Sitting of 13 January 2000

Preamble
The House met at half-past Eleven o'clock
PRAYERS
[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  ALLIANCE & LEICESTER PLC (GROUP REORGANISATION) BILL [Lords].
  Considered; to be read the Third time.
Oral Answers to Questions
  AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  The Minister was asked—
  AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

    Pig Industry
    Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: What support he will give to pig farmers seeking compensation for the costs of BSE-related food safety measures. [103771]
    The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Nick Brown): My overall priority is to remove BSE from the cattle herd in order to maintain confidence in the whole of British agriculture. I recognise, as the previous Government did, that pursuing that policy imposes additional costs on the British livestock industry, including the pig industry. I have twice asked the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee to look at the issues, particularly as they apply to the pig industry.
    Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that way back on 20 October he said:
    "The problem requires a further considered response from the Government. I am working very hard on it, and I hope to have something new and comprehensive to tell the House in a matter of days."—[Official Report, 20 October 1999; Vol. 336, c. 465.]
    Nothing has happened. On 9 November, he told the Select Committee on Agriculture that he was "incredibly sympathetic" on the issue. He assured the Committee:
    "I want to explore everything the Government can do that will help".
    Nothing has happened. Why does not the right hon. Gentleman take immediate action, as many, including the National Pig Association, have recommended, and respond to the statement and the letter from the
    406
    Agriculture Commissioner—of which I have a copy—by opening negotiations? The Commissioner has offered his help, but nothing has happened on that.
    Mr. Brown: My officials are in touch with the Commission and we are exploring those matters. It is not true to say that nothing has happened. Together with the Meat and Livestock Commission, I went back to SEAC to see whether there was some way of achieving a commercial value of the meat and bonemeal for the industry consistent with the need for public protection measures. As the right hon. Gentleman will know, at the end of December the advisory committee said, disappointingly from the industry's point of view, that it was not willing to recommend that.
    Dr. Gavin Strang: Like all hon. Members, I recognise the desperate plight of the pig industry. Is my right hon. Friend satisfied with the response to his efforts to increase awareness of the higher pig production welfare standards in this country? Like the measures that relate to BSE, those higher standards inevitably increase UK production costs. Or do people who are prepared to write to Members of Parliament asking them to vote for higher welfare standards then prefer to buy cheap imports when the laws are passed?
    Mr. Brown: I am not satisfied that we are doing enough to secure the premium that the industry ought to be able to gain in the marketplace. I have secured some extra money for marketing initiatives and made it clear that the pig sector has a first call on it. I hope that it will be possible this year to do more to explain to consumers the advantages of UK production methods—not just the fact that the process is free of meat and bonemeal, but that the pigs are raised free of stall and tether systems. Those are the animal welfare standards that our constituents asked us to vote for back in 1991.
    Sir Robert Smith: Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that British pig farmers are unique in facing extra costs because of the BSE crisis? They are going out of production while their international competitors stay in production. When the market picks up, yet another British industry will no longer exist to supply it. Will he assure the industry that if any way can be found in Europe to see our farmers through the crisis by helping with their BSE costs, he and the Treasury will find the money?
    Mr. Brown: As I said in my answer to the initial question, I acknowledge, as the previous Government did, that this country's public safety measures impose extra costs on the livestock industry. Those costs are not confined to the cattle sector, but impact on the pig sector. The Government have never sought to disguise the fact that the sector is in crisis. I have tried to devise workable measures that will help to get the industry through. We have discussed a range of measures in the House. I intend to continue with my efforts.
    Mrs. Janet Dean: Many people would choose to buy British if they could be sure that the labelling was correct. What progress is being made to ensure that labelling accurately reflects the country of origin?
    Mr. Brown: As the House will know, I have put the trading standards guidelines issued by Department out to consultation. We have the results of that consultation and I hope to have more to say about that within a matter of days. My hon. Friend is right. If we are asking consumers to support the industry, they must have clear and accurate information.
    Mr. William Thompson: The Minister of Agriculture in the Republic of Ireland recently announced £1 million of European state aid to pig farmers there, particularly relating to the border counties. What does the Minister know about that? If the Republic of Ireland can get state aid from the European Union for its pig farmers, why cannot he get it for our pig farmers in the United Kingdom?
    Mr. Brown: I am meeting my counterpart, Joe Walsh, this month to discuss these and other issues on which we have a shared interest, but I suspect that Minister Walsh will say that the United Kingdom Government paid out aid following the fire in Northern Ireland and that the industry in southern Ireland is claiming to be similarly affected. I suspect that that will be his reply, but I await discussions with the Minister.
    Mr. Lindsay Hoyle: I am sure that my right hon. Friend is aware that as pig farmers are going out of business in the United Kingdom, an increasing number of people are going into the pork industry elsewhere in the EU. Given the strength of the pound, would not this be a good time for us to subsidise pig feed as the cost of grain is a significant factor due to the health and welfare standards that have rightly been introduced? Would not subsidising the cost of feed be a good way of helping the industry at this time?
    Mr. Brown: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that there are unique features to the crisis in the United Kingdom, but the crisis itself is not unique to the United Kingdom. The EU market is oversupplied and there are difficulties in the pig sector in the United States and eastern Europe. The problem is not confined to the EU. I cannot unilaterally introduce specific state aids just for the United Kingdom as that would breach the agreement that we have made in the EU.
    Mr. Tim Yeo: The Minister is presiding over the biggest fall in the United Kingdom pig herd and the largest number of job losses in pig farming in any recent period. It took him a year even to issue a consultation document about guidance on labelling; it took him four months and a great deal of prodding by the Conservatives—[Interruption.] The Minister seems to find it amusing,—before he troubled to carry out his promise to the House to write to public authorities urging
    408
    them to make their pig meat purchases from sources which meet UK standards. He misled the House, or very nearly, on that matter—[Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order.
    Mr. Brown: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. The charge of misleading the House is a very serious one. I have not misled the House.
    Madam Speaker: Exactly. I am about to ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw that remark.
    Mr. Yeo: I withdraw the charge of misleading the House. Let me recount the facts. On 1 July the Minister told the House that he would have letters on his desk ready to go out to public authorities. When Conservative Members questioned him four months later, those letters had not been sent. I am happy to put those facts on the record now, but the question is how many more hundreds or thousands of pig farmers will lose their businesses before the Minister offers any practical steps to meet the £5 a pig in extra costs that have been imposed on farmers for public health reasons.
    Mr. Brown: The last Conservative Government, who introduced the meat and bonemeal regulations, did not meet the costs either. In a previous debate on the matter—this is much trawled ground—when I asked the hon. Gentleman why not, he said that the economic circumstances were different. Of course that answer ruined any case that we might make to the Commission as, on the hon. Gentleman's own definition, it would be a case for economic aid. The Commission would have to reject any such request.
    The hon. Gentleman is doing down the British pig farmers. He referred to the letters to local authorities. They were part of a co-ordinated campaign with the industry that we agreed to launch in the autumn rather than in the summer when people would be away and the campaign would become unfocused. That has been explained to the House before. The Conservatives were in government for 18 years. None of the measures that they urge upon me now was put into practice when they were in government.

    HLCA
    Mr. Gerald Howarth: What assessment he has made of the impact of proposed changes to the hill livestock compensatory allowances on hill farmers' incomes. [103772]
    The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Ms Joyce Quin): There will be some changes in support between producers but the impact will vary according to their individual circumstances. The changes are being introduced gradually so that producers have time to adjust, but we believe they are part of the positive agricultural and rural development strategy outlined by my right hon. Friend the Minister in his statement to the House on 7 December 1999.
    Mr. Howarth: I am sure that the Minister will recognise that Aldershot is not over-endowed with hills,

    409
    let alone hill fanners, but my family have fanned the hills of the borders of Scotland for centuries. Is the Minister aware of the serious crisis that is affecting hill farmers throughout the United Kingdom? Their incomes are forecast to fall to a mere £2,000 and only 15 per cent. of hill farmers are aged under 40. The industry has also been hit severely by the huge rises in petrol and diesel taxes. Will she confirm that the Government will not reduce the level of financial support to those custodians of our remote rural heritage until such time as average incomes have returned to acceptable and adequate levels? If so, will she set out what she considers those levels to be?
    Ms Quin: I welcome the hon. Gentleman's interest in the important question of hill fanning, despite the fact that hill farmers are not numerous in Aldershot. I hope that he will recognise that the Government have shown commitment to hill fanning through the measures that we have taken. Indeed, the maintenance of the £60 million increase in the hill livestock compensatory allowance this year is a clear example. The measures that we have announced recognise the environmental and social role that hill farming plays in our countryside as well as the important question of the livelihoods of hill farmers.
    Mr. Barry Jones: What new research has my right hon. Friend initiated into the future of the communities on the upper slopes? Does she acknowledge the great difficulties in growing meat on those hill sides, which are cold, wet and sour, and where family farms are now at considerable risk? Does she agree that the greater problem is the very communities on the uplands, not least in Wales? What new initiatives can be taken, bearing in mind that it is obvious that the Ministry wishes to help?
    Ms Quin: I thank my right hon. Friend for his question. We have pursued the issue in several ways—partly by direct support and partly through the consultation that the Ministry undertook on the future of the hill farming sector and payments to hill farmers. We believe that the proposals that we made strike a good balance between economic and environmental considerations and we are aware that great concern is felt throughout the House, my right hon. Friend's constituency and the country that we get those considerations right.
    Mr. David Curry: Does the Minister accept that her consultation paper was a tribute to the literacy of British farmers? Does she agree that the amount available for the scheme in England is falling from £42 million to £27 million? Does she further agree that if she really wants to gain environmental benefits from the scheme it will eventually have to be differentiated according to land cover and the carrying capacity of the land? Otherwise, one flat rate scheme will simply be replaced by another and the Minister's aims will not be delivered.
    Ms Quin: The latter point is a serious and important one, and I assure the right hon. Gentleman that we are well aware of those considerations. The consultation process was worth while because of the responses that we received. Indeed, the written consultation was only part of the process, because we also had consultations about the implementation of Agenda 2000 generally in meetings
    410
    throughout the country with hill farmers and others. We are determined to keep that dialogue going. What is being proposed is only one element of the support for hill farming. As the right hon. Gentleman will know, most of the subsidy that goes to hill farmers will continue as livestock payments.
    Mr. Russell Brown: Can my right hon. Friend confirm that the cost to taxpayers in direct payments to hill farmers is some £700 million a year? Despite that sum, hill farmers are still in a difficult situation. Is not it time that we looked again at the way in which supporting hill farmers has not been as helpful as we would have expected and hoped it to be and that we tried to make that support more effective?
    Ms Quin: I can confirm the figure that my hon. Friend quoted, which shows that hill farmers receive a large amount of financial support. However, I should also like to commend to the House the direction in which Government policy is moving. In the negotiations in which we have taken part we have achieved some success in changing the thrust of common agricultural policy support, away from direct payments and towards more general rural development. Our proposals in relation to the UK will help hill farming change the basis of its finance and support in the future.
    However, given the severity of the current depression in agriculture, we must accept that such measures must be introduced gradually to avoid tremendous disruption.
    Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: The Government are very proud of their introduction of the national minimum wage, but most hill farmers earn nothing like that amount. They farm some of the most difficult areas of our countryside, which would be a lot poorer without their stewardship. They ask me what their future will be: how would the Minister respond to that question?
    Ms Quin: The answer is that the Government are providing substantial levels of support for such farmers, as the hon. Gentleman knows as well as I. We are delighted to have introduced the national minimum wage. The Conservative party opposed that, but perhaps the hon. Gentleman is a dissident on the issue. However, we have also supported the continuation of minimum arrangements for agricultural workers.

    Organic Farming
    Mr. Alan Simpson: What plans he has to increase support for organic farm conversion. [103773]
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Elliot Morley): On 7 December 1999, my right hon. Friend the Minister announced the Government's plans for spending on the rural development programme for England. Under these plans, £140 million will be available over the life of the programme for aid for conversion to organic farming.
    Mr. Simpson: I congratulate my hon. Friend on taking organic farming seriously—something that the previous Conservative did not do in their 18-year dynasty of

    411
    agricultural disasters. However, will he confirm that the legacy of neglect from those years still leaves the UK with less than 1.5 per cent. of its agricultural land devoted to organic farming production? That is less than half the European average, in terms of investment in organic farming.
    The Welsh Assembly has set a target of achieving 10 per cent. organic production by 2005. The Danish Government have set a target of trebling organic fanning production by the same date, and of having 50 per cent. of all agricultural production coming from organic farms by 2010. In Austria, 10 per cent. of agricultural production already is organic, and the country plans to take that level to 50 per cent. in some sectors within a couple of years.
    Will the Minister come back to the House and set targets for organic farm production in the UK so that we will be back among the best in Europe, rather than just one of the rest?
    Mr. Morley: The latest figures show that 3 per cent. of land has been converted to organic farming. Since last April, the area of such land has increased by 400 per cent. In the five years up to last April, only 400 fanners undertook that conversion, but since last April, 1,200 have done so. That shows the depth of the Government's commitment to organic farming.
    My hon. Friend asked about targets. Targets can be useful in terms of fixing aspirations and underlining commitment, and the Government have studied the matter carefully. However, we want to expand the organic sector only to the extent that the market will accept. If targets are set too high—if production is driven on beyond what the market can stand—the market can be damaged. If they are set too low, there is no incentive for continued expansion.
    We consider that we should expand organic farming in an open-ended way, as far as the market will allow. That huge boost of £140 million in the rural development programme will allow us to do that.
    Mr. David Tredinnick: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that £140 million is nothing like enough? Given the increased demand in this country for organic food, and the fact that the high prices militate against poorer people who are excluded from buying these products at a time when more and more people are concerned about additives, does not the hon. Gentleman think that he should reassess the budget and support for organic farmers? The Government must recognise that times have changed and that more money should be made available.
    Mr. Morley: We are currently reviewing the organic sector and the rates of payment. However, I remind Opposition Members that the Government have doubled the rates of conversion payment, which is why there has been a massive increase in organic conversion. We see this as the beginning, not the end. This substantial amount of money allows great expansion. We will keep the situation under review.
    Joan Ruddock: May I congratulate my hon. Friend on the very large increase in money for conversion? But may I remind him that the money that the Government give to research and
    412
    development in organic farming is just one third of the money given to research in genetic engineering in agriculture? Given the huge demand for organic food in recent times, particularly by people who wish to avoid eating genetically modified organisms, will my hon. Friend consider raising that research and development budget to reflect the concerns of consumers and give a very much needed boost to British agriculture?
    Mr. Morley: I know that my hon. Friend has been very active in promoting the organic sector. However, I must correct her on one point: the actual budget for genetic research is very similar to that for organic research. I think that my hon. Friend is confusing that with the biotechnology budget, which covers issues such as research into the effects of pesticides on food.
    We have doubled the budget as part of our commitment to the organic sector. It is important to maintain not just support for research and development but practical advice to the organic information helpline. We shall be considering those issues in the current review.
    Mr. Colin Breed: In the light of the Minister's plans to support organic farming, would he consider protecting organic farmers from cross-pollination from GM crops? Is he aware of today's independent report from the National Pollen Research Unit, which indicates that there is a high risk of cross-pollination between source and recipient fields for as much as up to 4 km? Farmers converting to organic production need protection as well as aid. In advance of the spring planting, will the Minister take action to increase the very inadequate isolation distances between such fields?
    Mr. Morley: The separation distances between organic and GM crops are based on current best practice, which has been in place for many years. The Government are funding detailed research on cross-pollination and potential cross-contamination. The research is being carried out by a consortium led by the Institute for Terrestrial Ecology. It is looking into the whole issue, including aspects such as headlands and field margins. Wildlife will also be sampled, including vascular plants, arthropods and, on the ground, so will plants, caterpillars, slugs, snails, bees, butterflies, seed banks and earthworms.
    A great deal of research is being carried out into GM and organic crops. If it demonstrates that the present separation differences which, as I said, are based on established practice, are inadequate, there will be changes to the guidelines.

    World Trade
    Mr. Peter Luff: If he will make a statement on the progress in talks to liberalise world trade in agricultural products. [103776]
    The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Nick Brown): Negotiations on the further liberalisation of agricultural trade were mandated by the 1994 World Trade Organisation agreement on agriculture. The negotiations will go ahead this year in spite of the suspension in Seattle of talks on a wider round of trade

    413
    negotiations. The agricultural negotiations are based on article 20 of the agreement on agriculture, which follows the Uruguay round.
    Mr. Luff: I thank the Minister for that helpful clarification. Does he agree that trade liberalisation poses many challenges and threats, and offers many opportunities to United Kingdom food and farming industries? That is why the Agriculture Committee has made it one of its major subjects of inquiry in this Session. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that there is a major threat to UK animal welfare standards? Will he give the House a reassurance that he will put at the centre of his negotiating strategy the concerns of British farmers who wish to maintain high standards of animal welfare, but risk being undercut by cheaper imports from countries with much lower standards?
    Mr. Brown: As the hon. Gentleman is the Chairman of the Select Committee on Agriculture, he will know that I take animal welfare issues very seriously indeed. I have raised the point that he made at the Council of Ministers—formally, on behalf of the UK Government, and separately, in the margins, with the Commission and with other Ministers. There is a view among EU Ministers that animal welfare issues are important, but that we must protect the EU from exporting its industries. As we set higher standards internally, we must put our industries at a competitive advantage. The task for Ministers is to find a way of preserving the animal welfare polices for which we strive and of improving them, but to do so in a non-trade distorting manner.
    Mr. Ian Cawsey: When my right hon. Friend holds negotiations on the world trade in agricultural products, will he push for a change in the classification of livestock from agricultural products to sentient beings—as has already been done in the EU? If that change were adopted worldwide, it would not only be a tremendous boost for British farmers, but would be widely supported throughout the whole country.
    Mr. Brown: There are several possible ways forward. The important point is to achieve our objectives and to do so in a non-trade distorting way. The danger for the EU is that we increase standards within the EU, but find that we have exported our industries. That would be a defeat for animal welfare as well as for farmers. We are trying to avoid that.
    Mr. Roger Gale: The right hon. Gentleman will be fully aware that when animal welfare considerations have been raised at previous World Trade Organisation discussions, they have always eventually been used as a trade-off for issues that other people regard as more important. Will he give the House an absolute assurance that animal welfare—to UK standards—is at the top of his agenda, and that it will not be used merely as a bargaining chip for other issues?
    Mr. Brown: Animal welfare is an important—indeed integral—part of the UK's agenda for these complex discussions on agricultural reform and trade liberalisations; it most certainly is not a bargaining chip for other pieces of the negotiation.

    Food Standards Agency (EU)
    Mr. Gordon Prentice: If he has been consulted on the European Commission's proposals for a food standards agency; and if he will make a statement. [103777]
    The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Ms Joyce Quin): The European Commission published a White Paper on food safety yesterday, outlining proposals for such a body. The Government support the idea in principle, and will consider the detailed proposals in the White Paper carefully.
    Mr. Prentice: That is good. However, over recent years we have all been sickened by stomach churning tales of sewage in animal feedstuffs, dioxins in meat in Belgium, antibiotic growth promoters, salmonella, listeria and BSE—what a catalogue. Following yesterday's announcement, there are suggestions in the press that this new European food standards agency is neither fish nor fowl—[Interruption.] A louder groan please. But seriously, what will be the relationship between the European food standards agency and the domestic Food Standards Agency? Would the Government prefer the European agency to have regulatory powers, or simply to be advisory?
    Ms Quin: We need to ensure that European decisions and our national safeguards are complementary. We also need a system whereby European rules—once agreed by all member states—are properly implemented. In introducing his proposals yesterday, Commissioner Byrne expressed confidence that they would deliver a more effective system both as regards consumer confidence and for the operation of the EU market where EU rules had clearly been agreed. We welcome those assurances, but as more detailed proposals will be submitted, which will be discussed by national Governments as well as by the European institutions, it will be important to ensure that the detail is correct.
    Mr. Christopher Gill: Yesterday's announcement presages a European food authority. Can the Minister confirm that the initial proposals envisage the appointment of 150 officials in the short term, rising to a total of 600, and that one of their tasks will be to produce something like 84 additional legislative measures, including a new hygiene directive? Does the Minister accept that it is most likely that all of that new legislation from Europe will override national legislation? Is not this another instance of competence passing from this House to the European Community?
    Was the launch of our own Food Standards Agency yesterday deliberately timed to coincide with the White Paper launched in Brussels yesterday? Does this explain the acceleration of the progress of the Food Standards Bill through the last Session of Parliament? Is there—
    Madam Speaker: Order. I think that those are enough questions to be going on with.
    Ms Quin: The hon. Gentleman's comments have left me mystified by the Opposition's policy. Is it a policy of allowing each country to do what it wants, which seems

    415
    to be a recipe for chaos? Or is it one of seeking to have an effective system in the internal market, which the Opposition tell us they support? What the hon. Gentleman says is at enormous variance with what the Conservative party's agriculture spokesmen in the European Parliament seem to be saying. They want a bigger European Union body, not a smaller one.
    Ms Sally Keeble: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the improvement of food standards across Europe is of great importance to my constituents, who are concerned about the safety of food coming into this country? Will she assure me that our Food Standards Agency will play an important role in ensuring that the standards across Europe—with or without its own agency—will be improved? I welcome the appointment of Sir John Krebs, as having such an eminent scientist at the head of our FSA will be extremely important in driving up standards across Europe, as well as at home.
    Ms Quin: I welcome my hon. Friend's comments, particularly the latter ones. We believe that the appointment of Sir John Krebs—and the rest of the governing body of the FSA—is good news. There is a good balance, and there are people with excellent qualifications to ensure a successful start to the FSA. I recognise the concerns of my hon. Friend's constituents, and I can assure her and the House that we have been proactive in this respect. We have worked with the Commission and given it information about our work on food safety and on the way in which the Government have implemented our manifesto pledge on setting up our own Food Standards Agency.
    Mr. Tim Yeo: At a time when the European Commission cannot even make the single market rules apply to France on the issue of British beef exports, why does the Minister believe that it is sensible to establish a huge new costly and bureaucratic agency, whose advice would no doubt be followed meticulously in Britain at great cost to British producers, but would be ignored by many producers abroad—and thus would reinforce the unlevel playing field that is already doing so much damage to British industry?
    Ms Quin: Again, the hon. Gentleman's comments seem to be completely at variance with what Conservative MEPs are saying. They say that they want a bigger and, presumably, more expensive body. We want a system whereby countries which have accepted rules actually respect and implement them. In that respect, I very much welcome some of the ideas in the Commission's White Paper, which will be looked at in detail. For example, there is a proposal that the European Commission be empowered to fine members for breaching EU food standards, without having to wait for a court ruling. That is particularly relevant, given our present dispute with the French.

    Farm Businesses
    Mr. Brian White: What action he is taking to assist in the development of economically viable farm businesses. [103778]
    The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Nick Brown): As I announced in the House on 7 December 1999, I am redirecting some farming support and the Government are providing new funding to provide more help for fanners to modernise, to diversify and to farm in a more environmentally beneficial way. I am also providing support for improved marketing. I am studying the reports of the three working groups that I set up to review regulatory burdens.
    Mr. White: My right hon. Friend will be aware that the rural development plan—and, in particular, the extra money that he has secured from the Treasury—has been widely welcomed. Does he accept that the knee-jerk reaction of the Opposition in calling for more subsidies and fewer taxes is not the way forward? Will he require, under the forthcoming rural White Paper, organisations such as regional development agencies, planning authorities and so on to pay more heed to farmers' voices?
    Mr. Brown: My hon. Friend is absolutely right—the way forward for British agriculture is to get closer to the marketplace. It should consider the demand side rather than try to supplement the supply side of the common agricultural policy.
    Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: The right hon. Gentleman will know that I, like many Members, have hundreds of upland farmers in my constituency whose businesses are no longer viable. What positive advice and assistance can he give such farmers in the midst of this crisis? If he has none, is not it time for him to step aside and make way for a Minister who will take the crisis seriously?
    Mr. Brown: In view of the substantial amount of support that I have announced since I became the Minister responsible for those who farm less-favoured areas, the hon. Gentleman's remarks are unfair and unworthy. The truth is that there is a great deal in the rural development plan for hill farmers. They should proportionately be the beneficiaries of what has been announced.
    Mr. David Taylor: The rural development plan is most welcome in country areas, such as those that I and my colleagues represent. Is my right hon. Friend optimistic that it will herald the end of the annual emergency aid cycle of packages to farmers and replace that with sustainable support that will produce a viable and profitable method of agriculture?
    Mr. Brown: It is my objective to get away from emergency aid packages that consider the supply side—they have been the only way of providing immediate assistance to the sector—and to move towards sustainable policies that will give the industry support in a way that is decoupled from production and less vulnerable to the short-term effects of the marketplace. That is the thinking behind the rural development measure.
    Mr. James Paice: I want to return to consideration of the pig industry, which is one of the least economically viable of all agricultural industries. Twice in his earlier comments, the Minister said that the BSE controls on pigs were to do with public protection and public safety. Those were his words, and

    417
    I think that that will be proven in Hansard. Therefore, will he explain the difference between a British pig farmer who, for public safety, suffers innocently from those BSE controls but receives no support from the European Union or the Government, and a Belgian pig farmer who suffered equally innocently from the dioxin controls but received compensation from the EU?
    Rather than blaming the Opposition for what we did or did not do in government, will the Minister turn his concern into action, go to the Commission—not send an official—and make the case that British pig farmers should be compensated for those public safety controls?
    Mr. Brown: If the hon. Gentleman believes so passionately in the case that he has just put, why did not his Government do precisely that when the regulations were introduced? [Interruption.] It is no good Opposition Members shouting that that is not the question—it is precisely the question that the Commission would ask me if we were to make such a request. In speaking on behalf of the Conservative party, the hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) said that it viewed such an intervention as economic aid. That would rule out the Commission giving permission for it.

    Common Fisheries Policy
    Dr. Julian Lewis: What progress he has made in securing the support of his European counterparts for the reform of the common fisheries policy. [103780]
    Mr. Michael Jabez Foster: What steps he is taking to reform the common fisheries policy. [103781]
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Elliot Morley): The Government will continue to take every opportunity to secure improvements to the common fisheries policy, to make it a more effective instrument for conserving fish stocks while securing the best possible conditions for the UK industry.
    Given the recent tragic news, I am sure that the whole House will join me when I express my sincere condolences to the family and friends of the crew of the Solway Harvester, which was recently lost in the Irish sea.
    Dr. Lewis: I am sure that the whole House endorses what the Minister has just said about the tragedy of the Solway Harvester.
    In the Minister's negotiations with his European colleagues about the common fisheries policy, the Government do not seem to have had much success on the issue of landing sizes, for which restrictions on 11 categories of fish have recently been removed. Fish in eight of those categories have a good chance of survival if they are returned to the sea. Will not the removal of restrictions have a seriously damaging effect on future fish stocks?
    Mr. Morley: Minimum landing sizes are an important issue, but they must be associated with technical conservation measures. The hon. Gentleman is quite wrong—we reversed the minimum landing size reduction
    418
    on plaice, for example, and we negotiated with other European countries to make it possible to do that unilaterally if the Commission did not agree.
    Mr. Foster: I congratulate my hon. Friend on the efforts that he made at the Fisheries Council because he did an extremely good job in a difficult situation. Fishermen in Hastings and Rye are in any case natural conservationists and they acknowledge and accept the need for some reductions. How will my hon. Friend make sure that other nation states are equally effective in enforcing the new provisions?
    Mr. Morley: When I met fishermen from my hon. Friend's constituency they made several important points about conservation, which influenced the recent consultation on the inshore sector, and which we have extended to the whole UK sector. To ensure that there is equal enforcement, the new control measures introduced by the European Union will, for the first time, ensure that the same standards of enforcement and control are applied across all member states, and there is an element of independent inspection by the Commission itself to make sure that that is the case.
    Several hon. Members rose—
    Madam Speaker: Order. It is very disappointing that in three quarters of an hour we have reached only eight questions. I am sure that many Back Benchers as well as Front Benchers are very disappointed, too. I am sorry that I have not been able to call many of the hon. Members who have been rising, wanting to speak on most of the issues. I hope that we can make better progress, not only at Agriculture questions, but at all questions, and that questions as well as answers are not as long as they are now tending to be.

  The Solicitor-General was asked—
  SOLICITOR-GENERAL

    Rights of Access
    Dr. Julian Lewis: If he will make a statement on rights of access to prosecuting lawyers by victims of crime. [R] [103802]
    The Solicitor-General (Mr. Ross Cranston): There are professional rules of conduct that govern how much communication a prosecution advocate can have with a witness in a criminal case. In some circumstances, however, direct contact between the victim and the prosecutor is both important and necessary either before or after the trial. The Crown Prosecution Service and the Law Officers are committed to ensuring that direct contact does take place in appropriate circumstances.
    Dr. Lewis: I declare an interest because I was a witness in a case in which the conditions were skewed greatly toward the defendant because he had direct access to his lawyers, whereas I, as the alleged victim, had little or no access to the lawyers bringing the prosecution case. If the Solicitor-General is saying that he is satisfied with the present situation, I must tell him that many victims of

    419
    crime are not. Will he consider more closely ensuring access by victims of crime to the lawyers who are supposed to be bringing the prosecution, with a view to evening up that unjust imbalance?
    The Solicitor-General: The House will know that we take very seriously the position of victims, and we are considering a range of measures to improve that. There has been extensive discussion with the hon. Gentleman, who was the subject of untrue and scurrilous allegations. A prosecution was undertaken, but unfortunately that failed for technical reasons on appeal. I explained in my answer, and it has been explained to the hon. Gentleman, that the prosecutor is acting not for the victim, but in the public interest. There has to be some access to those lawyers, but the situation is not the same as with defence counsel, who represent a particular person.
    Mr. David Kidney: The hon. Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) has a good point. One way to open a channel of communication with victims would be through the use of victim impact statements. If we could avoid the excesses of the American system of using statements, they would be a valuable tool to enable the courts and prosecutors to understand the victims' point of view and the effect of the crime on them. Are any discussions taking place to try to introduce a reasonable system for using victim impact statements in British courts?
    The Solicitor-General: The Home Office is considering a range of measures, including victim impact statements. There has been a pilot project and a report was produced shortly before Christmas. There are difficulties, but they are not insuperable. The Home Office is considering those and other measures.

    European Convention on Human Rights
    Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: When (a) he and (b) the Attorney-General last met the Secretary of State for the Home Department to discuss the implementation of the European convention on human rights. [103803]
    The Solicitor-General (Mr. Ross Cranston): The Attorney-General and I regularly meet the Home Secretary and Home Office Ministers to discuss matters of common interest, including human rights. In addition, I am a member of the human rights task force, which is chaired by the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. O'Brien), and which includes representatives from a range of human rights groups.
    Mr. Mackinlay: Will my hon. and learned Friend counsel my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary that there is a serious deficiency in our statute law in relation to our obligations under the European convention on human rights? European judges will note that the Crown has been reminded of this by the British legislature. We have no public interest defence under the Official Secrets Act 1989. No doubt the Ponting jury took account of that.
    The French courts, recently and embarrassingly for the United Kingdom, declined to meet our extradition requests in relation to David Shayler. The Foreign Office
    420
    is embarrassed when trying to argue on behalf of, for example, people in the Russian Federation who have leaked information about the deterioration of nuclear weapons and nuclear plants. It is time that we remedied the omission by ensuring that there are adequate defence opportunities when charges are made under the Official Secrets Act.
    The Solicitor-General: The Human Rights Act 1998 does not amend the Official Secrets Act 1989. My hon. Friend will know that all legislation, including the Official Secrets Act, must be interpreted in conformity with the Human Rights Act. In addition, all public authorities, including the security services, must act in conformity with that Act. In any prosecution, including one under the Official Secrets Act, the defendant can raise a human rights point. That three-pronged attack does not exactly address my hon. Friend's concern, but it may give him some comfort.
    Mr. John Burnett: In the interests of open government, will the Solicitor-General explain to the House the process adopted by the Government before a statement of compatibility with the convention is added to a Bill?
    The Solicitor-General: Every Minister must sign a certificate and every Minister receives detailed advice from his or her lawyers. In some cases, my Department will be involved. There will be a detailed statement, which will go to the Cabinet Committee on Legislation. The section 19 statement is backed by a detailed analysis undertaken by Government officials.
    Mr. John Bercow: Does not the European convention on human rights give the right to parents to ensure that their children can be educated in accordance with the philosophical convictions of those parents? Might not the convention prove an invaluable tool and defence mechanism in the event that the malicious and stupid regulations of the Government were to lead to the abolition of a single grammar school?
    The Solicitor-General: Some of the hon. Gentleman's comments are tendentious—[Interruption.] In fact, all of them are. He is right to say that parents have a right to educate their children as they wish. However, there is a range of other rights as well, all of which are important.

    CPS
    Dr. Stephen Ladyman: What measures are being taken to ensure that the views of the Crown Prosecution Service at all levels are taken into account as the reforms of the CPS are implemented. [103804]
    The Solicitor-General (Mr. Ross Cranston): Proper consultation with all staff is essential for the reform programme. The CPS is approaching that in an open and inclusive way. The trade unions have been consulted throughout and the membership of the working groups steering the reforms in the CPS has been drawn widely from across the service. The CPS has also set up a

    421
    sounding-board network, which is designed to provide an additional regular forum for staff at all levels to inform and monitor the reforms.
    Dr. Ladyman: I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend for that answer. When I visited the CPS office in Canterbury before the reforms were announced, I found the staff there very much looking forward to the reforms and wanting to be closely involved in making them work. Will my hon. and learned Friend assure me that senior CPS staff will be visiting local area offices and talking to staff at all levels to receive their feedback? Will he also assure me that trade unionists in local branches will be involved? Will there be anything more formal and objective than the sounding board appears to be, which will ensure that the views of all staff are taken into account?
    The Solicitor-General: I thank my hon. Friend for visiting his local office. I received a detailed report of that visit, which was obviously useful. More detailed work than I specified in the initial answer is being done. A survey and stress audit among all members of staff is to be carried out. The trade unions are closely involved—for example, trade union representatives sit on the equality committee and the working group on race. There is a regular programme of visits by managers, and the Attorney-General and I also have a regular system of visiting all offices around the country.
    Mr. Edward Garnier: One of the matters that the Solicitor-General will no doubt want to take into account is the current and future budget of the Crown Prosecution Service. How much will the CPS have spent on its own behalf and on behalf of Spain in the Pinochet case, and what proportion of the CPS's annual budget does that sum represent?
    The Solicitor-General: I cannot give the detailed figures, but I shall write to the hon. and learned Gentleman. Questions have been answered on the matter. As a result of a decision of the divisional court, the arrangement in this country is that the CPS acts as the agent of a foreign state—in the case that the hon. and learned Gentleman raised, Spain—and accepts instructions, as does any lawyer from a client. That arrangement was laid down by the divisional court. Some may question that policy, but that is the law. I will come back to the hon. and learned Gentleman with the detailed response to his inquiries.
    Dr. George Turner: My own visit to the local Crown Prosecution Service left me less than overwhelmed by the support provided by information
    422
    technology. Will my hon. and learned Friend ensure that efficient IT, which any modernised prosecution service needs, will be available to the CPS?
    The Solicitor-General: Again, I commend my hon. Friend for visiting his local CPS. IT is important. The CPS does not have sufficient IT. At a previous Question Time, I said that under the modernisation programme from the Treasury, the CPS has £12 million to introduce IT. That will be done in the near future. There is also a more detailed programme to ensure that the criminal justice system is joined-up, IT-wise, so that the police can communicate with the prosecutors, the courts and so on.
    Mr. Stephen O'Brien: What measures his Department uses to monitor the performance of the Crown Prosecution Service in terms of cases taken forward for prosecution. [103805]
    The Solicitor-General (Mr. Ross Cranston): The performance of the Crown Prosecution Service is monitored against a range of measures. Those include the proportion of dismissals—no case to answer—in magistrates courts and non-jury acquittals in the Crown court, where the outcome is attributable to failure in the review process. Information on the number and proportion of cases resulting in an adverse outcome, and on the reason for that result, is collected by the CPS and is used to identify areas requiring improvement.
    Mr. O'Brien: I listened carefully to the Solicitor-General's answer and to the answers he has given previously, which have been of a general nature. What practical steps are being taken specifically to liaise with the victims of crime and to keep them informed of the progress of cases? How about a weekly or fortnightly telephone call, e-mail or letter? That contact should be measured, so that victims of crime can monitor how matters are progressing from their point of view.
    The Solicitor-General: I can tell the House that we are piloting recommendations made in the Macpherson and the Glidewell reports that the CPS should be the contact with the victim. At present, the police are the contact. That means that sometimes messages may be garbled. We are working towards a system where the prosecutors will be the point of contact with victims, which should greatly improve the arrangements to which the hon. Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) referred earlier.
    Mr. Paul Flynn: Can the Solicitor-General examine the processes that resulted in the possibly malicious prosecution of two people in Cambridge—known as the Cambridge Two—
    Madam Speaker: Order. The case is subject to appeal and is therefore sub judice.

Business of the House
12.30 pm
Sir Patrick Cormack: May I ask the Leader of the House if she would be kind enough to announce the business for next week?
The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Margaret Beckett): The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 17 JANUARY—Opposition Day [2nd Allotted Day].
Until about 7 o'clock, there will be a debate on "Meeting the Needs of Pensioners" followed by a debate entitled "Protecting Post Office Services". Both motions will arise in the name of the Liberal Democrats.
TUESDAY 18 JANUARY—Opposition Day [3rd Allotted Day].
Until about 7 o'clock, there will be a debate entitled "The Government's Mismanagement of Health Care in the United Kingdom" followed by a debate entitled "The Rising Cost and Reduced Accountability of Central Government". Both debates will arise on Opposition motions. They will be followed by a motion to approve the Administration Committee Report on the Line of Route.
WEDNESDAY 19 JANUARY—Remaining stages of the Representation of the People Bill.
Second Reading of the Fur Farming (Prohibition) Bill.
Second Reading of the Sea Fishing Grants (Charges) Bill.
THURSDAY 20 JANUARY—Remaining stages of the Electronic Communications Bill.
Debate on the Braithwaite Report on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
FRIDAY 21 JANUARY—The House will not be sitting.
The provisional business for the following week will be as follows:
MONDAY 24 JANUARY—Second Reading of the Disqualifications Bill.
The Chairman of Ways and Means is expected to name opposed private business for consideration at 7 o'clock.
TUESDAY 25 JANUARY—Remaining stages of the Disqualifications Bill.
WEDNESDAY 26 JANUARY—Progress of remaining stages of the Financial Services and Markets Bill.
THURSDAY 27 JANUARY—Conclusion of remaining stages of the Financial Services and Markets Bill.
FRIDAY 28 JANUARY—The first day of debating private Members' Bills.
It may be convenient for the House to know that the Easter recess will take place the week after Easter rather than the previous week.
Sir Patrick Cormack: I thank the right hon. Lady for giving us the business for next week and the following week. I also wish her a happy new year. I thank her for giving us an indication of the date of the Easter recess. Although we do not ask for a week off in February, can she state whether there will be such a week off so that hon. Members and members of staff can make appropriate
424
arrangements? If it is not announced soon, there is no point in having it—perhaps many of us would prefer that to be so.
Can the Leader of the House confirm which parts of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Bill will be taken on the Floor of the House, following the Home Secretary's statement earlier this week? Can she also confirm that the royal commission on the reform of the House of Lords is expected to report next week? Will there be a statement in the House and an early debate? Will the Government make plain their intentions for the joint Committee of both Houses, and will a Minister represent the Government on that Committee?
In the light of yesterday's statement by the Secretary of State for Defence, does the right hon. Lady accept that there is an urgent need for the defence debate that we have requested? It is unfortunate that such an important statement was made without debate in the House. Does she accept that yesterday's extraordinary statement by the Home Secretary underlines the need for a debate at the appropriate time not only on what is called the Pinochet affair, but on the inconsistency of the Government's treatment of aged people who are accused of serious crimes?
Will the right hon. Lady ensure that the House is kept regularly informed of the state of the influenza epidemic? In view of her creditable record of dealing with the millennium bug, will she ensure that the Government get better at dealing with the flu bug? May we have the date of the Budget statement, again so that Members can make appropriate arrangements, and, as I asked at the beginning of my remarks, can she give a very clear indication of the remainder of this parliamentary year?
Mrs. Beckett: First, I note that the hon. Gentleman says that he is not asking for a February week, and indeed indicated that he would be happy not to have one. That is certainly consistent with the fact that Conservative Members voted against having such a week, although not entirely consistent with all the private remarks that are made to me—but there we go. I entirely take his point, however, that the benefit of such a non-sitting week lies in the House having as early an indication of it as possible. He will recall that last year we were not able to provide a full week because of the pressure of business. I am not able to give him an indication as to what, if anything, the Government feel able to offer, but certainly hope to do so by next week. I apologise that I am not able to do so today; I would have wished to, but we are not in a position to do so yet.
The hon. Gentleman asked which parts of the Bill on funding will be taken on the Floor of the House. That is a matter for continuing discussion through the usual channels and I hope that we shall be able to reach broad agreement on it. He also asked about the date of publication and the handling of the Wakeham report—the royal commission report on Lords reform—and for a statement, an early debate and an indication of Joint Committee intentions. My understanding and expectation is that the report is likely to be published next week—probably next Thursday, I believe—and obviously the Government will have to weigh it when it emerges. I take on board his request for early observations on it. We shall have that under consideration and it can be discussed through the usual channels. I am not sure how early it will be possible to give an indication about handling in terms

425
of a Joint Committee, whether a Minister will sit on it and so on, but I shall bear his request in mind and convey it to colleagues.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the defence debate. He will know that the Defence Committee is urgently discussing the White Paper and we intend to have the debate as soon as possible. We have made it plain that we regret the delay. I was a little surprised that he said that it was extraordinary that yesterday's statement by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence was made without debate because there is nothing at all unusual about statements of Government intent being made before debate. The hon. Gentleman will know that it was well within the public domain that, following the decision of the European Court of Human Rights, the Government had indicated that they would have to take account of the decision, as every previous Government have done, and would reflect on it and make a statement in the House when a decision was made.
It seems to me that there was nothing in any way out of the ordinary about my right hon. Friend's statement, nor do I believe that there is anything extraordinary or inconsistent in my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary's handling of a number of extremely difficult cases in which matters of extradition or prosecution have come into question. In all those cases, he has, first, borne in mind his own very grave responsibilities—which of course do not include prosecuting or deciding to prosecute people, as he has made plain throughout—and always reflected the law and the way that those matters are handled through our courts. He has observed and applied that principle with consistency to all those different cases, in which decisions as to whether to prosecute and what the weight of evidence justifies are always matters for bodies other than the Home Secretary, and quite correctly so.
The hon. Gentleman asked us to keep the House informed about the progress of the influenza epidemic and I shall certainly draw that to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health. As to whether we handle that as well as we have the millennium bug—I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's kind remarks—I simply say to him that, even though it could justifiably have been argued that the Government had some responsibility in respect of the millennium bug, nobody can charge us with being responsible for the flu bug, although I have no doubt whatever that many Conservative Members will try.
I am not yet in a position to announce the date of the Budget statement, but I recognise that the announcement ought to be made fairly soon, and I will draw the matter to the attention of colleagues.
Finally, let me echo what the hon. Gentleman said, and wish him and the whole House a happy new year.
Mr. David Winnick: Leaving aside all the Pinochet defenders and apologists on the Tory Benches, may I ask my right hon. Friend to request the Home Secretary to give further consideration to putting the medical reports on Pinochet in the public domain, or at least allowing the Spanish judicial authorities to see the medical evidence about which the Home Secretary told us yesterday? I claim to speak for no one else, but I for one would be very sorry to see Pinochet returned to Chile without the conclusion of the necessary legal processes,
426
rather than that monstrous tyrant—as I described him earlier in the week—being sent to Spain, where he should be tried for his crimes against humanity.
Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend has strong views on this, which he has expressed clearly and consistently throughout. As he will recall, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary was asked yesterday about the release of medical evidence, and also about its possible release to the Spanish Government. My right hon. Friend dealt in part with those questions, and made it plain that it is not Government practice to release confidential medical evidence.
I remind my hon. Friend that Home Office questions will take place on Monday. He may have an opportunity to explore the position further then.
Mr. Andrew Stunell (Hazel Grove): I thank the Leader of the House for listening to what was said to her about the Representation of the People Bill, and allowing time for proper consideration before the Report stage on Wednesday.
Will the right hon. Lady find time in the next couple of weeks for a debate on the benefit uprating statement that we feel is due to the House? Will she recognise that, although taking the Government's proposals to restrict access to jury trials to the House of Lords is an entirely proper move, it also legitimises anything that the House of Lords may do to the legislation—especially given that the proposals were not in the Labour party manifesto and, indeed, are contrary to what was in it?
Mrs. Beckett: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his opening remarks. A valid point was made to us, and the Government always try to respond to genuine points relating to what is reasonable in the handling of business, from whatever quarter of the House those points may come. I will draw his observations about benefit uprating to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security, but I cannot give him a date for a debate at this stage.
The hon. Gentleman was right to suggest that views on the question of jury trials have evolved and, indeed, changed over time; but he will doubtless recall both that the move was recommended by a royal commission, and that it is supported by the Lord Chief Justice. As for his claim that the fact that legislation was initiated in the House of Lords legitimises anything that the Lords may choose to do, let me tell him that it is never wise to generalise, and, in particular, that it is never wise to encourage constitutional precedent on the basis of something that one happens to support on a certain occasion—I am thinking of the hon. Gentleman's opposition to the Criminal Justice (Mode of Trial) Bill—because it is likely to come back and bite one on another occasion.
Mr. Tony McWalter: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there are some rumblings, at least among Labour Members, about the possibility that the minimum wage may not be index-linked? Will she give an opportunity for those rumblings to become rather louder over the coming weeks?
Mrs. Beckett: I am aware that people are concerned that the minimum wage should be properly handled.

