
The clause gives the Secretary of State the flexibility to delegate to any person the power to decide the types of learning that will attract the benefits of learning accounts. I should like to remind the noble Lord in passing that this clause and the preceding clause concern qualifying or learning accounts.
Learning accounts will continue to be developed to fit the needs of learners and changing priorities. The provisions have deliberately been framed to give the Secretary of State and the Government appropriate flexibility. Amendment No. 205 seeks to limit that flexibility. It would allow the Secretary of State to delegate only to the LSC his power to determine which learning should be eligible.
It may well be that the Secretary of State will delegate this power to the LSC and that the National Assembly will likewise delegate to the CETW. Clauses 10 and 38 of the Bill make express provision for the councils to be able to take on this role. But
1212
there may well be good reason in the future, and in the light of changing circumstances, to delegate this power to other bodies.
Again, I should like to repeat what was said in an earlier debate; the word "person" used here is a legal person—an institution rather than an individual. In this instance, the LSC is the likely "person" who will make such a decision. However, this is a major Bill that is due to last for a number of years. Learning provision is developing all the time in important and exciting ways. While the LSC will have a comprehensive remit for post-16 and some other learning, we hope that, as circumstances change, other agencies may be well placed to contribute to decisions on what learning should attract the benefits of individual learning accounts.
At the moment we do not anticipate any other bodies. It is not government policy to say that there will be other bodies. However, we are discussing a Bill which is due to last for five to 10 years and which addresses important matters such as individual learning accounts. For that reason, we do not want to constrain the Secretary of State's power to delegate this function. We believe that it would be unwise to make this primary legislation unnecessarily restrictive. The reason why this provision has been put into the clause is because it is meant to be there in order that, as this field develops over the next few years, the powers are flexible enough to ensure that individual learning accounts have a future.
Baroness Blatch: Before my noble friend decides what he wishes to do about the amendment, perhaps I may make two points. First, since when has "person" been representative of a body or an organisation? It seems to me that a person is a person. There is only one connotation for "person". A body can 'be an organisation; an organisation can be another group of people or an institution. However, it seems to be a most extraordinary use of language to call the LSC "a person". I have no difficulty about that.
My second point concerns the rest of the sentence. Not only does it relate to an inanimate person who, at the time of the specification, is designated by the Secretary of State, but it is a person who specifies in a way that the Secretary of State stipulates. Therefore, not only must this person, body or inanimate object determine the task given to it by the Secretary of State, but it must do so in precisely the way that the Secretary of State stipulates.
The Secretary of State must make the decision and stipulate it, and the body must carry it out exactly according to the Secretary of State's bidding. Therefore, I do not see the point in devolving the task. If the Secretary of State is to devolve it, to do so to a person who is not a person seems to be extraordinary, and I believe that my noble friend makes a very good point.
The noble Lord seemed to make reference to the LSC and to the fact that, in the scheme of things, the council will almost certainly carry out this work. The council can do so only under this paragraph, exactly as

1213
the Secretary of State stipulates. The word is "stipulate" and that is a fairly specific word, unless "stipulate" has some other meaning. We almost need a lexicon to accompany the reading of this Bill. If that is the case, it could refer to the council or to any other body which the Secretary of State thinks fit.
Therefore, one could say that it is presupposed that the work will be devolved to the council. I would argue that the council should at least be left to exercise its own professional judgment as to what it should do. However, if it must do what the Secretary of State stipulates, and, as I say, it must be a person who is not a person, it seems to me that this really is gobbledegook of the first order.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: At this time of night I hesitate to rise. However, I must agree that, once again, we have an excessive use of words here, that it is gobbledegook and that, quite frankly, if Clause 94(5)(a) means what it says—that it shall be specified,
"by the Secretary of State in a way he thinks fit"—
it covers subsection (5)(b) and we can do away with that subsection completely.
Lord Bach: Faced with this unholy alliance at this hour of the night, I must stand firm and tell the noble Baroness something which I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Boardman, knows: that the word "person" can have that meaning in Acts of Parliament because of the Interpretation Act 1978. I hope that that deals with that point once and for all this evening.