427
No decision has been taken on the uprating of the national minimum wage, whatever my hon. Friend may have read in the press, but the minimum wage was always handled through negotiation, rather than through a formulaic approach, whether with regard to inflation or anything else. Decisions will be made following Ministers' consideration of a Low Pay Commission report.
Although it has been extraordinarily valuable and defeated the nonsense that was talked by the Conservative party about its impact, the minimum wage has been going only for some nine months. Although I cannot promise my hon. Friend an early debate on the matter, I draw to his attention the fact that tabling takes place today, I believe, for the next Department of Trade and Industry Question Time.
Mr. Michael Jack: Earlier this week, the shadow Home Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe), drew the House's attention to the fact that the announcement about the Home Secretary's intentions on General Pinochet were made to the media, not to the House. What efforts will the Leader of the House make in the remainder of the Parliament to ensure that Ministers make important public announcements first to the House, and not to the media?
Mrs. Beckett: I am not sure whether the right hon. Gentleman was able to be present yesterday. Indeed, sometimes the Chamber is a little noisy, so it is not always easy to follow, but, had he been here, he would know that the Home Secretary made it plain that the Home Office did not make a statement to the media. What happened was that the Home Secretary's preliminary views were leaked to the media and the Home Office was then requested to confirm or deny them. He made it plain that he had intended to make an announcement first, in the proper way, through a written answer to the House. The right hon. Gentleman will know that the Home Secretary is one of the most punctilious Ministers with regard to such matters.
Mr. Andrew Miller: My right hon. Friend will remember that, in December 1998, we faced the depressing reality of not being ready for this century—at least that was the view of the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood), who never lets a fact get in the way of a soundbite. Just before the recess, my right hon. Friend gave a commitment to give a statement on progress on the millennium bug. Will she do that? It is important that we have the opportunity to put on record our thanks to public servants throughout the country, in central and local government, who led Britain's exercise and led the world in many respects.
Mrs. Beckett: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He is entirely right about the observations of the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood), who, when he was responsible for these matters—fortunately, it was not for long—made every effort to claim that, if anything went wrong, it would all be the Government's fault. However, I have heard him say nothing about how the Government deserve praise for things not going wrong in the aftermath of the changeover.
428
My hon. Friend is right. It is important that the House puts on record the enormous amount of work that was undertaken by many dedicated public servants, who, in the context of the millennium bug and of the millennium celebrations as a whole, gave up their free time to celebrate the holidays, so that the rest of us could do so in peace. I assure him that the Government intend to honour their commitment.
Mr. Peter Brooke: The Fur Farming (Prohibition) Bill and the Royal Parks (Trading) Bill were both casualties under private Member's Bill procedure last year, but both clearly existed as Bills in the previous Session and are now in the Government programme. Why does the Leader of the House believe that the Fur Farming (Prohibition) Bill is more urgent than the Royal Parks (Trading) Bill?
Mrs. Beckett: Such Bills are always a matter of fine calculation. The Royal Parks (Trading) Bill, were it to come before the House instead of the Fur Farming (Prohibition) Bill, would nevertheless probably not pass into law in sufficient time for it to make a difference as early as the right hon. Gentleman, understandably and legitimately, would wish. Therefore, there is no argument that one Bill is more urgent than the other. He will know that many Members and, indeed, members of the public, not least those in the fur farming industry, are anxious for the matter to be resolved. The Fur Farming (Prohibition) Bill is the only chance for businesses that are already in substantial difficulty to get compensation. They regret the action, not of the right hon. Gentleman, but of some of his right hon. and hon. Friends, in delaying that Bill last time.
Mr. John Cummings: Is my right hon. Friend aware that more than 150,000 ex-miners have lodged claims for chronic bronchitis, emphysema and vibration white finger, but that, under current procedures, it will take more than three years to settle those claims? Although we recognise the interest and efforts of the Minister with responsibility for those matters in making progress, several thousand ex-miners have died before their claims were considered, and several thousand more are expected to die in the next three years. Will she therefore agree to an urgent debate on that very important matter, and on other matters related to compensation for ex-miners?
Mrs. Beckett: I am, indeed, aware of the scale of the difficulties being experienced, and I know that my hon. Friend and other hon. Members—particularly those in the miners group—have pursued the matter assiduously. I agree with him—as does my right hon. Friend who speaks for the Government on those issues—that the position is unsatisfactory. I hope that my hon. Friend will be aware that a working party has been established to determine what can be done to speed up settlement of those claims. Ministers have repeatedly striven to do everything that can be done to speed up the handling of cases and the settlement of matters, and we shall continue to pursue the issue.

429
I cannot promise my hon. Friend an urgent debate in Government time on the matter—it is open to him, of course, to apply for an Adjournment debate—but assure him that the Government have the matter under review and will continue to press forward on it.
Rev. Martin Smyth: The Leader of the House will be aware—as are some hon. Members—that, while we have been keeping an eye on East Timor, there have been other events in Indonesia. Is it possible for a Foreign and Commonwealth Office Minister to make a statement in the House next week on the representations that have been made on what seems to be another form of ethnic cleansing—in which, on the latest figures, up to 5,000 people have died?
Is it necessary to consider the Disqualifications Bill in Committee the day after Second Reading—bearing in mind that, when the House rushes business through, we often make mistakes?
Mrs. Beckett: On East Timor, I am aware of the other difficulties that have arisen in that part of the world. Although it is unlikely that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office will be able to make a statement on the matter, I remind the hon. Gentleman that Foreign Office Question Time will be held next Tuesday, 18 January, when there will be an opportunity for the matter to be aired, albeit not in a statement.
The hon. Gentleman asked, quite legitimately, about the handling of the Disqualifications Bill. Although I am, of course, conscious of the fact that the House has always to balance the need to dispose expeditiously of important business with the need to get those matters right, the fact is that—as he will be aware; however contentious the issue may be—we are pursuing a relatively simple principle that is reflected in many other facets of our legislation and in the opportunities that arise for people to sit in this place and/or other places. Consequently, we shall be pursuing not a new or technically difficult matter, but the extension of an existing principle to the circumstances of Northern Ireland and Ireland itself.
Mr. Vernon Coaker: Will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on crime? As she will know, although recorded crime in the past two years has fallen by 9 per cent., many of our communities—including my own of Gedling, in Nottingham—are still blighted by antisocial behaviour. We have to determine how, together, we might best tackle such behaviour, which causes problems for so many people as they try to pursue their daily lives.
Mrs. Beckett: I am, indeed, aware of the continuing concern among the public, which is shared on both sides of the House, about crime levels. I am also aware of how much people's feelings of personal and family security are threatened by antisocial behaviour: almost as much as by crime itself. I know, too, that my hon. Friend has been complaining long and loud on the issue. He will know that the Government have taken action both to encourage and to invest in crime prevention, and to encourage local authorities and police authorities to recognise the possibilities of the tools that we have given them to deal with antisocial behaviour. We hope that they will continue to do so.
Mr. Owen Paterson: Some £4 million of taxpayers' money is being spent on special
430
advisers, spin doctors and general hangers-on around the Government. Amazingly, another £500,000 is being spent on flying them on jollies round the world. That sticks in the throat of the hill farmers above Oswestry, who are struggling to make a living. May we please have a full debate to explain what on earth is going on?
Mrs. Beckett: The hon. Gentleman's figures are wrong. The total spent from public funds on the provision of policy advice is £7 million—half to the Government and half to the Opposition. That is three times as much as the previous Government offered to us, but it does not seem to have done them much good so far.
Mr. Paul Flynn: Will my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House arrange for a debate on the problems of the homeless so that we can congratulate the homelessness Tsarina on the refreshing views that she has expressed, pointing out that the problems of persistent rough sleepers relate rarely and only briefly to a lack of housing and stem mainly from mental ill health and addiction to alcohol and other drugs? Such a debate would also enable us to draw attention to what is happening in the rest of Europe, particularly Switzerland and Holland, where measures have been taken to reduce greatly the number of people sleeping rough, dealing at the same time with their problems of addiction to drugs. When those who engage in such worthwhile and progressive enterprises elsewhere in Europe are regarded as trailblazers, why are people who, advertently or inadvertently, follow similar policies in this country treated as criminals?
Mrs. Beckett: I cannot undertake to find time for such a debate in the near future. Whatever views were expressed by the person who is dealing with the issue of homelessness—"Tsarina" is a new one on me—and however those views may or may not have been misrepresented, I hope that my hon. Friend is well aware of the investment that the Government are making in a range of measures. We hope that those measures will prevent people from drifting into homelessness—they include provisions to deal with those coming out of care or the armed forces, who are the most likely to do so—and tackle the complex range of problems that homeless people have, including, as my hon. Friend rightly points out, mental ill health. There will be an emergency special needs response team; new contact and assessment teams; 60 new specialist workers specifically to help those with alcohol, drug or mental health problems; more than 4,000 more beds brought into use; more than 850 new hostel beds with additional specialist help; as well as 1,000 new housing association homes. I recognise my hon. Friend's applause for what is being done in other countries such as Italy or Sweden, but I hope that he recognises that the Government have put in place policies that should tackle the problem instead of simply deploring it.
Mr. Eric Forth: Is it not now urgent that we have a debate on the doctrine of collective responsibility in government, specifically whether the Foreign Secretary represents the Government's view on the euro? Is it not rather disturbing that a senior member of the Government has apparently expressed a view on the euro which we think may not be reflected by other members of the Government? Surely that requires a debate. Surely it is

431
necessary for senior members of the Government to come to that debate and let us know whether the Government have a view on the euro, what it is and whether it is the Foreign Secretary's view or someone else's.
Mrs. Beckett: I am afraid that the right hon. Gentleman's example does not justify his claim that there is a need for a debate. The Government's policy on the euro is unchanged. It is as my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary said in his interview on Sunday: if the economic tests are met, the British people must decide and have a final veto through a referendum. That is unlikely to happen this side of an election and can happen only when the economic tests are judged to be met. The right hon. Gentleman is uncharacteristically falling foul of the belief that what is said in the media is in some way pertinent on that issue. Few things seem to bore the media more than consistency. Ever since we announced our policy on the euro soon after coming to office, the media have tried to see whether it has changed and whether everybody is saying the same thing. If they cannot discover evidence of dissent or difference, they continue to allege that they have found such evidence. I know that the right hon. Gentleman is familiar with those tactics and I am sorry that he has in some way fallen for them.
Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: In light of the interesting and controversial recommendations of the Neill committee on an appeal procedure—controversial in the sense that they will give the lawyers a real foothold for the first time in proceedings in the House of Commons—can we have an early, full day's debate on those recommendations, as many right hon. and hon. Members will have a lot to say about them?
Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend makes an extremely interesting point. At the moment, I cannot undertake to find the time that he identifies as being necessary, but obviously I have taken on board his remarks. I know that right hon. and hon. Members will, indeed, take a keen interest in these matters, not least in whether and to what degree we should involve the legal profession in our affairs.
Mr. John Townend: The right hon. Lady will be aware of the importance of the fishing industry in the constituencies of at leat 50 right hon. and hon. Members. Was it not unfortunate, therefore, that the annual fishing debate was so short that only one Back-Bench Member of the official Opposition and no representative of one of the minor parties was called? In view of the crisis in the fishing industry, may we have another debate? In any case, will the right hon. Lady ensure that next year's annual fishing debate, when we discuss the quotas, is a full day's debate so that all Back-Bench Members with large fishing interests have a chance to contribute?
Mrs. Beckett: Certainly, I am very conscious of the importance of the fisheries interests. It is an important industry for the country as a whole, not just to hon. Members who represent constituencies that have fishing
432
interests. I cannot find time for another debate in the near future, but I shall certainly bear the hon. Gentleman's remarks in mind.
Shona McIsaac: In light of the recent Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development report on poverty, can my right hon. Friend find time for a debate to examine what the Government have been doing to eradicate poverty and put right 18 years of Tory misrule and the fact that the Tory Government hid from the British people the fact that they knew that they were plunging families into greater poverty?
Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend is entirely right to draw attention to the fact that, whether through the private remarks of Saatchi and Saatchi or the OECD study, it is now clear that, despite the fact that it was consistently denied by Conservative Members during their years in government, they presided over a catastrophic widening of the gap between rich and poor. One of the most challenging and radical goals that the Government have set themselves is to work towards the elimination of child poverty in particular over the next 20 years. I have no doubt that it is right to do so and that we have already made substantial strides in that direction.
Mr. Roger Gale: The early-day motion is an overrated parliamentary device, with some honourable exceptions used mainly by Back Benchers to gain column inches in local papers. Therefore, the right hon. Lady may not have seen early-day motion 147.
[That this House notes with concern that the incompetence of Kent County Council's Conservative administration has led to a serious shortfall in social services funding that threatens winter provision in the county and which will create difficulties for local health authorities by causing bed blocking in hospitals; notes that the Conservatives have attempted to blame these problems on the cost of supporting asylum seekers even though this Government, unlike its predecessor, reimburses the County for at least 90 per cent. of these costs; notes that the real problem is that Kent's Conservative Council has failed, for political reasons, to plan for factors that were known well in advance such as the impact of the national minimum wage, has diverted over £5 million into largely unnecessary corporate initiatives, has based its finances on unsustainable and unworkable budgets which failed to make efficient use of the most generous Government settlement in the county's history and which inevitably have lead to a substantial overspend; notes that the Conservatives who control the council intend to resolve the problems they have created by diverting funds ring-fenced for voluntary organisations, reneging on promised regeneration funding for East Kent and cutting services for the elderly and vulnerable; and calls on the county council's Conservative leadership to work with the Government and with other political parties in Kent to devise a new budget and business plan for Kent that truly meets the needs of the county's population.]
It was tabled by six Kent Labour Members criticising Kent social services department for a budget shortfall. Exceptionally, will the right hon. Lady find time for this particular early-day motion to be debated so that the House can learn how the budget shortfall is not £170,000, as some Labour Members seem to have suggested,

433
unfunded by central Government, but £4.5 million—virtually the entire shortfall—unfunded by Government and spent on economic migrants? Will she give those Members the opportunity to come to the House to apologise to their constituents for short-changing them and to join Kent's Conservatives in seeking to press the Government for the repayment of that money in full?
Mrs. Beckett: I am afraid that I cannot undertake to find time to debate that or any other early-day motion. The Government understand the pressures on authorities such as Kent. Indeed, that is one reason for some of the changes that we have made in the handling of asylum seekers, for example, changes which at the last minute were opportunistically opposed by Conservative Front-Bench Members—although the hon. Gentleman may have voted in opposition. With regard to local government funding generally, those issues must be seen against the background of the most generous settlement since the council tax was invented.
Mr. Tarn Dalyell: May I support my hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Cummings) in asking for a debate on vibration white finger?
In view of three factors: the re-entry of the International Atomic Energy Authority into Baghdad; the visit of the Iranian Foreign Minister, Mr. Kharrazi, who suggested that, in spite of the horrors of the Iran-Iraq war, the Iranian Government favoured the lifting of sanctions against Iraq; and the Turkish dam that, if it goes ahead, could cause a water war in the middle east—may we have a statement on the forgotten actions of sanctions and war against Iraq?
Mrs. Beckett: As I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Cummings), the Government are mindful of concerns about vibration white finger cases. As I understand it, payments on those cases are going comparatively well.
My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) raises primarily the issue of sanctions on Iraq and their effects. As I have already said to others, I cannot find time for a special debate or focus on that issue in the near future. However, Foreign Office questions will be held next week, and I am sure that my hon. Friend has not overlooked that point. As for saying that there are forgotten effects of the sanctions, he does himself less than justice because he has almost singlehandedly ensured that we do not forget the issue.
Mr. Graham Brady: Can the Leader of the House find time for a debate on the location of the national athletics stadium? Following the fiasco of the proposed location at Wembley, is she aware that recent reports suggest that the Commonwealth stadium in Manchester could be altered, at relatively low cost, to make it a suitable venue for the national stadium? Is she also aware that Councillor Richard Leese, the Labour leader of Manchester city council, has talked of the Government's continuing "obsession" with staging major events in London? Is it not time that the Government woke up to the fact that there is a country outside London and started to stage some events in the rest of the country?
Mrs. Beckett: The handling of the national stadium at Wembley and the athletics stadium continues to be under
434
urgent review. It has now become clear that it was not possible to provide a stadium that could stage both athletics and football events satisfactorily. We now have plans for what will be an excellent stadium for football and we are seeking to tackle urgently the issue of a stadium for athletics. Manchester will, of course, host the Commonwealth games. I have great respect for Councillor Leese and I understand his sentiments about the Government's obsession with staging events in London, but leaders of Manchester city council—most of them Labour, thanks to the common sense of the people of Manchester down the generations—have always felt that Manchester, not London, should be the capital of Britain.
Dr. Norman A. Godman: May I ask for an early statement from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions on the tragic drowning of seven members of the crew of the Scottish fishing vessel, the Solway Harvester, and the question of her retrieval from what are quite shallow waters? At moments such as this, people in fishing communities are reminded of the words of a character in Scott's "The Antiquary":
"It's no fish ye're buying, it's men's lives."
A statement might enable some of us to argue the case, as we have done for many years, that no fishing vessel should put to sea without the provision of a survival suit for every member of the crew. The provision of survival suits might have had no bearing on this tragic loss, but such safety measures should be given serious consideration by the Government. It is some years now since we had a debate on the safety of fishermen.
Mrs. Beckett: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising the issue of the tragic deaths that have recently been reported because it gives me the opportunity to express, on behalf of the entire House, our sympathy for the families and victims. He is right to make the point about the importance to those communities and families of the trade in fish which those of us who are not engaged in such pursuits so often take lightly.
I cannot promise my hon. Friend time for an early statement or debate on the matter, but I shall certainly undertake to draw his remarks and concerns to the attention of the relevant Ministers, who I know take the matter as seriously as he does.
Mr. Desmond Swayne: The House is rightly jealous of its exclusive rights to decide taxation matters, so can we have a debate—or a statement from the Prime Minister—on the Government's stance with respect to the withholding tax? Reports have emerged that the Treasury is coming under severe pressure from the Foreign Office to back down on the issue before the conclusion of the Portuguese presidency.
Mrs. Beckett: I fear, Madam Speaker, that you must be as bored as I am with the withholding tax, about which there have been innumerable statements over the months and years, all arising from stories in the press that the Government were planning to give way on the matter at any minute. I assure the House that the Government do not plan to give way on the matter. We have made our stance on the matter quite plain, and we shall maintain that stance.
Mr. Llew Smith: I should like to declare a non-financial interest in the question that I am

435
about to ask. As the House will be aware, I have raised, in questions and in an Adjournment debate, the matter of the drama strategy of the Arts Council of Wales. Gwent theatre in education, probably the finest example of its type in the United Kingdom, has been denied the opportunity to continue the work that it has done over the past 20 years.
I have been concerned to find out how communities and drama companies can appeal against such decisions. An appeals procedure used to be available, but within the past 48 hours Joanna Weston, chief executive of the Arts Council of Wales, has informed the Gwent company that even those who win such an appeal will still lose their franchises, as they will have been passed on to other companies. That is an insult to the company and, more importantly, to the local communities who have benefited from the theatre in education scheme.
Will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on the process in the Arts Council of Wales for making decisions and setting priorities?
Mrs. Beckett: I know of the my hon. Friend's interest in this matter, and I understand the concern that he has expressed for the interests of his local community in that connection. I fear that I cannot undertake to find time for a debate on the matter in the near future. However, in view of what my hon. Friend said about the implications for an appeals process of the remarks that he quoted, I shall draw the matter to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport.
Mr. John Hayes: Will the Leader of the House find time for a debate on the fiasco surrounding the millennium dome? I refer not simply to the incompetent management that caused queues and disappointment on millennium eve, but to the growing evidence of incompetence at every stage of the dome's design and construction.
That incompetence was highlighted today by the dome's former design chief, Stephen Bayley. He laid the blame at the door of the right hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson), who is now Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. Mr. Bayley described the right hon. Gentleman as "interfering, crass, incompetent" and a "paradigm of bad management". Conservative Members may have thought that all along, but it is important that we have a debate to establish why the greatest opportunity of our age has been so sadly wasted.
Mrs. Beckett: Despite the best efforts of the Opposition and of the newspapers that consistently try to advance their cause, the dome has been a success. Of course, some people will have been disappointed, but the vast majority of visitors to the exhibition have enjoyed themselves very much. Indeed, many families have said that they want to return.
436
The hon. Gentleman drew attention to some remarks made by Stephen Bayley. I am not acquainted with Mr. Bayley, but I am aware that he and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland failed to see eye to eye. Mr. Bayley has made such remarks ever since, and no doubt will continue to do so.
Mr. John Cryer: Can my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on the rights of the child? She may have seen early-day motion 176 in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson).
[That this House supports the establishment of a children's rights commissioner for England with linked officers in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland; and recognises that the duties and powers of such an officer would be to promote children's rights and interests and ensure that they are taken into account by ministers, local authorities, private and voluntary bodies, to promote compliance with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child and to ensure that children have effective ways of raising concerns and are able to participate in decision-making that affects their lives.]
The early-day motion makes a specific plea for the creation of a commissioner for the rights of the child. That matter would be an important debate, and would receive a lot of attention outside the House as it is becoming increasingly urgent.
Secondly, if my right hon. Friend felt tempted at any time to have a debate on the Pinochet story as it proceeds, she should give in to that temptation. When people outside this place hear the craven and repellent apologies on behalf of butchery and murder that will undoubtedly come from the Conservative party, the Conservatives' popularity in the country will slump even lower.
Mrs. Beckett: I am, indeed, aware of the early-day motion on the creation of a children's rights commissioner. We have set up a task force on safeguards for children, and intend to establish a children's rights director as a senior post within the National Care Standards Commission. The specific issue of a children's rights commissioner continues to be raised and will no doubt continue to be discussed. These are important steps, which I know my hon. Friend will welcome.
With regard to my hon. Friend's remarks about the opportunities presented by a debate on the handling of the issue of Senator Pinochet, I share his view that, if the public were made more aware of the degree and kind of interest that has been expressed by some on the Conservative Benches, it would do nothing to enhance the Opposition's standing. However, I fear that time in this House is under considerable pressure and I must reluctantly decline to do anything further to diminish the popularity of the Opposition. They probably need no help from me to do that, anyway.

Orders of the Day

  Representation of the People Bill
  3RD ALLOTTED DAY
  Considered in Committee [Progress, 12 January].
  [MR. MICHAEL J. MARTIN in the Chair]

  Representation of the People Bill
    Clause 9

      RESTRICTION ON SUPPLY OF INFORMATION CONTAINED IN REGISTER
      1.17 pm
      Mr. Harry Barnes: I beg to move amendment No. 37, in page 10, leave out lines 22 to 35.
      The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Michael J. Martin): With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 21, in page 10, line 32, after "which", insert
      "both the full register and".

      No. 38, in page 10, line 36, leave out "full".

      No. 39, in page 10, line 41, leave out "full".

      No. 91, in page 10, line 42, at end insert—

      "(ab) to supply to any persons registered under the 1998 Data Protection Act copies of the full register and other documents, or prescribed parts of them, on payment of a prescribed fee and for exempt purposes only".

      No. 40, in page 10, leave out lines 43 and 44.

      No. 41, in page 11, line 7, leave out "full".

      No. 42, in page 11, line 10, leave out "full".

      No. 77, in page 11, line 14, after "any", insert "personal".

      No. 78, in page 11, line 15, leave out "information" and insert "names and addresses".

      No. 79, in page 11, line 17, at end insert—

      "(1A) Such provisions made whether in accordance with regulations made in pursuance of paragraph 10B above or in accordance with any other provision made by or under an Act shall only be made after the Secretary of State has declared that they are in the public interest and after an affirmative resolution of each House of Parliament.".

      No. 43, in page 11, line 18, leave out "full".

      No. 23, in page 11, line 25, at end add—

      "(10C).—

      (1) In making provisions under paragraph 10B, the Secretary of State shall have regard to the effect of those provisions on electors, and in particular to whether the interests of electors who request that their names and addresses are excluded from the edited register, and of other electors, would be prejudiced in any way, in particular by any provisions not enabling the supply of copies of the full register to any person, or to any class of person, to whom copies of the full register were previously supplied.

      (2) In making provisions under paragraph 10B which do not enable the supply of copies of the full register to any person, or to any class of person, to whom such copies were previously supplied, the Secretary of State shall have regard to the effect of those provisions on such persons or classes of persons, and in particular to whether the interests of those persons or classes of persons would be prejudiced in any way.

      438

      (3) The Secretary of State shall consult with such persons as he thinks fit on the effect of any provisions which he proposes to make under paragraph 10B and shall have regard to any representations which may be made to him by such persons or any other interested parties.

      (4) No provisions shall be made under paragraph 10B which adversely affect the interests of electors.

      (5) In this paragraph "interest"' shall include, but not exclusively—

      (a) in respect of electors, access to financial services, and in particular to loans, credit accounts and bank accounts, and the amount of direct mail that is likely to be received by electors;

      (b) in respect of persons or classes of persons to whom copies of the full register were previously supplied, the employment of workers by such persons, the costs incurred by such persons, and the level of competition between such persons.".

      New clause 5—Supply of information: report to Parliament—
      ".—The Secretary of State shall compile and lay before Parliament annually a report on the workings of section 9 of this Act.".
      Mr. Barnes: In addition to speaking to my amendments, I shall also speak in support of amendment No. 77, in the name of the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), to which I have added my name.
      My amendments would end the commercial sale of electoral registers. Electoral registers exist for electoral purposes. Nothing should interfere with their being able to fulfil their fundamental purpose. That is why the poll tax was wrong in using the interface between the poll tax and electoral registers. It probably deterred 1 million people from registering for the vote, especially young attainers who would have appeared on registers for the first time.
      A number of people are deterred from registering by the thought that their names and addresses will be used for commercial purposes. Similarly, some people prefer their telephone numbers to be ex-directory, partly because they are unhappy about their names and addresses appearing in a public document.
      The Government are seeking to accommodate the problem with a two-tier register which allows people to opt out of the edition that will be for sale for commercial purposes. The Conservative response is that those who opt out will be at a disadvantage, as commercial interests will not be able to confirm people's home addresses. If we ban the sale of registers for commercial purposes, credit agencies and others will have to find different ways to check people's addresses. That might inconvenience those commercial interests, but it will not inconvenience the electorate; nor will it deter people from registering.
      I realise that charities could be placed in a difficult position unless amendment No. 77 is accepted. Charities, such as the Stroke Association, Marie Curie Cancer Care and the National Asthma Campaign, use information from electoral registers to run street collections for money or jumble. There are 50 such national charities, plus some local hospices, which collect more than £180 million a year in that way. They need street names and house numbers, but they do not need the names of individuals. For example, they need to know that in Acacia avenue,

      439
      the odd numbers run from one to 37, and the even numbers from two to 36—that is how they base their operations.
      Amendment No. 77 provides for the needs of such charities; in no way does it inhibit electoral registration, unlike the sale of registers, which may tend to deter people from placing their names on the register. There is no reason why the required information cannot be passed to charities without cost. Amendment No. 77 would work either with my amendments or with only the Government's proposals, because what is needed is the full list of addresses—not the names of individuals. I recommend upholding the sanctity of the names and addresses on electoral registers, but passing street numbers on to charities.
      My amendments stress that electoral registers are established for the fundamental democratic right to vote in elections. Only if that purpose is protected should anyone outside the electoral system be allowed to have ownership or general use of the registers. The commercial use of registers deters some people from registering.
      Mr. Brian White: My hon. Friend referred to the loss of names from the register after the introduction of the poll tax; he is absolutely right. However, commercial companies were using the electoral roll before the poll tax and there did not appear to be many problems. Does he agree that such use of the register was valid at that time?
      Mr. Barnes: It is invalid to use the register for commercial sale at any time. I know of no research as to the number of people who refuse to register because of such commercial use; all I know is that each Member of the House will have been in touch with constituents who are not on the electoral register, and who say that the reason is because they do not want the register to be used for commercial purposes. They do not want to be inundated with material from outside organisations. When constituents tell us that they want those organisations to stop bombarding them with literature, they point out that one of the means used to target them is the electoral register.
      That is an important consideration, even if it affects only a small number of constituents. The Bill is to ensure the maximum possible registration. We have introduced a rolling register in order to help with that, so we should examine carefully each deterrent to registration and try to remove it. The Government have tackled the problem by proposing two registers, one of which will be edited, with an opt-out provision. Some might argue that there should be an opt-in provision instead—that would considerably reduce the number of names in the edited register.
      However, the Opposition will presumably argue strongly that the sale of registers is needed for commercial purposes, and that some constituents will be disadvantaged if their names are not included on those registers. My answer is that if we say that the commercial interests cannot have the register at all, nobody will be disadvantaged—although it could be argued that the full list will be disadvantaged—and the commercial organisations will have to discover other means by which they can contact people legitimately.
      440
      This is a very important measure. I hope that the Government, who are part of the way towards accepting the argument, will go a stage further.
      Mr. John Greenway: Out of courtesy, may I remind the Committee of my interest with the Institute of Sales Promotion and the incentive industry? The ISP has no interest in the Bill or this issue, but I would not want hon. Members to think that I am being uncharitable when I speak shortly about the Direct Marketing Association. The incentive industry fully understands the direct marketing industry, which is another part of the marketing world. That has helped me to appreciate the concerns expressed by a number of organisations about clause 9.
      I wish to refer to amendments Nos. 37 to 43, which the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) has just mentioned. To be accurate, the amendments would need to include the deletion of line 21, as well as lines 22 to 35, but our reading of the matter is that, effectively, amendment No. 37 sends a signal to the Government to delete the concept of the opt-out box altogether. For that reason, we must tell the Minister that that is one of the clear options available to the Committee.
      I appreciate entirely that the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire has a rather different purpose—to delete the commercial sale of the register. If, having listened to the arguments, we concluded that we would seek to support the amendment, it would be to indicate support for one option, which would be to delete the opt-out box altogether.
      It is clear that this idea has not been thought through properly, and there has not been a proper regulatory impact assessment. That may explain why the CBI has estimated a minimum cost of £500 million to commercial organisations if the clause is implemented as drafted. That is why, in addition, many charities throughout the country—some of which the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire mentioned—have expressed serious reservations about restricting the use of the commercially available full register.
      I stress that I am referring to the full register, as I understand that the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan), the Liberal Democrat spokesman, may suggest that his party's thinking is that only a full register should be available and that there should not be an edited version at all. That is another point of view.
      We are concerned that industry has not had a proper chance for consultation. In reality, its views were canvassed only after it was clear that the working party had made a recommendation that there should be an opt-out box for consumer protection purposes, and that the Government were determined to go ahead. And many charities will find it impossible to hold house-to-house collections or to send direct mail to the many people who are likely to subscribe to them.
      1.30 pm
      Equally, the direct marketing industry will not be able to use the register to edit the data that it has obtained from other sources—that process controls the amount of unsolicited mail that consumers receive—but will send more unsolicited mail under a scatter-gun approach until it recognises that that is not a profitable way forward. It will then cease to use direct mail at all. That will have a

      441
      serious impact on postal services. I note from business questions that, early next week, the House will be given the opportunity to debate the future of rural post offices. In its concern for the future of the Post Office and rural post offices, it must pay regard to the effect that this clause will have on them.
      Industry and the Conservative party recognise that an issue must be addressed. Whatever we do in support of the amendment of the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire to send out a signal, and whatever we do with our own amendment, we recognise that there is a problem. Industry has proposed an alternative scheme with which the Minister is familiar because representatives of the Direct Marketing Association, the CBI and the Advertising Association have described it to him. It suggests that there should be no opt-out box, but that a leaflet should be prepared at industry's expense to explain all the uses to which the register might be put. That might include direct mail, financial services and its use by credit reference agencies, which is a major factor that the Government have considered.
      We welcome the intimation in the letters that the Minister has sent out in the past couple of days—I presume that he will refer to them later—that the Government are persuaded that there is a legitimate credit referencing use that they would wish to continue. They have already agreed that the money laundering use could also continue. All those points could be explained in a leaflet, and the widespread and legitimate use of the register by charities and Government Departments could also continue.
      The leaflet would also point out that the raw material in the electoral list would not be used as the sole basis for sending direct mail or making any contact with an individual, but would be used purely to enable those with existing mailing lists to validate the names on the lists. In other words, they would clean their lists to save unnecessary costs and to prevent individuals from receiving unsolicited mail—and those who have moved into a new house from being bombarded with unsolicited mail to former occupants. The industry recognises that that is a nuisance.
      Mr. Michael Fabricant: Has my hon. Friend, like me, received the letter from Help the Aged, which came up with a relatively simple solution? It suggested that the word "information" should be changed to "names and addresses".
      Mr. Greenway: I have received many letters from charities, including from Help the Aged. We are not entirely clear that its suggestion meets the requirements, and I shall explain in a moment that we have another scheme that would allow the opt-out box to continue. At the moment, I am simply exploring what would occur if the opt-out box were stopped altogether, which would be one of the amendment's consequences.
      Under the industry's alternative scheme the leaflet would be paid for by industry and distributed by local authorities at a cost to be borne by industry. The scheme would include a freepost system for individuals who wanted an element of privacy or restriction on the use of the electoral register, particularly to prevent its use as raw data, which would involve the register being used as the sole source of information that an organisation would act upon.
      442
      Turning to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant), the scheme would enable charities to verify how many people live in a particular street so that they could plan their house-to-house collections accordingly. It would enable charities that write to individuals, as direct marketing and direct mail organisations do, to use the list to clean their data and to save unnecessary cost and expense. It cannot be sensible for charities to have to spend money on postage and printing to write to people who are no longer at an address. The use of the electoral register is very valuable to such charities.
      I can tell that the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department acknowledges that the scheme has considerable merit, and we hope that his mind is still receptive to it.
      I turn now to another perspective on the matter. The Conservative party recognises that the Government are unlikely to be persuaded of the working party's recommendation that there should not be an opt-out box, which we understand has the support of the Data Protection Registrar, and that they fully intend to proceed with an opt-out box. With that in mind, and despite all that I have said about what might have been a preferred option, we have tried hard to produce amendments that would allow the Government to continue with an opt-out box and avoid damaging the interests of voters and those of industry, financial organisations and charities.
      On the interests of constituents, there is no question but that restricted availability of the list would be damaging for credit reference purposes. It appears that the Government acknowledge that, but they seem unpersuaded that there is a legitimate use for the register in debt recovery. That seems to us an illogical distinction. It will have the same consequence for credit availability because if organisations such as banks are not able to use the electoral register to trace the whereabouts of people to whom credit has been extended, they will be reluctant to extend credit to those people in the first place. If the efficiency of debt recovery is impeded, that will have a clear consequence not only for credit availability but, in the long run, for the cost of credit.
      On debt recovery, I should like the Minister to consider what happens to people who have not, for example, paid the television licence fee or vehicle excise duty. Presumably the BBC and the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency currently chase up people who have not paid by checking on the electoral register. Whether or not the effect is intended, some organisations are considered to have a legitimate use because they may in some respects be seen as part of the public sector, whereas commercial organisations and banks would have that legitimate use restricted.
      We do not have as yet any form of identity card system. As a result, over many years the electoral register has become the chief source of information as to where people may or may not be found. We are entirely at one with those who say that it should not be used against the interests or preferences of individuals. However, we urge the Minister to consider the matter completely in the round and to recognise that there is not a one-way street. All of us benefit in some way from the fact that organisations have access to the register and use it properly. We accept that its commercial use needs to be supervised, licensed and controlled in a more sensible way.

      443
      Amendment No. 21 asks the Government to recognise that there are legitimate purposes for the use of the full register, but that these should be explained properly to voters. The amendment comes with amendment No. 22, which we are likely to discuss when dealing with a subsequent group of amendments. Amendment No. 23 is of much greater importance. If accepted, it would have the effect of placing an obligation on the Secretary of State to have regard to certain interests and to consult before making any regulations under paragraph 10B. Those interests are those of electors and constituents as well as the interests of business. I have already detained the Committee long enough on what those interests are.
      Amendment No. 23 is crucial. As drafted, the Bill gives far too much discretion to the Secretary of State in the making of regulations under the new provisions. If the Minister intends making soothing noises in response to the barrage of criticism that he has already received—I suspect it will be articulated further during the debate—we think that the best response would be for him to accept the amendment or to indicate that on Report, which will be on Wednesday of next week, the House will be asked to consider a further amendment. Through amendment No. 23, we are asking that a provision be put into the Bill requiring the Secretary of State to have regard to the interests of electors and businesses, and to consult before he makes any regulations under the new provisions contained in paragraph 10B.
      There is an alternative. Amendments Nos. 91, 87, 88—unfortunately, No. 89 was not selected—and 90 are consequential. However, amendment No. 23 would provide for any organisation registered with the Data Protection Registrar, under licence and on payment of a proper fee, to have full access to the commercial register. Banks and large sections of the direct marketing industry have always envisaged that there would need to be a licensing system to underpin any opt-out box arrangements. I understand that discussion about licensing has taken place between those organisations and officials in the Under-Secretary of State's Department.
      The Bill sets out a requirement for provisions to which I have already referred. However, we have had no sign thus far of what form the provisions will take. How will they be structured? Who will be responsible for supervising them? What fees will be charged? How will the person responsible for supervision prescribe who can or cannot have the register? How will it be possible to stop the unofficial use of the register by spurious organisations?
      As matters stand, the system is open to abuse and anomaly. At one extreme, banks and major international companies in the direct marketing sector will be denied the bona fide use of the register. I have already referred to the absurd fact that the Government remain unpersuaded that there should be no use of the full register for debt recovery.
      1.45 pm
      At the other extreme, as at present, anyone will be able to go down to the library and copy the full register. That may be illegal, but what is to stop people doing it? In that way, a spurious organisation could make full use of the register without anyone knowing. Doubtless such an
      444
      organisation would not be registered with the Data Protection Registrar, so presumably the organisation would be committing offences under the Data Protection Acts in any event.
      That adds further to the argument that to provide a role for the Data Protection Registrar or Commissioner in supervising the use of the register only for those organisations registered with the registrar would be a sensible and practical way of progressing the issue.
      Mr. Fabricant: Will my hon. Friend give way?
      Mr. Greenway: Before I give way to my hon. Friend, I shall make another telling point.
      The local Labour party, or the Liberal Democrats, or the Conservative party—I am happy to admit this—or any fringe party yet to be established could use the register, ostensibly to canvass voters, and having canvassed voters, to recruit members, sell them raffle tickets and generally raise money.
      Whatever the intention may be, that is the practical effect, yet every major charity in the land, all of which have expressed anger and frustration at the Government's proposal, will be denied the same legitimate use of the register, by virtue of the opt-out box. They will be denied the legitimate use of what is and has always been regarded as a public document.
      We say that the arrangements set out in clause 9 are unsatisfactory and should not be acceptable to the Committee in their current form. Reassurances from the Minister will not be sufficient. We need something more written into the Bill.
      Amendment No. 91 and the supporting amendments would provide a means of ensuring that dialogue with industry and charities continues after the Bill receives Royal Assent. We entirely understand the Minister's anxiety to get the Bill on the statute book quickly, which is why we have co-operated in the progress of the Bill and why, even last night, I said that I was prepared for Report stage to take place on Monday, if necessary. We know now that it will take place on Wednesday.
      We understand the sense of urgency, but we need to know that there is some guarantee that dialogue will continue. Even in the letter that the Minister kindly sent me by fax yesterday, he mentioned continuing to consult industry about the regulatory framework. That suggests to me that there should be no difficulty in his accepting that safeguards should be written into the Bill.
      Accepting amendment No. 91 would leave everything in play and provide the prospect of a sensible and practical implementation of the changes in clause 9 by an independent body that was recognised by and answerable to Parliament. We believe that that is a responsible approach. We urge the Minister to accept the amendment.
      Mr. Richard Allan: I have sympathy for some of the arguments that the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) presented, and we have joined him in tabling the amendment. However, we approach the matter from a fundamentally different angle. We do not propose that there should be a separate, edited version of the register because we do not believe that such a document would be useful. The point of the electoral register is that it is comprehensive, and carries some

      445
      authority because it has been assembled by government in a detailed manner. That is different from any other register of names and addresses. Such a comprehensive register should be available for some of the purposes that the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) mentioned. There is a point in making the register widely available for credit referencing, for example.
      We are worried that the proposed opt-out will be widely misunderstood by the public and that people will believe that they are opting out of junk mail. The right way of doing that is through services such as a mailing preference service. There should be a system—similar to the current telephone and fax preference services—whereby people can state that they do not wish to receive a specific sort of mailing. Preventing the circulation of the electoral register will not stop junk mail. We need a system whereby people who carry out direct marketing license themselves and are required to check the names of individuals who have chosen not to receive such material.
      We understand why the working group reached its conclusions. We should take a stroll through the Data Protection Act 1998—a fascinating document, which doubtless kept us all awake as we prepared for the debate. We should examine schedule 1 and the principles of data protection. It becomes clear through reading the schedule that there is a problem with the use of the electoral register in recent years. It states:
      "Personal data shall be obtained only for one or more specified and lawful purposes, and shall not be further processed in any manner incompatible with that purpose or those purposes."
      Data have been collected for one purpose and used for others, but that should not prevent us from reconsidering whether there should be a national register of names and addresses that is available for specific, tightly controlled purposes within the framework of data protection legislation.
      Schedule 2 of the Data Protection Act makes it clear that exceptions can be made and that the use of data can be justified when doing that is necessary to protect the vital interests of the subject of the data. There is a problem with the use of data, but the legislation suggests possible solutions.
      We want to consider whether the details for the electoral register should be collected openly as data that will be used for other purposes. That gets round the problem of collecting data for one purpose and using it for another. The form that people fill in could make clear the range of purposes for which the data will be used. We should maintain a comprehensive document that carries some authority and can be used for specific, critical applications.
      The credit and banking industry needs secure name and address data. It is unpleasant to write to Experian or Equifax and send them £2 when they send back a thick file that says more about one's financial standing than perhaps one would like them to know. However, when someone buys a car and wants to drive out in it immediately, the finance can be organised there and then if the data is available. In today's society, such data has to be available to enable us to be spontaneous and irresponsible consumers and rack up huge amounts of debt.
      Most people, including hon. Members, would take advantage of such a system. We all need to declare an interest on credit. The credit and banking industry needs secure data. I have no fundamental problem with the data
      446
      being used in the way in which I described if controls exist and the data are not abused. There is currently a good framework for managing that. If the Government move from their current position, they should do more to regulate the data rather than trying to prevent the data from being accessible.
      Direct marketing companies mainly use other information. They send surveys out to people, in which one respondent in a thousand can win a free holiday, or collect names and addresses when people go into shops. The electoral register is used for cleaning such data up. That is a public interest use because it prevents junk mail from being delivered for years after someone has left a house. Companies do not want to send such mail out and people do not want to receive it, and the electoral register is the annual census against which they can run their other information and achieve a clean list. That is in everybody's interest.
      The direct marketing issue is critical and we should not allow it to distract us into saying, "We need to have this opt-out for direct marketing purposes." We should look at the positive ways of making improvements in respect of direct mail and intrusive direct mail. That involves having better rather than less data and giving people options such as preference services so that they can say what they want and do not want to receive. The working group considered that, and said that, ideally, people should be given the chance to say what sort of information they do not want to receive. It wanted a multiple choice opt-out, but accepted that that could not be achieved through the electoral register. Such an opt-out could be achieved through the other services that I mentioned. People would be better served by that rather than the blunt instrument of an opt-out from the electoral register, because they could say that they do not want this or that information sent to them.
      The other element is charities. I hope that the Government will look closely at our amendments Nos. 77 and 78. The Data Protection Act is clear about not handing out personal data, but I suggest that there is no problem at all in handing out lists of address points. They can be obtained in other ways—through the post office address file, for example—but the numbers of people in households are not available. If names were not being given out, I would have no problem with allowing charities in particular and other organisations that use such data to have lists of address points and numbers of occupants, which is what they need to know. That information should not necessarily be excluded, even accepting the concerns of the Data Protection Registrar, which do not relate to such anonymous data.
      We suggest possible solutions in amendments Nos. 77 and 78. The first is to include the word "personal" to make it clear that other data, such as address points, can be given out and the second is to be more explicit, using the words "names and addresses" instead of "information" in respect of the restricted categories of data. I hope that the Minister may be able to inform the Committee that such anonymous data can be given out on a comprehensive basis anyway; if not, I hope that he will seriously consider whether it was his intention and that of the working group to exclude such anonymous data, rather than personal lists of names and addresses, from being handed out.
      I accept that there are individuals who, for specific purposes, do not want to have themselves or their addresses identified, but we need to revisit the whole issue

      447
      of a comprehensive list that carries authority. As the hon. Member for Ryedale said, we do not have identity cards in this country. I support that, but whether we have identity cards makes a difference. Other countries operate in a different way because they use such cards. The electoral register has become a de facto system that is equivalent to identity cards in another country and we ought to consider whether that should become a de jure system and whether we need to authorise it and bring it within the data protection framework. However, we would not necessarily be in a better position and nor would the public interest necessarily be served by simply abandoning the idea of having a register against which people could check information.
      Another key point is that other people will fill the gap and other sources of data will be obtained. People will fax paper electoral registers across the globe and type them up. Mistakes will inevitably be made and those sources will be inaccurate. We need to consider that because another key principle of data protection is that data should be accurate. That is in the public interest; data subjects want data to be accurate. As a public body, we should seek to obtain accuracy at all times and more problems will be caused to individuals if other sources of data become the standard. People will find, for example, that they have a bad credit rating because someone has miskeyed a name and they have been matched against an inappropriate person. The chances of that happening with the electoral register, which is generally of better quality, are less.
      2 pm
      The Data Protection Registrar has referred to the growth in the use of CD-ROM and internet sources of personal data checking. People are concerned about that. Some of those sources are of very poor quality, although some are reasonable. Many are outside the framework of our legislation: they are produced abroad and shipped in. I believe that the removal of the register, rather than calming things down, would encourage the use of sources of that kind. It occurs to me that the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire may achieve his objective if the words that he wishes to remove are allowed to remain: it is possible that so many people will choose to opt out of the register that it will no longer have a useful purpose.
      Mr. Barnes: Can it be said that the register has any use commercially at present? It is notoriously inefficient and inaccurate for such purposes, and commercial bodies attempting to use it presumably find themselves in a hopeless position. The Bill may improve things, but my amendments would improve them further.
      Mr. Allan: The electoral register, unlike other sources, is checked annually, and a reasonable amount of canvassing goes into it. We politicians bemoan inaccuracy because we do not want to lose a single vote, and we do not like to find that a household is not properly registered. In my constituency, 20 people may be registered as living in a certain property, but when we knock on the door we find that only four people are living there, and that none of them are those whose names are on the register.
      Mr. Barnes: Millions of people are missing from electoral registers. Some are registered to vote in the
      448
      wrong area, and some are dead. I know that the Bill deals with some of the problems by suggesting change, but this argument seems to be based on the desirability of continuing the present situation.
      Mr. Allan: I do not disagree with the hon. Gentleman about the inaccuracies, but I think that the register is more accurate than many other sources of data.
      Mr. Greenway: The intervention of the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) was timely, but I think that the opposite of what he said is the case. As I understand it, he wants to restrict the commercial sale of the electoral register because he believes that it discourages people from registering. However, a great many people who are not currently registered are seriously disadvantaged for that reason. That is why it is crucial for them to understand the importance of any opt-out provisions, or, better still, to be given an explanatory leaflet.
      Mr. Allan: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. The hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire is right about the disincentive to register, and I think that there are many others. I agree that the poll tax was one, and that mistake should not be repeated, but I am not sure that the proposals that we are discussing constitute a positive discouragement.
      The working group had anecdotal evidence in the form of complaints sent to the Home Office, and to individual Members of Parliament. I am not persuaded. I have seen no evidence to suggest that there is a large-scale failure to register for the reasons that I have mentioned. I can see that the poll tax, or a similar move to link tax or similar burdens to electoral rights, might constitute a discouragement, but I do not think that this proposal, as it stands, constitutes such a discouragement. Nevertheless, I think that people will be misled in other respects: in particular, I think they will assume that the issue is connected with direct marketing. People who try to obtain credit on the telephone—perhaps to buy the car to which I referred earlier—will be told that they cannot have credit because they are not on the system, and that that is because they did not register with a credit reference agency via the electoral register. Only then will they discover where the problem originated.
      Amendment No. 79 seeks to ensure that the Secretary of State examines the matter again to verify for his purposes and those of the House that any proposals that he makes are in the public interest. The aim is to return the issue of public interest to the debate about data protection principles. We have moved quite a long way, without necessarily considering all the public interest implications. The amendment is intended to enable the Secretary of State to ensure that any changes are subject to affirmative resolution of both Houses. We think that that is a positive move, and I am sure that the Minister will accept it, as I know from earlier debates that he is the kind of Minister who likes to say yes if he possibly can. We are offering him an opportunity to say yes to both Houses of Parliament. I am sure that he would look forward to that. It is an important point.
      I hope that the Minister will say how he originally envisaged introducing the regulations and that, given the argument that it is a significant change with wide impact,

      449
      he is now persuaded that he should take a belt-and-braces approach to ensure that parliamentarians get a good chance to scrutinise the regulations in detail.
      Mr. Fabricant: I apologise to the Committee for not being here at the beginning of the debate. I was at an Engineering Council meeting, from which I could not get away.
      Members of Parliament have probably received more letters on this clause than on any other aspect of the Bill. The letters come from a wide range of interested parties, ranging from the Consumer Credit Trade Association to the National Blind Childrens Society, all of which will be affected by clause 9.
      As I was not here at the beginning to hear the speech of the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes), who always makes worthwhile contributions, I will not speak at length on the amendment, but I should like to describe the sort of people who wrote to me and what they said. I mentioned in an intervention that Help the Aged had contacted me and suggested that "information" be substituted by "names and addresses". However, my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) has pointed out that that would not have the effect that Help the Aged wants.
      Interestingly, the National Blind Childrens Society points out that clause 9 will be costly. May I put in a little politics? It has highlighted another stealth tax. It says:
      "I would remind you that although it is the government policy to help charities and the voluntary sector a tax of £7,000 per annum has recently been imposed on most charities"—
      by the Government—
      "through the telephone preference system."
      Sadly, it is one of the most awful of the stealth taxes in that it directly affects charities such as the NBCS.
      Marie Curie Cancer Care has written to criticise aspects of clause 9. Barclays bank has said that it will create real difficulty as it
      "has the potential to exacerbate financial exclusion, as the electoral register is presently used as part of the credit checking process, especially where no other data is held on that individual".
      That is a problem that the Government have to address in any event.
      As we have seen on programmes such as "Watchdog", some people suddenly find that they are unable to borrow money because it turns out that they have a bad credit reference. When they try to find out why, they are unable to do so. The position will not be helped by clause 9 as it stands. A similar letter has been received from the British Bankers Association. I have already mentioned the Consumer Credit Trade Association.
      We have also heard from the Direct Marketing Association. One individual—let me give him a plug—Trevor Oxborrow, wrote an interesting letter from Campbeltown, Argyll. Mrs. Jefkins from Croydon, Surrey feels strongly about the issue, as does John Lovell. The WWAV Rapp Collins Group have written.
      Mr. Gerald Howarth: Name a constituent.
      Mr. Fabricant: Sadly, of all the representations that I have received from all parts of the country, none has come from Lichfield. That is untypical of my constituents, who follow in the footsteps of one Lichfield's great sons, Dr. Samuel Johnson, a great letter writer.
      450
      I have also heard from Andy Watkins of Willingdon, Eastbourne—which is near where I was born—and from Prostaff Funding Ltd., in Chester-le-Street, in County Durham.
      Clearly, there is dissatisfaction with clause 9. I hope that the Minister—like Lloyds TSB, which also is unhappy with the Bill's provisions—is in listening mode. If he wants to buy himself a larger house, I am sure that, in the tradition of one of his very senior colleagues, he will want to borrow not from a friend, but from a building society, and to know that his credit rating will enable him to borrow the necessary sum. It is therefore in his interests, and those of all hon. Members, that clause 9 be amended. Most importantly, however, it is in the interests of charities and our constituents that it be amended as they require.
      Mr. Howarth: Like my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant), who has the privilege of representing a part of the country that I once represented, I have to own up and apologise for not being in the Chamber for the beginning of the debate. Unlike him, however, I have taken advantage of technology and was able to see the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) on my television screen and to follow some of the points that he made.
      I should first declare an interest, as I am a parliamentary consultant to the Consumer Credit Association, which—like the many other financial organisations mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield; I shall not repeat them all—has a very clear interest in the Government's proposals. The Consumer Credit Association represents the home credit industry, which has about 4 million customers. The point, however, is that the entire credit industry will be affected by the Government's proposals, and my hon. Friend has described only some of those who are greatly concerned about them.
      In moving the amendment, the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire—who is the authentic voice of old Labour, not many of whom, unlike him, put their head above the parapet nowadays—said that electoral register availability was part of a ghastly plot to enable commercial interests to flourish, make profits and take money from people. However, I think that the boot is very much on the other foot, as availability of such information is at least of mutual interest to both consumers and lenders. I submit, moreover, that availability is principally in consumers' interest.
      2.15 pm
      I profoundly agreed with most of the remarks of the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan), which may come as more of a shock to him than to me, and believe that he was absolutely right to say that consumers will suffer if electoral information is not available. Consumers who go into Currys or a car dealership to buy something but are unable to obtain credit will wonder why that has happened. Consumers will not realise the risks that they run by using the proposed provisions and removing their name from the electoral register.
      Consumers are the ones who will be embarrassed at the check-out desk and irritated when they are unable to buy a product that they had every intention of buying. Financial institutions are not necessarily the ones that will be disadvantaged by the proposals.

      451
      It is no good encouraging prudent lending if we deny lenders some of the means by which they may exercise that prudence in lending. As most hon. Members who have spoken in the debate accept, the electoral register provides a very important basis for prudent lending.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) made the valid point that Britain does not operate a system of identity cards. I do not support the introduction of such a system in Britain. The Government also do not support introducing such a system, as the absence of one here provides one of the few bases on which we are able to argue with some of our European partners that we must maintain border controls. Regardless, I believe that it would be impossible to persuade Parliament to pass such a system, as, quite rightly, the British people would resist having to produce an Ausweis—as they are called in Germany—at the behest of a police officer or anyone else. We are somewhat truculent as a people about that sort of thing.
      Mr. Fabricant: I remind my hon. Friend and the Committee that Belgium has just withdrawn from the Schengen agreement.
      Mr. Howarth: I am grateful for that information—which I, too, had spotted in the pages of The Daily Telegraph, the newspaper that one can trust. That act, with Belgian chocolates, is one of the few advantages of Belgium.
      Another aspect of the electoral register's financial role is its impact on social exclusion, which has already been mentioned in the debate. Although obtaining credit is not that difficult for most of us—although, as Members of Parliament, we are perhaps not in the most financially sound condition—banks are increasingly unwilling to lend to people who do not score well on computer checks. For those people, availability of electoral register information is even more important. Therefore, the Government's proposals to provide for an edited electoral register will increase rather than decrease social exclusion.
      I am a member of the Home Affairs Committee, which very carefully considered those issues. It is worth reminding the Committee that, at paragraph 50 of our report, the Committee took the view that
      "because of the importance of openness in the electoral process, and so that political parties are able properly to check the lists and to canvass voters, we see no alternative to the general principle that copies of the register should be generally available, at least for electoral purposes."
      I know that the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire believes that those are the only purposes for which copies should be made available, but—as not only I but many other hon. Members have made clear—there are other good reasons why electors benefit from wider electoral register availability. If the electoral register is mutilated, electors are the ones who will suffer.
      The Committee, in considering whether people should be able to opt out of the register, decided that they should be able to do so only in exceptional circumstances. In yesterday's debate, the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Linton)—I was not able to attend the debate, but I have read his remarks—listed those exceptional circumstances.
      452
      I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman dealt with how to judge whether circumstances are exceptional, but the Committee drew attention to the fact that the Association of Council Secretaries and Solicitors has suggested that the decision might be made only on the recommendation of the chief constable for the area, a responsible person who would be able to check whether someone had a truly justifiable reason to opt out—such as in the case of Jill Dando, who was generally at risk, or of a battered woman being pursued by an ex-husband. I believe that a chief constable would be a good arbiter of who should be excluded.
      I believe that the Government's proposals put us in grave danger of doing something for the best of reasons—to provide electors with a choice, and to allow people, for good reason, to exclude their name from the electoral register—that we should not do. As people see the impact of the new arrangements on their daily lives, those good reasons will lead to irritation and frustration that Parliament, having had the deficiencies drawn to its attention, failed to take them into account and steamrollered on to produce a system that does not benefit the electorate.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield mentioned WWAV Rapp Collins, which, I am told, is not a pop group but the largest direct marketing mail company in Europe, accounting for 11 per cent. of the Royal Mail's business in the direct mail sector. The company puts 200 million items in the post every year on behalf of its clients, so it is a major player and a major contributor to the Royal Mail's coffers and is not to be trifled with. When I met representatives of the company yesterday, they expressed their disappointment that the business community was not well represented on the working party. My hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale made that point in his criticisms of the consultation process. I hope that the Minister will recognise that the commercial world is acting not only in its own interests, but in the interests of the wider electorate. Its views need to be listened to.
      A mail order catalogue customer who is off the electoral register will find not just that their credit rating cannot be checked, but that the company will not be able to deliver the goods. If a customer comes from an area where fraud tends to be prevalent, the company will go to the register and ask, for example, "Does Mr. Pound live here in Ealing?"
      Mr. Stephen Pound: That is what my wife wants to know.
      Mr. Howarth: If the hon. Gentleman's wife has ordered a wonderful dress through a mail order catalogue to go to the Blairite ball of the millennium and her part of Ealing does not have a good reputation, the company will wish to verify her status. If she is not on the electoral register, the company will conclude that the order is fraudulent. That is a practical example of how the arrangement could impact on our constituents. As we all know, we will be the first to be criticised. People will write to their Member of Parliament to know what is going on and why they cannot get credit for their mail order products. We shall only be adding to our own mailbags. In the interests of the Minister's peace of mind and easing the pressure that I know he is under, I ask him not to add to his burdens or ours.

      453
      Mail order companies try to target their mailshots. If the register is not comprehensive—that word was used by the hon. Member for Hallam, and I entirely agree—they will not be able to target their mailshots so well. I accept that the register can never be as comprehensive as we would like, as the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire pointed out, but it is the most comprehensive Bible that we have. If companies cannot target their mailshots so well, the result will be more junk mail, more irritated consumers and more irritated constituents for us. It is unfortunate that we are risking that.
      When I was out of the House, I worked for a company called Prime Response in Brentford. It had a fantastic idea for dealing with junk mail, called OVS—occupation verification system. It was to deal with people who had gone away or were deceased, not people who did not want to be on the list. The company wanted to use the monthly records of the utilities, because when we move house the first thing that we do is stop the gas bills in one place and start them at the new place. That is instantaneous recognition of moving house. That information would be provided monthly by the utilities, and the company wanted to run it encrypted against its data lists. Anyone who had been on a list to receive direct marketing material but had moved house would have been removed and the new occupant would not have received the previous occupant's junk mail. That was monstrously stopped by the Data Protection Registrar, who stood in the way.
      Mr. Pound: It is illegal.
      Mr. Howarth: I know that it is illegal, but for goodness sake, we are in practical politics to try to help our constituents. The information would have been entirely encrypted. Instead, we continue to chop down trees and irritate people for no good purpose when computerisation could have prevented that.
      Mr. Greenway: Does my hon. Friend think that the Data Protection Registrar would be a suitable person to oversee the provisions envisaged in the clause? That is central to our amendment No. 91.
      Mr. Howarth: I listened carefully to my hon. Friend when he spoke to amendment No. 91. I agree with him, subject to my remarks about the Data Protection Registrar and the way in which she dealt with the issue that I am talking about. She needs to be practical. My hon. Friend's suggestion in amendment No. 91 would go some way to meeting problems that have been raised on both sides of the Committee. It would meet the problem raised by the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire about only people registered with the Data Protection Registrar having access to the register.
      I hope that I have persuaded the Committee that there are some practical problems with the Government's proposals. The electors and consumers of Britain will be more disadvantaged than the commercial world unless we take action to remedy the idea of having an edited register. We should not pursue that idea. I look forward to hearing what the Minister says, particularly about the concerns of the financial world.
      Mr. Pound: I shall speak briefly, because I have already made many of my points. I should like to follow up some of the comments of the hon. Member for
      454
      Aldershot (Mr. Howarth), who referred to a sophisticated screening system for dealing with junk mail. In my part of west London, we have a cruder, if not more earthy method of screening junk mail. I have in my garden a piece of equipment called the little rotter, which is a home composter that produces an excellent tilth to spread on the garden.
      The hon. Gentleman also referred to my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) as the authentic voice of old Labour and said that few such Members were prepared to put their heads above the parapet. Although I see myself as new old Labour, or even old new Labour—maybe even past-it Labour—I am normally only too proud and pleased to associate myself with my hon. Friend's comments, because his analyses and views are always comprehensive and well researched and usually worthy of support. Sadly, on this occasion I find myself in the unusual position of disagreeing with my hon. Friend and, even more worryingly, having considerable sympathy with the arguments expressed by the hon. Members for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway), for Aldershot and, sad to say, for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan).
      The hon. Member for Aldershot has spent a fair amount of time in Dartmoor prison with me. We had many conversations and I have come to have almost a grudging respect for him. I have to say that when one is locked up with a Conservative Member for any length of time, there is not much else one can do. They would not allow anything else—of course, Mr. Aitken had his poetry.
      2.30 pm
      Hon. Members have made a range of points around a central nexus. None of them implied anything other than that the Government's intentions in this matter, as in all matters, are good. This is not a partisan Bill. Indeed, the hon. Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant) apologised, as he often does, for bringing in crude party politics. There is wide recognition that something needs to be done; I hope that the Bill is worthy of amendment and will be far better for it.
      We talked about the accuracy of the electoral register. There are two strands of argument. Many people consider that the existing electoral register is one of the most accurate databases of its type. There are obvious problems as it is updated in November and published in February. I moved into a property in the mid-1970s and found that the previous occupant had subscribed to a large number of esoteric gentleman's publications.
      Mr. David Taylor: From the Conservative Association.
      Mr. Pound: Conservative Newsline was by far the most offensive of them. For several months they arrived on my doorstep in plain brown envelopes. It is often difficult to get credit for the first year after one moves. Although the electoral register is not totally accurate, it is certainly more than 90 per cent. accurate. Local authorities that I have known—as a citizen and as an elected representative—put a great deal of effort into it. It is as accurate as it can be. If the hon. Member for Hallam manages to get 20 names on the electoral register where there should be only four, that only confirms all my prejudices about Liberal Democrats—or most of them, anyway.

      455
      The two major credit reference companies—Experion and Equifax—were mentioned. Like a number of hon. Members, I have spoken to them, particularly to Equifax. Equifax is not a charity; it is a business seeking to perform a service in exchange for recompense. Making a profit is certainly not illegal and is likely to become even less illegal, and those companies provide an important service.
      We have to recognise that we live in an imperfect world and a society in which many people are denied access to credit by the mechanisms that give most of us access to credit although we are on short-term contracts—except the hon. Member for Aldershot who seems to come back no matter what the electors do. There will always be an informal mechanism for gaining credit, or at least cash to spend. We all know from working people in our constituencies about Christmas clubs and other savings schemes. Those mechanisms are immensely expensive to people with no access to credit and normal methods of saving and all the advantages of deferred payments and interest-free payments, but they have to use something. Surely it is better if they are included in the financial mainstream. If the springboard into that mainstream is having their name on the electoral register, so be it. If nothing else is around, let us keep it that way.
      More important, the electoral register is almost a membership list of civic society. If one is on the electoral register, one is part of the civitas—one is a member of society. One can take one's part in society and one can vote. Some people on the electoral register do not have the right to vote. For example, citizens of non-European countries cannot vote in European elections. Some people on the electoral register cannot vote in local authority elections. Peers cannot vote, but they are on the electoral register. However, the fact that they are on the electoral register means that they are part of the community. They are on the membership list. It may seem an almost intangible point, but it is important to be recognised as part of society.
      The point has been made about people who wish to avoid being traced. When we discussed the issue previously, the Minister said quite rightly that in a world where one can buy a round piece of plastic for a few pounds and get the names of everyone in the country, and some woman fleeing from her husband can be in fear of being relocated by technological advances, clearly something must be done. Surely the right not to have one's address shown—one's name can appear without an address—should be retained. Rather than throwing the baby out with the bath water, let us try not to damage people unintentionally while seeking to do good to people who deserve it.
      I shall conclude as the point has been made. I shall resist the temptation succumbed to by the hon. Member for Lichfield who read out his daily correspondence. I have received most of the letters. My hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire made an important point about charities. We cannot and must not discourage charities, particularly in view of the statement by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer last week about further Government support for the charitable world.
      Like everyone who has spoken today, I have every confidence in my hon. Friend the Minister. I am sure that we can cut this Gordian knot and achieve a resolution. I
      456
      fervently hope that it will not disadvantage some of the weakest, poorest and most excluded people in society whom we have an absolute duty to represent. I hope that we can show that we are worthy of their trust in us.
      Mr. Dominic Grieve: I should like to put a different angle on the matter. Broadly speaking, I understand exactly why clause 9 was introduced; I can see the thrust behind it and the desire to provide a measure of protection to those who do not wish the electoral register to serve as a way of publicising their details so that they receive a lot of information that they do not want.
      I turn to the matter not so much as an issue of principle, but with a lawyer's eye. What strikes me about clause 9 is that lawyers will make a lot of money out of it. It is an enormously complex clause. While I fully understand that the Government cannot provide the detailed provisions that will subsequently be made in regulations, there is quite enough here to make me think that it will all be unworkable. Are we not simply adopting the tactics of King Canute? The material will be in the public domain. Whether or not we seek to regulate it in the way that clause 9 suggests, people will undoubtedly make use of it. I am sure that they will be sufficiently creative to deny that the information comes from the electoral register.
      I have a niggling feeling that, despite our having gone through all this paraphernalia, people will still make use of the full register while denying that the information comes from that register, and very little will be able to be done about it.
      The debate—which has been very interesting—has gone through various possible permutations about how the system should be regulated. It may be the chief constable who says that certain people can be excluded from the edited and the main register. A little bell rings in my mind saying that there will be lawyers' fees on judicial review. Let us face it: countless people will want to challenge it and disagree with the verdict. Unless the Minister produces provisions that are so remarkable that I shall stand up and admit that I have got it all wrong, I think that we are making a rod for our backs when there has always been widespread acceptance that the electoral register is a public document and people may make use of it. It is one of the burdens of citizenship that we were discussing yesterday.
      In supporting the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway), I see it not as the be-all and end-all of the matter, but as just possibly a step in the right direction. Generally speaking, I am troubled by clause 9. That is not because it is ill-intended—the Government clearly have proper intentions—but because it is unworkable. It is a great merit in legislation to keep things simple. Anybody reading clause 9 would know at once that it was complex and difficult. We may regret what we have done when the consequences start to seep through, although members of my profession will probably be delighted.
      The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Mike O'Brien): We have had a good debate, and I welcome you, Mrs. Dunwoody, to the Chair. Important points were made by all the hon. Members who participated, mostly in non-partisan fashion. Despite sterling efforts, the hon. Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant) failed to be partisan and, in fact, sounded very reasonable and balanced.

      457
      In many ways, the debate followed yesterday's interesting and important debate on the way in which modern technology, especially the search facilities that CD-ROM provides, enables people to identify the address of anyone who is registered to vote within a short time by pressing a few computer keys. That could enable someone searching for a battered spouse—or a stalker searching for his victim—to use the electoral register to find the person, a purpose for which it was never intended. We discussed the possibility of having what I called secret voters and others called anonymous voters. My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Pound) made some important points and touched on that proposal. The House considered that yesterday and took the view that the proposal would cause so many difficulties that it should not be adopted at this stage.
      The essence of the Government's position—and that of the working party—is that people should not be obliged by law to register to vote and then have their whereabouts passed, without consent, to someone else who may intend to use the information for purely commercial purposes, requests for charitable donations or more sinister reasons. At the moment, it is possible for someone to obtain the information without the consent of the person who is registered, but that person is obliged by law to register and must pay a penalty if he or she does not. That raises a serious issue about the right to privacy and begs the question of what we are using the sanction of the law, including the ability to fine people, to achieve, when they may have reasons for wishing not to disclose their whereabouts.
      The ability of commercial companies to use the register for sending junk mail is one of the main sources of complaints to returning officers and the Home Office. People are sick of junk mail and they want something to be done. Individuals have a right to privacy and should be able to consent to the release of information about them. The current position may also trespass on some areas covered by the European convention on human rights, but that may be an issue for the courts at a later stage. We have also touched on issues of data protection and the way in which information is used. I assure the Committee that the Data Protection Registrar was consulted throughout the formulation of our policy.
      2.45 pm
      Mr. Allan: I agree that the debate raises data protection issues. Did the Government consider the other option of trying to ensure that the compilation of the register complied with data protection principles while still allowing its use for wider purposes? Was that considered or was the only response to try to limit the use of electoral register?
      Mr. O'Brien: The working party formulated the strategy that we have sought to implement. That working party included a representative from both the Liberal Democrats and the Conservative party, and they united behind the view that has been put forward. The Data Protection Registrar was also fully involved in considering the issues.
      If the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) were to be accepted, there would continue to be only a single version of the electoral register listing the names of all
      458
      electors in the relevant area, but its availability would be severely limited. Only those people who had been prescribed in regulations would be able to obtain it and they could use it only for certain prescribed purposes. There would be no edited version that could be bought freely and used for wider purposes.
      I am aware that my hon. Friend is not alone in believing that much tighter controls should be placed on the availability of the electoral register. It was because of this that the working party on electoral procedures devoted considerable time to the issue. Its conclusion, which was supported by all of its members—including Liberal Democrat and Conservative—was that:
      "the arguments for retaining a commercially available register are strong".
      Nevertheless, the working party recommended that people should be able to opt out of being included in the register that was made available for sale. The working party suggested that there should be two versions of the register—a full one that could be used for electoral and law enforcement purposes and an edited version, which would be freely available for sale, containing only the names of those who have not exercised their right to be excluded from it. Clause 9 allows for regulations to that effect to be made. As we explained on Second Reading, we are still considering exactly what form those regulations should take.
      I assure the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) that we will fully consult the various industries involved, the charities and others, as part of the process of bringing forward regulations. Indeed, no doubt the House will wish to discuss in due course the impact that the regulations would have.
      Few things in life are simple and few things are more difficult than trying to balance competing interests. This is a classic case where different interests are pulling in different ways. On the one hand, the working party on electoral procedures was very clear that, as a matter of principle, information that individuals are required by law to provide for one purpose should not be available for use for other purposes without their consent.
      We must also take very careful consideration of the European convention on human rights and data protection principles, as well as the more general notion of a right to privacy. We know that the public resent the delivery of junk mail, some of which they receive as a result of their names appearing on the electoral register. More worryingly, we know of cases where abusive spouses have traced their former partners through the register.
      Mr. Greenway: What research has the Department undertaken into how often the electoral register is used as the raw data and sole source for the sending out of unsolicited mail?
      Mr. O'Brien: I shall come to the question of unsolicited mail in a moment. However, for the companies who send out such mail, the register is only one of a number of sources of raw data. The factors that arouse concern in all members of the Committee need to be balanced by recognition that this country has flourishing credit and direct marketing industries. They make extensive use of the electoral register, and we would like to avoid doing undue harm to them—or to the charities that also use the register. We are considering how best to achieve that balance.

      459
      I can assure the Committee that we are in touch with the industries concerned. Home Office officials held a meeting with representatives of the credit industry just before Christmas to see whether a way could be found to accommodate the industry's needs within the constraints imposed by the EU data protection directive and the European convention on human rights.
      Those discussions will inform any regulations that we introduce. Such regulations—which I assure the Committee will be accompanied by a full regulatory impact assessment—will be fully debated in the House. I can also tell the Committee that those regulations will be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. That answers one of the points raised in amendment No. 79.
      Amendment No. 23 is unnecessary and, because it would tilt the scales firmly in one direction, prejudicial.
      I can deal briefly with amendment No. 21, as I do not object to it.
      It might be helpful to the Committee if I were to say a little about the arrangements for introducing the new system with two versions of the electoral register. The public will obviously be unfamiliar with the new opt-out box on the electoral registration form and will need to be given an explanation of its purpose and effect. We propose that the form should be accompanied by an explanatory leaflet. We have already discussed this with the credit and marketing industries, as the hon. Member for Ryedale noted, and we believe that they will want to play their part in helping to settle the content of the leaflet. They have already indicated that they would be willing to pay some or all of the costs involved, as the leaflet would clearly bring some direct benefit to them.
      The leaflet would need to explain the uses to which the edited register may be put. The key point is that people will be able to make an informed decision about exercising their right to opt out. They will have that choice, and it will be up to them to make it.
      Mr. Gerald Howarth: In his consultations with the credit industry, has the Minister accepted that the paramount need is that the leaflet points out—in words of one syllable and in the boldest possible fashion—the risk to electors, as consumers, if their names are removed from the main register?
      Mr. O'Brien: There would be no point in having a leaflet if it did not say in clear terms what the impact of opting out would be. We believe that people considering opting out should be clear about what the effect would be. We want the leaflet to tell people that opting out might affect their ability to get credit or other services that they might want. If they were to decide to opt out of the edited register, they should know what the consequences would be. No doubt, some people will choose to opt out, and that will be their right.
      However, I point out that opting out is a physical action: people who do it will have to tick a box. It may not be much, but it would require a positive decision. After reading the leaflet, many people will make an informed decision not to tick the box. In that way, for most practical purposes, the register will remain much as
      460
      it is now. Some people, however, will decide—for their own, very good, reasons, such as personal safety—that it is right to opt out.
      Mr. Greenway: The Minister said that the Government did not object to amendment No. 21. It deals with the matter of the leaflet, as does another group of amendments that we shall come to later. I am grateful for what the Minister said about the importance of the leaflet's contents, and I hope that we will be able to debate that further in a moment.
      However, will the Minister tackle the question of the organisations to which the full register will be available? The letter to Colin Lloyd, chief executive of the Direct Marketing Association, made it clear that the full register would not be available for direct marketing purposes. If that is so, many hon. Members from all parties will remain deeply unhappy.
      Mr. O'Brien: During the consultations, we want to ensure that all interests are taken into account. We also want to ensure that the leaflet informs the public about the possible uses to which both the full and edited versions of the register may be used for. I am therefore happy to advise the Committee to accept amendment No. 21.
      Mr. Pound: Will my hon. Friend give way?
      Mr. O'Brien: This will be the last time, as I want to make some progress.
      Mr. Pound: I thank my hon. Friend. Is the opt-out to be a rollover? Will people opt out once and for ever, or will they have to do so every year, as the register is renewed? Is the leaflet to be amended every year, or will it stay the same for, say, five, 10 or 15 years?
      Mr. O'Brien: People will fill in a form each year, and so, in effect, will be able not to opt out each year. The Government, with the industry, are studying how people, even though they have read the leaflet, might want to opt back in when they discover the implications of opting out. Because there will be a rolling register, we will be able to make new versions of the register available. People may choose to opt into that, thus preventing a delay until the next year.
      For example, people who discover that they need credit will want to opt into the edited register. They may well be able to do that. We shall have to determine how that might be facilitated and the burden that doing so might place on electoral registration officers. I am not giving an undertaking that we will be able to do it, but we will be happy to explore, with the industry, how that might happen.
      Mr. Greenway: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. O'Brien: I said that I would not give way again, but I shall do so for the hon. Gentleman.
      Mr. Greenway: I repeat my earlier question. Will the direct marketing industry be among those for whom the full register will be available? The hon. Gentleman's letter of 12 January to the chief executive of the Direct Market Association makes it abundantly clear that the full version

      461
      will be made available only for electoral purposes, law enforcement, crime prevention, and in connection with applications for credit. That is being interpreted as meaning that organisations involved in direct marketing and even debt recovery will not be able to have the full register.
      Mr. O'Brien: We are discussing the detail of that with the industry. It is our intention that the full register shall not be completely available to the direct marketing industry. However, we are examining with the industry ways in which credit issues can be better resolved. Direct marketers will not receive the full register because that would conflict with the European Union data protection directive.
      3 pm
      Mr. Gerald Howarth: Will the Minister give way?
      Mr. O'Brien: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me for not giving way, but I have said that I want to make progress.
      I see very little point to amendment No. 91. I do not think that it serves any real purpose, and it also introduces a new and undefined concept of exempt purposes. Clause 9 replaces paragraphs 10 and 11 of schedule 2 to the Representation of the People Act 1983 with four new paragraphs. Those paragraphs govern the regulations that may be made under that Act.
      New paragraphs 10B(1) and 11(1) are quite clear. They allow for regulations to be made requiring or authorising electoral registration officers to supply copies of their full electoral register to specified people for specified purposes. But—this is the crucial point—we believe that the Bill is flexible enough to accommodate whatever regulations the House chooses to make. Anyone whom it is decided should be entitled to a copy of the full register will be able to receive it, and it will be possible to limit that person's use of it to prescribed purposes.
      The suggestion in the amendment that access to the full register should be granted to those registered under the Data Protection Act does not take us any further forward. Anyone may be registered under that Act, and the test should be whether a person or organisation has a good case for having access to the full register rather than whether they are so registered.
      I hope that, in the light of what I have said, the hon. Member for Ryedale will realise that the amendment is unnecessary and will withdraw it.
      I must admit to being somewhat confused by the Liberal Democrats' amendments Nos. 77 and 78. They would substitute for the word "information" the words "personal names and addresses". It is not clear what that is intended to achieve, although I listened with care to what the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan) said. The only information on the register is personal and consists of names and addresses, plus ages of young people who will attain voting age during the currency of the register. That information would not be much use without their names and addresses, although I understand the point that removing the names is one way of approaching the matter.
      I appreciate that some charities use untargeted mailshots and simply need to know how many households there are in a street rather than the names of the occupants.
      462
      Direct mailings resulting from the electoral register, however worthy the originators, are one of the main sources of complaints to the Home Office and electoral administrators. We would need to be very careful not to undermine any new regime relating to access to the full electoral register by creating too many exemptions. In any event, the edited register will normally be sufficient for ascertaining how many households are in a particular location. There has been confusion on the part of charities about knowing how many people were registered. In fact, there is no reason why the edited version of the register should not say how many people are registered, without identifying their names or addresses.
      Amendment No. 79 is quite simply unnecessary. As I have already explained, regulations on this matter are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. The requirement to issue a declaration that regulations are "in the public interest" is therefore unnecessary. The Home Secretary would never bring forward regulations which he did not believe were in the public interest—nor, I hope, would any Home Secretary—and Parliament would not endorse them if it did not hold the same belief.
      Finally, let me say that I have sympathy with the spirit behind new clause 5. The Bill will make significant improvements to our electoral procedures, and it would be quite wrong if, having introduced the changes, we sat back and ignored their operation, but that will not happen. Too many people are interested in the operation of our electoral procedures to allow problems and weaknesses to go unaddressed. The working party on electoral procedures, whose report has given birth to the Bill, is an example of the constant review process. Reference has also been made to the Select Committee on Home Affairs, which published its report on electoral law and administration a year ago. That is a further illustration that our electoral procedures are the subject of continuing scrutiny.
      Once new regulations governing access to the full electoral register are in place, we can expect the public and any industries which are affected to make their views known about the impact of those regulations. Political parties and electoral administrators will doubtless also have a view. If I may be so bold, I suggest that the electorate, political parties and candidates, industry and the electoral administrators will, between them, provide a far better impression of the effectiveness of our electoral procedures than a report compiled in Whitehall.
      I have no doubt that hon. Members will continue to raise points of concern and, where appropriate, changes will be made to accommodate them. A good example of this is the Registration of Political Parties Act 1998. There was concern on both sides of the House about spoiler candidates, although I know that the party of the hon. Member for Hallam had particular reason to feel aggrieved, and we introduced legislation to deal with the problem.
      I apologise for having spoken at such length, Mrs. Dunwoody, but it is important to deal with these crucial issues. I should like to deal with a couple of other points raised in the debate. I was asked whether the electoral register will continue to be used for dealing with issues such as money laundering checks. The full register will be available for law enforcement and crime prevention purposes, which include money laundering and