The meaning of the phrase which I notice the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, is quick, as it were, to jump on the passing bandwagon of—not a happily phrased sentence!—is specified,
"in a way the Secretary of State stipulates",
is—and I suspect that Members of the Committee understand it—that the Secretary of State can lay down general rules which the designated body will follow in deciding what courses qualify. That is the meaning that it will have and it is the meaning which is now on the record. However, I now look forward to hearing what the noble Lord, Lord Boardman, whose amendment this is, wishes to do.
Lord Boardman: I find the Minister's answer very worrying and quaint. First, under the Interpretation Act "persons" may include corporate bodies, and I believe that it does. However, in general drafting of legal documents normally one does not refer to persons in that particular form. Be that as it may, the purpose of including this subsection is quite meaningless because the person will do precisely what he is told to do by the Secretary of State in the form that he is told to do it. Therefore, the Secretary of State should do it in his own name. If we interpreted all the documents coming from the Secretary of State as being his own considered resolution, we should perhaps be confusing ourselves.
It is nonsense. The Secretary of State should keep the first part of that clause as it is, giving him the right to make his decision in that way and allocating any
1214
matters which he believes should be dealt with by the council to the council for it to deal with. The members of the council are the experts and the most appropriate people to deal with those matters. The field should not be widened in respect of some unspecified person or corporate body or whatever it may be to carry out functions exactly as he has defined them.
I am extremely unhappy about the wording and I hope that the noble Lord will reflect on it before we reach a later stage of the Bill. In the light of what he said and the answer that he has given, which I find extremely unsatisfactory, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 94 agreed to.
Clause 95 agreed to.
Clause 96 [Further education corporations]:
[Amendment No. 206 not moved.]
Baroness Sharp of Guildford Baroness Sharp of Guildford moved Amendment No. 207:
Page 43, line 16, at end insert—
("( ) Before an order is made under subsection (3) above, the Council must publish a report detailing the effect of the establishment of the proposed institution on education and training provision in the area of the local council in which it is located, and in any adjacent areas which may be affected."").
The noble Baroness said: The purpose of this amendment is to ensure that should an LEA or other body make use of the powers granted to it under Clause 96(3) to open a new 16 to 19 institution in an area, that there should be wide consultation and consideration of the knock-on effect of its establishment on other educational facilities in that area.
In effect, the amendment is asking for an area educational impact assessment. Although there are statutory procedures for the publication of the proposals to establish a new 16-plus institution which oblige the LEA or the LSC to consider any representations made to them before submitting the proposal to the Secretary of State, they are not obliged to attach any particular weight to those representations, nor to give reasons for rejecting them. Thus, for example, they would be able to discount, if they so wished, representations about the impact which a new institution may have on existing providers, both other schools with sixth forms in the area and further education sector colleges.
While it would obviously be unreasonable for an existing provider to have a right of veto over a proposal to establish what might be a competitor institution, it is not unreasonable to request that the LSC, as the body with a statutory duty to secure proper and reasonable provision, should show publicly the effect of the proposed reorganisation on the existing pattern of education and training provision in the area affected. That is the purpose of the amendment. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: This is a sensible proposal. I have been accused twice, I think, of accusing the

1215
Government of having a hidden agenda. On this particular occasion, I think they have. The hidden agenda relates to the illicit establishment in Hammersmith and Fulham which exists as a sixth-form college in all but name. It was established illegally; it has been existing illegally; it is still not legal. It has been receiving funding from the department, which has turned a blind eye to it for a long time. It was going to be dealt with as we left office and that has still not been done. The only point behind the power in the Bill is to make that establishment legitimate. Otherwise, I could not see the Government handing over that power to local authorities. Nevertheless, they have done that.
When that establishment was set up in Hammersmith and Fulham, interestingly, it did have a knock-on effect on the local further education college and on other schools. It seems to me to be a commonsense proposal to have some form of consultation and understanding of what the knock-on effects will be when an establishment may have a very real impact on and may cause the demise of other establishments in the area. I support the amendment.
12.15 a.m
Lord Bach: Clause 96 is concerned not with the creation of LEA-maintained 16–19 institutions but with the transfer of such an institution to the FE sector. I emphasise straightaway that the Government expect such transfers to be rare. They will only take place with the consent of both the governing body of the institution and of the LEA which maintains it, as we believe subsection (2)(b) makes clear.