      463
      fraud prevention checks. We have invited the financial industry to consider the best way in which to facilitate that.
      We are considering the extent to which the full register will be available for financial institutions for credit reference checks, as I have already said. The hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) asked whether the provisions would harm the socially excluded. There is an argument that people on the margins of society would be less likely to be given credit if they were given the right to opt out of the commercially available register. As the socially excluded are the group least likely to register, we do not believe that that is the case. Indeed, the Bill will make it easier for the homeless and those who change their accommodation frequently to get on the electoral register. They are not obliged to opt out, in which case their chances of getting credit are increased. The hon. Gentleman also spoke about people not being able to obtain credit. No doubt, people will take that factor into account when they read the leaflet.
      The hon. Member for Ryedale referred to the claim of the Confederation of British Industry that the changes would cost business £500 million, and asked how that could be justified. The figure of £500 million that the credit industry produced represents, by its own admission, the cost to the industry rather than to the economy as a whole. We suspect that much of the effect will be offset by displacement. A person who is refused credit when trying to buy a video recorder will go elsewhere for it or will spend the money on something else.
      The hon. Gentleman also asked about the extent of consultation with the credit industry during the working party. I assure him that there were many representations from charities and businesses, and they were taken fully into account during the course of the working party's deliberations.
      We do not propose to make the full register available for the purposes of debt recovery. We have agreed that with the Data Protection Registrar. Her view is that to allow the register to be used for debt recovery would breach the data protection directive.
      We propose that people should be able to make an informed choice. Through this measure, we are enabling them to do so. The way in which the measure will operate will give individuals some protection of their privacy and will offer some limited protection to those who may, for perfectly legitimate reasons—perhaps for their personal safety—not want their names and addresses to be widely disseminated. We believe that we have struck a balance in the legislation, which will achieve some safeguards for the industry and will ensure that individuals are taken into account, and that their privacy is not sacrificed for commercial gain. I hope that we have been able to get the balance right.
      The hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) pointed out that the legislation was complex. His view seemed to be that we were adopting the tactics of King Canute. In effect, he was almost arguing that we should give up any idea of having individual choice and privacy and not try to protect them. He suggested that that would cause—horror of horrors—some judicial reviews. As the Minister who has probably been the most judicially reviewed of all members of the Government during the
      464
      past three years, I point out to the hon. Gentleman that judicial reviews can be properly dealt with; indeed, they can enhance the law. In relation to the distribution of the burdens of citizenship, I want to give a little more strength to the individual, rather than to the collective. As a Conservative, the hon. Gentleman might see some advantage in doing so.
      Mr. Greenway: I have a few comments in response to the Minister's remarks. Anyone who has been watching our proceedings during the past two hours could only conclude that the Committee of the Whole House has been displayed at its best in this debate. Hon. Members on both sides of the House have made strong and convincing arguments to which the Minister has responded in considerable detail.
      However, we can only offer the Minister one and a half cheers for his response.
      Mr. O'Brien: Why not two cheers?
      Mr. Greenway: No, I think it should be one and a half. We are grateful to the Minister for suggesting that he would accept amendment No. 21. I hope to catch your eye, Mrs. Dunwoody, when we come to the next-but-one group of amendments, so that the Committee can briefly discuss leaflets. I am grateful for the Minister's acceptance of the fact that the leaflet explaining to households the consequences of ticking an opt-out box is still a matter for debate, and for his recognition of the importance of such a leaflet in enabling voters to understand the matter. That is the reason for the one and a half cheers.
      However, the Minister has not convinced the Committee that the full register should not be available more widely than it would be under his proposals. It is completely illogical that the data protection directive permits the full register to be used for credit referencing—we are grateful for the Minister's confirmation that the Government agree with that—but not for debt recovery. Similarly, the full register will not be made available, through whatever limited, licensed and regulated means—all yet to be determined—for the direct market industry and many other companies that have a legitimate use for it.
      Clause 9 will provide for regulations, which are yet to be laid—I appreciate that they will be subject to further discussion—but the effect will be to supply copies of the full register only to prescribed people. However, we are not 100 per cent. sure who those people will be and, more important, about the mechanism whereby they will be included in the list for the full register, or not put on the list and told that they cannot have the register.
      3.15 pm
      Mr. Gerald Howarth: In relation to the credit industry, is my hon. Friend clear as to whether the Government intend to make the full register available only to the major credit reference agencies, or to the wider credit industry—the banks and other finance houses?
      Mr. Greenway: My interpretation of the Minister's remarks is that the register would be available to the credit reference industry, but not to the banks—hence my point as to the illogicality of the measure. There is no way that the data protection directive can grant consent to give the

      465
      list to one and not to the other. Perhaps, we shall have the opportunity to debate the matter again on Report next week.
      I hear what the Minister says about amendment No. 91, but the fact is—
      Mr. O'Brien: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I hope that I can clarify the point. Certainly, the full register will be available to political parties, but it would not be available, in an uncontrolled way, to everyone in the direct marketing or the various credit industries. However, we are discussing with the industries whether we might devise with them properly controlled and safeguarded mechanisms so that individual privacy would be protected, while allowing for some checking.
      Mr. Greenway: Perhaps that gets us to two cheers, but we are still missing one. We are still not satisfied that the Committee has a sufficient idea of how prescription under these new regulations will differentiate between one organisation and another. The real reason that we tabled amendment No. 91 and that we ask the Committee to support it—despite the fact that the Minister has given way on some points—is because it is the only measure that gives us a clue as to whom the full register might be made available: organisations registered under the Data Protection Acts. Those will all be bona fide organisations. The Minister's point as regards continuing discussion relates to the way in which organisations use the full register. That is valid; we understand that those regulations will be equally important.
      However, I ask the Committee to reflect on the fact that we are talking about two quite separate stages of the process. The first is the prescription of those to whom the full register will be available—to which organisations. The second is the prescription of what those organisations can do with the full register. Before Report, the Minister needs to do a little more work on the first stage. For that reason, I ask the Committee to support amendment No. 91 in a Division, not because the amendment is perfect, but to show the Minister that we are still dissatisfied about the availability of the full register to bona fide organisations.
      Mr. Barnes: The hon. Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant) apologised for missing my speech moving the amendment. He is now missing the great opportunity to hear my second speech on the matter. I am not sure whether it is a criticism of the hon. Gentleman, or of me. He wanted the register to be available widely for commercial use and by charities. I am in favour of charities having addresses for collections of jumble and so on, which is why I support amendment No. 77. I am trying also to block the commercial usage of electoral registers.
      The hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) described me as old Labour, yet if he looks at many of my amendments, he will see that I am an arch-moderniser. In fact, I am such a moderniser that I am ahead of Government Front Benchers on these matters. Modernisation is supposed to be the main element of the third way philosophy, which has gripped the Labour party, so it is not easy to define my position as old or new Labour.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Pound) and the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan) referred to the register as if it were accurate
      466
      and reasonable. My hon. Friend waxed lyrical about the register, which he regarded as a sign of citizenship upon which everybody was established. It is not because masses of people are missing from it, and there are some whom we do not allow to register.
      In earlier amendments, I proposed to enfranchise 680,000 overseas residents in this country who are not entitled to be on a register and are not part of our civic list. How will they get credit facilities in this country if the electoral register is used for this key service for our citizens? I bet that many of those 680,000 will manage well the arrangements within society in terms of credit and other companies.
      The hon. Members for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) and for Hallam are cherry-picking my amendments. There is nothing wrong with that—I am a cherry-picker in terms of the Patten report on Northern Ireland. However, their cherry-picking is wrong, and the Opposition are attempting to turn my amendments into the exact opposite of what I propose by latching on to a particular amendment.
      Mr. David Wilshire: Would the hon. Gentleman prefer the Opposition to agree with him some of the time, or never?
      Mr. Barnes: I prefer hon. Members to listen to what I have to say, understand it and support absolutely everything that I say.
      The hon. Member for Hallam argued for the need for a national register containing everyone's address. If there is a case for that, it would seem to be a matter for an entirely different Bill. To try to subvert the electoral register and to make it a second best national list of names and addresses is inadequate.
      I have sympathy for the notion that there should be a national register, tightly controlled by the data protection and other provisions. If there was such a register, it would be a marvellous device to ensure that the electoral register was a proper one, containing everyone's name. However, we do not have that. Neither do we have identity cards, for which the hon. Member for Ryedale argued. I support identity cards but, again, I do so because I see them as a marvellous means of assisting full electoral registration.
      Full electoral registration is of overwhelming importance. We are discussing the basic building block of a democracy—the vote. Many other important matters flow from that, such as people's rights in society, their right to organise and so on—but having the vote is the first element. That is why we should ensure that everyone in society is on a register, which is what my amendments are about.
      I believe that there is a deterrent effect, of which I have become aware through constituents who have not put their names on registers or are reluctant to have their names on them as they believe that they will be used for other purposes. If people want to engage in general mail shots, registers are not needed. They can use the Post Office to deliver to every house in an area.
      One thing that worries me about the Government's position—what I see as the second-best position—is the opt-out box to be ticked if one does not want to be placed on the registers for commercial sale. This will be a great surprise to many of the electorate when they discover that the electoral register is already being used on such a wide

      467
      basis. They will be astonished to discover that the register is used for more than just electoral purposes. They will be astonished to discover that it is available in libraries and post offices. When they discover that, they will be unhappy about the arrangements. They will be worried about their neighbours and others being able to check up those matters.
      There is also to be a leaflet to alert people to the fact that that has been taking place all along, which will be quite a shock. People may tear up the registration form when they see all of the complexity involved.
      My hon. Friend the Minister adopted a balanced position—it reminds me of the Erasmus principle; not too little, not too much, but just right. On one extreme, there is my proposal. On the other, there is the Conservative proposal—to give the register to everyone with money. Then we have the third way between the two extremes to try to get some balance.
      The prime argument is the sanctity of the electoral register. If people want some of the other measures that are being talked about, they should turn to legislation in those areas. However, on the principle that I do not believe in banging my head against a brick wall, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Mr. Greenway: I beg to move amendment No. 87, in page 10, line 22, leave out
      "a registration officer to prepare"
      and insert "the preparation of".
      The Temporary Chairman (Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody): With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 88, in page 10, line 23, after "which", leave out "he" and insert "the registration officer".
      Mr. Greenway: It is our understanding, following discussions with some departmental officials, that both banks and financial institutions and the direct marketing industry have advanced the concept that it may well be advantageous to provide for a third party to prepare edited versions of the full register, rather than electoral registration officers. Depending on the outcome of the discussions and the position eventually taken by the Government, there could be quite a big work load for electoral registration officers in the preparation of edited registers and in supervising access to them.
      3.30 pm
      We understand that some encouragement to the concept in the amendments has been given in the discussions. However, the Bill will not allow for a third party to prepare the edited register or to have any role in preparing either the full or the edited register. So amendment No. 87 would at least provide for that eventuality. The register would not have to be prepared by the electoral registration officer, but could be prepared by a third party. Amendment No. 88 would have a similar effect.
      To an extent, these are technical amendments, but they would be crucial to the involvement of a third party. However, they would not require the involvement of a
      468
      third party if, at the end of the negotiations and discussions, Ministers were not satisfied that anyone other than electoral registration officers should prepare the registers. The change of wording would not commit the Government to accepting the involvement of a third party, but it would provide the opportunity for a third party to prepare the full or the edited register, or both.
      I hope that I am in order if I say that amendment No. 89, which has not been selected for debate, would also be important to such a scheme. It would ensure that the Bill fully meets the requirement for the third-party preparation of registers.
      Mr. Mike O'Brien: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for what is an interesting idea. I do not think that the amendment is necessary, but I now see where he is coming from. I have sympathy with his aim of ensuring flexibility. However, I do not think that we need the amendment because the Bill already provides such flexibility.
      Preparation of the electoral register is an important function, which is why it has the status of a statutory function and why every relevant local authority must appoint an electoral registration officer. The registration officer may, of course, employ other people to assist him in his duties, although the final responsibility must always rest with him.
      The Bill contains provisions that will enable an electoral registration officer to employ another organisation or other individuals to assist him with the preparation of parts of the register. The Bill's wording already provides that flexibility. However, I will consider the hon. Gentleman's suggestion to see whether a change of wording might be useful. I should be able to do that within the next few days and we may be able return to the matter, if not on Report, then in another place. The hon. Gentleman has made a useful proposition and I will give further thought to it. However, at present, I do not think that the amendment is necessary.
      Mr. Greenway: Can we be clear what the Minister is saying? Has he received advice that the preparation of the register does not preclude electoral registration officers sub-contracting work to someone else?
      Mr. O'Brien: That is correct, providing that the final responsibility for what is done and how it is done remains with the electoral registration officer. That is my understanding, but I will take further advice to ensure that that is the position. I shall certainly write to the hon. Gentleman if anything changes.
      Mr. Greenway: I am grateful to the Minister for his helpful response. I take it from what he said that we are correct in our assumption that the idea is being considered and that it is a question of whether the Bill allows for it. I am grateful for his promise to reconsider the issue. I hope that on Report next Wednesday we can reach a conclusion. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Mr. Greenway: I beg to move amendment No. 22, in page 10, line 26, leave out "or on behalf of".
      The Temporary Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 73, in page 10, line 32, leave out ", and".
      No. 90, in page 10, leave out lines 33 to 35 and insert
      "explaining to persons registered or applying to be registered, or persons acting on behalf of such persons, the means by which they may secure the exclusion of their names and addresses from the edited register".
      No. 74, in page 10, line 35, at end insert—
      "(c) confirming that personal approval has been given for the exclusion of their names and addresses from the register;
      "(d) explaining fully the consequences of exclusion of their names and addresses from that register.".
      No. 75, in page 10, line 35, at end insert—
      "(3) Provisions requiring that the excluded names and addresses be reinstated on the register in the event of the person registered so requesting.".
      Mr. Greenway: The amendments deal with an important issue. When a householder completes the electoral registration form that he will be sent each year or which he requests when moving house so that he can be placed on the new rolling register, we understand that the householder alone will be responsible for ticking the opt-out box on the registration form. He will do so on behalf not only of himself, but of all the other voters at that address.
      We are encouraged by what the Minister said earlier about the importance of the leaflet and of the explanation given to electors about the consequences of ticking the opt-out box. However, it is not acceptable for a householder to take responsibility for other adults, so that they do not receive mail or so that their names and addresses are not available to credit reference agencies.
      I shall describe the best example that has been provided by industry. Dad fills in a form, but one, two or three of his children of voting age may be at university or college. Quite properly, they will be on the register for their home address, but dad might tick the opt-out box so that all the registered voters in that household go on the edited register. His daughter who, let us say, is at university in Durham—which is where one of my three children went—may go to a shop to buy a television on credit, but may suddenly discover that she cannot receive credit because dad ticked the opt-out box. Her name and address will not be on the list to which the supplier has access.
      I know that you, Mrs. Dunwoody, are greatly interested in media matters and that is an interest that we share. However, I was astounded, when I went to the Comet store in Old Kent road to get an ONdigital package, to find that I was able to take it away because the young lady at the counter was able to tap into her computer and discover my address in Gilbert road, Kennington, owing to my being on the electoral register. I suspect that if I had not been on the electoral register, I would not have been allowed to take the item away, regardless of the fact that I am a Member of Parliament and the holder of God knows how many credit cards.
      The point that we are stressing in the amendment is that it cannot be right for the householder alone to have responsibility for opting out of access to a whole range of services on behalf of other adults. Unless the Minister is going to give us cause for another cheer, we are not asking him to accept the amendment today, but we hope that on
      470
      Report on Wednesday he will state whether the leaflet will make clear the consequences of opting out for all members of the household.
      If possible, the leaflet, as well as the electoral registration form, should provide the opt-out box. Any member of the household who wanted to opt out could then do so by using the leaflet, rather than ticking the registration form, which of course most of us want to fill in and send off as quickly as possible, rather than leaving it lying around, particularly as it always comes with a prepaid envelope. Inadvertently, the householder may create a problem by simply ticking the opt-out box on the form.
      We covered amendment No. 90 in an earlier debate. It would add to the Bill because it would make it clear that the leaflet provided for in clause 9 would have a specific task of explaining to persons registered or applying to be registered the means by which they may secure the exclusion of their name from the edited register. That would provide more opportunity precisely to spell out the consequences of ticking the opt-out box, which the Minister has acknowledged is important. Our earlier debate made clear those consequences, which every member of the Committee understands could be far reaching, so they should be properly explained.
      Mr. Allan: I rise to speak to amendments Nos. 73 to 75, in the names of my colleagues. Amendment No. 74 covers some of the same ground as the amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway). It is important that we consider who should be able to authorise the opt-out and the exclusion of someone's name from the edited register. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman's speech will have persuaded masses of people not to opt out of the main register when they learn that they will be excluded from the delights of ONdigital if they do so.
      There is a fundamental issue of principle here. Earlier the Minister was talking about the individual's choice, and if choice is a principle, to have someone deciding, on behalf of others, to opt out of the register, would be incompatible with the arguments advanced by the Minister. I was attracted by the suggestion made by the hon. Member for Ryedale—that the opt-out should be included in the leaflet and be separate from the registration form. That would be a sensible way to ensure that we have a clear procedure for sending back the registration form and a second procedure for dealing with opt-out requests. That could be extended to enable people to opt in or out at various times of the year.
      The second part of amendment No. 74, which relates to explaining the consequences of exclusion from the register, is to some extent covered by the Minister's arguments about preparing a leaflet. However, the Bill should include provision for explaining the consequences of opting out. Clause 9 makes provision for explaining what the edited register will be used for, but the Bill does not require the regulations to describe the consequences of opting out.
      3.45 pm
      Amendment No. 75 is important because it would allow people to opt back into the register. The Minister touched on that earlier, but we need clarification about the

      471
      procedures for opting in. We also need a procedure for people to obtain their electoral register data, even though they have not been on the public register.
      Problems frequently occur when people who have no credit status seek credit, because a credit company will want to know how many years they have been at their address. The current register is not enough; the company will want three or four years' history. I fear that people who are socially and financially excluded and who have opted out for a number of years will want to get hold of their data to prove to somebody that they were resident at an address for several years.
      The Minister should consider whether there should be a procedure whereby a fee is paid, not for instant credit, but for people who want proof of residence at an address. They should be able to go to the electoral registration office and get a statement to prove that they have been on the register for certain years. It is important that somebody who has secretly been on the register for several years should be able to prove that, if it is to their advantage. There is no provision in the Bill for people to do so.
      I hope that the Minister will accept that the amendments have been tabled in a positive spirit to try to ensure that we make the most of the Government's plan to have two registers. Both amendments deal with provisions that we should like tightened up before the Report stage.
      Mr. Mike O'Brien: Amendment No. 22 is a deceptive little amendment. It appears harmless, but its effect could well be to damage electoral registration rates, particularly among young people.
      It is a long-standing feature of our electoral registration arrangements that the registration form is completed by the head of the household. That may sound a little old-fashioned, but there are good reasons for continuing with that arrangement. Certainly that is the view of electoral registration officers. First, it significantly reduces the number of forms that officers have to process. Secondly, officers have no other way of knowing when new people move into a household or when children reach voting age. The present arrangement makes the head of the household, who may in practice be any member of it, responsible for ensuring that all eligible people are on the electoral register.
      Most importantly, without that arrangement very few of our young people would appear on the electoral register. It is regrettable that so few young people would be bothered to take the initiative to register as electors if left to their own devices, but it is certainly not a fact that we can ignore.
      Mr. Eric Forth: Is the Minister suggesting that people deserve the vote if they cannot even be bothered to take the steps necessary to register? It seems a rather odd argument that we should allow people the great privilege and responsibility of voting but rely on someone else to initiate that process. Surely the first test of eligibility to vote should be simply to ask someone to take the initiative to register, whether they are young or not.
      Mr. O'Brien: I know that the right hon. Gentleman and some of his colleagues are in favour of putting tests
      472
      and obstructions in the way of people who wish to vote, but I suggest that we should seek to encourage people to register. The traditional method of registration, which the right hon. Gentleman's party and mine have supported in the past, is that the head of the household takes responsibility for ensuring that those who are under 18 are included on the electoral register so that when they reach 18, they can vote.
      That is a good approach. It ensures the registration of many young people who, for life style and other reasons, may not think that they need to register before they turn 18 so that they can vote if an election occurs shortly after their 18th birthday. We ought to make the procedure easier for them and ensure that the head of the household is able to take on that task.
      I hope therefore that the Committee will understand why we must preserve the present arrangement under which the electoral registration form is completed by the head of the household. The amendment would strike at the heart of that principle. The head of a household would never be able to complete a form with an opt-out request on behalf of another member of the household. Anyone who wanted to opt out would need to complete his own form. We would rapidly be moving into a system of individual registration which, for the reasons I have advanced, would be a most undesirable step.
      Under the scheme that we envisage, once there is an opt-out box the head of a household will be able to take reasonable steps to ascertain the preferences of other members of the household. In the overwhelming majority of cases that would simply involve asking them.
      We recognise, however, that there will be cases where that process is simply not possible. In a student hall of residence, for example, we envisage that the warden might put up a notice saying that he intends to send back the electoral registration form in three weeks' time, and that any resident who wishes to exercise the right to opt out should contact him within that period. There are already provisions in the Bill to the effect that if someone deliberately filled in the form incorrectly, he or she would be committing an offence. There is protection for people who might fear some form of mendacity.
      That brings me to amendments Nos. 73 and 74, which were tabled by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan). Under the terms of the first part of amendment No. 74, anyone who wanted to opt out of inclusion on the edited register would need to give his personal approval. So either each individual would need to complete his own form, with all the disadvantages that I have already outlined, or everybody concerned who wanted to opt out would have to sign the same form.
      Let us consider the situation of a couple who always decide to exercise their right to opt out. If in one particular year one of the couple happened to be away from home at the time when the electoral registration form was to be completed, that person's partner would not be able to complete the opt-out box on his or her behalf even though he or she was well aware of the preferences of the person concerned. That would be the effect of the amendment, and that does not seem to me to be right.
      The second part of amendment No. 74 is unnecessary. As I have already explained, we fully intend to put out a leaflet, to accompany the introduction of the new system,

      473
      which will explain the consequences of exercising the right to opt out of inclusion in the edited register. That decision is of importance to all members of a household. Anyone who is head of a household and filling in the form should ensure that he properly consults other members of the household, who may have a view as a result of consequences that may fall on them if the wrong decision is made.
      I shall deal briefly with amendment No. 75. I believe that it is unnecessary. It will be open to anyone in respect of whom the box was wrongly ticked, or for whom the box was not ticked although he would have liked it to be, to apply to the registration officer for a correction to be made. We have a rolling register programme, and that is the whole purpose of it.
      Amendment No. 90 would delete a provision which allows regulations to be made specifying a form of words for registration officers to use in determining whether people wish their names to be included in the edited register. If there are to be two versions of the register, clearly the electoral registration form needs to explain how people can go about deciding whether they wish to exercise their right to be included in the edited register. We think that a uniform approach to this is needed, which is why the provision which the amendments seeks to delete was included in the Bill. Indeed, the amendment would insert a provision allowing for a form of words to be specified for the purpose of explaining to people how to go about getting their names excluded from the edited register. I cannot see what advantages that offers over and above the provisions that are set out in the Bill.
      I do not believe that any of the amendments would improve the Bill and I hope that, given the reasons that I have advanced, hon. Members will decide to withdraw them.
      Mr. Greenway: I am not a lawyer and the Minister is. My reading of new paragraph 10(1) in clause 9(2) is wholly different from that of the Government. I do not believe for a second that our amendment would have the adverse consequence that he suggests. Given that the Committee wishes to make progress, and that we have made our point, perhaps we can return to the matter on Report. I do not believe his explanation about the head of the household and the ticking of boxes. I am even more confused about wardens of university colleges explaining whether people will have the box ticked or not. I am not sure whether that explanation was entirely accurate.
      In the light of what the Minister said earlier about his willingness to accept amendment No. 21, I beg to ask leave to withdraw amendment No. 22.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Amendment made: No. 21, in page 10, line 32, after "which", insert—
      "both the full register and".—[Mr. Greenway.]
      Amendment proposed: No. 91, in page 10, line 42, at end insert—
      "(ab) to supply to any persons registered under the 1998 Data Protection Act copies of the full register and other documents, or prescribed parts of them, on payment of a prescribed fee and for exempt purposes only"—[Mr. Greenway.]
      The Committee divided: Ayes 157, Noes 287.

      Division No. 26]

      [3.56 pm

      AYES

      Allan, Richard

      Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

      Amess, David

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

      Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

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

      Baker, Norman

      Baldry, Tony

      Key, Robert

      Bercow, John

      King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Kirkbride, Miss Julie

      Blunt, Crispin

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Body, Sir Richard

      Lansley, Andrew

      Boswell, Tim

      Leigh, Edward

      Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

      Letwin, Oliver

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

      Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

      Brady, Graham

      Lidington, David

      Brake, Tom

      Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

      Brazier, Julian

      Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

      Breed, Colin

      Loughton, Tim

      Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

      Luff, Peter

      Browning, Mrs Angela

      Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

      Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

      MacGregor, Rt Hon John

      Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

      McIntosh, Miss Anne

      Burnett, John

      MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

      Burns, Simon

      Maclean, Rt Hon David

      Butterfill, John

      Maclennan, Fit Hon Robert

      Cash, William

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

      Madel, Sir David

      Malins, Humfrey

      Chope, Christopher

      Maples, John

      Clappison, James

      Mates, Michael

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

      Maude, Rt Hon Francis

      Collins, Tim

      May, Mrs Theresa

      Cormack, Sir Patrick

      Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

      Cran, James

      Moss, Malcolm

      Curry, Rt Hon David

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Davey, Edward (Kingston)

      Norman, Archie

      Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

      O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

      Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice & Howden)

      Öpik, Lembit

      Ottaway, Richard

      Day, Stephen

      Page, Richard

      Duncan, Alan

      Paice, James

      Duncan Smith, Iain

      Paterson, Owen

      Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Pickles, Eric

      Evans, Nigel

      Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

      Faber, David

      Prior, David

      Fabricant, Michael

      Redwood, Rt Hon John

      Fallon, Michael

      Rendel, David

      Flight, Howard

      Robathan, Andrew

      Forth, Rt Hon Eric

      Robertson, Laurence

      Fox, Dr Liam

      Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

      Fraser, Christopher

      Ross, William (E Lond'y)

      Gale, Roger

      Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)

      Garnier, Edward

      Ruffley, David

      George, Andrew (St Ives)

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      Gibb, Nick

      St Aubyn, Nick

      Gill, Christopher

      Sanders, Adrian

      Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Shepherd, Richard

      Green, Damian

      Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

      Greenway, John

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

      Grieve, Dominic

      Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

      Hammond, Philip

      Spelman, Mrs Caroline

      Hawkins, Nick

      Spicer, Sir Michael

      Hayes, John

      Spring, Richard

      Heald, Oliver

      Steen, Anthony

      Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

      Streeter, Gary

      Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

      Stunell, Andrew

      Horam, John

      Swayne, Desmond

      Howard, Rt Hon Michael

      Syms, Robert

      Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

      Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

      Hunter, Andrew

      Taylor, John M (Solihull)

      Jack, Rt Hon Michael

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      475

      Taylor, Sir Teddy

      Whitney, Sir Raymond

      Tonge, Dr Jenny

      Whittingdale, John

      Townend, John

      Wilkinson, John

      Tredinnick, David

      Willetts, David

      Trend, Michael

      Wilshire, David

      Tyrie, Andrew

      Yeo, Tim

      Walter, Robert

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Wardle, Charles

      Mrs. Eleanor Laing and

      Waterson, Nigel

      Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown.

      NOES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

      Ainger, Nick

      Cummings, John

      Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

      Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

      Allen, Graham

      Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

      Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

      Dalyell, Tam

      Atherton, Ms Candy

      Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

      Austin, John

      Darvill, Keith

      Barnes, Harry

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Barron, Kevin

      Davidson, Ian

      Battle, John

      Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

      Beard, Nigel

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

      Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

      Bell, Martin (Tatton)

      Dean, Mrs Janet

      Benton, Joe

      Denham, John

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Dismore, Andrew

      Berry, Roger

      Dobbin, Jim

      Best, Harold

      Donohoe, Brian H

      Betts, Clive

      Dowd, Jim

      Blackman, Liz

      Drew, David

      Blears, Ms Hazel

      Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

      Blizzard, Bob

      Edwards, Huw

      Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

      Efford, Clive

      Borrow, David

      Ennis, Jeff

      Bradley, Keith (Withington)

      Field, Rt Hon Frank

      Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

      Fisher, Mark

      Brinton, Mrs Helen

      Fitzsimons, Lorna

      Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

      Flynn, Paul

      Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

      Follett, Barbara

      Browne, Desmond

      Foster, Rt Hon Derek

      Burden, Richard

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

      Burgon, Colin

      Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

      Butler, Mrs Christine

      Fyfe, Maria

      Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

      Galloway, George

      Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

      Gardiner, Barry

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Gerrard, Neil

      Cann, Jamie

      Gibson, Dr Ian

      Caplin, Ivor

      Godman, Dr Norman A

      Casale, Roger

      Godsiff, Roger

      Cawsey, Ian

      Goggins, Paul

      Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Chaytor, David

      Gordon, Mrs Eileen

      Clapham, Michael

      Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

      Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Grogan, John

      Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

      Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

      Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

      Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

      Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

      Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

      Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

      Heal, Mrs Sylvia

      Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

      Healey, John

      Clelland, David

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      Coaker, Vernon

      Hepburn, Stephen

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Heppell, John

      Cohen, Harry

      Hesford, Stephen

      Coleman, Iain

      Hinchliffe, David

      Connarty, Michael

      Hodge, Ms Margaret

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Hood, Jimmy

      Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)

      Hope, Phil

      Corbett, Robin

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

      Corston, Jean

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Cousins, Jim

      Howells, Dr Kim

      Cranston, Ross

      Hoyle, Lindsay

      Crausby, David

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      476

      Hurst, Alan

      Pollard, Kerry

      Hutton, John

      Pond, Chris

      Iddon, Dr Brian

      Pope, Greg

      Illsley, Eric

      Pound, Stephen

      Jenkins, Brian

      Powell, Sir Raymond

      Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

      Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Prosser, Gwyn

      Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

      Purchase, Ken

      Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

      Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce

      Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

      Radice, Rt Hon Giles

      Rammell, Bill

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      Rapson, Syd

      Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

      Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

      Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

      Keeble, Ms Sally

      Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

      Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

      Rogers, Allan

      Kemp, Fraser

      Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff

      Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

      Rooney, Terry

      Khabra, Piara S

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Roy, Frank

      King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

      Ruane, Chris

      King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

      Ruddock, Joan

      Kumar, Dr Ashok

      Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

      Ladyman, Dr Stephen

      Ryan, Ms Joan

      Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

      Salter, Martin

      Laxton, Bob

      Sarwar, Mohammad

      Lepper, David

      Savidge, Malcolm

      Levitt, Tom

      Sawford, Phil

      Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

      Shaw, Jonathan

      Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

      Sheerman, Barry

      Linton, Martin

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

      Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

      Love, Andrew

      Singh, Marsha

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

      McCabe, Steve

      Smith, Angela (Basildon)

      McCafferty, Ms Chris

      Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

      Macdonald, Calum

      McDonnell, John

      Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

      McIsaac, Shona

      Smith, John (Glamorgan)

      McNamara, Kevin

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      McNulty, Tony

      Soley, Clive

      MacShane, Denis

      Southworth, Ms Helen

      McWalter, Tony

      Squire, Ms Rachel

      McWilliam, John

      Starkey, Dr Phyllis

      Mallaber, Judy

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

      Stevenson, George

      Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

      Stewart, David (Inverness E)

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Stinchcombe, Paul

      Martlew, Eric

      Stoate, Dr Howard

      Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

      Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

      Meale, Alan

      Stuart, Ms Gisela

      Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

      Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

      Miller, Andrew

      Taylor, David (NW Leics)

      Mitchell, Austin

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Moffatt, Laura

      Timms, Stephen

      Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

      Tipping, Paddy

      Motley, Elliot

      Todd, Mark

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

      Touhig, Don

      Trickett, Jon

      Mountford, Kali

      Truswell, Paul

      Mudie, George

      Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

      Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

      Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

      Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

      Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

      Naysmith, Dr Doug

      Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

      O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

      Tynan, Bill

      O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

      Vis, Dr Rudi

      O'Neill, Martin

      Walley, Ms Joan

      Organ, Mrs Diana

      Wareing, Robert N

      Palmer, Dr Nick

      Watts, David

      Pearson, Ian

      White, Brian

      Pendry, Tom

      Whitehead, Dr Alan

      Perham, Ms Linda

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Pickthall, Colin

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

      Pike, Peter L

      477

      Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

      Worthington, Tony

      Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

      Wray, James

      Wilson, Brian

      Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

      Winnick, David

      Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

      Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

      Wyatt, Derek

      Wise, Audrey

      Wood, Mike

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Woodward, Shaun

      Mr. Mike Hall and

      Woolas, Phil

      Mrs. Anne McGuire.

      Question accordingly negatived.
      Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.
      Mr. Allan: I want to follow up a point that was made when we considered amendments Nos. 77 and 78 about whether data derived from the register can be disclosed to a third party. Political parties currently process data and create delivery lists that state, for example, that a road contains 40 houses, of which the even numbers are two to 20 and the odd numbers are one to 21. That data is used for our purposes and passed on to charities, which use it as a free source of information for their collectors. It is not used for direct access to individuals; it is simply a free source of useful data. The Minister said earlier that he did not understand why the amendments had been tabled, so I have tried to explain. Can he confirm that we will be able to continue to use the data within the regulations? I emphasise that we provide only information that has been derived from the register. Does he support that?
      Mr. Mike O'Brien: The hon. Gentleman asks me the same question as Bill Powell from Atherstone in my constituency. He is also a Liberal Democrat. As I have told him and the Committee, the proposal deserves a sympathetic response. We can deal with the matter through regulations. The hon. Gentleman suggests that it should be permitted to pass on essentially statistical information to charities. I have sympathy for that approach and I believe that we can find ways in which to achieve that. I hope that the matter can be tackled later through regulations and that I shall be able to satisfy him.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Clause 9, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 10

      PILOT SCHEMES
      Mr. Nigel Evans: I beg to move amendment No. 26, in page 11, line 37, at end insert—
      "(1A) No local authority shall submit a scheme to the Secretary of State unless it has consulted with electors and other interested persons in its area on the scheme for a period of at least 28 days prior to the submission of the scheme, and the authority shall submit to the Secretary of State any responses received during the consultation period.
      (1B) No local authority shall submit a scheme to the Secretary of State unless the scheme has been approved by a meeting of the authority, with at least two—thirds of the members present and voting being in favour of the submission of the scheme to the Secretary of State.".
      The clause could lead to the most fundamental change for many years in the way in which we vote. We join the Minister in his desire, about which he spoke yesterday, to preserve the integrity of the voting system. The provision
      478
      deals with the way in which local authorities will submit plans for pilot projects for new forms of voting or counting votes—or both—in their areas or parts of their areas at local elections in England and Wales.
      Turnouts at local elections are derisory in parts of this country. There is a crisis of democracy in local elections. However, I suspect that the changes that we are considering today will only partially correct the decline. More needs to be done to tackle the real reasons for voter apathy. Statistics show that, in metropolitan boroughs, the turnout declined from 33 per cent. in 1973 to 26 per cent. last year, and from 40 per cent. to 37 per cent. in the English districts during the same period. In only three years, the English unitary authorities have seen a decline in voting to less than one third of the electorate.
      4.15 pm
      Mr. Forth: I hope that, as my hon. Friend develops his argument, he will elaborate on whether he believes that people do not vote at the moment because it is inconvenient or difficult for them to get to the polling station, because they are positively abstaining, or because they simply cannot be bothered. The analysis of the reasons for differing turnouts is crucial to deciding whether the clause is valid.
      Mr. Evans: I am grateful for that intervention. As I said earlier, the decline in voting is due to several reasons. The changes that we make today may alter the turnout at local elections only slightly. The Government are examining why people do not vote in local government elections. I believe that people get frustrated when they vote for their local councillors who vote against planning applications only for the local authority's decision to be overturned by an inspector from Bristol, against the democratic wishes of the people who voted for the councillors. At the last local elections, at least one elector told me that that was the specific reason for her decision not to vote. There are several reasons for abstaining, including positive abstention and apathy. The Bill will at least remove one of the obstacles that prevents people from voting at local elections.
      Mr. John Bercow: While we are considering pilot schemes and consultation, is not it a good idea for the Committee to embolden itself to demand a proper restoration of the powers of self-government, even if only as a pilot scheme, to maximise participation—
      The Temporary Chairman: Order. I am sure that the Committee has no difficulty in emboldening itself. However, we might astonish ourselves by sticking to the amendment.
      Mr. Evans: Yesterday, I treated the Committee to a resume of my dismal results at parliamentary elections. Today, I can correct that by relating some of my local government election results, which are slightly better than my parliamentary results—a 50 per cent. success rate. I do not blame electoral procedures for my derisory results. In the United Kingdom, we are all used to voting in local elections on Thursdays between 8 am and 9 pm, and using a pencil on a piece of paper at a prescribed polling station, which is usually a school. The ballot

      479
      papers are pooled in a given place and counted manually. A winner—increasingly, a Conservative—is announced, and thus elected as a councillor.
      The clause provides for changes to the system that are potentially wide ranging. Amendment No. 26 would ensure that the pilot schemes not only had the consent of the Home Secretary but that they had been fully considered and that local people had been fully consulted. We are in favour of the pilot schemes, but we have reservations about some of the suggestions for them. We support sensible suggestions for making voting easier. However, I stress that we must be careful not to facilitate fraudulent voting.
      The changes could lead to ballot boxes being taken to places of work—completely outside polling stations. They could also be taken to remote areas where only a few people live and a polling station would not usually be manned. When I was in Australia more than a year ago, we stopped at a small place called Paralchino, where only 11 people live. The ballot box is taken to them, they vote and the ballot box is taken away. One of the pilot schemes may be run along those lines.
      Ballot boxes could be taken from polling stations to residential or nursing homes, where we know there are specific problems in enabling elderly people to vote. It has been suggested that polling booths might be placed in supermarkets so that people are able to vote while shopping. Voting hours could also be further extended from those I have mentioned, or the number of days over which a poll takes place could be increased to two or perhaps even three or more. One suggestion is that all-postal ballots might, in certain places, replace the traditional polling booth. The pencil could be replaced by electronic voting—
      The Temporary Chairman: Order. That is all very interesting, but the amendment is specific and relates to pilot schemes.
      Mr. Evans: Yes, Mrs. Dunwoody. I am discussing the variety of pilot schemes and the fundamental changes that they will achieve. The Secretary of State will be given powers and, once schemes have taken place, will be able to introduce those changes throughout the country at general, European and a number of other elections. Those fundamental changes will be tested in the pilots and we want to make absolutely certain that they are tested properly within the local authority areas, that local authorities consult fully with the people in their areas over 28 days and that, as proposed new subsection (1B) states, a scheme has "at least two-thirds" support in the authority.
      The White Paper "Modern Local Government: In Touch with the People" states:
      "The Government must safeguard the integrity of elections and ensure that any experiments do not lead to an increase in electoral fraud."
      That is what we are concerned about. It continues:
      "Experiments would therefore have to be sanctioned by the Government. In some cases it would work directly with chosen councils to develop the rules for an experiment."
      I am sure that the Minister will want to address the anxieties of, for example, the Local Government Association about ensuring that sufficient pilots take place
      480
      and that he will take on board the concern that they should have local popular support. Speed is of the essence and I believe that the Government are keen to get the pilots up and running for the local elections.
      Mr. Bercow rose—
      The Temporary Chairman: Order. The amendment concerns consultation and I hope that we shall have a general debate on that, not the pilot schemes.
      Mr. Evans: Thank you, Mrs. Dunwoody. I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow).
      Mr. Bercow: On consultation and popular opinion, to which my hon. Friend has alluded, would he be kind enough to tell me and the Committee how many representations he has received from constituents in Ribble Valley in support of the principle or practice of such pilot schemes? It is important to demonstrate the degree of public interest.
      Mr. Evans: There are elections in Ribble Valley every four years and the next ones will not take place for some time. The pilot schemes will take place this year and next so Ribble Valley will not be involved. Hon. Members will make their own decisions about the popular support for the schemes, but I support the Government's intention to widen the franchise, which is why we need to ensure that voting is made easier. At the same time, fraudulent voting must not be made easier, which is why we are asking the Secretary of State, through the amendment, to ensure that proper consultation takes place with local people.
      Mr. Mark Fisher: May I help the hon. Gentleman? Was he suggesting no representations—a nil return? Is that what he was trying to say?
      Mr. Evans: Yes, that is right. A pilot scheme is unlikely to take place in my area because there will not be elections for at least another two years, which is why I would not expect the people of Ribble Valley to write to me asking for one. None the less, elections will take place in May in more than 150 local authority areas and may be taking place in the hon. Gentleman's area.
      Mr. Fisher: The hon. Gentleman might be interested to know that I have not received a single inquiry along those lines, and I rather doubt that any other Member of the House has.
      The Temporary Chairman: Order. Those are important points that can be made on clause stand part. We are talking about consultation and I am sure that the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) is about to return to it.
      Mr. Evans: The points that have been drawn out by my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham and the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) reinforce our amendment. We are asking that the local authorities consult positively with people in their areas. When we discussed amendments concerning reducing the voting age from 18 to 16 I said that I had received no

      481
      letters from constituents on that matter, but I was told that that did not really matter and that what was right was important. Making it easier for people to vote is right, but we must achieve that in such a way that we are not making it easier for people to vote fraudulently.
      I hope that the Minister takes on board the fact that we are seeking a consensus on the pilots. We can achieve that by ensuring that the local authorities, at least 28 days before the pilots are submitted to the Secretary of State, positively seek the opinions of the people and organisations in their areas on the suggestions that they are making. In respect of proposed new subsection (1B), we are seeking the same sort of consensus that there is on the changes. Local authorities would have to hold a vote. We are seeking two-thirds approval for a pilot submitted by an authority to the Secretary of State, which would clearly show that there was a consensus in that authority.
      We appreciate that the changes that could result from the pilot schemes might be fundamental. Indeed, the hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Woodward) himself talked about the "wide-ranging powers" that would be conferred on the Secretary of State, saying that
      "we have become rather used to those with this rather autocratic Government".—[Official Report, 4 November 1999; Vol. 337, c. 553.]
      We ought to be more concerned about that. I hope that the Minister can reassure the Committee that, although he may not be able to accept our amendment, he will at least look at it again to ensure that we achieve proper consensus on the pilots.
      Mr. Alan Hurst: I am most grateful to be called to speak on this matter and I hope to be brief. I know that you, Mrs. Dunwoody, will put me in my place immediately if I stray too far into general principles.
      I understand fully that one of the evils to be remedied is fraudulent voting, but the other matter about which one has to be cautious is the politically motivated stationing of polling booths or mechanisms for attracting voters that will favour one party or faction as opposed to another. The hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) mentioned the possibility of siting a polling station by a factory, but local people would know very well that siting a polling station by factory A may produce a different result from siting one outside stockbroker office B. Placing a polling booth by a certain railway station would produce a different equation from placing it by another station. I hope, therefore, that local authorities will consult not 28 days before submitting a scheme, but way before. I should have thought that any responsible local authority would take soundings well in advance of publishing a scheme.
      There is a second aspect to the amendment, which concerns a two-thirds majority being obtained at the local district council meeting. Surely such a provision would virtually block any progress on a pilot scheme, except in authorities where there was an overwhelming majority. Even the events that are occurring now are leading to different political consequences in polling stations; it would be very surprising if a two-thirds majority on councils that were controlled overwhelmingly by one party led to a consensus.
      I cannot support the amendment in its present form, but I hope that the spirit of consultation, and of soundings before the implementation of the scheme, will be adopted by all responsible local authorities.
      4.30 pm
      Mr. Simon Hughes: I support the amendment in general terms, but I think it important for us to ensure that proper consultation takes place before pilot schemes are adopted. If we are to engage people in the democratic process and ensure that those people think that our measures are not gimmicks but are for real, we must be certain that the water has been tested.
      Let me share with the Committee an experience that I still have far too often, and find very frustrating. I hear of proposals from local authority officers which, before any consultation has taken place, have been presented to the public. Although the proposals have come from their own officers, councils often are not told the details, and Members of Parliament frequently are not consulted.
      There ought to be a process to deal with that. I welcome the idea of a pilot scheme, and I know that the Minister is aware that I have a positive approach to the Bill as a whole; but I think it important for enough people to have been consulted to give the idea some credibility and credence. It should not be seen as the whim of someone who has had a wheeze of an idea. If we are to modernise and update the system, we do not want to experience lots of failures. When the pilots have happened, we shall not want to hear that no one voted and that it was not a good idea.
      The general purpose of the amendment is that ideas should be presented on the basis of popular support, that those ideas should be tested and that they should then be validated.
      Mr. Grieve: Consultation with local authorities is highly variable. It can range from what could be described as full consultation to consultation in circumstances that have often led me to believe that the consultation has been stage-managed with the aim of achieving the desired results. Is not that an argument for also introducing a mechanism to ensure that, at council level, such changes cannot be implemented without more than a 50:50 consensus?
      Mr. Hughes: I am sympathetic to that point. The genesis of the Bill lay in a working party in which the Government tried, entirely reasonably, to achieve consensus. The Bill resulted from the consensus that was achieved; proposals that did not achieve consensus are not in the Bill, because they merit a different process.
      I am sympathetic to the argument advanced by the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve). Specifically, I want all local councils and parties to be consulted as a matter of course. The hon. Gentleman's constituency contains a district authority and a county authority. I believe that, in areas where that is the case, both tiers should be consulted. In fact, I think that there should be only one authority, and that Members of Parliament and Members of the European Parliament should be involved automatically.
      Guarantees should be included in the Bill. There should be certainty about the process: for instance, a minimum time should be specified for consultation. The other day, a consultation in London began on 15 December, with a closing date of 4 January. The consultation dealt with a Government proposal about expenses for the mayor of London. It was hardly geared to maximise public

      483
      participation and response; indeed, some of us were sceptical about the idea that the aim had been maximum public participation.
      Guarantees are needed. We have all been victims of consultations that have started on 31 July when the deadline has been 6 September. I do not want to labour the point, but I think that the general view is that the Minister should reassure us that either the law or secondary legislation—regulations—will deliver what we want.
      Mr. Forth: I do not agree with the thrust of this part of the Bill, and I regret to say that I do not share the enthusiasm expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans).
      I am slightly reassured by the fact that the wording of the clause that the amendment is intended to alter provides a safeguard before we rush headlong into unnecessary change, but I will keep most of what I want to say in reserve for the stand part debate, which an earlier occupant of the Chair suggested would be appropriate for wider discussion.
      As I understand it, nothing can happen unless or until the relevant local authorities have submitted proposals to the Secretary of State. That is useful from my point of view, because I suspect that it will mean that nothing will happen at all in many parts of the country, which I think is a very good thing—I see no reason for these changes. The proposals would then have to be approved by the Secretary of State. I suppose that they might be defective, and the Secretary of State might see fit not to approve them, so there is another possible safeguard there. The Secretary of State would then make an order, and so on.
      There is a certain safeguard against what I regard as unnecessary change in any case. I believe that voting is entirely practicable now for citizens who wish to cast their votes, and that there is no need for extraordinary or even bizarre measures to induce people to vote.
      I consider the amendment to be defective in a number of ways. I am very unhappy about new section (1A). As my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) has pointed out, it makes a vague reference to consultation with electors. I consider the changes envisaged in the Bill and, indeed, in the amendment to be so fundamental and so radical as to require much more support and reassurance than is provided by consultation with electors, in the loose sense in which it is proposed in the amendment. Surely it should be demonstrated that a significant proportion of voters in an area are enthusiastic about the idea of pilot schemes that will begin to change something as fundamental to our democratic process as our electoral system, rather than mere consultation.
      We all know—those of us who were in government until two and a half years ago, and those of us who are now in government—how variable the consultation process can be. We know how meaningful and, indeed, how meaningless it can be. I am sorry to say this to my colleagues who have signed the amendment, but I do not believe that the proposed approach to consultation provides anything like the reassurance that should enable us to embark on changes as radical as those proposed in the Bill.
      484
      I am, however, more reassured by what is proposed in the proposed new subsection (1B). I am reassured by the higher hurdle involved. The hon. Member for Braintree (Mr. Hurst) suggested that the hurdle was too high; I consider it to be appropriately high. I think that our electorate will be reassured if we require visible, palpable, substantial support before taking these steps towards change. I think that the proposed subsection (1B) gives that, but that subsection (1A) falls short of what is required.
      I am in a dilemma about the amendment. I do not support clause 10 but I shall return to that later. I would like to support subsection (1B), but I am very unhappy about subsection (1A). I suppose the only conclusion I can draw is that, as it goes further in the direction that I would like from the original wording, I am prepared to support it on that basis. I believe, however, that we need far more safeguards and reassurances before plunging headlong down the path proposed in clause 10.
      Mr. David Maclean: I support the amendment merely because it makes a bad clause slightly better. I am genuinely concerned about clause 10, which has the potential to create a right shambles throughout the country as different authorities produce different ideas on voting and present different schemes to the Secretary of State.
      With the best will in the world, how will the Home Office know whether a proposal by X authority in some part of the country is properly thought out, properly workable, fair and will not lead to a polling booth being situated outside a factory that employs, say, 500 people? It may sound eminently sensible, but it may stack the voting in the ward one way. If the mobile polling station were put outside a school where mothers pick up children in a different part of the ward, there might be a totally different result.
      Therefore, there are grave dangers in allowing local authorities to come up with their own ideas and schemes on how to increase votes in their area. They may not be widening the franchise generally, but be planning to stack votes in favour of a particular party in a local authority area.
      It is not good enough for the Bill to say that the scheme must be approved by the Secretary of State. If local authorities have written the scheme cleverly and put in all the correct buzz words and phrases about fair and impartial voting, the Home Office will not spot it, unless it gets a big staff increase and can go around every local authority area to check in detail its proposals for mobile voting, or for whatever local quirk that they wish to introduce. That is my worry about the Bill.
      If the Government want to increase voting opportunities by putting polling stations in shops, supermarkets and, in that case, rural post offices—
      The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. The right hon. Gentleman is talking about various pilot schemes and new systems. The amendment deals with consultation and approval. I should be grateful if he would stick to that.
      Mr. Maclean: I am grateful for the reminder, Mr. Lord. I was trying to set the scene and to say why, if the Government were to create a hotchpotch of systems

      485
      throughout the country, consultation before local authorities sent a scheme to the Home Office would be vital.
      There is only one safeguard in the Bill: after a local authority comes up with a scheme, the rest of the electorate have to depend on the Home Office and the Secretary of State to say, "No, that is a bit dodgy. We do not like it. The proposals are faulty. We will send them back and reject it." The amendment suggests that there must be widespread consultation locally. It could identify difficult, bogus, fraudulent schemes, and schemes that have not been properly thought out, or may be politically biased.
      I do not think that any hon. Member would trust every local authority to come up with foolproof schemes without some bias. There are about 400 local authorities. With the best will in the world, some of them, somewhere, will make mistakes. The schemes of some may be politically motivated. The amendment proposes consultation. That may identify to local people what the authority is up to and prevent some dodgy schemes being presented to the Secretary of State as if they were all legitimate and above board.
      I support the proposal for two-thirds majority votes, although I am not generally in favour of them; I believe that, on most occasions, a simple majority is sufficient. However, in view of the way in which the Government are, in some ways, putting the cart before the horse with their proposals, I favour subsection (1B) and two-thirds majority voting.
      I would have preferred it if the Government, in going down the route of having lots of different schemes throughout the country for different systems of voting, had put into the Bill clear principles and guidelines on how it should be done, a list and schedule of appropriate places and the safeguards to be built in. They could then have invited local authorities to produce proposals that met those guidelines and criteria. In those circumstances, I would have been happier, but, as the Government have gone down the route of inviting local authorities to invent any scheme that they wish, with the Home Office then arbitrating, it is vital both to have widespread consultation locally and to ensure that there is a public vote in the local authority, with a two-thirds majority. In that way, we can be assured that the majority of elected representatives locally are happy with the proposals that are sent to the Home Office.
      4.45 pm
      Mr. Grieve: When the scheme first came before the House on Second Reading, I broadly supported it. It was one of the clauses that I thought was fairly creative. I thought that because I accept that there are ways in which our voting methods may be improved, but, picking up the points that have already been made—I do not want to repeat, or to labour, them too much—the merit of the present system is that it is essentially completely depoliticised.
      Looking back over what is now, I suppose, 20 years of involvement in local politics before even becoming a Member of Parliament, I can think of no occasion when the siting of polling stations, for example, was a contentious issue. The whole thing is so enshrined in the tradition that it is handled simply by the chief executive's department in the local authority. In my experience, it has not been questioned.
      486
      There must be some anxiety that, if we embark on an action that encourages local authorities, at what is essentially a political level, to come up with pilot schemes on how voting may be improved, there will be ulterior motives, as was touched on by the hon. Member for Braintree (Mr. Hurst). That causes me concern. I leave aside whether moving the polling station to a new location that appears to favour one party or another will lead to a different result. The provision may mean that what has never been questioned will suddenly be questioned. I can foresee that, on the Floor of the House, Members will say to Home Office Ministers that there is gerrymandering of polling station sitings, for example. When I considered the matter on Second Reading, that did not hit me in the face. It was only when I reflected on it afterwards that I could see the dangers inherent in such a change.
      I do not want to pull the rug from under any change because I accept, as I said on Second Reading, that innovatory ideas may be beneficial, but we need to be careful because, as we know, there are local authorities throughout the country, not necessarily represented by one political party, whose motives are often questioned. Those will precisely be the places where most questions will be asked about any changes. It is vital, therefore, that some local consensus should be achieved.
      As I told the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), local authority consultations are variable things, and some of them are scandalous. It is not unusual to have a local authority consultation in which, notwithstanding the fact that a majority of individuals have expressed view A, the local authority—by use of some extraordinary, creative statistics—nevertheless decides that its idea, which was in favour of view B, should still be given a go. The Home Secretary will then have to make various difficult decisions, and politicise what had previously been a non-political process.
      I should be interested to hear from any other hon. Member in the debate whether, hitherto, the siting of polling stations in their constituencies—which tends to be long-established in local schools—has caused major political problems. I cannot think of any examples of that happening, but I should be interested to hear whether it has.
      The proposal might open Pandora's box.
      Mr. Simon Hughes: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman and I are far apart in our general views on the issue. However, proper consultation on the fairly limited issue of polling stations is necessary when one is told categorically, "We must have a polling station for each polling district," although the logical and cost-effective place for those people—in district A—to vote is just across the road, in district B, where most of them live. There are important issues to address.
      I therefore agree with the hon. Gentleman that general ground rules on minimum consultation time and on informing people should be established and not left entirely—with no checking or authorisation—to local authority discretion.
      Mr. Grieve: I agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman. I also support amendment No. 26. It is not perfect—various flaws have been identified—but perfection in the matter cannot be achieved.

      487
      Clause 10, as drafted, worries me. The last thing that I want is, in four or five years, the House being dominated at Question Time or at other times by arguments over alleged gerrymandering as a consequence of changes to something that had previously been accepted, without question and without anxiety, as a matter of routine. It is not a matter simply of improving, but of public perception.
      The issue is non-contentious, but we are possibly about to make it contentious, and that does not seem to be particularly desirable. Let us ensure that the benefits that may come out of the proposal—possibly, for example, different voting hours or ways of casting a vote—are not clouded by the politicisation of a process that has hitherto been non-political.
      The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. George Howarth): I am pleased to tell the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) that I have some sympathy with the first half of amendment No. 26. My support for the amendment is probably—and appropriately—in direct proportion to the opposition to it expressed by the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth).
      Clearly, it would be undesirable if local authorities were to operate pilot schemes that were contrary to, or out of tune with, the wishes of the local electorate. However, for reasons that I shall explain in a moment, including in the legislation an explicit requirement to consult seems unnecessary. When any pilot scheme is being considered or designed, and given certain guarantees and conditions, we have to trust local elected representatives to be aware of, and to represent—that is why they are elected—the interests of those who elect them.
      My colleagues at the Home Office recently issued one of their regular circulars to local authorities, part of which dealt with the operation of the Bill and the application process for authorities that are interested in operating schemes. The right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean)—who not only spoke in the debate, but served at the Home Office in the previous Government—will know that such circulars are issued fairly regularly.
      The circular makes it clear that only applications that are well thought out and planned will be approved by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. In deciding which schemes meet those criteria, he will be looking for evidence that the application commands the confidence and support of local people. If he feels that a scheme is inappropriate and would not command the local population's sympathy, he would automatically rule it to be inappropriate. An application to run a pilot scheme that obviously does not have the support of local people would, in those circumstances, have little or no chance of being successful.
      We should leave it to local authorities to decide how to meet the requirement. They might want to engage in formal consultation over 28 days or some other period; they might want to send people knocking on doors; or they might want to place articles in local papers and invite comments on them. It is for each local authority to consider the best way of advertising and receiving views
      488
      on their proposals. I hope that the hon. Member for Ribble Valley accepts that consultation will be integral to any pilot scheme, so there should be no need for the first part of his amendment, although the principle behind it is good.
      The hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) and my hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (Mr. Hurst) touched on issues relating to the location of polling stations and the effect that it could have on the outcome of an election. Local authorities already have the power to designate polling stations, and an appeals mechanism can be invoked by electors who believe that the local authority has failed to exercise that duty properly. The Bill does not change that. If there are suspicions of mischief or gerrymandering—a word that the hon. Member for Beaconsfield used, perhaps in the heat of the moment—it is open to any elector, including members of political parties who feel that the situation is disadvantaging a section of the electorate, to appeal against the siting of a polling station.
      Mr. Grieve: How often are such complaints made or upheld under the existing rules? My experience is that the process is wholly depoliticised and I am anxious that it should remain so.
      Mr. Howarth: I have no global statistics on the number of appeals, but I have experience of it happening. My local party once felt that a mobile polling station was inappropriately sited. On one occasion, we protested about its inaccessibility for people with disabilities. I understand from the global statistics that are available that such appeals are rare, which leads me to believe that the system is probably run fairly.
      I stand to be corrected, but I think that it was Winston Churchill who said that a majority of one was enough. That principle has applied at every level of government. I clearly remember the previous Government often surviving perilous situations by one vote. On one occasion, they did not even survive by one vote, but overnight they were able to reverse that. We accept the principle that a simple majority is all that is required for even the most momentous legislation to pass through this House. The same is true in local government. I see no reason to depart from that principle for pilot schemes.
      Arguably the most important decision that a local authority takes each year is to set its budget. I speak as a former local authority finance committee chairman. Fortunately, on Knowsley council the majority in the vote on the budget was never likely to be as small as one. That is in the nature of the psephology of the situation. If I had ever had to get the budget through by one vote, that would have been enough. Why should we treat pilot schemes any differently?
      5 pm
      I want to draw attention to the criteria that local authorities might be expected to consider when proposing schemes as they might be relevant in respect of consultation. It might be for the convenience of the Committee if I refer hon. Members to Home Office RPA circular 430. I am assured that a copy was sent to the

      489
      Opposition parties, although I do not know whether it has filtered down to the relevant spokesmen. Paragraph 31 of the document states:
      "An application to run a pilot scheme must be made to the Home Secretary and must include the following information".
      It then lists 11 pieces of information. I shall read out the last two.
      Sub-paragraph 10 states:
      "Details of the arrangements that will be made to evaluate the pilot scheme".
      It will be the responsibility of the local authority operating each individual pilot scheme to submit an evaluation of the effect of the scheme. It will obviously include such factors as turnout. If a pilot scheme operated in a way that was unexpected or unfair, that should feature in the evaluation. So those who are concerned about any mischief being made should accept the professionalism of electoral registration officers and others involved in elections in submitting an objective and honest evaluation of the pilot schemes.
      Sub-paragraph 11 states:
      "An assurance that no voter will be put at a disadvantage by the proposed innovation, that the opportunities for fraud will not be enhanced and that the secrecy of the poll will be maintained."
      There are other requirements involving such details as the name and the minutes of the council approving the scheme, so I shall not go through them exhaustively.
      I hope that the circular, the process in which it involves local authorities and the fact that they need to evaluate any pilot scheme objectively and inform the Home Office of its outcome will assure the Committee that, although the amendments provided the opportunity for a useful debate, they are not necessary. I hope that the hon. Member for Ribble Valley will feel it in his power to withdraw them.
      Mr. Evans: This has been a useful debate on two major issues: consultation and the pilot schemes. As the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) pointed out, consultation can be defined in many ways. That is why the amendment is prescriptive and proposes that consultation should continue for at least 28 days.
      I was a local councillor in opposition in West Glamorgan. The local authority had to consult widely before setting its budget. It seemed to be a matter of getting the businesses in and letting them have their say before jacking up the rates to tremendous levels. At least the authority could argue that local businesses had been consulted. We are looking for meaningful consultation on these changes. The pilot schemes represent a major constitutional change affecting voting. Local authorities are not the only ones who are guilty of poor consultation; so were the present Government and past Government in various respects.
      The second part of the amendment, concerning thresholds, relates to clause 11, which transfers enormous powers to the Home Secretary. Once clause 10 has been implemented and the pilots have been approved, the Secretary of State can introduce those changes throughout the country. General election results could change on the basis of what might happen in the pilots described in clause 10. We therefore want to make certain that the pilots are subject to proper consultation and that
      490
      consensus is achieved in the local authority area, to be demonstrated by a vote in favour by two thirds of the local authority councillors present and voting.
      I also hope that the Home Secretary will feel able to publish the results of the pilot schemes, so that we have an opportunity to see exactly what is intended and where, and can make our own judgments.
      Mr. George Howarth: I can confirm that the Home Secretary intends to publish the results.
      Mr. Evans: I am grateful for that assurance, because we will all take a keen interest in the progress of the pilot schemes and how they are evaluated in different areas. I understand that local authorities are already consulting on pilot schemes to be put forward to the Home Secretary for the May 2000 elections. The time scale will be very tight, even though consideration of the Bill is proceeding apace here and in the other place. We want to be sure that the consultation will be thorough, so we will wish to ensure before proceedings are concluded that all local authorities will be well aware that the Home Secretary will examine all pilot projects to see what consultation took place before the proposals were submitted. However, I know that the Minister is not keen to see that requirement included in the Bill. With the assurances he has given, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Mr. Evans: I beg to move amendment No. 18, in page 12, line 2, at end insert—
      '(2A) Where a scheme under this section makes provision for voting in a particular election to take place on more than one day, it shall be an offence for any person to make public, at any time before all voting in the election concerned has been completed, information which indicates or purports to indicate the way in which two or more persons have cast their votes in that election.
      (2B) A person guilty of an offence under subsection (2A) of this section is 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 or to both.'.
      We aim to ensure the integrity of the ballot, and our amendment would prevent the publication of any exit poll that could affect the outcome of an election. Let us suppose that an election were to be held over two days, as the pilot schemes could allow. On the first day, exit polls could be conducted by various organisations for their own purposes, including media of all types, and the results could be published at the end of the day. If those polls indicated a trend in the voting, they could influence the final result.
      We have all experienced the way in which the Liberal Democrats conduct their own polls during elections and publish the results in leaflets that claim that they are closing the gap on the party in first place. They do that to try to influence the outcome of the vote. We do not seek to prevent such skulduggery, but we do wish to prevent exit polls that arise from actual voting. We have information from the Library about other countries that have banned polling for various periods before elections take place. France is one of the best examples, because it has banned polling for two weeks while elections take place over two Sundays.
      Polls can be suspect at the best of times and I am sure that we all remember warmly the uselessness of the exit polling in the 1992 general election. If the exit poll had

      491
      been released before the voting had finished, people might have been induced to vote differently because of what they perceived the possible result to be. The amendment would ensure that bogus exit polls—and even accurate ones—would play no part in the election process. We want people to vote on the issues of the campaign, not on inside information.
      Mr. Maclean: This is another amendment that attempts to tighten up a piece of nonsense in the Bill. The idea that we need to allow more than one day for voting in local authority elections is preposterous. Polling stations are open for a minimum of 14 hours for local government elections. A 30 per cent. turnout is achieved, at the expense of great disruption to schools, especially primary schools, which lose a day of lessons because they are open for electoral purposes.
      Mr. George Howarth: The right hon. Gentleman may know that the Home Office often receives representations from people who are called away on urgent business on the day of an election. There is no opportunity for them to cast a vote, as they do not have time to apply for postal votes or proxy votes. Does the right hon. Gentleman think that reasonable?
      The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. We are not debating whether there should be voting on one or more days. We are debating whether, if there is voting on one or more days, there should be exit polls.
      Mr. Maclean: That is it exactly, Mr. Lord. To answer the Minister, I shall have to return to the matter in the clause stand part debate. It is very easy for people to get a postal vote these days if they anticipate that they may be called away. People can get a postal vote automatically for lots of reasons these days, whether or not they intend to be away on the day of an election.
      The amendment would improve slightly what is a nonsense in the Bill. I do not believe that exit polls, or opinion polls in general, should be banned. In countries where that has been tried, secret party polls and other information are still available days in advance and can influence voters. The Government propose that polling stations should be open for two days in a bid to raise turnout from 30 per cent. to 31 per cent. That is nonsense: it is dead easy to vote, but 70 per cent. of the public cannot be bothered. However, if the aim is to get those idle people out to vote, we need to adopt the proposal in the amendment.
      Mr. Simon Hughes: I do not have share the strident opinion of the electorate expressed by the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean). I believe that anything that might increase election turnout is worth experimenting with.
      I support the idea that the process should be regulated. In America, polls close on one coast long before they do on the other coast. The influence exerted by Vermont on California—if I have got that the right way around—is always an issue.
      Mr. Forth: What about Hawaii?
      Mr. Hughes: We must not forget Hawaii, of course. When the Minister responds, I hope that he will answer a
      492
      question about postal votes. They are often counted earlier than those cast in the ballot box, although they can be submitted right up until the polls close. However, if we are to regulate as proposed in the amendment, we must cover the relatively small number of votes counted and attested before the main count.
      Perhaps the answer should be that, regardless of how early votes are cast, no counting is begun until all votes are in. Before the count starts, we would need to ensure that only a verification exercise was undertaken, not a counting exercise. It would not be helpful if a survey of those who voted in the first two days of an election showed that one party was 50 per cent. ahead. That would influence the result, and I hope that the Committee would not support that proposition.
      Mr. Forth: I echo the sentiments expressed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean), but in a slightly different way. The mere fact that my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) has tabled the amendment and that we have had this debate illustrates the difficulties inherent in this section of the Bill. If we were not having to debate the nonsense of spreading voting over a period of time or, as we shall come to, a number of different places, we would not have to consider safeguards.
      5.15 pm
      One of the beauties—the elegance, the simplicity—of our long-established electoral arrangements is that they are familiar. That in itself undermines the argument that somehow it is difficult to vote and that we should make it easier. However, what is perhaps even more important in the context of this amendment is that the simplicity, elegance and transparency of our existing arrangements makes them, if not foolproof, then proof against the kind of dangers that previous speakers have described. That should act as yet another warning signal that we are treading a dangerous path. We are proposing tinkering and experimenting with long-standing established arrangements in something as fundamental and crucial as our electoral process and voting procedures. That should give us pause for thought and, perhaps, should discourage us from proceeding.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley has identified this danger, for which I praise him. However, I believe that a measure such as this is essential to prevent abuse of the new processes on which we may now be embarking. If local authorities, having jumped the hurdles that we discussed, go down this route, it will be incumbent on us to anticipate any difficulties that may arise and eliminate or reduce them as far as possible. However, the mere fact that we are worrying about safeguards illustrates the dangers of what is being proposed.
      I support my hon. Friend's amendment, and will come back to the other matters on clause stand part.
      Mr. George Howarth: I shall be brief, and hope that I can satisfy the Committee. When he moved the amendment, the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) referred to bogus polls.
      Mr. Evans: Some bogus polls.
      Mr. Howarth: Indeed. I draw the Committee's attention to a poll that was published by the Liberal Democrats in my constituency prior to the 1997 general election.
      Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: Your friends.
      Mr. Howarth: My friends indeed. The poll told the electors, who I think had more sense than to take any notice, that my majority was on a knife edge, and that the Liberal Democrat candidate would be likely to displace me come polling day. I am glad to say that they were wrong—I had a majority of more than 26,000 votes.
      Mr. Simon Hughes: I always warn my colleagues about the dangers of exaggeration.
      Mr. Howarth: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman gives that advice, but I note that he does not always take it himself.
      I am attracted by the arguments of the hon. Member for Ribble Valley. My colleagues at the Home Office are minded, given his agreement to withdraw the amendment, to take the issue away and look at it. There is some potential for distorting the outcome of an election in these circumstances. The amendment contains a sensible principle, and we need to address it. I also give an undertaking to address the point that the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) raised about postal votes.
      Mr. Evans: I am encouraged by what the Minister said. I am not persuaded by double-day voting, but the reality of the pilot is that some may be introduced. In that case, we need to ensure that there are safeguards. I am more persuaded by the proposal of the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Linton), which we shall debate later, to make the cut-off dates in respect of matters such as postal voting far shorter, therefore obviating the need for the expensive double-voting procedures.
      In the light of the Minister's assurances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Mr. Evans: I beg to move amendment No. 19, in page 12, line 2, at end insert—
      "(2C) Where a scheme under this section makes provision for voting in a particular election to take place on more than one day or to take place at places other than polling stations, any person voting in the election concerned shall be required, as a condition of voting, to produce at the place of voting at least one item of documentary evidence of that person's identity.
      (2D) The items of documentary evidence required for the purposes of subsection (2C) of this section shall be any of—

      (a) a valid United Kingdom passport;

      (b) a valid United Kingdom driving licence;

      (c) a printed statement from a bank or building society authorised to do business in the United Kingdom dated not more than 28 days before the day on which voting in the election commences;

      (d) a copy of any of the foregoing certified by a commissioner for oaths,

      or such other document as may in the reasonable opinion of the registration officer concerned constitute sufficient evidence of the identity of the person referred to in subsection (2C) of this section.".
      494
      The amendment is consequential on voting taking place over more than one day or in more than one polling station. It is a common-sense measure that will help to reduce the incidence of fraudulent voting, at a time when we want to simplify the voting system.
      Yesterday, we held a good debate on proofs of identity when making declarations of locality. The amendment builds on that. We heard that personation is a reality, although we do not know the exact rate at which it occurs. I hope that the Government will carry out a study of that matter as soon as possible. In evaluating the pilots, local authorities could compare personation before and during the pilots. In any event, some work must be undertaken.
      In making voting easier, we want to ensure that the integrity of the vote is preserved. Currently, anyone can stroll up to a polling station and state who they are. They need no proof; they do not need to show documentation or a polling card. Amendment No. 19 provides that voters should give some proof of identification when the vote is stretched over several days or when they are not voting in their normal polling station. We have not asked for especially onerous proofs; they would be required only at elections that are different from the norm. The amendment would allow electoral registration officers great flexibility; they could accept many different proofs of identity before giving out the ballot paper.
      I hope that when the Minister responds to this simple, common-sense measure, he will be able to tell the Committee that in those pilots that deviate from the norm, the rest of the electorate will be assured that there will be safeguards to ensure that personation will not increase.
      Mr. Hurst: First, I should declare an interest, because the purport of the amendment—at least in part—is to enrich those of us commissioned to administer oaths. I so make that declaration. Notwithstanding that enticement, I oppose the amendment on the following grounds.
      I am uncertain whether the Bill contains a definition of the words "polling station". I take it that, if one voted in a booth or a box in a supermarket, for the purpose of the election, that would be a polling station. With all due respect to the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans), there may be some defects in the drafting of the amendment, if the evil that he seeks to remedy is to be addressed.
      The substance of the amendment deals with the production of documentation. In other debates on other amendments, the question of identity cards has been raised. I am a great supporter of identity cards—among a growing number of such supporters—but we do not have them at present. People with some experience of elections will know that it is not always possible for voters to find their polling cards, especially as local authorities now take it upon themselves to send out polling cards weeks ahead of an election. We might consider the effect on local government turnout if the only official notification of the election is a polling card sent out six weeks before.
      At present, people can vote without any proof of identity at all. I suspect that no one in this place has not told a voter, "Don't worry, you don't need anything to vote. Just tell them who you are and where you live." All of a sudden, it will become much more difficult; one will have to produce a passport—many people do not have passports. One will have to produce a driving licence—

      495
      that discriminates against those who do not drive. One will have to produce a printed statement from a bank or building society. By golly, that would be quite a task.
      When collecting electors in a car, we will have to say, "You can't possibly come yet, Mrs. Jones, because you do not have all the documentation to satisfy them that you are who we know you are." If the amendment were accepted, we should place a great burden on the registration officer or the polling clerk at the polling station. Many arguments would ensue about whether a particular document was good enough evidence, or whether the written statement of the car driver who picked up electors from a certain address was a document sufficient to justify them being able to vote at that polling station.
      Most pernicious of all, the documentary addition to voting is discriminatory against the poor, almost certainly discriminatory against the elderly and certainly discriminatory against those who live some distance from a polling station, in that if they leave the documents behind, they are unlikely to go back and get them.
      Mr. Evans: The hon. Gentleman is making more of this than it is worth. We are asking for only one piece of documentation, and the amendment does provide for a lot of examples. There can be few people who would not be able to produce something with their name and address on it to show to the person giving out the ballot papers that they were who they said they were and lived where they said they lived.
      Mr. Hurst: At present, that is not the position. I understood that the purpose of the Bill was to increase voting. If we are going to introduce documentary hurdles that people must jump over to poll, damage will ensue.
      I understand the point that the hon. Member for Ribble Valley is trying to address. He wants to avoid people voting at their own polling station, and then traipsing down to Tesco, Sainsbury or wherever the hordes of democracy will hereafter reside and casting a second vote. However, with the wonders of the computer age and the amounts of money that public bodies spend on computerised systems, I would have thought it possible for computers in the polling stations or booths to be able to cross-check within the system who has already voted. If so, the need for documentary evidence is superfluous, and should be strongly resisted.
      Mr. Forth: I am somewhat torn on the amendment, and I am puzzled by the implications of the options to vote at different places. If I, as a voter, am able to go to any one of a number of local places to vote—and I can choose from among them—presumably, if I have already voted at one, there must be a mechanism to communicate that fact to all the others to make sure that I do not do it again. In theory, I could go to each one, providing proof of identity, and vote several times over. I am sure that the Minister will reassure me that that has been considered.
      I cannot agree with the hon. Member for Braintree (Mr. Hurst) that it is unreasonable to ask someone who is to cast their vote for their representative to be able to provide some demonstration of their identity. That is asked for in many other daily transactions, and the
      496
      amendment would make it as easy as possible. However, I am not sure that the list would fulfil the function that is intended for it. The passport has a picture, but no address. The current driving licence has an address, but no picture. I am not sure what a printed statement from a bank would tell anyone about the person presenting it at a multiple polling station. Also, I share the hon. Gentleman's suspicions in respect of commissioners of oaths.
      The amendment raises yet another question—a different example of the phenomenon that we examined in our discussions on the previous amendment. It is becoming ever more apparent that the possibility of loopholes and failures arising increases every time we consider variable times and places of election.
      My hon. Friend has diligently moved the amendment and the Minister has equally diligently sought to answer questions and to reassure us about the circulars and so on. I hope that he will tell us, as he said he would, that my worries about multiple voting will be catered for, if not in the way that the amendment suggests. However, the mere fact that we have had to go through that process merely reinforces my suspicion that we are embarking on a dangerous route.
      5.30 pm
      In spite of the doubts that I have expressed about the amendment, something of its kind will be necessary to reassure us if we start to alter the electoral system. I agree with my hon. Friend about the words in the amendment that refer to
      "such other document as may in the reasonable opinion of the registration officer constitute sufficient evidence".
      That is the good old British solution of deciding what is "reasonable". Surely those words cover most of the objections raised by the hon. Member for Braintree. The reasonable and proper approach is to allow someone wanting and intending to vote to produce reasonable proof of his identity, whatever that proof might be. For Members of Parliament, it could be their parliamentary pass—I do not know, but it would be something like that.
      I hope that the Minister will tell us that he and his officials have thought the issue through carefully and that he believes that there will and should be mechanisms in place properly to answer the doubts that my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) raised.
      Mr. George Howarth: I congratulate the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) on raising the issue. It is the type of issue that the Committee should consider in its examination of the Bill. When local authorities plan their pilot schemes, it is important that they consider all the issues so that opportunities for personation do not arise.
      I understand and sympathise with the concerns about electoral fraud. However, provided that the schemes are properly thought out, I fail to see why early voting or mobile polling stations should give rise to it. I shall explain the reasons for that view, because they are directly relevant to the comments of the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth).
      If there is more than one place at which an elector can vote, there must obviously be some link between them to ensure that, once someone has voted in one place, he cannot vote elsewhere. That is precisely the type of issue

      497
      that we expect to see dealt with in the applications that are made for pilot schemes. Indeed, fraud was covered in the circular to which I drew attention earlier. If there is no provision for such linkage, it simply would not be feasible to approve a pilot scheme.
      The computer technology that is available to many local authorities, although by no means all of them, is sufficient, through modems and a central database on to which the register would be downloaded, to make it possible for someone's vote at a supermarket to be registered on the central database. Therefore, any other opportunity that that person would have to vote would be closed. That is the simple truth of the matter, and we will look for such assurances in the pilot schemes.
      With that explanation, I hope that the hon. Member for Ribble Valley will feel able not to press the amendment.
      Mr. Evans: This has been another useful debate, and I am grateful for the Minister's response.
      The hon. Member for Braintree (Mr. Hurst) mentioned the fact that we, as canvassers and candidates, often tell people not to worry that they do not have their polling cards because they can still vote without them. We stress that point and we do not want to remove that option. However, the amendment deals with a specific pilot project that could be extended. If people are able to vote in more than one polling station—at present, we are allowed to vote only in the one designated for our address—a new problem will be created. We want to deal with that problem by ensuring that more people are able to vote, but not that the same people vote more often at the same election.
      From what the Minister said, the schemes that local authorities introduce may require proofs of identity. That may be why he does not want such a provision in the Bill.
      Mr. Maclean: My hon. Friend is a computer expert, but does he agree that if one has, for example, the opportunity to vote at three places in a district—at the primary school, at B&Q and at the supermarket—and all those places have to be linked by modem to a central database or to each other, that would require them to be online continuously for 15 hours, which would involve enormous cost?
      Mr. Evans: I totally agree. Perhaps only one polling station would be made available to people other than the one in which they would normally vote. That depends on the pilot schemes.
      Mr. George Howarth: To satisfy the hon. Gentleman and the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean), I can say that the eighth point that needs to be considered in any application under the terms of the circular is an indication of the likely additional cost or savings arising from the running of a pilot scheme. That is one of the factors that the Home Secretary will take into account.
      Mr. Evans: I am grateful to the Minister.
      On proof of identity, in other countries something is done to voters when they vote, such as dyeing their finger or thumb, so that they are unable to vote again. We do not want to do that, and I am sure that the Home Secretary would look askance at any pilot projects that proposed to dye people's fingers after they had voted.
      498
      New technology, however, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) suggested, should at least provide the opportunity for local authorities to come up with pilot schemes, perhaps in alliance with new technology companies which will want to advance a particular technology and demonstrate to the rest of the country that it works. That technology would have to be proven.
      Mr. William Ross: I am rather sorry that I missed the beginning of the debate because I am intrigued as to why the Conservative party, in tabling an amendment, did not look at the list of identification documents that it imposed on all electors in Northern Ireland at single polling stations.
      Has the hon. Gentleman considered the problems that will arise for political parties that might want to have a presence at every polling point, as is the case with us in Northern Ireland for very good reasons? There are many problems with the idea of a multiplicity of polling points which need to be carefully thought through before we pursue that policy. That system would be wide open to abuse, especially organised abuse such as we experience in Northern Ireland.
      Mr. Evans: The hon. Gentleman speaks with great authority and experience of the problems that will arise when people are able to vote in more than one place and on more than one day. We shall therefore watch the Bill's progress carefully and note any amendments made in another place or in this place at later stages.
      I hope that the Minister will listen carefully to the concerns of hon. Members generally that when we move away from single voting days and single polling stations, new problems will arise which need to be solved before elections take place. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Mr. Evans: I beg to move amendment No. 24, in page 12, line 2, at end insert—
      "(2A) No scheme under this section that makes provision for voting on more than one day shall make provision for voting to take place on any Friday, Saturday or Sunday.".
      The Second Deputy Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 25, in page 12, line 2, at end insert—
      "(2A) No scheme under this section that makes provision for voting on more than one day shall make provision for voting to take place on more than three days before the day of the poll.".
      Mr. Evans: We aim yet again to ensure that voting is made easier, but that due regard is paid to the sensitivities of large groups of people who would feel offended if voting were to take place on key religious days. Amendment No. 24 would rule out voting on Friday, Saturday and Sunday. I need not go into further detail on that.
      It would be ironic if a measure aimed at increasing voting participation had the reverse effect. The working group considered the matter and, in paragraph 3.18, said:
      "Pilot schemes would need to take account of the implications for strict religious observation of most faiths of any move from Thursday voting."