When establishing or incorporating an FE institution, there must be statutory consultation with a period for objections from any party. Such objections currently fall to the FEFC and will, from April 2001, fall to the LSC for consideration before the Secretary of State makes a final decision. The incorporation of an existing institution would have minimal or no impact on other local learning providers, since incorporation effects a change in the character of an institution and not a change in the learning opportunities it offers. We believe it would be excessively and unnecessarily bureaucratic to require the LSC to undertake the detailed analysis proposed by Amendment No. 207. The original establishment of the institution would have been subject to statutory proposals. Any decision by the school organisation committee or the schools adjudicator to take forward these proposals would have taken account of issues such as the need for places and the impact of the proposed new institution on school; and other post-16 providers in the area. Incorporation would not give rise to any new impact in that sense.
Furthermore, in preparing their annual plans, each local LSC will have to consider the learning needs of the local population and propose how it intends to carry out its functions in order that those needs be met. Its consideration of any proposals for the incorporation of an existing institution within its area would be reflected in its plans.
1216
I hope that that answer gives some reassurance to the noble Baroness and that she will not press the amendment at this stage.
Baroness Blatch: Before the noble Baroness returns to the matter, from the way in which the Minister responded, I understand that the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, tabled an amendment in the wrong place. She spoke to the establishment of a sixth form centre or college. I supported the noble Baroness along those lines and spoke specifically to the establishment of a sixth form. I understand the original mistake, which the noble Lord rightly pointed out. However, he then proceeded to reply on the basis of what was understood to have been the amendment in the first place, not to the amendment spoken to by the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, or myself.
As I understand it, the idea behind the amendment spoken to by the noble Baroness was the power to establish a sixth form centre. Wherever such power lies within the Bill, this amendment should apply. It would be helpful if the noble Lord could at least respond to the particular point made rather than to the amendment which was tabled in the wrong place.
Lord Bach: I am not attempting to stand on a legal nicety. However, with the greatest respect, it is important that amendments are tabled in the right place. I can only assume, if they are tabled under Clause 96, that that is where they are meant to be. If I have missed the point here—looking at the clock I see what time of the morning it now is—it may be that the noble Baroness will have the opportunity to table the amendment in the appropriate place for discussion on Thursday; I know not. That is a matter for her. However, I have said all I want to say about the amendment where it stands in the Bill at present.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: I am grateful to the Minister. I confess that I had read this clause as giving provision to establish a new sixth form centre of some sort. From what he says it clearly does not. Given the time of morning, perhaps the sensible course would be for us to read and study what he has said, consider the matter again and possibly bring the amendment back at Report stage. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 96 agreed to.
Clause 97 [Further education institutions: designation]:
[Amendment No. 208 not moved.]
Clause 97 agreed to.
Lord Bach: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.
House adjourned at twenty-one minutes past midnight.

  Small Business Service
  Small Business Service
  General Medical Council: Adverse Findings
  General Medical Council: Adverse Findings
  Armed Forces Pay Review Report
  Armed Forces Pay Review Report
  Queen Alexandra's Royal Naval Nursing Service
  Queen Alexandra's Royal Naval Nursing Service
  Hijacks: Handling Policy
  Hijacks: Handling Policy
  South Yorkshire Objective 1 Programme
  South Yorkshire Objective 1 Programme
  London Mayor and Assembly Members: Election Expenditure Limits
  London Mayor and Assembly Members: Election Expenditure Limits
  London Roadworks
  London Roadworks
  M.4 Bus and Taxi Lane
  M.4 Bus and Taxi Lane
  Organophosphates: Advisory Paper MS17
  Organophosphates: Advisory Paper MS17
  M.11: Litter Clearance
  M.11: Litter Clearance
  Rough Sleeping
  Rough Sleeping
  Young Offenders: Re-conviction
  Young Offenders: Re-conviction
  Extradition Requests: Secrecy
  Extradition Requests: Secrecy
  General Pinochet: Extradition Request
  General Pinochet: Extradition Request
  Organophosphate Pesticide Approvals: Manufacturers' Data
  Organophosphate Pesticide Approvals: Manufacturers' Data
  Agriculture Development Scheme Projects
  Agriculture Development Scheme Projects
  BSE
  BSE
  Agriculture Development Scheme Awards
  Agriculture Development Scheme Awards
  Senior Salaries Review Body Report
  Senior Salaries Review Body Report