      499
      I know that the Minister is well aware of that problem.
      Amendment No. 25 aims to restrict voting to four days, by stating that voting should occur for no more than three days before the day of the poll. Like colleagues who have already spoken, I am extremely sceptical about extending single-day voting. That is why I shall be listening carefully to the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Linton) when he speaks to his amendment No. 86, on postal voting.
      I think that we can address most of the problems that will result given the inability of people to get to polling stations because of mobility difficulties and because of the way in which jobs have changed. We know that, all of a sudden, people may be called away in the course of their employment. More readily available postal votes will meet most of these problems. However, if there is a pilot project for voting on more than one day, there must be certain safeguards. To have polling taking place for a few days in one week and a few days in another would be inoperable and unrealistic.
      The hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross) has spoken about the problems of political parties being able to monitor what is taking place. Once we move to polling taking place on more than one day, and perhaps on more than one day in one week, we shall face real problems in allowing political parties to monitor the fair operation of elections. Amendment No. 25 would restrict the number of voting days before polling day.
      Mr. Maclean: I do not support amendment No. 24. I believe that extending voting for local government elections beyond more than one day is nonsensical. However, if that is the way in which the Government wish to go, so that there can be voting for two or three days, and they want pilot schemes to that effect, I see no good reason to bar certain days of the week.
      If we are to have genuine consultation, as the Minister has suggested, I assume that local authorities in certain areas will not come forward with proposals to have voting on the day of the Jewish sabbath or on a day of any other strict religious observance. Even if there is a second day of voting that falls on a holy day, there is no problem provided that there is one day on either side of it that is not a holy day.
      I would be strongly opposed to a proposition that there should be only one day of voting, which could be moved to a Friday, Saturday or Sunday. Such a proposal would understandably cause great offence to those who still have some—
      Mr. Hurst: I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman recalls that Saturday was commonly the polling day in urban district and rural district elections.
      Mr. Maclean: I am perhaps slightly younger than the hon. Gentleman. I have no personal experience of what he says, but I believe that, historically, he is correct.
      We have a fairly well-established precedent of Thursday being polling day. That is well known and well understood, but we still have a miserable turnout. That is not because it is difficult to vote. Those who do not vote in local government elections will turn out and vote in
      500
      general elections, where the poll will be more than double that in other elections. It is not impossible for people to get to polling stations, and there are not awful difficulties that require two or three days for elections.
      It seems that people have taken a different view about the merits of voting in local elections as opposed to general elections. Similarly, they have taken a view about the merits of voting in European elections. That is a route that I do not wish to go down. I merely suggest that, if the Government are minded to proceed with their proposition that there should be two or three days of polling for local government elections—I oppose that—local authorities must surely have the freedom to come up with any two or three days that they like, after proper consultation with local people. I would not rule out Friday, Saturday or Sunday.
      I have participated in Sunday shopping debates in this place. We must admit, whether we like it or not, that millions more people go shopping on Sunday than to church. If it is the Government's intention to stick a voting box in every supermarket and every B&Q, it would make sense to have polling stations in the shops while they are open, and that would include a Sunday, with the limited shopping hours of between 10 and 4 o'clock. I am opposed to the argument of my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) and I do not support his amendment, but that does not mean that I support the Government's view on increasing the amount of time during which polling may take place.
      5.45 pm
      My right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) pointed out to me that it is difficult to see what amendment No. 25 means. I do not want to steal his speech, but he said that the amendment was nonsensical. It refers to multiple voting days, and specifies that voting should not take place
      "more than three days before the day of the poll."
      If voting takes place on two or three days, which is the day of the poll? I assume that my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley means the last day of the poll—presumably the Thursday, or perhaps the Sunday.
      Nevertheless, there is some sense in saying that, if the Government choose to go down the route of multiple voting days, there must be a cut-off. I think that one day is sufficient. I would grudgingly go to two days at most. Voting over three or four days would be nonsensical in local government elections or any other election. I support the thrust of amendment No. 25, but I would tighten it up.
      Mr. Simon Hughes: Let me take the amendments in reverse order. On amendment No. 25, it seems sensible that a limit on the number of days should be built in to the legislation. Reference has been made to a drafting issue. There is also a practical issue for the political parties and those who administer elections. Spreading the elections over more than one day may bring in marginally more voters, but it entails greater expense and more work on the part of the officials, polling station staff, police and political parties. We must draw a line.
      Amendment No. 24 refers to pilot schemes. It is right that bids for pilot schemes should come up from the grass roots. My hon. Friend the Member for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie) hopes to catch your eye, Mr. Lord,

      501
      on clause 11 and to speak about the position in her part of Scotland, reflecting the fact that there are different views in different parts of the country.
      If voting takes place on a Friday, which may make it difficult for members of the Jewish community to vote, a range of dates must be provided to allow everyone with a strict religious view the opportunity to vote. It may be Sunday for some, Saturday for some and Friday for some. If there is to be non-Thursday voting, and voting is to take place over the long weekend, it must take place over the whole period, otherwise difficulties arise. We understand the issue, but I do not take the view that there should be an absolute bar in the legislation to voting on Sundays, Saturdays or Fridays.
      Incidentally, I remember the participation of the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) as a Minister in the debates on Sunday trading. We are now in the world of Sunday shopping. I am not persuaded that we are the better for it.
      Mr. George Howarth: May I express sympathy for the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans)? I am glad that I have the right hon. Members for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) and for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) facing me, rather than behind me.
      I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for moving the amendments, so that we can debate an issue that will be important to a large number of people. We must make sure that we do nothing to harm the interests of those with strong religious faith, especially anything that would prevent them from voting on a particular day of the week.
      It is up to local authorities to decide which innovations they want to pilot. As we have already discussed, they are required to submit applications and, in so doing, they will have to consider the needs of all their electors. The guidance to local authorities on how to apply for a pilot scheme, to which I referred earlier, makes that clear. Among the material that a local authority will have to include in its application is an assurance
      "that no voter will be put at a disadvantage by the proposed innovation".
      That is unambiguous.
      Clearly, any local authority that wants to try voting on a day other than Thursday will have to consider seriously the religious views of its population. Specific days will be more significant in some areas than in others. I assure the House that the Home Office is conscious of those issues. It is perhaps significant that, on Second Reading, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said, in response to an intervention from the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie):
      "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 the Sabbath. Sunday voting would not be acceptable to them."—[Official Report, 30 November 1999; Vol. 340, c. 172.]
      For that reason, which the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border expressed clearly, we must provide options. I hope therefore that I have reassured the House—
      Mr. William Ross: Party workers may also have severe difficulties in working on Saturdays or Sundays.
      Mr. Howarth: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point, which applies to workers of all parties.
      502
      Let us consider amendment No. 25. I am somewhat puzzled by the thinking behind it because it would impose unnecessary restrictions on local authorities that wished to run pilot schemes to allow voting to take place on more than one day. There is no valid reason for that. The working party on electoral procedures recommended that local authorities should be given the chance to try out innovative electoral procedures. Clause 10 provides for that. The aim of the provision is to allow local authorities the freedom to try out new procedures, which, we hope, may make it easier for people to vote. Imposing restrictions such as those that the amendment proposes would do the opposite. For example, why should voting not take place at the weekend immediately before the Thursday and in the intervening days? What is the objection to offering an early voting facility for more than three days? If a local authority believes that it can run such a scheme successfully, and that it will boost turnout, we should not prohibit such innovation.
      I have already said that local authorities will need to give an assurance that no voter is put at a disadvantage. They will also need to provide an assurance that
      "the opportunities for fraud will not be enhanced and the secrecy of the poll will be maintained."
      Mr. Ross: The Government and everyone who has spoken seem to ignore the implications of multiple day voting for those who apply for postal votes. What difference will multiple day voting make to a time scale that is already tight?
      Mr. Howarth: If the hon. Gentleman exercises a little patience, he will find that that subject will be debated later.
      The debate has been useful. The amendment was not tabled as a probing amendment, but it has enabled us to consider serious issues, which could lead to disfranchisement for some people if the provisions are not implemented sensitively and properly. Nobody supports that. We now have a clearer picture of the way in which the scheme will work. I hope that it is sufficiently clear to persuade the hon. Member for Ribble Valley not to press the amendment.
      Mr. Evans: The Minister has given assurances that those of strong religious beliefs will not be disadvantaged by changes in the pilot schemes or anything that follows them. I am reassured by that. Voting on multiple days will be expensive and none of us envisages polling stations being open throughout a local authority area for more than one day. However, it is possible that one polling station—perhaps at the town hall—will be open for early voting for a period of days.
      As the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) said, we are trying to provide some structure. For example, a polling booth might open for a couple of days, close for some strange reason and then re-open, but I am sure that the Home Secretary will take that into account in any submission on a pilot scheme made by any local authority. With those assurances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
      Mr. Forth: Our short series of debates has illustrated beyond all doubt the incredible difficulties that would be

      503
      caused, were we to proceed with the clause. My difficulty with it is that it apparently stems from the proposition that people have huge problems casting their vote under our present electoral arrangements and that something should be done to ease those difficulties. I do not even accept that as an analysis or a proposition. There is no evidence that people experience enormous difficulties in voting. I doubt whether many Members of the House could come forward with evidence that their constituents have informed them, either verbally or in writing, that they have had great difficulty in voting and want them to make changes. I have received no such representations and doubt whether many other Members have.
      We are therefore starting from the fanciful proposition that a large number of frustrated people in this country would dearly love to vote, but find it difficult to do so under the present arrangements. The clause is completely unnecessary, but it is worse than that. Our debates have teased out not only that, but the fact that the clause would give rise to considerable dangers and difficulties in the process of voting and holding elections, requiring increasingly elaborate and costly measures and safeguards that would, in themselves, endanger that very process.
      We have to weigh up whatever advantages are being claimed for the clause that would induce people who do not vote to do so, as against the real dangers and difficulties that the measures would pose. As has already been suggested, it is rather odd that, with the same electoral arrangements, we get enormous variations in turnout in different elections—local, national, European Parliament or whatever they may be. It would appear that the difference in turnout has little or nothing to do with the arrangements that are in place, but everything to do with voter interest in the different levels of government or representation. That seems to be the variable, not the location of polling booths or the number of days available for voting.
      The case has not been made to support proceeding with the clause, but I am somewhat reassured that at least a series of mechanisms are available or in place to make sure that we do not rush headlong into that. The onus is initially on the relevant local authorities. Should the clause be agreed to and should the Bill proceed—I hope that it will not—it will be interesting to see how many local authorities suggest well-thought-out schemes that will satisfy the Secretary of State in the way that the Minister helpfully described. That will show us whether we should proceed with such proposals.
      Ministers have assured the Committee today that those schemes will have to be examined very closely to make sure that none of the weaknesses that have been exposed in our debates would affect our voting procedures. There is another worry, but we have received a reassurance and I am glad that we have: cost has to be a consideration in respect of the draft criteria, which already exist. I wonder whether at this stage anyone has made even a rough estimate of the difference in cost between the current system and providing new procedures, voting across two or three days, a number of different polling stations and polling opportunities—as we should call them in modern parlance—and all the security and computer systems that will be required.
      504
      6 pm
      I suspect that, if we are to provide a viable, secure alternative to our existing procedures, the cost could prove prohibitive. I hope that that will be taken into consideration. This will not be a cost-free exercise. I hope that when consultation—or the equivalent that the Minister mentioned—takes place, people will be told about the possible cost increase that would be involved if they expressed enthusiasm for the different voting procedures offered to them.
      This would not be a cost-free option; indeed, it might well be a very costly option. People should be asked whether they would like to be able to vote on different days, and in supermarkets—oh, and by the way, they would have to pay the following costs, through either their local taxes or national taxes. It should be made clear to them that this is not a cost-free option, but one to which a price tag is attached.
      I am not a computer expert—I am quite the opposite—but I ask the techno-freaks among us how they think security can be guaranteed if we are to involve computers in the voting process. As I have said, I am a layman with no interest in computers, but every day I read in the newspapers about people breaking into computer systems and corrupting them. That is bad enough when our personal finances are involved; it would be disastrous if it posed any risk of tampering with material relating to voting.
      It must be obvious by now that clause 10 not only has a very flimsy basis—indeed, no basis at all—but involves real dangers and risks for our electoral process. I wonder whether that has been taken into account sufficiently. The mere fact that my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) had to table so many amendments, with the genuine aim of not only identifying the difficulties but dealing with them and providing appropriate safeguards, and the mere fact that the Minister has had to give repeated assurances about the measures that will have to be introduced locally and nationally, give some indication of the fragility of the process being proposed. That, surely, must be a great worry.
      I am not inclined to support a clause that, in my view, leads us down a path that is not only unnecessary but dangerous. If we accepted it at this stage we would, at the very least, need much more reassurance later. We would need to be certain that what we were doing did not constitute an unnecessary folly and, above all, that we would not endanger the integrity of our voting system, which, as far as I know, has never been questioned so far.
      Mr. Maclean: I was interested to note that, when the amendments to clause 10 were discussed—Conservative Members either supported them or distanced themselves from them, for various reasons—the Minister, with the kindness and courtesy for which he is famous, said that he was minded to accept an amendment, or accepted the spirit of it, and that we could look forward to either a revised Government amendment in due course, a Home Office circular or guidance to tidy up the problems identified by my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans).
      That, I think, proves the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth). If we try these radical new electoral procedures, there will be many dangerous loose ends to

      505
      tie up. I am not convinced that the Government have thought all that through, nor am I convinced that local authorities have the ability to do so.
      I am not minded to support clause 10, because I consider it unnecessary to do so. If we look at voting patterns around the world, we see the position of countries that have just emerged from dictatorships and are experiencing democracy for the first time. In some African countries, voters may have to travel 100 miles to polling stations, but there is a 100 per cent. turnout—or very near that—because people are desperate to vote. They have not had that right before, and they treasure it.
      We all say off pat that we must make it easier for people to vote at general and local elections in this country, but our history shows that the easier we make it, the more we take it for granted and the less we vote. If we shove a mobile polling station into every supermarket, outside the door of every school as the mums are picking up the kids, and at every other location where we think that it will be convenient for people to vote, we may find that fewer and fewer people do so.
      I confess that I am one of those who has, on occasion, forgotten to vote at local government elections, or to organise my postal vote. I have made that mistake. I am not happy to admit it, but I must. I suspect that, for one reason or another, other hon. Members have neglected to vote at a local government election.
      That is not because the system is too difficult, we do not qualify for a postal vote, or we are suddenly called away on urgent business. These days, we can easily get a postal vote for almost any reason under the sun. If we legitimately think that, at some time in the future, we might not be in the area to vote, whatever the reason, we can get a postal vote. It is very easy, yet some of us fail or forget to do so. Seventy per cent. of the electorate at every local government election do not do so, yet voting has never been easier.
      The Government's solution is to increase the number of days. They propose two, three or more days. I was worried by the Minister's reply on amendment No. 25. If I heard him correctly, he did not want any bar on the number of days that polling stations could be open for voting, or a voting system could be available for people to use; it could be three, four, five or even more days. Therefore, I am not convinced on principle that we need clause 10. The Government are making it easier for people to vote in the vain hope that it will encourage more people to do so.
      One of the benefits of our present system is that, for 20 or 30 years, voting has regularly been on a Thursday. Every hon. Member has experience of going around at general elections. Probably half the people to whom we speak know that the election is on a Thursday some time soon. Other electors will not be sure what day it is on, but probably about half know without prompting from us that the general election and elections generally take place on a Thursday. I expect that that results in a reasonable number of people getting to the polling station on the right day.
      If we remove that certainty, so that, in local authority areas throughout the country, voting can be on any day of the week, a greater number of the electorate than ever before will be confused about which day the poll will take place. If my experience is anything to go by, everyone to whom I speak denies that they have ever had a polling
      506
      card through the letter box. We all know that they deny even that they have had the party leaflet—the one we delivered five minutes earlier. They say, "No, I have never seen it."
      That is not treating the electorate with contempt. We are the same. We deny having received letters, cards or circulars—[Interruption.] We do not deny it deliberately, but one cannot remember, with that mass of mail, some of the individual correspondence that one gets. Our electorate are the same. They get so much bumf through the letter box that they do not identify certain correspondence. If they receive polling cards two or three weeks before an election saying that they can vote on Monday, Wednesday and Friday, or Saturday, Sunday and Tuesday, and that they can do it in various places, we will have a shambles. We will have confusion. I do not think that it will increase the number of people who vote.
      The Minister said that the Government do not want to include in the Bill a provision that the Home Secretary shall not approve schemes unless he is satisfied that the schemes have adequate local support, and I assume that the extent of the consultation conducted on the schemes will be one of the yardsticks that the Home Secretary uses in judging local support. I should be alarmed, therefore, if the Government are planning to put pilot schemes into operation in May 2000.
      I do not see how—even if the Bill were to proceed apace through both this place and the other place—there could be adequate notification and proper local consultation on such schemes, or how such schemes could legitimately be put into operation, before May 2000. Before we could have proper consultation in a local authority area, we would come up against a very tight deadline.
      I appeal to Ministers: if they are going down that route, for goodness sake, publicise it in detail; and do not urge local authorities to submit rushed schemes, which hard-pressed Home Office Ministers will have to study not at leisure, but in a great rush, so that mistakes are made. As the hon. Member for Braintree (Mr. Hurst) suggested, such an attempt would also increase the danger of gerrymandering.
      Mr. Haselhurst, if I wanted to be political—
      The Chairman of Ways and Means (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. The right hon. Gentleman seems to be quite adrift as to the form of address that should be used when we are in Committee of the whole House and for this particular occupant of the Chair.
      Mr. Maclean: Sir Alan, my apologies to you.
      The hon. Member for Braintree made the key point on the dangers of gerrymandering. If I were to be political, and if I were a politically minded local authority, I could invent a schemr—ehich I am certain would pass Home Office scrutiny—in which, for example, I have the choice of positioning polling stations outside either Safeway supermarket in Penrith, or the Co-operative supermarket, depending on which one might suit my political purposes and provide me with the most votes.
      We are also blessed in our town with two large schools—a grammar school and an excellent comprehensive school—that are 200 yds apart. I could devise a scheme, which could be open to challenge,

      507
      in which a mobile polling station would be positioned outside one school rather than another, so that I may favour people of one political persuasion over another.
      The hon. Member for Braintree dealt with the effects of positioning a polling station outside one factory rather than a different factory or an office complex, where voters' political views might be slightly different.
      The scheme is open to abuse, and I am not certain that the Home Office, with the best will in the world, will be able to spot some of the potential abuses that local authorities could build into it. We shall have to give very careful consideration before approving any such scheme. Although I realise that there is a Home Office circular on the matter, I should have much preferred for a schedule to be included in the Bill, building in cast-iron safeguards. Subsequently, we could invite local authorities to submit proposals that satisfy all the criteria in those safeguards, and then approve those proposals.
      I do not intend to force a vote on clause 10 stand part, because I would have the support of many hon. Members, but I do not think that the clause should stand part, and I may wish to return to it.
      6.15 pm
      Mr. William Ross: Following on briefly from what the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) has just said, in the course of an election there is severe pressure on time. That makes it difficult for legitimate political parties that are trying to get their electorate out, but it also makes it difficult for those who are trying to manipulate the system, because the compressed time scale gives them no slack. The Minister has experience in Northern Ireland and knows what I am driving at and whom I am pointing the finger at.
      The concept of allowing voting over a period of days is fraught with very great dangers. Those dangers do not currently exist on this side of the Irish sea, but we have no way of knowing what the future may bring. I ask the Minister in all sincerity never to allow multiple days for voting in Northern Ireland under any circumstances and to think very carefully before going down that road in Great Britain.
      The concept of voting in a supermarket is daft. When a young mother is coming out of the supermarket in the evening with her shopping and two or three children in tow, worrying about getting the tea made, the last thing that she wants is to be confronted with a polling station. I see that the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie), who is the only hon. Lady present, is nodding. I know what my wife would have said if that had happened to her at that period in her life. We can have a fair idea of what most young mothers would say.
      I was in New Zealand once when an election was being held. There were polling stations in garages along the street because the law there says that nobody in an urban area should have to walk more than a quarter of a mile to a polling station. I am not certain that it has improved the turnout. The turnout at an election has very little to do with the number of days, the period of time—although a long period on one day is probably all to the good—or the distance that people have to travel to the polling station. That may have a minor effect, but the main factor that drives people to vote is whether they want rid of the
      508
      lot that they have in office. If it is really important to them, whether the election is local, national or at some intermediate level, people will vote.
      My advice to the Conservatives, the Liberal Democrats and the Government is a lesson that my party has taken on board: if a party makes it worth people's while to vote for it, it has nought to fear.
      Mr. George Howarth: I shall be brief. The hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross) has some general concerns and some that are specific to Northern Ireland. I am not as well briefed as he is on some of the difficulties there, but I am well aware that there are difficulties. I offered yesterday to meet him and I asked my office this morning to arrange discussions with him. I am anxious to address his concerns. I assure him that it is most unlikely—I think that it is not even possible—that any of the pilots would be set up in Northern Ireland because of the difficulties that he described.
      Throughout my chairmanship of the working party that produced the proposals I tried to create a consensus. There was a consensus among the Liberal Democrats, the Conservatives and my party. All the other parties were copied in to the papers and information that the working party received. There was no lack of effort on our part to create a consensus. I am pleased that, although there have been various debates on the details of the clause, there is a consensus between the main parties that there should be pilots and that those pilots should be properly evaluated and considered with due regard paid to the potential for fraud and gerrymandering—that word has been bandied about. There is a consensus that the clause is worth a try.
      The modern expression for building consensus is "big tent politics". I am pleased that the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) is at least under the awning and that the Liberal Democrats have taken a tentative step into the tent. I regret that the right hon. Members for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) and for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) are in a bivouac in another field.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Clause 10 ordered to stand part of the Bill

    Clause 11

      REVISION OF PROCEDURES IN THE LIGHT OF PILOT SCHEMES
      Mr. Mike O'Brien: I beg to move amendment No. 66, in page 14, line 3, leave out
      "(including the New Northern Ireland Assembly)".
      This is a drafting amendment, essentially to remove the word "new" from the description of the Northern Ireland Assembly.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.
      Mrs. Ray Michie: I shall try to be brief. I did not attempt to catch the eye of Mr. Lord on amendment No. 24 as I understood it to refer only to England and Wales. Clause 11 allows me to say something about voting in Scotland as it deals with rolling out innovations that have been successfully piloted.

      509
      Perhaps the Minister will let me know whether there will be pilot schemes in Scotland as well as in England and Wales.
      Let me state again my reservations about weekend voting, particularly on Sundays. As the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, who has now left the Chamber, said, I raised the matter on Second Reading. The Home Secretary acknowledged that if weekend voting ever became part of the national arrangements, we would have to ensure that it took place on both days. That would be absolutely essential, although I am not sure about voting taking place over several days.
      I am particularly concerned about Sunday voting, which would not be welcomed by many in my constituency.
      Mr. O'Brien: I think that I can deal with the hon. Lady's concerns very briefly by telling her that local election procedures are a devolved matter and are therefore a matter for the Scottish Parliament.
      Mrs. Michie: Indeed, but under clause 11, if pilot schemes are accepted, the House can roll out the mechanism across the entire United Kingdom, including Scotland.
      Mr. O'Brien: For general elections.
      Mrs. Michie: Yes. The clause refers to elections in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
      So, particularly in respect of general elections, Sunday voting would not be welcomed in my constituency and other parts of the highlands and islands of Scotland which still have many Gaelic speaking populations and a tradition of Sunday observance. We try to keep Sunday not just as a day of religious observance, but as a day for the family; a day that is different, a day for a rest and a little bit of peace and quiet in what has become a life of frenetic activity and, for many poor souls, of great stress.
      The fourth report of the Home Affairs Committee refers to this and states at paragraph 63:
      "There are potential problems arising from the fact that both Saturdays and (more significantly numerically) Sundays are days of religious observance for many people. The Home Office paper noted objections on this count from both churches and individuals and the Scottish and Northern Ireland Offices referred to similar problems."
      It also acknowledges that polls would have to be open on both Saturday and Sunday to accommodate the objections, and that would make the exercise more expensive. It is argued that the objections could be met by using a postal vote. The right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) is not in his place, but I agree with him that people often do not apply for a postal vote in time.
      A significant number of people would not vote on a Sunday. The report also suggests that people might be away at weekends. People are used to going to vote before they go to work or after they get home during the week. When the previous Government were in power, a concerted effort appeared to be made to undermine Sundays. I recall opposition to Sunday trading, and I endorse the comments my hon. Friend the Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) made earlier on that subject. I also recall a debate in this Chamber that forced Scotland to allow off-licence sales
      510
      and to open betting shops on a Sunday. That was rammed through in the face of the opposition of a majority of Scottish Members of Parliament, which was regrettable.
      I ask the Government to safeguard the preferences of voters and not to put more pressure on Sundays, for the sake of families, those who would have to officiate at the polling stations, and everyone else who craves a day of rest in an increasingly hectic way of life.
      Mr. Simon Hughes: I endorse the pleas of my hon. Friend the Member for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie) and I wish to add two points. Community views need to be respected, and the Bill will permit that.
      The first point is that it is clear to me from inquiring of people that the promise that we were given that people would not be expected to work on Sundays is being ignored. In many places, the reality is that people have no choice. If they want their jobs, they must work on Sundays. People's rights are not being respected.
      The second point relates to differences between constituencies. My constituency is very different from that of my hon. Friend—there are probably not two more different constituencies in the whole of the United Kingdom. I have many constituents who live in London during the week, but who are not here at weekends. Increasing numbers of people have weekday homes and holiday or weekend homes. We must address that issue, because if we introduce weekend voting—and I do not oppose that if people want it in certain parts of the country—we must recognise that the electorate will be different.
      If we introduced Sunday voting, we would have to enter an entire debate about second homes. Significant additional people would be able to vote in places in which they were not customary, working, resident members of the community. The consultation must take that into account; otherwise we would have a worse situation than the Vale of Glamorgan's, with not just 32 extra voters registered from overseas but hundreds or thousands of extra voters who had only a partial link with a constituency. That is an additional reason to take account of local and broader national considerations before we invade traditional patterns of life and community living.
      6.30 pm
      Mr. William Ross: It is not often that I agree with Liberal Democrat Members, but I do on this matter, as I did whenever Sunday trading was discussed.
      Clause 11(1) gives the Secretary of State very great powers. I hope that no Secretary of State would exercise them without full consultation with, and the agreement of, all the major political parties. Our electoral system must be free from taint. The possibility offered by the provision is that a Secretary of State could introduce schemes that were politically favourable to his party in any one of a number of places in the United Kingdom, but not in all. That would whip the rug from under the concept of democratic accountability and democratic elections. I hope that the Minister will give an unbreakable commitment that real consultation will be held and real agreement secured before any such schemes are introduced, even where they appear to be reasonable.
      Subsection (3) states that an order made under subsection (1) could apply to local elections in Northern Ireland. That seems to fly in the face of the assurance that

      511
      I was given a few moments ago in relation to clause 10. What are the Government's intentions with regard to that provision? In Northern Ireland, pressure can be exerted in elections other than general elections. I recall that the nationalist community on one estate were not too anxious to vote in an election. After a gentleman who had served a long sentence for multiple murder visited houses there in the last hour or two of the poll, it was amazing how many people came out to vote. I hope that Ministers will consider that point carefully and remember the undertaking that has already been given.
      Subsection (6) states that any order that in other circumstances could be treated as a hybrid instrument will not be so treated under the Bill. That is a serious step. I hope that the Minister will explain why the power is needed in the Bill.
      Mr. Evans: We, too, are unhappy about the sweeping powers given to the Secretary of State in clause 11(1). Unless we are satisfied with the assurances given to the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross), we will revisit clause 11 at a later stage.
      Mr. Mike O'Brien: The Government have no plans to oblige people to vote on a Sunday. The Bill provides for ample debate about the benefits or otherwise of any pilot scheme. The Government have said repeatedly that it is our intention to consult fully on such matters. I know that the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross) has been told by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland that he would be happy to discuss any proposals with him. Once we see how the pilot schemes work we can consult on their outcomes and find whether we can achieve a broad consensus on which to move forward.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Clause 11, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
      Clause 12 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Schedule 4

      ABSENT VOTING IN GREAT BRITAIN
      Mr. Martin Linton: I beg to move amendment No. 86, in page 39, line 18, at end insert—
      "Closing date for applications
      7A. In paragraph (2) of regulation 69 of the Representation of the People Regulations 1986 (as amended by the Representation of the People (Amendment) Regulations 1997), for the words '5 p.m. on the eleventh day' there shall be substituted the words 'noon on the fifth day (in the case of an application received by post), or noon on the second day (in the case of an application made in person),'.".
      The amendment would move back the deadlines for postal voting applications to the fifth day before polling or, for applications in person, to the second day. I hope that we are in the big tent of consensus both across the Committee and between Front and Back Benchers. The amendment, I hope, has the key to solving many of the issues that have been raised by the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) and the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie).
      512
      The current applications deadline is the 11th working day before the election—in other words, the Wednesday just over a fortnight before polling day. I am told that the election administrators are adamant that they cannot deal with postal vote applications in less time. If that is so, nothing illustrates better their over-cautious approach. The Home Affairs Committee thought that it was a ludicrously early deadline, especially now that registration offices are all computerised. It will be even more ludicrous when we have postal voting on demand.
      The Home Affairs Committee did not specify a deadline, but I think that the proposal in amendment No. 86 is in the spirit of its recommendation: having postal vote applications by post by the Thursday before polling day and in person by the Tuesday before polling day. Those are conservative targets. In its evidence to the Select Committee, the Society of Local Authority Chief Executives said that it was possible for proxy vote applications to be granted on polling day. Back in 1993, the Plant report recommended that postal votes should be granted up to polling day, or the eve of polling day.
      In Sweden, one can apply for and get a postal vote in any post office on the eve of poll and, in many cities, up to 5 pm on polling day. Indeed, in one post office in Stockholm, one can get it up till 7 pm, one hour before the polls close. That might be one reason why turnout in Sweden is more than 80 per cent., compared with 71 per cent. here. It is not because Swedish politics are that much more interesting.
      It is difficult to believe that the 11th day provision was itself a concession. The previous deadline was the 13th day, which meant that people often had only four days after an election was called in which to apply for a postal vote. However, the changes in the Bill mean that electoral registration officers no longer have to consider why someone is applying for a postal vote, or satisfy themselves that the reason is genuine. They can grant the postal vote immediately; it can be sent by return of post, or handed over the counter. I do not understand why the election administrators say that it is difficult to do that in less than 11 days when in Sweden it is apparently possible to do it in one hour. In any case, the argument that it takes 11 days is rather undermined by the fact that late applications can still be dealt with up to the sixth day before an election, and applications from polling station staff up to the fourth day before.
      I suggest that the Minister sets a deadline for the administrators that is closer than 11 days. I think that a five-day period is perfectly achievable. I understand that the Home Office believes in setting deadlines to get work done, and this is a classic case. Home Office Ministers need to set deadlines that the administrators can work around. Making it easier to apply for and get postal votes will solve many of the problems to do with early voting and Sunday voting. If it is easy enough to get a postal vote, people will not worry about elections being held on a Saturday or a Sunday. If it is that easy to get a postal vote, we will not need an elaborate system of early voting—we will effectively be able to go to a post office, library or town hall, and get our postal vote up to within days of the election.
      There is support for the amendment from all parties; I urge the Minister to find out whether the Home Office will relent on this matter.
      Mr. Simon Hughes: I fully support the proposal made by the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Linton). I am

      513
      reminded of the phrase from the Bible that the Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. Elections are made for people to participate in, not the other way around. Although it is easy to find technical objections, it must be possible with all the modern technology to have the smallest period—literally a few hours—for people to register.
      We all know that people pretend reasons to obtain postal or absent votes, for their own convenience, because they will not be around or because they are not certain whether they will be at home. We have to allow that flexibility. I hope that the Minister will be as supportive as possible. This may be one occasion when we have to say to the electoral administrators, "It may be difficult, but you have to deliver; we are a modern democracy".
      Mr. William Ross: The existing time scale has been written in to prevent fraud by ensuring that applications are genuine. My electoral officers tell me that it is already extremely tight. It is difficult to understand how the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Linton) could, a few minutes ago, have calmly accepted clause 12, which provides that the existing arrangements shall persist in Northern Ireland—something with which I am in full agreement. His intention may be good—although it is all motherhood and apple pie in my view—but it is inconceivable that the measure would work in practice. I hope that the Committee will reject the amendment.
      Mr. George Howarth: My hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Mr. Linton) makes a strong argument. The principle and sentiment behind his amendment are good. The difficulty for my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department and I is that all our present advice suggests that the practical problems of implementation foreseen by the electoral administrators would make it hard—if not impossible—to comply with such a deadline.
      However, my hon. Friend has undertaken to speak to the electoral administrators—if possible, he will do so next week—to impress upon them the feelings of the Committee, to see whether we can find a way of dealing with the practicalities. I caution the Committee to take seriously the strictures of the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross). When we make such changes, we must be absolutely certain that we do not open the door to fraud. With those remarks, and our positive attitude, I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
      Mr. Linton: With that assurance from my hon. Friend, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Schedule 4 agreed to.

    Clause 13

      ASSISTANCE WITH VOTING FOR PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES.
      Mr. Barnes: I beg to move amendment No. 28, in clause 13, page 14, line 34, at end insert—
      "(1A) After Rule 25 there shall be inserted—
      "25A— (1) In the exercise of his functions under Rule 25 above, the returning officer shall have particular regard to the accessibility of polling stations to disabled persons.
      514
      (2) The returning officer shall carry out an annual accessibility audit of each polling station, which shall in particular have regard to the matters set out in paragraph (3) below, and shall consult thereon such organisations as appear to him to be representative of disabled persons in his area.
      (3) The following points shall (without prejudice to the generality of the assessment) be taken into account in deciding whether a polling station is suitable for use by disabled persons—

      (a) the condition of any pathway;

      (b) the distance to be covered between the curtilage of the premises in which the polling station is situated and the polling station itself;

      (c) the distance from the polling station of car parking for disabled persons;

      (d) the height of any kerb, and the option of any temporary ramp;

      (e) the height and number of steps, and the option of any permanent or temporary ramp;

      (f) the signposting of alternative accessible entrances at the main entrance and all possible approaches;

      (g) the space inside the polling station to allow manoeuvring space for wheelchairs;

      (h) the levels of lighting;

      (i) the floor surface, and if highly polished or slippery, the availability of flat and even floor coverings;

      (j) whether doormats and mat-wells are level to the floor;

      (k) the width of doorways, height of door-handles, heaviness of door, and its direction of opening;

      (l) the availability of hand-rails next to steps;

      (m) the right to take a guide-dog into a polling station;

      (n) the provision of large and clear print signs; and

      (o) the use of colour contrast and markings on step edges.

      25B—(1) Following the audit pursuant to Rule 25A(2) above, the returning officer shall designate such polling stations as appear to him suitable for use by disabled persons and shall publish, in at least two newspapers circulating widely in the constituency, a local radio station and otherwise as he considers fit, a list of his designations.
      (2) A polling station shall not be so designated unless the returning officer intends to provide at least one wheelchair-accessible polling booth, with a ballot box being placed at a height that a person in a wheelchair can reach unaided; and it shall be the duty of the returning officer to make such provision at each designated polling station.
      (3) The returning officer shall take such steps as are necessary to ensure that—

      (a) at least half of the polling stations for which he is responsible shall be so designated within two years of the passing of the Representation of the People Act 2000; and

      (b) all polling stations shall be so designated within five years of the passing of the Representation of the People Act 2000.

      (4) Details of the designated status (or otherwise) of a polling station shall be provided by the returning officer on all official poll cards.".".
      The Chairman of Ways and Means: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 117, page 14, line 45, at end insert—
      "and
      (c) temporary ramps, matting for uneven or slippery surfaces and any other such equipment which may be deemed necessary to allow wheelchair access to polling stations.".

      515
      No. 118, page 14, line 45, at end insert—
      "(2) If the Presiding Officer is not satisfied that a polling station is fully accessible to disabled voters, arrangements shall be made to allow such voters to attend at an alternative polling station.".
      6.45 pm
      Mr. Barnes: Amendment No. 28 is the longest amendment, but this will not be the longest speech. It has been said on occasion that, in my amendments, I have stood alone, like Daniel in the lion's den. On this occasion, I have cross-party support from the hon. Members for Worthing, West (Mr. Bottomley) and for St. Ives (Mr. George)
      Under the Bill, equipment is to be provided at polling stations to enable blind and partially sighted people to vote unaided. Those with disabilities, including an inability to read, will be able to vote with the assistance of a companion. While such proposals are welcome, there is nothing further in the Bill to enable disabled people to gain access to polling stations. This could come with promised future legislation to set up an electoral commission, or whenever we get full civil rights for disabled people.
      Full access to polling stations could be added to this Bill as provided for in my unsuccessful Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill in 1994, from which these amendments are taken. The road that I am going down is explained in written evidence that I gave to the Select Committee on Home Affairs. I pointed out that Scope—the former Spastics Society—produced two reports about access to polling stations at the 1992 and 1997 elections. The latter survey—of 1,272 polling stations in 303 constituencies in Britain—discovered that 94 per cent. of polling stations had one or more access problems; 82 per cent. had no ramp; and 46 per cent. had no ballot box placed at accessible levels.
      Some 6.5 million people in the UK suffer from some form of disability, and access to polling stations is a serious problem. Disabled people should have the same right to exercise their vote as that enjoyed by able-bodied people, and they should not have to resort to the use of proxy or postal votes unless it is their choice.
      The key features of the amendments were contained in my Bill in 1994. First, there should be an annual accessibility audit to be carried out at polling stations by electoral registration officers, with the help of disability organisations in the area. Secondly, stations should be designated as accessible as they meet set standards. Thirdly, disabled people should have the right to vote at designated stations. Fourthly, all stations should be designated within five years.
      The amendment lists the matters to be taken into account in accessibility audits, and was drawn up from information supplied at the time of the 1994 Bill by a wide range of organisations representing disabled people. The amendment lists 15 points that came out of the consultations, and all the matters discussed previously have been incorporated into my amendments.
      Given the massive support that I received from the Labour party for my Representation of the People (Amendment) Bill in 1993, which pressed for rolling registers and access to polling stations for disabled
      516
      people—including the strong support of the present Prime Minister—and the massive Labour support that I received for the 1994 Bill, I assume that the case that I have just put is favoured by the Home Office.
      The only questions that can remain open are of detail: whether particular difficulties need to be overcome in some areas and the method of implementation. Those problems could be ironed out and we should accept the amendment.
      Mr. Peter Bottomley: I support the amendment. What is the difference between a London taxi cab and a polling station? Every single London taxi cab is accessible to disabled people; four fifths of polling stations are not.
      The time scale according to which two thirds of polling stations would be accessible in two years and all would be accessible in five years is reasonable. It is important that people are registered to vote, and we shall discuss that if we reach new clause 2. It is also important that people should be able to vote. As the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes), who has a great reputation on this matter, has persistently said, disabled people should be able to vote as easily as able-bodied people. I support the amendment.
      Mr. Simon Hughes: I apologise to the Committee for the fact that my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. George) had to leave. He was in the Chamber until a short while ago, but he had to catch his train to Cornwall. He would have spoken, but he wants me to make a few points on his behalf.
      It is important that such provisions are in the Bill. In spite of the much good work done by those involved in electoral administration and a lot of progress, we all know from reports such as the Scope and the Polls Apart reports that disabled people often come across poor provision in electoral services and at electoral venues.
      In the interests of equality, it is not acceptable to tell people with a disability that they can have a postal or a proxy vote. Such votes have been open to abuse, and my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives had experience of that in the 1992 election. It was found that people took proxy votes from people who lived in a home and filled them in on their behalf. It was an unacceptable and appalling case.
      People with disabilities want to be like the rest of us. They want to be able to change their minds as the election draws nearer. The fact that they are forced to take a view a week or 10 days before the election does not give them the same civil liberty that the rest of us enjoy.
      Many polling stations are in public buildings. Therefore, they should be accessible, and schools should be accessible for everyday use. Schools are often used for polling, but the distance between the entrance to the school premises and the ballot box is often hugely greater than the distance from the edge of the kerb to the entrance to the school. People are sent on a wild goose chase around an obstacle course of playgrounds and corridors before they can vote. Many practical measures should be considered.
      As the hon. Member for Worthing, West (Mr. Bottomley) suggested, the present provision is not adequate and many people resent it hugely. It is like saying to someone with a disability that he can have a pizza with us; the only difference

      517
      is that we can go to the restaurant and that person has to have a dial-a-pizza at home. That is often the practical, crude difference.
      The Minister and the Government realise that we hold strong views on this. I hope that this all-party amendment will find favour with the Committee and the Government so that many things that should have been taken for granted a long time ago appear in the Bill.
      Mr. Mike O'Brien: The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) said that his hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. George) had gone to catch a train. Many hon. Members will sympathise with his predicament.
      My hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) has tabled amendments that have received broad support. The Government very much sympathise with the principle behind them, but cannot accept them in their current form. We do not accept that there should be a mandatory obligation.
      The working party on electoral procedures recommended national standards on access to polling stations and drew on direct inputs from disability organisations such as Scope and the Royal National Institute for the Blind. However, their guidance was pre-empted by the Government issuing to every returning officer, in connection with the European parliamentary elections, national access standards. Those standards provide checklists for returning officers to use to assess the accessibility of polling stations and to help disabled people to enter them. A number of the standards are similar to the provisions proposed in the amendments. The working party considered whether such standards should always be mandatory for every polling station and they decided that that would not be practical.
      As the working party recognised, district and borough councils are already under a statutory duty to designate as polling places locations that are accessible to the disabled, where that is practical. Returning officers' choice of locations for polling stations is often extremely limited as a direct consequence of those requirements, and it is simply not possible always to identify an accessible site. It is not reasonable to require returning officers to carry out the type of extensive adaptations proposed in the amendment to polling locations that may not be publicly owned.
      The working party recommended that the Home Office should issue new and consolidated guidance to electoral administrators on all aspects of access to electoral services to support the kinds of standard that are described in the amendment.
      We can achieve much of what my hon. Friend wants by way of those national standards, which will give strong guidance to electoral returning officers. They already have a statutory obligation to provide accessible centres where that is practical, and there are grants available from the Home Office to assist with provision of that access.
      I offer my hon. Friend the further encouragement that clause 10 provides the opportunity for local authorities to pilot a number of schemes that may well increase accessibility, and I know that some local authorities are considering ways to increase disabled access. I hope that with that encouragement and the commitment to having
      518
      consolidated guidelines, which will improve access much more quickly than the legislation could, my hon. Friend will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
      Mr. Barnes: I am very disappointed by the Minister's response. Of course much will depend on the contents of the guidance that the Home Office will issue to electoral returning officers. It may well be that the guidance is very much in line with my proposals. However, if that is so, what is wrong with including such matters in the Bill? These are not points of detail that need to be put off until another day.
      The Minister is not saying that the proposals will be included in future legislation developed by the Electoral Commission or a disability rights Bill. As those measures are introduced, as I hope they will be, we will have further opportunities to raise these matters.
      I shall be keen to take up the Minister's point about the role that local authorities can play. I shall encourage local authorities in my area, which have a good record on disability matters and have tried to do a great deal about access for disabled people, to take on their role.
      I shall live to fight another day on these matters, and on that basis I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Mr. William Ross: I beg to move amendment No. 106, in page 14, line 40, leave out "station" and insert "booth".
      The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 107, in page 14, line 45, at end insert
      "and—
      (c) versions of the ballot paper in Braille, which shall be available from the presiding officer".
      Mr. Ross: The amendments' intent is perfectly plain to everyone. The Bill says that a
      "large version of the ballot paper … shall be displayed inside the polling station",
      but the polling station is the whole building, and that seems to me the wrong way to inform the partially sighted of the content of the ballot paper. If the display of that document is to be of any use to them, it should be in the polling booth, where individuals are trying to cast their ballot. Returning officers could of course display it in the polling station as well, if they wished, and the Government may want to require the document to be displayed in the station and the booth.
      That measure is of use only to those who have are partially sighted. I have a nephew who is completely blind, so I am aware of the difficulties that such people face in those circumstances. In every constituency, several people—many more than we might think—have such a condition. It is therefore my view that, whenever we are trying to help those who are partially sighted, that help will not be sufficient—
      It being Seven o 'clock, The Chairman left the Chair to report progress and ask leave to sit again.

      519
      Committee report progress.
      Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 15 (Exempted business),
      That, at this day's sitting, the Representation of the People Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Mike Hall]
      Question agreed to.
      Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.
      Mr. Ross: As I was saying, that which is sufficient for the partially sighted is nowhere near sufficient for those who are totally blind. That being so, we must consider other options.
      We cannot print large ballot papers, even for the partially sighted. The ballot paper must be the same size for everyone because, if they were not, it might be possible to destroy the secrecy of the ballot once larger papers are tipped out. We do not want that. The partially sighted might need a magnifying device within the polling booth. That is something that the Minister will have to consider. However, those who are totally blind are not helped by such devices. They need the information in Braille.
      As the Minister will know, Braille is produced on thickish card. I would suspect that it is more easily damaged than some folk might wish. It seems to be the only way in which the totally blind can be helped. Therefore, a version of the ballot paper in braille should be available from the presiding officer or from others in the polling booth. That should act as an overlay with a gap in which the person could mark his X, or whatever. I tabled the amendment in an effort to try to concentrate the Government's mind, or the Minister's mind, on what is needed. The totally blind should be allowed an overlay or something similar, or we allow the companion, who is referred to in other amendments, to enter the polling booth with them.
      Mr. Mike O'Brien: The working party on electoral procedures was very concerned to improve access to the electoral process for blind and partially sighted voters. It made a number of recommendations in this area to which the Bill gives effect. One of them was that a large-print version of the ballot paper should be displayed in the polling station. That will enable partially sighted voters to ascertain who the candidates are, and to decide whom they favour.
      Amendment No. 106 would require such a large-print version of the ballot paper to be displayed in every voting compartment. Is that really necessary? So long as a large-print version is displayed prominently in the polling station, partially sighted voters will be able to study the list of candidates to decide whom they like before retiring to the privacy of the voting booth to cast their vote. I shall describe in a moment how they might do that.
      In the recent European parliamentary elections, the ballot paper in the London region was 77.5 cm long. That is 31 in for those hon. Members who have not yet converted to metric. That was the normal size. I cannot begin to imagine how large a large-print version would be, but I imagine that it would be too long to fit neatly into a standard voting booth. For those reasons, I do not think that it would be wise to pass amendment No. 106.
      520
      Once having made up their mind how they want to vote, blind and partially sighted voters will be able to vote, thanks to another working party recommendation, by using a voting template. That might take the form of a piece of cardboard into which the ballot paper can be slotted. An ordinary ballot paper could be slotted into the piece of card. It would have holes cut out over the boxes in which crosses are placed so the voter, having decided by using the large sign which candidate he wants to vote for—that is, if he is partially sighted—can use his fingers to count down on the ballot paper to vote for whichever candidate he or she wishes.
      We are also considering what form the voting template should take, and would welcome suggestions. One issue that we must consider is whether it would be sensible and cost-effective—it may well be—to use the voting template for Braille, so that some element of the Braille list could appear on the template. The ordinary ballot paper could still be used, so that people could put their ballot paper into the box in the ordinary way, and no one would know, when the votes were counted, whether it was that of a blind person or a person who was partially sighted.
      The working party has already started to address some of the issues. Having shown that the Bill contains some useful suggestions for ways in which we would assist the blind and partially sighted, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
      Mr. Ross: Although I am satisfied with the answer to amendment No. 106, I am not satisfied with the answer given to amendment No. 107. If there were 36 names on the ballot paper, what size would the large-print version be in the polling station? It would cover a wall of the school. In Northern Ireland, we are familiar with quite long lists under the proportional representation system.
      I hope that the Minister will reconsider the suggestion. It depends on the amount of sight that the individual has, which can range from pretty well non-existent to reasonably good. However, having heard what the Minister said, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Mr. Ross: I beg to move amendment No. 108, in page 15, leave out lines 19 to 21.
      The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 109, in page 15, line 30, leave out from "election" to end of line 32.
      Mr. Ross: These amendments are in the same general spirit as the previous two. As the Bill is drafted, it seems that a companion can assist only two people, both of whom are close relations, or that the companion must be eligible to vote in that election. Those are two entirely different classes of people who can go into a polling booth with a disabled person to help him or her vote. We must think more carefully about the provision.
      The relatives are specified in the words that I seek to remove through amendment No. 109. They are the
      "father, mother, brother, sister, husband, wife, son or daughter of the voter"
      and have
      "attained the age of 18 years."

      521
      Those individuals do not need to be able to vote in the election—in other words, they may live in a different ward or constituency.
      However, any person
      "who is entitled to vote as an elector"
      —not a relation at all—can go along and act as a companion, to help the disabled person to vote. Why, then, is it necessary to list all the close relations? There must be sensible explanation, or have officials simply got into a twist when they tried to define who could act as a companion?
      The relations need not be able to vote in the elections. They may live 100 miles away and come to help the disabled voter. Some people have few relations or none living locally, and there might be three disabled people living in one house, who might all need help and who might have only one relative living close by.
      A Conservative elector living in a mining village may not be willing to ask another resident of that village for help. I can think of similar situations, for different reasons, in Northern Ireland. The difficulties are not fully addressed in the Government's proposals.
      I am curious as to why the companion should be aged 18 or more. How is that to be established? If the companion is an immediate relation or is entitled to vote in the election, he or she may be on the list of electors and therefore obviously over 18, but if the companion is from some distance away, or is simply missing from the register for whatever reason, there is no way that the presiding officer, who apparently has to make the decision in such cases, can know whether the person is over 18 or not. He or she could be 16 or 17. There is therefore a potential difficulty.
      I do not understand why one elector can assist two people. In Northern Ireland, one can act as a witness for only one individual—even a member of one's family—who applies for a postal or proxy vote. As the Under-secretary of State for Northern Ireland knows, that has caused all sorts of problems. It would be preferable if the person—a family member or party worker, who is often known to the electoral officers—could assist, or witness papers for any number of people. That would facilitate checking whether the papers and applications were genuine. I do not understand why the restriction is necessary.
      I tabled an amendment—No. 110, which was not called—to discover why there has to be a declaration, which is presumably signed, in the polling station when the vote is cast. At 10 am, there are not many people in the polling station. However, at 8 pm or 9 pm, an enormous number of people might be waiting to vote. They will not want any sort of delay. Having to make a declaration will create a delay. Why does the Bill provide that people have to sign a piece of paper, which the presiding officer has to accept, before they can vote?
      I hope that the Minister has a reasonable answer to those points. If not, perhaps he will reconsider them, because there are problems with the provision.
      Mr. Mike O'Brien: The hon. Gentleman made several interesting points, which deserve consideration. I should like to give them that consideration and, if the hon. Gentleman will bear with me, I shall write to him about the issues that he raised.
      522
      The provision attempts to assist voters who may benefit from being accompanied. I hope that we can take account of some of the hon. Gentleman's points, tackle them through correspondence and perhaps discuss them later.
      Mr. Ross: In the light of the Minister's response, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Clause 13 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
      Clauses 14 and 15 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 16

      CITATION, CONSTRUCTION, COMMENCEMENT AND EXTENT
      Amendment made: No. 92, in page 17, line 16, leave out "extends" and insert
      "and paragraph 1ZA of Schedule 5 extend".—[Mr. Mike O'Brien.]
      Clause 16, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Schedule 5

      Minor and Consequential Amendments
      Amendments made: No. 93, in page 39, line 28, at end insert—
      "City of London (Various Powers) Act 1957 (c. x)
      1ZA.—(1) Section 8 of the City of London (Various Powers) Act 1957 (manner of voting at ward elections) is amended as follows.
      (2) In subsection (1) (application of provisions of 1983 Act), after the entry relating to section 3 of the 1983 Act insert—
      "section 3A (disfranchisement of offenders detained in mental hospitals);".
      (3) In subsection (2), (application of provisions about absent voting) for "sections 5 to 9 and 12(3) and (4) of the Representation of the People Act 1985" substitute "Schedule 4 to the Representation of the People Act 2000".
      (4) In subsections (4) and (5) (supplementary provisions), for "1985" (wherever occurring) substitute "2000".".
      No. 94, in page 41, line 34, at end insert—
      "Finance Act 1996 (c. 8)
      14. In section 200 of the Finance Act 1996 (domicile for tax purposes of overseas electors), in subsection (3)(a), for the words from "mentioned in" to "section 1" substitute "of parliamentary electors in pursuance of such a declaration as is mentioned in section 1(1)(a)".".—[Mr. Mike O'Brien.]
      Schedule 5, as amended, agreed to.

    Schedule 6

      REPEALS
      Amendments made: No. 95, in page 42, line 23, column 3, at end insert—

      "Section 11 (b) (except the final "and").

      In Schedule 2, paragraph 5 and Part II.".

      No. 96, in page 42, line 27, leave out "and 18' and insert ", 18 and 78".
      No. 97, in page 42, line 27, at end insert—

      "1989 c. 3.

      Elected Authorities (Northern Ireland) Act 1989.

      Section 11(8). In section 13(7), the Act 1989. words ", except section 11(8),".

      1989 c. 28.

      Representation of the People Act 1989.

      Sections 1 to 4.".

      No. 98, in page 42, line 29, at end insert—

      "1994 c. 19.

      Local Government (Wales) Act 1994.

      In Schedule 16, paragraph 74(1).".

      No. 99, in page 42, line 35, at end insert—

      "1999 c. 1.

      European Parliamentary Elections Act 1999.

      In Schedule 3, paragraph 3.".

      No. 100, in page 43, line 6, column 3, at beginning insert "Section 11(1).".—[Mr. Mike O'Brien.]
      Schedule 6, as amended, agreed to.

    New Clause 2

      SPECIAL ARRANGEMENTS FOR REGISTRATION WHEN ELECTION ANNOUNCED
      ".—In paragraph 28(1) of Schedule 1 to the principal Act, for the words "as soon as practicable" there shall be substituted the words "within four days of the dissolution of Parliament" and the following paragraph shall be added—
      "3A.—(1) The returning officer shall forthwith notify the registration officer that he has issued the official poll cards.
      (2) When the registration officer has been notified by the returning officer of the issue of official poll cards for any election, he shall, in at least two newspapers circulating widely in his area, a local radio station and otherwise as he considers fit, place advertisements—

      (a) requesting persons failing to receive official poll cards to check that their names are on the register; and

      (b) setting out a form on which application may be made for registration.".".—[Mr. Barnes.]

      Brought up, and read the First time.
      7.15 pm
      Mr. Barnes: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      My interest has always been to try to get as full a franchise as we can from those who are eligible to be placed on registers. The new clause seeks the early issue of polling cards and a great deal of publicity about their issue to alert people to the fact that polling cards are available. Those cards should tell people whether they are on the register and if they do not receive one they need to check their position. Some may be on the register, but others should still have the opportunity to get themselves registered.
      My problem, because my previous amendments have been lost, is that at general elections there is only a small window of opportunity—between the dissolution of Parliament and the close of nominations—for people to get themselves on to electoral registers. That is the last point at which registers could be published. Had previous amendments been accepted, there would have been much wider opportunities for getting people on to registers.
      Mr. Simon Hughes: This is an all-party new clause and I hope that the Minister will respond favourably to it. There are two issues: making sure that proper publicity is
      524
      given to the process and to people's entitlement to vote, which we have all argued for in different ways, and balancing that with the fact that people should know that they do not need a polling card to vote. One of the great questions that we are all asked is, "I haven't had a card, so will I be allowed to vote?" We all say, "Yes, go along and give your name and address." We must strike a balance: we must get it across to people that they should be on the electoral register, but we must also tell them that, although they should check beforehand if they are concerned, or talk to someone and get on the list in the days remaining, they should go to vote anyway if they think that they should be on the list.
      I hope that the spirit, if not the drafting, of the new clause will find favour with the Minister. On behalf of the Members from all three parties who tabled it, I hope that we can do more to make sure that there is not the confusion, and the resultant inaction, that we have too often heard about from our constituents and other electors.
      Mr. Mike O'Brien: Although the new clause has been tabled for good reasons, it contains a number of pitfalls. The obligation on returning officers to send out the official poll card for a general election within four days of the dissolution of Parliament would put, even in these days of computer technology, a great deal of stress and pressure on officers, who have to provide hundreds of thousands of poll cards. Sometimes that takes several days merely to organise. The timing of general elections is uncertain and there are plenty of examples of Prime Ministers calling snap general elections. There have been very brief periods between such announcements and dissolution.
      Mr. Evans: Is that a hint?
      Mr. O'Brien: The hon. Gentleman asks from a sedentary position whether that is a hint. I am afraid I do not know, but it is not intended as such. Returning officers have told us that the new clause would place such a heavy burden on them that they could not comply with such time scales. Given that the motives of my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) and those who support him are sincere and in many ways laudable, perhaps it would be useful to discuss the proposal with my officials. Although I cannot support the new clause, I hope to be able to consider the idea behind it and write to him and his supporters in due course.
      Mr. Barnes: I am happy to have that idea examined and hope that some of the other amendments that I tabled, which tied in with the new clause and would have allowed people who have not been fully registered to get back on registers, will be taken into account. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
      Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

    New Clause 6

      OFFICIAL MARK ON BALLOT PAPER
      ".—In Schedule 1 (Parliamentary Elections Rules) of the 1983 Act, Rule 20 shall be omitted.".—[Mr. Linton.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. Linton: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

      525
      The new clause embodies a recommendation of the Home Affairs Committee to abolish the antiquated and entirely pointless practice of placing an official perforated mark on ballot papers before they are handed to electors. At the previous election, 2,169 voters were disfranchised—their votes rejected—simply because the official mark had been left off the ballot paper by mistake. Indeed, that very nearly happened to me. The polling station clerk was momentarily distracted—perhaps because I was the candidate, but I do not know—and handed me the ballot paper without franking it. Fortunately, the presiding officer was at her left shoulder to remind her of that. It made no difference to me, but it did at Winchester, where an election was won by two votes. The Conservative candidate later had the result declared null and void, on the pedantic basis that he would have won if the unfranked papers had been rejected. The voters made clear what they thought of that by increasing the original winner's majority from two to, I think, 28,000; but the by-election probably cost the parties about a quarter of a million pounds.
      What has the official mark achieved? In the last five elections, it has led to the rejection of 13,000 ballot papers as a result of human error. That is not a criticism of the clerks; the job is very dull and, in terms of percentages, the number of unfranked papers is very small. It is easy to forget, partly because it is such a pointless exercise. Who wants the official mark? Chief executives want it to be abolished in favour of watermarking or bar coding; the Liberal Democrats say that it should be abolished, and that numbering of ballot papers is sufficient; the Conservatives say that they would not oppose the investigation of a different method of marking ballot papers. That is what they told the Home Affairs Committee.
      The Committee had recommended the abolition of franking twice, first in its 1982 report and then in its 1998 report. On both occasions, the recommendation was unanimous. When the deputy chairman of the Association of Electoral Administrators gave evidence to the Committee, he was asked what change in the electoral system he would most like to see. He said that he would like the official mark to be abolished. So far, the Home Office has merely said that the matter requires reconsideration.
      I hope that the Minister will tell us that he will try to persuade the Home Office to take this small step. In many respects, our elections are still conducted as they were in the Victorian era. That is the view of the election administrators themselves. The franking machine is the most Victorian of our electoral practices: it causes endless hassle for polling station clerks, thousands of disqualified voters at every election, and unnecessary by-elections such as the one at Winchester, and achieves absolutely nothing. I hope that Ministers will tell the registration officers to use watermarked papers, or whatever security method they consider appropriate; but for goodness sake, let us get rid of the franking machines.
      Mr. O'Brien: The Home Affairs Committee said that there should be some mark or identifier on ballot papers to enable forgers to be detected, and suggested that the Home Office and electoral administrators should try to find a more up-to-date method, and should stamp each ballot paper individually.
      526
      I have considerable sympathy with what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Mr. Linton), but I cannot accept the amendment at this stage, because we have not sorted out the alternative mark or identifier, and I think that we need to study the position further. I hope that, having heard that, my hon. Friend will feel able to withdraw the motion. We hope to write to him explaining how we shall deal with the matter in due course.
      Mr. Linton: I am not convinced that we need to decide on a new method of security before abolishing franking. The returning officer at the Winchester by-election made the holes in the ballot papers with a fork. The notion that franking has any security value in this day and age is ludicrous. It may have worked as a security method in 1872, when it was introduced, but it is not secure any more. By all means let us have a more secure system, but we might as well get rid of the franking machine right now.
      In the circumstances, however, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
      Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn
      Bill reported, with amendments.

  PETITIONS

    Farming (East Anglia)
    7.24 pm
    Mr. Eric Pickles: I present a petition to the House that enjoys cross-party support in East Anglia. It is composed of 1,450 signatures. The most remarkable thing is that it is not from members of the public, but from farmers themselves. Given the number of farmers in East Anglia who are affected by the scheme, practically 100 per cent. have signed the petition.
    The farmers are concerned that, in the whole of East Anglia, there is no slaughterhouse operating the over-30-months scheme. They are desperately concerned that that will cause extra suffering to cattle that are to be slaughtered. The petition reads:
    To the House of Commons
    The Petition of Fanners in the Parliamentary Constituency of Brentwood and Ongar and from the area of East Anglia
    Declares that we are distressed at the removal of the Over Thirty Months Scheme slaughter facilities at Cheale Meats Limited at Brentwood and the lack of proper alternative facilities within our geographical location.
    The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to examine the decision made by the Intervention Board depriving East Anglia of this badly needed facility.
    And the Petitioners remain etc.
    To lie upon the Table.

    Child Labour
    Mr. Andy King: The petition that I present was given me by a group of young people in Rugby following their Christmas cracker appeal. They were part of the Big Take youth project initiative "Shout for justice and campaign for freedom." Those young

    527
    people wish to bring to the House's attention their concerns about the fate of young people throughout the world. The petition states:
    This Petition of the people of Rugby Warwickshire and others, declares that Her Majesty's Government has ratified the convention on the rights of the child and is therefore committed to children's rights and therefore has a responsibility to do all it can to help end the exploitation of child labourers in overseas countries.
    The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons should urge the Secretary of State for International Development that all aid to such countries as Indonesia, India, Mali and Pakistan where child labour is known to be an extensive problem should have a reasonable percentage of aid linked to a programme of education for the child labourers.
    To lie upon the Table.

  NHS (West Surrey)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Allen.]
  7.27 pm
  Mr. Nick St. Aubyn: I am grateful to the Speaker for choosing for debate the subject of the health service in west Surrey, just as I am to my right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Surrey (Mrs. Bottomley) and to my hon. Friends the Members for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) and for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins), whose constituents are as affected as mine are by the intolerable crisis that is threatening our region.
  West Surrey is often described—it is so again in the latest documents from our health authority—as the healthiest and wealthiest part of Britain. Why then do we have a hospital with the longest accident and emergency admission times of any hospital in the country? If we are the healthiest and wealthiest, why do we have a health authority with the most people waiting up to 18 months, with many critical cases almost going over that period as I speak?
  In west Surrey, we pay the highest taxes per head of any part of the UK, yet we have the lowest health spending per head of any part of the UK. We are not asking for special treatment, but we deserve a fair deal for the people whom we represent.
  As I speak, the chief executive of West Surrey health authority is meeting doctors and nurses at the local hospital in Guildford to explain the latest round of cuts that are being imposed on our service as a result of the Government's attitude up to now and of the cuts that they are imposing on our finances. That cannot be due to wastefulness or inefficiency, because we have some of the United Kingdom's most efficient hospitals. Figures released last week by the NHS executive showed that both Frimley Park and the Royal Surrey were among the country's most efficient hospitals.
  Mr. Nick Hawkins: My hon. Friend has just mentioned Frimley Park hospital, which is in my own constituency. Does he agree that primary care groups in the West Surrey health area have particular concerns in addition to the ones that he has been describing? Will he confirm that he has met the chairman of the Camberley primary care group, Dr. Geoff Roberts—to whom I have spoken—who is particularly concerned that his pleas to the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Health to resist cuts—particularly a £500,000 cut—in local child health services have fallen on deaf ears?
  Will my hon. Friend also confirm that there is particular concern that the number of district nurses is about to be cut, and that another £150,000 will be cut from district nursing? As they are the very people who deal with terminally ill cancer patients and administer influenza vaccinations, is that not of particular concern?
  Mr. St. Aubyn: My hon. Friend has made the case extremely well. Dr. Roberts, many other doctors and nurses, and many of our constituents have been writing to west Surrey Members about the depth of their concern at the crisis we are facing.

  529
  We have outstanding staff and management in our local health service. They do an incredible job, but they are being asked to do it under impossible conditions. We have an accident and emergency unit serving a catchment area around Guildford of 250,000 people, but it is now under threat of closure. In the past two years, a quarter of the beds in our local health system have been scrapped. As my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) said, in the next 12 months, 16 of our full-time-equivalent nurse posts in the community will be taken away from us.
  Recently, a vital study revealed how Croydon was affected by similar cuts, and made it clear that such cuts only store up more problems for the future, as carers at home realise that they cannot cope and ask that their family member be admitted to hospital instead.
  In some cases, people waiting for critical heart tests have been asked to wait too long. X-rays for cancer used to be brought back immediately, but there is now a wait of up to two months, while patients develop complications. Physiotherapy—a preventive medicine—was always immediately available, but there is now an eight-week wait before it can be given. Although the situation is unsustainable, demand has been stable. The number of emergency admissions at the Royal Surrey has risen by only 3 per cent. in the past two years.
  On a typical day at the Royal Surrey County hospital, nine or 10 elective cases are cancelled, many of whom have reached the 18-month maximum wait or are urgent cancer cases. Before the Christmas flu outbreak, I was given access to internal papers describing one typical day. On 2 December, 18 cases—10 cancer cases and eight long-waiters—were to be admitted for elective surgery, but only nine beds were available. So six long waiters and three cancer cases had to be sent home—in direct contravention of all the aspirations that Conservative Members always had for the NHS, and which we thought that we shared with Labour Members.
  Does the Minister think that the patients who were sent home on that day were—according to her formula, which tells the Government that we are asking for too much in our area—part of the excess health demand in west Surrey? Is she happy that the Government are sending away 18-month and cancer cases—which the previous Government decided to pay for, although the formula told us that we should not? We felt that it was more important to listen to Surrey's doctors than to a formula devised, 10 years ago, by professors in York.
  We know how the previous Health Secretary, the right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson), skewed the formula even further against our area. Nine years ago, Gateshead and Guildford had similar per capita funding. Now Gateshead is funded at 30 per cent. more than Guildford. I do not resent for one moment the benefits that that is producing for the people of Gateshead—one of the poorest areas of our country. I am however asking the Minister and the Government to recognise that, in the fast lane of Britain's economy, we have our own health pressures and our own health needs which must be seen to.
  The overspending, as it was called, that we have lost in Surrey over the past four years amounts to £8 million a year. It came to more than that in some years. We broke even in one year—1998-99—but that was the year when waiting lists got ever longer and we simply stored up more
  530
  trouble for the future. Our case is that the £8 million so-called overspend reflects the true level of demand in our area. We need an immediate adjustment to the Government's figures to reflect the real needs of the people whom we represent.
  Yesterday in the House, the Prime Minister accused the Conservatives of hatching a policy that means that
  "anyone facing one of a number of non-urgent operations, including cataracts … will be forced to take out private health insurance."— [Official Report, 12 January 2000; Vol. 342, c. 275.]
  I have a letter from a constituent whose wife waited so long for her cataract operations that she went blind in both eyes. That is when he was forced, with no insurance policy, to go private and have the operation done for her. That is how the Government are forcing people in our area to go private.
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: I can strongly confirm what my hon. Friend is saying. When a woman has to wait four months and two cancellations before vaginal cancer is detected, when someone has to wait almost 18 months for a hysterectomy, when we find that the out-patient wait just to see an orthopaedic consultant has gone from three or four months to nine months, when people are waiting in casualty not for 24 hours, but for three, four or even five days, local people ask what the message is. If the Government are forcing people to go privately by stealth, let them at least have the courage to say so. People are facing a sharply deteriorating service. They are frightened for themselves. Professionals are in despair. Things have gone far enough. It is time the Government listened and realised the damage that is being inflicted on people throughout our area.
  Mr. St. Aubyn: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for reminding us that people are being forced to go private and it is the old, the sick and the very poor who bear the brunt of the Government's policies because they have no alternative. At least when we had a policy of encouraging private care we did it through a tax incentive, which this Government took away. We warned at the time that that would create the greatest pressure in the areas of greatest take-up. That is what has happened in west Surrey in the past two years.
  Our local health authority is still saying that at every opportunity local specialists should encourage people to use the private sector. Item 5 of the latest NHS document states:
  "People who have other entitlements to health care should make maximum use of them."
  That is the Government's answer to the health problems of west Surrey—they are telling people that they can all afford to go private. Not all our constituents can afford it, however.
  We provided an incentive to expand the private sector. This Government are providing a penalty. Tragically, in some cases it is a death penalty. Andy Williams was 29 years old when he developed a serious heart complaint. His specialist at the Royal Surrey hospital wrote to me to say that two years ago it would have been diagnosed within three months. Because the waiting times

  531
  for that diagnosis have gone up to nearly a year, Andy died before he could be dealt with. His parents live in South Africa. His father wrote to me to say:
  "fortunately in Durban our medical set up at the present time is still very good. The cardiologists here with rooms at a hospital have access to this equipment, and this facility is available to all."
  Truly, in west Surrey, as in some other parts of the country, we have sunk to a third-world service for our constituents.
  I could cite many other cases. Many people have written to my colleagues and me. The Government's desire to achieve their targets for waiting lists has resulted in a long list of people who have suffered, some of whom are no longer with us.
  That is why I have three key demands for the Minister. First, will she make it clear that the Government will safeguard the future of the present accident and emergency units at Frimley Park and the Royal Surrey in Guildford, as well as the excellent new facility at St. Peter's, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge? That would relieve a great deal of anxiety about the effects of such a closure.
  Secondly, is she prepared to waive the £18 million so-called deficit from the time of the previous Government, when we recognised the need for health care in Surrey based on what the doctors were telling us, rather than on the formula? How can it be right that patients this year should pay a penalty—in the form of having to repay that money—just because previous patients were properly looked after under a Conservative Government?
  Thirdly, out of the many extra pots of money that the Government have given themselves to make discretionary payments, will the Minister authorise the money that we need to get our real waiting lists and waiting times in line? She may be aware that a new admissions unit at a budget cost of £250,000 is due to be opened in the next few weeks. We very much hope that she will be the first Minister this Parliament to visit the Royal Surrey and our health region and hear what is going on. When she does so, will she make sure that the new unit does not have to close at the beginning of the next financial year, as according to the latest document from the health authority, absolutely no money is available to fund it?
  Allan Willett, chairman of the South East of England development agency, confirmed to me again today that that organisation recognises the vital importance of a proper health service to keeping our local economy thriving and attracting inward investment. We ask the Minister to act not just in the interests of our constituents, but so that we can continue to pay our very large share for the services that are required up and down the country through the taxes that we pay. If Surrey is to continue to be the powerhouse of the British economy, we must have the support services that we need to maintain ourselves under the pressures that that creates.
  Ten years ago, the previous Government introduced a new allocation of funds favouring Labour areas at the expense of Conservative ones. We are asking the present Government to be equally bipartisan and to recognise that the effects of that formula have gone too far and need to be reined in. In the interests of justice, fairness and the reputation of the Minister and the Government, I ask her to listen.
  7.42 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Ms Gisela Stuart): I congratulate the hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. St. Aubyn) on securing tonight's debate on NHS provision in west Surrey.
  Conservative Members are doing the national health service and those working in it a great disservice by continually criticising those who tirelessly and on a daily basis work hard for their communities. Just to put the record straight, let me take the opportunity to thank everyone in the NHS, including those in west Surrey, on behalf of the House for their tremendous work over the winter period. They coped with extra pressure due to flu and the extended holiday over Christmas and the millennium. That needed to be put on record.
  The Government are committed to a high-quality NHS wherever our citizens live. Our principle is that the very best should be available to everyone. The previous Government did their very best to dismantle and erode that principle.
  Tonight's debate is about west Surrey, but I cannot reply without at least in part drawing on the national picture. In 1997, we inherited a disgraceful state of affairs. There were record waiting lists, which were rising, and debts were being built up year after year. Nationally, they amounted to £450 million and a £20 million deficit had built up in west Surrey. The number of nurses training had been cut and investment in building was the lowest in 10 years. The system set doctor against doctor and hospital against hospital and the pay system was archaic and inflexible.
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: If the hon. Lady is right, having praised NHS staff, why is she now challenging their credibility? I have here letters from doctors throughout the area saying that waiting times have increased dramatically since her party came to power. It has shut 111 beds and there are more than 300 nurse vacancies. If the situation was so bad and is now so good, why should all those doctors be writing with such strong feelings and why have we had unprecedented numbers of complaints from patients and their families who are in despair?
  Ms Stuart: If the right hon. Lady would care to listen to the rest of my speech, I will answer some of her questions. She has on previous occasions raised individual cases in the House and I have invited her formally to follow up those cases, but she has not written to me. Similarly, accusations were made earlier about waiting times in casualty departments of four to five days. If that has happened, perhaps she would do me the courtesy of writing to me about such cases.
  Mrs. Bottomley: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I gave the Secretary of State for Health the details of those cases when I met him before Christmas—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. The right hon. Lady knows that that is a point of debate. This is a half-hour Adjournment debate raised by the hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. St. Aubyn) about a specific matter relating to his constituency and everyone would do better to direct their thoughts and words to that subject.
  Ms Stuart: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Things are starting to change after the disgraceful situation that

  533
  we inherited. Investment in accident and emergency has increased, waiting lists are lower than they were in 1997 and falling. Waiting times will improve. We have seen the highest level of nurse recruitment and an expansion in the role played by nurses. More money has been made available for suspected cancer patients and cardiac patients. We have a 10-year programme.
  Great concern has been expressed forcefully tonight by hon. Members about the situation in west Surrey. West Surrey health authority has spent more than its allocation. It had to be bailed out two years ago when it ran up a huge deficit to the tune of £18 million, and that has to be repaid because this Government are interested in a sustainable and long-term investment.
  The current funding allocation for West Surrey health authority for 1999-2000—the hon. Member for Guildford said that he wanted a fair system—is £371 million, which is a cash increase of £19.3 million, or 5.48 per cent. That is £8.5 million, or 2.35 per cent., more than the fair share target. The allocation per weighted head of population in west Surrey is £643, but the national average in England is £629. For 2000-01, the south-east region will receive £5.4 billion and west Surrey will receive £394 million, which is a cash increase of £23.2 million or 6.2 per cent.
  Mr. St. Aubyn: Does the Minister understand that all those weighted figures go back to the same flawed formula that said that Surrey was overspending when it was simply meeting core health needs? Does she further understand that by demanding back that £18 million she has not put any new money into the system?
  Ms Stuart: Conservative Members continually call for more money for their constituents, but do not vote for more money for the NHS and they call our proposals to increase cash for the NHS reckless. We want long-term, decent investment in the health service. I fully agree that future allocations should be fairer, but they must be fair for everyone.
  We are reviewing the weighted capitation formula because we want it to be fairer, but it must provide for the NHS of the future. At the moment, the review is at an early stage and further changes are frozen until 2002 because we want some stability and certainty in the system. Even with the generous funding for west Surrey, change is still needed. Conservative Members portray the situation as driven simply by financial needs, but that is not the case. We expect the health authority to fulfil its statutory duty to live within its means, but other changes need to be made in west Surrey to bring the service up to date, and to take into account changes in medical practice, technology and the training needs of doctors
  The health authority needs to live within its means and changes are needed to achieve that quickly. That means some hard choices, because west Surrey deserves a service that is modern, sustainable and affordable and that meets the needs of the people of west Surrey. A number of proposed changes are in hand.
  Mr. St. Aubyn: Will the Minister say on which of the nine cases that I described there has been overspending?
  Ms Stuart: Changes in the service structure have to be made to deal with such matters. West Surrey does not have a sustainable health economy. Consultation on some of the long-term changes is already complete. I have taken careful note of the objections made by the community health council to the changes at the Ashford hospital and at St. Peter's hospital, and an announcement will be made soon.
  I see that the right hon. Member for South-West Surrey (Mrs. Bottomley) has a copy of the document "Ensuring a Sustainable NHS—Phase II". That document asks for comments, and I hope that all hon. Members affected by the consultation process will respond. We are also in the process of setting up an independent advisory panel, which will help to ensure local consensus on the changes.
  Somehow, the good news seems to escape the consciousness radar of Conservative Members. I shall describe some of the investment that has been made in west Surrey. Between June 1997 and October 1999, the number of day cases and the in-patient waiting list fell by 13 per cent. Between 1996 and 1999, there was a 21 per cent. increase in the number of out-patients attended to. An extra £3 million was devoted to reducing in-patient and day cases. A further £351,000 has already been spent to reduce out-patient waiting times, and £1.2 million has been invested in local accident and emergency departments. The Royal Surrey hospital received £276,000 for a new admissions unit.
  Those changes in the provision were necessary to achieve a sustainable health service. Frimley Park hospital received more than £500,000 for new X-ray and IT equipment. The Ashford, St. Peter's and Frimley Park hospitals, in conjunction with local GPs, took part in one of the pilot projects for on-the-spot booking. Under that system, when patients visit out-patient clinics, doctors are able to book dates for operations. In addition, GPs are able to make out-patient appointments, with the result that dates are arranged to suit the convenience of patients.
  A new primary care centre serving Weybridge and Woking is now operational. Investment of about £4 million has been made in health centre facilities and community hospital services. A pilot for a primary care walk-in centre is being developed in Weybridge, and NHS Direct is already available in south-west Surrey. Conservative Members smile at NHS Direct, but it has had a huge impact in the area.
  Mr. St. Aubyn: The core of the NHS are the acute and nursing services. Will the Minister address the question of how they are being decimated in the area?
  Ms Stuart: Fundamental changes have to be made to the health economy. We are putting in extra money to accomplish those changes. Claims that west Surrey never gets the extra money that it applies for are not substantiated, as the list that I have given proves. Hospitals have made tremendous progress in recruiting nurses. The previous Administration slashed the numbers of nurses in training. We are providing extra training places and recruiting extra nurses.
  Eighteen months ago, the vacancy factor at the Royal Surrey hospital was 17 per cent., which meant that the hospital was lacking 310 qualified nurses. By next month, the factor will have fallen to 10 per cent. That huge

  535
  improvement must be recognised. At its recent open day, the hospital recruited another 11 nurses who wanted to return to work.
  Social services spending in Surrey has increased by 4.9 per cent., compared with a national average of 4.4 per cent. The claim that west Surrey does not get its fair share of money simply does not stand up when we look at the figures.
  536
  I should like to take up the hon. Gentleman's invitation to come to west Surrey. I know that accusations have been made in the House that Ministers never visit west Surrey, but I am very happy to do so. More to the point, I thought that it was very fitting to choose St. Valentine's day, 14 February, to visit the hon. Gentleman's constituency.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at five minutes to Eight o'clock.

Preamble
[MR MICHAEL LORD in the Chair]

GMOs and Biotechnology
[Relevant documents: First Report from the Science and Technology Committee Session 1998–99 HC 286 and the Government response thereto (Cm 4527) and Fifth Report from the Environmental Audit Committee Session 1998–99 HC 384 and the Government response thereto (Cm 4528).]
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Mr. Kevin Hughes.]
2.30 pm
Dr. Michael Clark: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for calling me to open the debate and for allowing it to take place in Westminster Hall so early in the new year. I have not spoken here before and I am pleased to do so today, as I am to share the debate with members of the Select Committee on Environmental Audit, which is chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Horam). I am also pleased that we are not divided by party, but that we sit among those with whom we have a common interest in scientific matters. It is a good format for a Select Committee—of which I am talking principally of my own, the Select Committee on Science and Technology—to pull together and generally form a common view. That is the right format for the debate that we are about to have.
The Science and Technology Committee has undertaken a major study into the scientific advisory system—the quality of scientific advice that is given to the Government, how the Government use that advice and the consequences of that advice on their policies and legislation. We undertook a series of case studies, the first of which was on genetically modified foods. The second case study examined mobile telephones, to which I shall refer in a moment. We decided to publish our reports separately as we thought that each of them was topical and relevant in its own right. Today when we debate genetically modified foods I shall speak from the point of view of the Science and Technology Committee and my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington will put the view of the Environmental Audit Committee. I shall take a broad-brush approach to the matter, because members of my Select Committee will speak on specific topics. In that way we hope to minimise the risk of our speeches overlapping and maximise on the number of hon. Members who can speak.
I want to deal with four points. First, members of the Select Committee agree that science must be allowed to progress. Indeed, scientific development must be encouraged. Genetically modified foods can be used as an example of the controversy that science can bring about. However, when that controversy is analysed properly and considered, it can be seen that
112WH
science must not be stopped by some doubters and heretics. It must be allowed to progress as it has done over the centuries.
Scientists have a strong responsibility to ensure that they do not transgress moral or proper boundaries, and I wish to draw some parallels between genetically modified foods and the use of the human embryo and cloning. We accept that there is a need for responsibility and that there are boundaries beyond which we should not go. Experiments, especially in relation to genetically modified foods, must be contained and I am sure that the containment of those experiments for environmental reasons will be raised later in the debate by members of the Environmental Audit Committee.
Secondly, we recommended in our report that there must be openness with the public especially customers and users, about all genetically modified experiments. I must emphasise, however, that when the one genetically modified product was on the market—tomato paste made from genetically modified tomatoes—it was labelled clearly and became a fast seller, outselling by far conventional tomato paste. Consumers considered it to be better in flavour and texture than conventional tomato paste. Sales continued until scare stories began and consumers were persuaded not to use the product.
Thirdly, there must be honesty from scientists who are working in the genetically modified area. They must ensure before they publish their findings that they are reviewed by their peers and that their experiments are repeatable. I say that because genetically modified foods have been set back by the work of Dr. Pusztai, whose experiments have not been replicated and have not received peer approval. Politicians must be honest, too. It is not honest of them to describe genetically modified foods as "Frankenstein foods"; that is emotive and non-scientific. It does not give much honour to scientists to use the expression and is of no help to science and its consequences. While on the subject of honesty, I must mention newspaper reporting. On 26 April 1999, the Daily Mail carried a massive scare headline, "Scientists warn of GM crops link to meningitis". Such a link is tenuous, if it exists at all. It will be dealt with by the hon. Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Mr. Beard).
My fourth point concerns the morality of the experiments and their consequences. More important still is the morality of having knowledge that is vital to human beings, but not using it. For example, what would have happened 150 years ago if we had had the technology that we have now, whereby we put genes from snowdrops into potatoes to stop them rotting in the ground? If we had known that, by doing that, we could stop potato famine in Ireland, would it have been right to say that experimentation should not be done, or to say that it should be done, thereby preventing deaths and misery?
If we know that we can develop crops that will give two or three yields a year rather than one, are we right, knowing that there is a shortage of food and many mouths to feed in Asia, not to pursue such experiments? If we can develop crops that will grow on one half or one quarter of the amount of water that they currently require, do we have the moral right not to develop such crops, bearing in mind the famine and starvation in the horn of Africa? Morality has two sides: that of

113WH
experimentation and that of not experimenting. Do we have the right to withhold the developed world's science from the under-developed world's population?
The objections to genetically modified foods arise mainly because people in this country do not perceive the benefits of such foods. I referred earlier to the mobile phone report. It is said that the transmitters pose risks and that there are even risks from the hand-held sets which, after all, are transmitters as well as receivers. We could not show or prove any hazards. But no one complains about mobile telephones, because they are of massive benefit to the population. I nearly said genetically modified telephones and perhaps that is what I should have said. People in this country object to genetically modified foods because they cannot see the benefit.
Before concluding, I want to refer to the Government's response to our report. I am pleased to say that they welcomed and received our report very well. They state:
"The Government agrees that GM technology holds out the propsect of important quality of life and economic benefits that we do not want to see lost to the UK. It is a technology that can be applied in a range of areas—agriculture and food production, medicines and diagnostics, manufacturing process and environmental clean-up but these benefits will only be worthwhile if they are consistent with our paramount concern for public health and the environment."
Paragraph 7 of the Government's response states:
"In particular, we believe that scientific data must be subjected to the necessary peer review by the scientific community before it is made public. Peer review is the key safeguard of quality and reliability when new scientific data is produced. Without this quality control, not only specific results, but science and its practitioners risk being brought into disrepute."
Finally, paragraph 2, the shortest one of all, states:
"We agree with the Committee's conclusion that 'GM technology has the potential to deliver significant benefits to the UK through its application to agriculture and food both in terms of improving the quality of the food we eat and in economic terms'."
The first half of the last century was the era of the internal combustion engine, which led to road and air transport. The second half of the last century was dominated by electronics, computers and information technology, which gave us the ability to solve high labour-intensive problems, such as the genome project. I believe that the first half of this century will be the age of biotechnology, when we learn to combat, prevent, cure or even eliminate many diseases. The United Kingdom has a significant contribution to make. There are financial and economic benefits to the UK from genetic modification and biotechnology. There are social, welfare and health benefits, as well. The widely despised GM maize may well come to be seen as the seed-corn of the 21st century, and the controversy associated with it will pale into insignificance compared with the many benefits that are likely to accrue.nb I am delighted to have had the opportunity to initiate this debate.
2.43 pm
Mr. John Horam: It is appropriate that we are discussing genetically modified organisms today because it was about a year ago when they began to hit the headlines in a very serious way. I am saying genetically modified organisms deliberately—[Interruption.]
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Someone has an electronic device. Will he or she deal with it immediately? The rules on the matter apply just as much in this Chamber as they do in the main Chamber of the House.
Mr. Horam: I say deliberately genetically modified organisms, which does not yet include genetically modified phones—regrettably, in view of what has just happened.
Mr. Malcolm Savidge: Terminator gene.
Mr. Horam: I am indebted to the hon. Gentleman—a terminator gene might be very welcome indeed.
About a year ago, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition raised eyebrows during Prime Minister's Question Time by introducing the subject of GMOs. I remember that the Lobby correspondents and parliamentary sketch writers were somewhat amazed at how such a brilliant man as my right hon. Friend, who is so excellent during Prime Minister's Question Time, could have made such a serious mistake. What were GMOs and why was he introducing such a trivial topic at such an important time? There was some puzzlement in the Press Gallery, but my right hon. Friend's finger was right on the button. They were and remain a matter of considerable concern to the public. I remember the Prime Minister's bewildered reaction. He almost began say that biotechnology was a good modern industry, and to ask what the fuss was about. The right hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham), who was the Cabinet enforcer at the time, followed up rather more aggressively by saying that GMOs involved the biotechnology industry, in which we had invested a great deal and on which Britain was the leader, so he could not understand why everyone was complaining. The Government had been caught off balance by the public concern about the issue, and they remained so for some time.
We then began to notice—certainly the Environmental Audit Committee did—that there was another voice in the debate, not a million miles away from the Minister for the Environment, whom I am glad to see here today. It became apparent that there were two voices in the Government, separated by a chasm. They presented themselves to my Select Committee. The right hon. Member for Copeland gave evidence first and was clearly sticking to the remit of the biotechnology industry, whether it be good or bad. The Minister for the Environment came along, in the company of his right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker), who at the time was a Minister of State in the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, and it became clear that there was a certain discordance.

115WH
The Environmental Audit Committee made some sensible suggestions. First, we suggested that there should be an overarching advisory committee to consider not only the science of the issue, but ethical and environmental questions, so that we would get a clear, strategic picture of the position. Secondly, we suggested that we should not proceed from field trials of GMOs to commercial plantings until everyone was fully satisfied that the results were satisfactory and could be released to commercial use.
Since then, the Government have described what I call a gentle parabolic curve towards the position adopted by my Committee; I am very glad of that. The announcement late last year that there would be two strategic commissions considering these matters—one concentrating on health issues and the other on the environment—is extremely welcome. However, there is still some way to go—as there always is.
I have some questions for the Minister and I want to make some points about what needs to be done. First, I want to raise the issue of handling the press—a point that was made strongly by my hon. Friend the Chairman of the Science and Technology Committee. In our report we call for an improved information strategy to address what was acknowledged by the Minister to be media hysteria on the issue. I do not mean a Charlie Whelan performance, with a pint of beer in one hand and a mobile phone in the other, outside the Red Lion, bellowing in blue language to a poor old hack that he had not understood the import of the article, and that what the Prime Minister said was that he would not enter the euro this year, even though he had said that he would in the article. I do not mean that sort of a spin-doctoring performance. I am sure that the Minister for the Environment has been around for far too long to stoop to such new Labour tactics. Does he even agree with such tactics? I am sure that he does not.
In the run-up to further problems with the media, the Government should have a clear view of the risk involved. There are questions of risk, whether we are talking about bovine spongiform encephalopathy, GMOs or whatever. The Government should say how far they are prepared to go with public health, the environment and so on, and begin to educate the press—and the public—on the serious issues. They should set a framework in which future controversy can be contained.
I have not heard a clear Government statement of the benefits of biotechnology. I have read a lot from Sir Robert May, the chief scientific officer on the subject. He has clearly stated his view, but we have not had a clear Government statement. We noted in our report that Baroness Young said that it was her
"personal view that, if public confidence in the Government's monitoring of genetic modification is to be rebuilt, it is a task for concerted effort by Government over five to 10 years."
That is the scale of the task that we have to tackle through an informed strategy, and I should like the Minister to tell us what is being done in that direction. I see very little, but he will agree that it is an important issue.
Why are the Government not prepared to make a significant effort to push science in the direction of greater sustainability? My hon. Friend the Chairman of the Science and Technology Committee clearly stated
116WH
that science and technology have a role in tackling the big environmental problems that the world faces. I, too, believe that they have a role, which is why I support experimentation. For example, the internal combustion engine has been much improved during the last decade or so; we have been able to cut pollution with new technology.
My hon. Friend and I also believe that world climate changes may cause problems in feeding the world population and that GMO technology may help us deal with it. However, the science must be properly handled. Monsanto is a chemicals company, and its prime short-term aim is, obviously, to maximise its sale of chemicals—herbicides, pesticides and so on. It is unlikely to devote a sizeable effort to reducing the need for pesticides or producing crops that need less water, which is certainly something that we may need in future. I know from my time as Minister with responsibility for science in the previous Government that the facilities available to the Government to push science in the right direction are considerable. The science Minister has his own budget and can set his own spending priorities, although individual spending decisions are taken by academics in the various research councils. Technology foresight allows agreement to be achieved between industry, academia and the Government on the way forward and what is practical.
The Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions has its own science budget, and public funding of science is available to push science in the right direction, yet the right hon. Member for Perry Barr, then Minister for Food Safety, stated openly to our Committee that it was for the biotechnology industry to take science forward—a hands-off, free-trade approach. I am surprised that a Government even as right-wing as today's are prepared to go quite so far in the direction of Adam Smith that they want to let all the flowers bloom and not interfere. The right hon. Gentleman spoke emphatically on behalf of the Ministry, but even the strategic commission that the Government have set up makes no mention of the need to encourage sustainable agriculture. Surely, that is an essential part of a proper, overarching view of what we should be doing.
It is not that the Government refuse to push science in the right direction in other areas. For instance, combined heat and power and renewable energy are exempted from the climate change levy—the non-fossil fuel levy, first imposed by the previous Government. An attempt is clearly being made to arrive at solutions using other energy sources that are environmentally sensible as well as being good science and good commerce. It is a pity that the Government have not grasped that. I hope that the Minister will tell us today what else has been done during the past 12 months and whether more is proposed. That is a fundamental issue.
Finally, the Government are relying heavily on field trials to determine their future policy and to restore public confidence. What are they doing to ensure that those findings are not rubbished by the other side arguing that the trials have not been properly conducted? I understand that the framework for the trials was agreed with the supply chain initiative on modified agricultural crops—SCIMAC—but that is an industry body. The Government endorsed that and published a code of practice, but disagreements are already surfacing. The Government say that the rules

117WH
are tough, but Friends of the Earth say that they are feeble, unworkable and unenforceable. The Government are unlikely ever to get the agreement of Friends of the Earth on that matter—I fully accept their difficulty—but the Government could at least have consulted English Nature, to gain an element of environmentalist support for the code of practice. Why has that not been done? Why is the Minister confident that, when we come to the end of the experiment in 2002 or 2003, it will not be rubbished by those who feel that they have played no part in drawing up the ground rules for the experiments?
I have no doubt that the Government's second thoughts at the beginning of last year were better than their first thoughts. They have made progress. The danger is that, in the near future, we shall once again hit severe controversy and further headlines of the sort that contribute nothing to a rational debate. In that sense, the contribution that biotechnology can make to sustainable development will be set back.
2.55 pm
Joan Ruddock: First, I congratulate both Select Committees on their reports, and on the opportunity that we have to debate them. I also congratulate the Government on their response to that parliamentary scrutiny, public concerns and pressure from the numerous non-governmental organisations on these issues. We have been assured that the three new responsible bodies—the Food Standards Agency, the Human Genetics Commission and the Agriculture and Environment Biotechnology Commission—will engage stakeholders and the public in debate. Their work will be crucial. I look forward with great interest to finding out when their work is to start. I am sure that many questions will be asked and I hope that we can all participate.
In their response to the reports, the Government reiterated their commitment to consumer choice—which is to be achieved primarily through labelling. They enthusiastically welcomed the European Union commitment to a 1 per cent. threshold, but many consumers were extremely disappointed. Retailers are now able to achieve a 0.1 per cent. threshold and, given that technical feasibility, I hope that the Government will continue to press for a threshold as close to zero as possible. I hope also that they will keep to their commitment for an early review.
I applaud Tesco's recent announcement that it does not wish its suppliers to grow crops in areas that may have been contaminated by crop trials. That may be a marketing ploy, but it is also entirely logical for those who want to offer proper consumer choice.
In response to the findings on the regulatory and advisory systems, the Government repeated their assurance that human health and the protection of the environment were their prime concern. We all endorse that. However, Ministers must understand the reason for our continuing concern—the fact that monitoring is post-release. Millions of people have already eaten GMOs, and they continue to do so. The field trials are set in a living environment, which is why the application of the precautionary principle, as advocated by the
118WH
Environmental Audit Committee, is so crucial. It is why so many NGOs and their parliamentary supporters, including me, have argued for a five-year freeze. That would mean no new imports of GMO foods or crops, no new registrations of GM seeds, no patenting of genetic resources and, of course, no commerical growing in Britain.
Although field trials are important in helping us to reach decisions, they answer only some of the questions. I have no confidence in the good intentions of the companies that brought those new foods to market without public consent, without labelling. In many ways they were scientifically irresponsible. The Government say in their response that they will not allow commercial planting of GM crops until they are absolutely satisfied that there are "no unacceptable effects". That would lead some to ask what would be acceptable effects of GMOs on the environment and human health. The Chairman of the Science and Technology Committee, the hon. Member for Rayleigh (Dr. Clark), spoke earlier about the morality of scientists in relation to GM foods. In my view, there was no morality in companies using antibiotic markers in their gene transfers, when we all know that the world is fighting desperately to secure and protect the use of antibiotics in human health and when, even in our own country, hospitals are fighting against superbugs.
For all those reasons, many of us will continue to be extremely concerned, even those of us who have some scientific knowledge and who are generally supportive of science and keen that it should be allowed to progress. Science cannot be allowed to progress at any price, and that is what our debate is about. The hon. Member for Rayleigh also mentioned the possibility that transferring snowdrop lectin to potatoes could have prevented the potato famine—a possibility that requires a huge jump of imagination and has nothing to do with science. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that research was recently undertaken in Dundee on snowdrop lectin, which found that it combines with the human white blood cell? That could be of enormous significance in terms of the immune system. We do not know anything further than the results of that initial research, but it has been peer-reviewed and is important.
Dr. Michael Clark: I should like to make a correction. I did not say that the transfer of snowdrop lectin would have prevented the potato famine. I asked whether, if we had known that it could have done, we would have been morally right 150 years ago to prevent such an experiment from taking place. I do not know whether it would have prevented the famine—I presented it as an example of an "if".
Joan Ruddock: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that correction. However we know that there is research demonstrating that there is real reason for concern; thus the assumption that the kind of gene transfer that has already taken place constitutes definitive progress is not yet proven. That is the case that I am making.
Dr. Lynne Jones: Had a foodstuff containing lectin, about which there is such doubt, been marketed for consumption, my hon. Friend would be justified in complaining that the regulatory system was completely awry. However, that is not the

119WH
case and she should not imply that it is. Would she deny the opportunity of developing genetically modified crops—such as bananas—that can contain cholera vaccine or crops that are modified to have high levels of vitamin A, which could save many people in developing countries from going blind?
Joan Ruddock: My hon. Friend suggests that those are realities, but as yet they are all just experiments in laboratories and it is quite unscientific to suggest that we can now produce those developments without risk. The research into their adverse effects has not been carried out. The series of laboratory experiments conducted on insect-tolerant Bt maize, for example, have demonstrated that the insecticide produced by that plant as a result of genetic engineering is leaking into the soil. That was unknown and unresearched prior to the crop being grown. My hon. Friend does no justice to her case by suggesting that those developments are a reality.
In answer to my hon. Friend's question, such developments are possible; I would not deny that. However, there is no reason to presume that they will come to the fore and be positive advances in treating people with disease or in solving the food problems of developing countries. The food problems in developing countries are due not to shortage of food, but to problems with distribution and with control and ownership of land.
Several hon. Members rose—
Joan Ruddock: I know that many hon. Members want to speak and I wanted to be brief; I am not the presenter of either of the reports. I am more than willing to give way to the hon. Members who have just risen, but I ask other hon. Members not to complain if I then take more time than I might otherwise have done.
Dr. Phyllis Starkey: Will my hon. Friend add to her list of the major causes of food shortage in the third world loss in storage and loss from pests? Those problems might be resolved in many ways, one of which is genetic modification of crops.
Joan Ruddock: I am perfectly happy with that intervention and I will take the next one.
Mr. Alan Simpson: In discussions that I was fortunate enough to have with some Indian farmers at the beginning of last year, they pointed out that they have a real concern about blindness, but that there are other possible solutions to that problem. One of the most significant of those would be simply to stop spraying crops in the fields with pesticides, which would be extremely helpful. Wonder solutions are not the same as sustainable solutions. In regard to blights, the agenda being set in the developing world is much more about using plant diversity to deal with infestation management systems, than about the pursuit of monocultures, which inevitably produce their own new blights.
Joan Ruddock: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. I would add that it is paternalistic to think
120WH
that we in the west should decide that people in developing countries should have vitamin A-enhanced rice. I think that people in developing countries would like more diversity in their diet and I am opposed to a deliberately engineered mono-diet.
The Government have said, quite rightly, that the farm trials results have to be made available before any decision is taken on unrestricted planting. In one of their responses, they laid out details of the consents that are required—that there has to be approval of the herbicide to be used in herbicide-tolerant crops, that the seeds have to be entered on the seed register and that there has to be Europewide marketing consent.
I found it difficult to follow the responses to the two different reports, so I wish to put a question to the Minister. In response to the Environmental Audit Committee, the Government said, in reference to oilseed rape that is under trial, that if a European marketing consent were granted,
"the harvested produce will be used within identity preserved channels".
Can the Minister clarify what that means? As I understand it, there is no requirement to label produce, such as milk or meat, that comes from animals fed—I presume that it would be fed to them—on such crops. Will there be a change in the labelling regime to take account of that?
I also ask my right hon. Friend to clarify the Government's explanation in that response for the use of AgrEvo's herbicide-tolerant maize, which already has European marketing consent. The Government's argument seems to imply that further consents could be given during the period of the crop trials. Will the Government permit the seeds of herbicide-tolerant maize to be registered during the period of crop trials? Will the Government approve the herbicides that would be used if it were to be grown commercially? Will that be done in advance of the completion of the trials? If so, not only will it involve public expense, but it would seem to go against the precautionary principle to which the Government adhere. During crop trials, the Government should vote against marketing consent for crops involved in the trials that do not already have such consent, as they have the power to do in the European Union. They should stop the progression of crops through seed regulation, and should not approve any of the pesticides involved.
In their responses, the Government, rightly, deal with all the details of containment, regulation, testing and labelling, subjects about which the hon. Member for Rayleigh has spoken. However, the Government must remember that we are locked into that process only because biotech companies went to the marketplace with untried and untested products.
Throughout Europe, Governments are trying extemely hard to catch up with the biotechnology industry. In focusing on doing that, it becomes difficult to see the bigger picture, but a picture there is. Although support from the public and business for genetic engineering in pharmaceuticals and medicines in the wider sense continues, rightly, to thrive, the opposite is true for GM food and crops. Although demand and markets for organic produce greatly outstrip supply in

121WH
the UK, there is virtually no market for genetic modification of food. Furthermore, we have no food shortage in Europe; on the contrary, we have an embarrassing surplus. I urge my right hon. Friend the Minister and hon. Members to keep that bigger picture in mind as they deliberate.
Mrs. Claire Curtis-Thomas: I am listening with great interest to my hon. Friend. Does she oppose genetically modified food per se? If not, what information would satisfy her anxieties about the safety of such products that would subsequently allow her to endorse their use wherever it might be most beneficial?
Joan Ruddock: I do not oppose genetic engineering per se, but, as I have already made clear, many issues are not being dealt with and many fundamental experiments are not being carried out. As my hon. Friend has raised the subject, I take the opportunity to ask my right hon. Friend the Minister again what progress has been made in devising a means to monitor human health. At present we have no means of monitoring the consequences for human health of eating genetically modified food.
Much work remains to be done. Because I want to progress, I shall not go into further detail, but I assure my hon. Friend that many environmental aspects have not yet been resolved. Comparisons should be made in terms of sustainable agriculture and biodiversity between the effects of GM crops and those of conventionally grown non-GM crops and organic crops. The simplest way to reduce the rate of decline in biodiversity is to grow organic, rather than GM or non-GM, conventional crops. No proof has yet been provided that GM crops will give us what we require for sustainable agriculture. For those many reasons, I continue to worry about GM crops.
Mr. David Chaytor: Following on from the previous intervention, does my hon. Friend agree that the difficulty in the debate over the past two years—[Interruption.]
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. John McWilliam): Order. An electronic device seems to be operating. If the hon. Member responsible does not know how to switch it off, he should remove either the batteries or the device.
Mr. Chaytor: The problem is that anxiety about the effects of GM food has seemed incompatible with support for biotechnology as a key science of the coming century. We need to shift the paradigm slightly so that it can be perfectly reconcilable to support biotechnology in principle and appreciate its potential value while accepting that the precautionary principle must underlie the development of GM food, as with other biotechnologies.
Does my hon. Friend further agree that next week's conference in Montreal to negotiate the biosafety protocol is a key moment whereat the precautionary principle can be firmly embedded in international agreements? It could be the first international
122WH
environment agreement of the new millennium, and I hope that she and my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment will refer to it.
Joan Ruddock: Sometimes I explain the problem by saying that if something goes wrong when we are taking pills, we can stop, but if something goes wrong with food, we may not know how to stop. A big divide exists between the use of genetic engineering in contained systems, as in the pharmaceutical industry, and the release of GMOs into the environment and the consequences of the unlabelled and unregulated distribution of crops, seeds and foods that has been taking place around the world.
The Government are pre-eminent in their attack on regulatory regimes and the means by which we attempt to make our environment and people safe; I pay great tribute to them for everything that they are doing. However, the same is not true of Governments around the world, which brings me to the biosafety protocol. In the history of disputes in which the environment has been set against trade, trade has always won. That must not happen in the case of GMOs. I know that my right hon. Friend the Minister agrees with me on that, and that the Government opposed tying GMOs into the World Trade Organisation framework, which we applaud. I hope that he will go to Montreal and be robust in his defence of the right of all nations to say no to the import of GMOs. That right is necessary for our own protection, for our national interest and the environment and health of our people, and it should be available to every other nation, especially developing nations, which face the greatest threat in terms of loss of biodiversity and have the greatest anxieties about control by multinational companies of their agriculture. Thank you for your indulgence, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
3.18
Mr. David Heath: I, too, extend my gratitude to the two Select Committees that produced the reports. If I intimate that I prefer the conclusions of one or the other, that is not to denigrate either in terms of the work involved and the careful consideration of important issues. I welcome the Minister, who has been a beacon of common sense in this matter when others have been perhaps slightly over-enthusiastic in various ways. I am sure that we are all grateful to him for his work on the biosafety protocol, to which I shall return.
Genuine anxieties have been expressed to a much greater extent, not only in Parliament but by members of the public, as a realisation of what is involved has become more widespread. I am keen to consider this important aspect of biotechnology on the basis of facts rather than superstition. I simply do not believe that we need to declare that the sky is about to fall on our heads in order to prove a point that is based purely on science. As a sort of scientist—a bad one, a long time ago—I believe that I have at least some understanding of the framework of science. Perfectly sound arguments need to be adduced to the debate on the development of GMOs and biotechnology—arguments that do not rely on assertions that cannot be supported by evidence produced through scientific investigation. I do not take the view that GMOs are innately evil and, simply because of their derivation, must be resisted at all costs.

123WH
To do so would be to decry the entire history of breed improvement in agriculture, which would be nonsense. Nor do I suggest that we should put aside the potential benefits, which the hon. Member for Rayleigh (Dr. Clark) described. The technology is important, and Britain has an important stake in it. There are potential benefits to extending research in terms of medicine and agriculture.
The precautionary principle is the basis for addressing issues of concern, as several hon. Members have said. Tests must be applied to assure us that the novel processes, products and organisms pose no threat in terms of safety, health and especially the environment. The technology is revolutionary in many ways. Trans-species manipulation of genetic material has not been considered previously, as it does not naturally occur other than in a limited sense between feral populations of closely related species. Therefore, we are right to consider the matter with extreme care.
Let us consider possible problems and how to address them. If we are to take the subject of food safety seriously, we must distinguish between foods containing genetically manipulated material and foods derived from a genetically manipulated organism. They are not the same. A substance produced by a genetically modified organism could be chemically and physically identical to one produced by an organism that has not been manipulated, so it would be nonsense to suggest that there might be differentiation between them based on the organism from which they have been derived. That does not apply to the ingestion of genetic material that has been manipulated, which should be tested so that a high level of safety is demonstrable before it is presented to the general population.
I shall not pretend that genetically modified crops necessarily represent an enormous health risk. However we do not know what health risks some of the organisms will present in the long term. There may be short-term risks, especially to people with allergies because we risk introducing unusual allergens into food products that otherwise would not contain them. Tests must be done to satisfy us that that is not the case.
More importantly, we must give the public the right to choose what they ingest. We must allow them the right to take risks even though some would say that there are no risks. That can be achieved only by effective labelling, so that people know what they are being asked to buy, and, if it is realistic, proper segregation. We know already the history of soya in the United States and the extent to which there has been a mingling of supplies. People find it difficult to know whether they are eating genetically modified products.
Mr. David Drew: I agree almost entirely with what the hon. Gentleman says. Does he agree that we hear much about managerialisation of Government? To some extent, that is the consumer reaction—it is democratising the consumption process. Nothing can be wrong with that if consumers have the choice and the right to be secure in the knowledge that what they eat will not do them harm.
Mr. Heath: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who is absolutely right. The watchword is "Trust the people". Doing so involves giving them adequate
124WH
information on which to make an informed choice. I do not believe that such information is now in the public domain or that the public can make informed choices. They are not aware of what they eat. That applies to directly produced foods, but we must also bear in mind the feed given to livestock and the meat derived from it, so segregation is important.
The most obvious environmental aspect was alluded to by the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock), who made an extremely helpful contribution. Non-contained experimentation and commercial planting of crops risk genetic contamination. Until we can be satisfied that surrounding flora and fauna are not being contaminated, we must be sure that such contamination would not cause adverse environmental effects.
Dr. Ian Gibson: Will the hon. Gentleman explain the difference on the subject between GM crops and ordinary conventional crops? Are the problems any different?
Mr. Heath: They might not be different. If a conventional crop is placed where it is not native and is surrounded by species to which it is not normally neighbour, risks apply. Trans-species genetic manipulation, especially from animals to plants, introduces an extreme element of risk. It is risk, not proven effect, but we must take it into account.
Genetically manipulated crops may offer an initial benefit, but produce changes to the growing regime used for the husbandry of the crop. We do not know yet whether there will be reduced or increased herbicide use, or whether there will be changes in crop rotation patterns. We know that such matters should be investigated and that we should have clear protocols for continuation.
Dr. Starkey: Would the hon. Gentleman explain why he suggests that there should be restrictions on genetically modified crops to control changes in agricultural practices? There is no such control on farmers who change to agricultural practices that might be detrimental to the environment, such as intensive agriculture.
Mr. Heath: The effects of intensive agriculture on the environment are self-evident and have not been to its advantage. There is no difference in kind between one adverse effect on the environment and another. I am simply postulating that herbicide-resistant crops would logically result in the application of herbicide to reduce weeds between the crops. Therefore, herbicide use would increase and you would effectively produce a monoculture surrounded by a desert. To me, that is not an advance in agricultural practice and is not environmentally beneficial. I accept that that can happen by other means and will be equally adverse. That is a subject on which you—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has introduced "you" a few times into the debate, none of them cloned so far as I know. When he addresses the Chamber, he should use the third person. By referring to "you", he is referring to me, and I have not used herbicide for years.
Mr. Heath: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was using "you" in the impersonal sense of "one" rather than the personal sense. I have no knowledge of your agricultural or horticultural pursuits, so I would not wish to ascribe anything to you.
The third potential problem is the environmental, social and ethical problem, to which the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford referred: the potential effect on developing countries. Is it beneficial for those countries to have these new crop varieties, as may well be the case, or is it linking them inevitably into a trade position that is to their long-term social disadvantage and may be to the environmental disadvantage of their country? That is why we need to hold tests.
It is not sensible to say that there should be no tests. Without tests one cannot obtain the scientific evidence needed either to support or to refute the positions that I have advanced. I shall set aside the question of contained experiments for the moment because I have no problem with them; they are a sensible and useful way forward. What is needed before the okay is given to farm-scale trials to proceed is an absolutely rock-solid protocol. First, it should ensure credible results that are transferable to other situations; and, secondly, it should ensure that the trials themselves do not represent a danger either to the local environment or the health of the local population. I am not yet satisfied that such a protocol is in place.
There is some support for that position, as the Minister well knows, from those who are interested in environmental matters. Indeed, a report published today is of considerable importance. I hope that he has read that report and can respond to it. It looks at pollen dispersal patterns and the potential for hybridisation of a series of plants that are candidates for GM trials. It suggests that the current isolation zones are wholly inadequate to prevent both dispersal and inter-fertilisation with feral varieties, particularly oilseed rape, although sugar beet and maize also present genuine problems. If we have question marks about basic elements such as buffer zones, we need to go back to the drawing board to ensure that the design of these experiments is right before we have a massive increase in the number of farm trials held around the country.
There are several concerns about the Government's position. As I suggested earlier, I partially absolve the Minister for the Environment of responsibility for some of those, although in collective terms, of course, he has a responsibility. There has been a disregard in part for the precautionary principle espoused by the Government in what has happened to date. It is not acceptable simply to trust the experimental evidence produced by a company such as Monsanto on its own crops without having it corroborated by extensive research elsewhere.
We have not had a balanced debate in this country. The Government have acted as cheerleaders for this technology, but that is not what the public expect from them, nor is it founded in a sensible assessment of the pros and cons of the technology. The Government have not yet taken sufficient interest in the design of the trials to ensure that they provide that credible basis for future research. The moratorium that was eventually wrung out of the Government is voluntary and therefore has no real meaning. In fact, it is more likely to be sustained by commercial and public pressures than by anything the
126WH
Government may choose to do. It is not based on the length of time needed to obtain credible scientific results that can be used to establish the safety of commercial planting.
We have the Government's basic dictum that no unrestricted cultivation of GM crops in Britain will be allowed. That is reassuring, but what does it say about restricted cultivation of GM crops in Britain? Will that go ahead and to what extent will crops be allowed to enter the food chain? The hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford drew attention to AgrEvo maize, which has commercial marketing consents. Is it likely to be proposed for the national seed list? Is commercial use of AgrEvo maize in this country imminent? The labelling threshold is a welcome innovation, as far as it goes, but 1 per cent. is a high figure. Retailers are running far ahead of the Government and the industry in what they are prepared to do. We have the MAFF surveillance programme, which is looking not at the observance of segregation but at whether the claims can be justified at retail level. That seems a cock-eyed way of using the Government's resources to ensure safety.
I shall end by talking about the biosafety protocol. The meeting is coming up in Montreal on 28 January. Will the Minister attend it?
The Minister for the Environment (Mr. Michael Meacher)indicated assent.
Mr. Heath: I am glad about that. Without ministerial attendance and the political impetus that it can provide, the talks are unlikely to succeed. It is very important that we establish in those talks a realistic hierarchy between the biosafety protocol, the World Trade Organisation and other multilateral agreements. It is important that we establish the precautionary principle on an international as well as a national basis. It is important that we establish where liability lies if the technology at some point, somewhere in the globe, ends with a disaster of one kind or another. It is important that we establish the principle that developing countries should not be put at either short-term or long-term disadvantage by the interests of corporate America or anywhere else that wished to unload a technology that is to its commercial advantage but may not be to the environmental or social advantage of developing countries.
This has been a useful debate. We could explore other areas that are important in terms of biotechnology such as gene patenting and TRIPS, the trade-related aspects of intellectual property rights agreement, but it is more important to focus on key issues relating to GM crops. I hope that the Minister will not only give some reassurance today, but tell us what the Government intend to do to ensure that the future development of this technology is based on safety, environmentalism and a precautionary principle to which we all, I hope, subscribe.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Before I call the next hon. Member to speak, I suggest that if hon. Members stick to around 10 minutes it will be possible to fit in everyone who has risen, but if they do not, it will not.
3.39 pm
Ms Joan Walley: I shall do my best to be brief, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In welcoming the debate this afternoon, I want to try to put it into context. The issue of time and the short and long terms has been mentioned, and various hon. Members have suggested how this debate arose.
I should like to take the clock back to the days before the Westminster Hall Chamber and its horseshoe setting of seats—the purpose of which was to try to bring together the different parties so as to reach agreement on how we might proceed—and recall a meeting of the Globe group which I attended with colleagues just over a year ago. Many of us have felt a sense of time running out in relation to this debate. Some of us were fortunate to be able to attend a meeting of Globe UK at which we heard about what was taking place in Brazil. We were told that it was possible to supply non-GM soya, but that, because of the imminent planting season and the threat of an inability to differentiate between non-GM soya and GM soya, the choice could be taken from us. That would mean that United Kingdom retailers would no longer be able to find a source of non-GM soya.
Whatever views the hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Horam), who is sitting beside me and who chairs the Environmental Audit Committee, has about how the debate began, those events at the Globe meeting and my sense of my own biological clock ticking away as I approach my 50th birthday, made me want to do something to give the issues being debated in Parliament some resonance with people outside the House. By coincidence, I was fortunate to win an Adjournment debate which just happened to be on the same morning as the Leader of the Opposition asked a question about GM foods.
I want to consider what has taken place since I was fortunate enough to introduce that Adjournment debate on 20 February. At long last, discussion is out in the open, and the bottom line is that this is a debate about trade liberalisation, environmental protection and sustainable development. We heard a little while ago from the Chairman of the Select Committee on Science and Technology, who remarked that we are now in the age of biotechnology. I should like to think that we are in the age of sustainability and that we shall use our concern about the environment and our desire to implement the precautionary principle to underpin all that we do. I particularly welcome today's debate because I feel that the work of the two Select Committees has led to a much more informed public discussion in the period since the events of almost 12 months ago.
I am delighted that the Environmental Audit Committee agreed to hold its own brief inquiry, whose results we debate today. I also want to put on record my thanks to the staff of the offices that service Select Committees. I hope that in the coming months Select Committees will take a much more proactive role in influencing Government policies by bringing together Ministers and parliamentarians. Select Committees are an important means of doing that.
128WH
This collaborative debate, with colleagues who are members of the two Select Committees here in force along with other hon. Members, adds force to the debate about GMOs and where we go from here. There has already been a transformation, from the atmosphere of the combative question put to the Prime Minister on the afternoon of my Adjournment debate last year to the much more considered and constructive engagement between different parties in the House, and between those of us of differing environmental persuasions. My hope is that we will bring everyone together and underpin everything we do with a precautionary principle. That way all of us will be part of the solution. The discussion cannot be divided from the international sphere and the many varied developments that have occurred throughout the year.
As we discuss the first report of our own Science and Technology Committee, I remind colleagues that we engaged with a wide range of organisations that are now fully part of the on-going debate. I hope that they will be part of the solution, along with the Minister. The fact that there is now a Government information website on the subject of GM foods means that all who gave evidence to our inquiries are much better placed as equal partners to be part of the way forward. We consulted extensively organisations such as the Countryside Agency, the Environment Agency, the Environment Council, Greenpeace, the Institute of Biology, Friends of the Earth, the Institute of Directors, the National Farmers Union, the National Environmental Research Council, the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors and many more. That reveals the extent to which everyone is coming together in the debate.
The starting point of our inquiry was the evidence that the Government had inherited an issue about which previously there had been little joined-up thinking between Departments. On a couple of occasions during our inquiry, it was felt that there was still not as much joined-up thinking between the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions as we would have liked. However, my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment has taken gigantic steps towards bringing about such thinking across Departments. He is to be congratulated on that.
At the outset, there was a reluctance to jeopardise trade at the expense of the precautionary principle, and to upset vested interests. There was also an acceptance that perhaps too great account had to be taken of focus groups whose members probably did not understand that environmental concerns resonate throughout the population of the UK. Our inquiry has helped to assemble a much wider and more informed public debate in which we can create an agenda and ensure that this overdue debate continues.
Our questions today are as pertinent as they were a year ago. Of all the issues that the Environmental Audit Committee discussed I want to concentrate most on international issues. I want to know what scope the UK and the EU have for policy initiatives and what prospects there are for multinational agreements and

129WH
the release of GMOs into the environment, with special reference to the World Trade Organisation and the general agreement on tariffs and trade's disciplines and obligations. One conclusion of the Environmental Audit Committee was:
"The explicit subordination of a multinational environmental agreement such as the Biosafety Protocol to agreements on international trade rules would be a deeply unfortunate precedent to set. We recommend that the Government must take every effort to revive the negotiations on the protocol and bring them to a satisfactory conclusion."
I was extremely pleased with that conclusion.
The Minister for the Environment has indicated that he will be the UK's delegate to the Montreal negotiations, which begin on 20 January; perhaps he will confirm that when he replies to the debate. I should be grateful if he would also tell the House of the latest position on the biosafety protocol, bearing in mind the debacle that occurred during the EU's negotiations in Seattle and the failed talks in Cartagena before that. I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend for his work in rescuing something of the situation in Seattle. I understand that the EU's Environment Commissioner paid no regard whatever to the previous consensus among other European representatives there.
Can the Minister tell the House who else will attend the biosafety protocol meeting on 20 January? Will he also confirm that it will be a genuine opportunity to pre-empt the implementation of any previous decision of the WTO? We need to be told what steps are being taken to prevent a repeat of the events in Seattle. We certainly cannot have the EC trade commissioner, Pascal Lamy, appeasing the United States of America by proposing a WTO biotechnology working group. Fundamental to today's debate is the need for a United Nations protocol—a need to prevent at all costs WTO dominance of multilateral environmental agreements. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor), I want this to be the first multilateral environmental agreement of the new millennium.
The proposed biosafety protocol, if agreed, would allow national Governments to regulate trade in GMOs, to restrict trade in them on environmental health grounds and to set rules for liability and labelling. It would protect the interests of consumers and primary food producers, and set limits to the activities of multinational biotech companies. Today's debate comes at exactly the right time. It will set the scene and give added strength to the Minister in Montreal. Our Government should insist on the agreement, so that people all over the world can have the right to say no to GMOs. There is growing support worldwide for that fundamental right. Public opinion is better informed than ever, especially as a result of the internet. In our global society there is greater awareness than ever before.
The other main issue is the Select Committee's recommendations on labelling. To recap, we predicted an ever-growing demand for information about the food that we eat—both its constituent ingredients and the wider impact of the processes by which it is produced. Labelling for process is a valuable goal and we urged the Government to achieve it. Organisations such as Greenpeace rightly reminded us that GM crops,
130WH
in the form of animal feed, are getting into the food chain through the back door. Despite a proposed EU regulation for labelling on animal feed, there is still no requirement to label feed or the food products of animals fed on GM crops.
The Government have responded to the Select Committee recommendations, but I would welcome confirmation that they will continue to press the EC for rules on GM-free labelling and for proposals on the labelling of animal feed. That has been on the table since 1996. I am uneasy about this sentence in the Government's response:
"Whilst there is a trend amongst some groups to seek more information about the food they eat, we must also recognise that there are practical constraints to the level of detail that can be included on food labels without detracting from important safety or nutritional information."
Dr. Brian Iddon: Does my hon. Friend have any evidence of the harmful consequences of animal feed products being brought into the food chain? Proteins are broken down inside animals to individual amino acids and then reconstituted for the food that we imbibe ourselves. What evidence does my hon. Friend have that that process harms the human race?
Ms Walley: I do not have any such evidence. However, in common with my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham. Deptford (Joan Ruddock), I want to ensure that all risk assessment is under way, so that new processes can be investigated on a step-by-step basis. That should not be pre-empted because of a failure to synchronise the right precautions and have them in place at the right time. We are being rushed into production without having had the necessary step-by-step research and review.
Mrs. Curtis-Thomas: I am listening with interest to my hon. Friend, but I remind her of the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon). To be satisified that no risk is associated with GM food, she will need to understand the potential risks of every aspect of GM food's relationships to other bodies or lives. Does she believe that science today is advanced enough to provide that understanding? If not, what sort of information will make her confident that, as far as can be determined, no safety implications are associated with the digestion of GM foods or their subsequent realisation through animal feed stock?
Ms Walley: The important point is that we are dealing simultaneously with food safety and environmental diversity. During the Select Committee inquiry, we explored in detail—with English Nature and Baroness Young—some of the wider environmental issues. We are not talking solely about the implications of—
3.56 pm
Sitting suspended for a Division in the House.
4.11 pm
On resuming—
Ms Walley: In response to the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mrs. Curtis-Thomas),

131WH
who has not had chance to return from voting in the Division, I want to make the point that we must be sure that we are not dealing with irreversible actions. We must consider that, as with BSE, we do not know about incubation periods. We must not let a genie out of a bottle that we cannot put back again. That is why I am convinced that we must proceed on a step-by-step, sure and steadfast basis. We should take precautions, rather than have to worry when it is too late, as with BSE.
I welcome paragraph 35 of the Science and Technology Committee report, which reinforces the need for regulations to include requirements for animal feed and meat products. I hope that we will make good progress and, if possible, place a European agreement on the statute book. If necessary, we should pre-empt action in Europe by ensuring that we take the lead.
The food industry and retailers have already taken action. Only last month, the United Kingdom's largest retailer, Tesco, announced that its target was the complete eliminaton of GM ingredients from animal feed, to be achieved using forms of segregated non-GM soya from Brazil. Consumer-led demand can bring about changes in retailing, which can make a world of difference.
I remind everyone of the interdependence of all that we do. I end as I began—with Brazil. After the Adjournment debate that I initiated last January, I and other parliamentarians in the Globe group had the privilege of meeting a delegation from the Brazilian state of Rio Grande do Sul, led by Mr. Hoffman, who is its Secretary of Agriculture. The aim of that visit to Europe was to assess the demand for GM produce and to protect further the democratic development option, in which the state and its citizens protect their sovereignty over their own agricultural sector and food supply systems.
It is important that Brazil has, so far, maintained a non-GM policy because of a federal court ruling that bans the commercial planting of GM crops until a full environmental impact study has been conducted. Again, full environmental impact studies and the time to produce proper results are crucial.
Dr. Lynne Jones: Will my hon. Friend explain why she is calling for proper environmental impact assessments while expressing reservations about farm trials and talking about the need for a moratorium on such trials in this country?
Ms Walley: I support the five-year moratorium on commercial planting, but it is important that research is done to find out how to proceed with certainty.
We have seen a victory for consumer choice in the United Kingdom. The refusal of the United States agriculture business to segregate GM crops meant that they were, in effect, being force-fed to consumers. Maintaining Brazil as a non-GM source has allowed the food industry to fulfil its wishes, and those of its customers, to have non-GM food.
In urging the Government to press ahead with implementing our recommendations, I shall end with the statement made on 29 December by the United Nations Secretary-General, Kofi Annan. He called for an agreement at talks in Montreal to send the world a strong message on biosafety and regulating the
132WH
movement of living modified organisms. Success in those negotiations would send a strong and timely signal to the international community that environmental concerns can be satisfied without creating new obstacles to free trade. I hope that today's debate will reinforce Kofi Annan's message. I look forward to the response of my right hon. Friend the Minister, who has done so much already to ensure that we have a proper and informed public debate on the subject.
4.16 pm
Mr. Nigel Beard: In this debate it is appropriate to say that, before being elected to the House, I was group research and development manager with Zeneca and so associated with major research development programmes exploring and applying biotechnology.
Genetic modification and biotechnology are not new. For thousands of years, people have been crossbreeding plants to improve the growth, yield and survival of cultivated crops. Anyone visiting a dog show or going to the races sees the results of the selective breeding of animals over many years. Those processes involve trial and error and so are inevitably hit and miss. The revolution that is modern biotechnology began with the immense British achievement of Watson, Crick, Wilkin and Franklin: the discovery in the 1950s of the structure of DNA—the stuff of which genes are made. Genes are the governors of a plant or animal's development and determine characteristics, such as blue eyes, long legs, wide leaves or yellow flowers. It is amazing that many genes are common across all animals and across all plants, and that some are common to both plants and animals. For example, a gene that helps to fight fungal infection is common to scorpions, shellfish and radishes.
During the past 40 years, we have developed techniques to manipulate and transfer genes to achieve effects deliberately, without using the hit-and-miss techniques of plant and animal breeders. At the start, that meant that the time-honoured process of plant breeders could be speeded up, but modern techniques for genetic manipulation go much further than that. Effects can be achieved that could never have been produced by crossbreeding and creating hybrids. Essentially, genetic manipulation is like long division; it is a technique for achieving a particular result. You cannot generalise, as many commentators have done recently, saying that genetic modification is inherently unsafe, any more than you can say that long division is unsafe because it was used in the calculations that led to the atomic bomb.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It was only my maths teacher at primary school who said that my long division was unsafe at times.
Mr. Beard: I am talking about the generic quality of long division.
Even if it were proved that genetic modification for herbicide resistance was unsafe, it would not mean that it was unsafe when used, for example, to increase the yield of rice; nor would it necessarily be unsafe if a crop were manipulated to tolerate cold weather. Yet those are exactly the absurd generalisations that have become

133WH
common in the media following Dr. Pusztai's appearance on television in a "World in Action" programme on 10 August 1998. Dr. Pusztai essentially claimed that genetic modification was unsafe as a technique. That utterly false, irresponsible and discredited claim on television began the media hysteria that has understandably generated public anxiety and reaction against genetically modified food. Before that, there had been no reaction to clearly labelled GM tomatoes. In fact, they had been bought in preference to established varieties of tinned tomatoes.
Of course, there should be concern if such new technology is used to produce crops that are damaging to the environment or food that may be unsafe for the consumer. The public cannot know these things and the Government have a duty to act on their behalf to determine whether a particular genetically modified crop is an environmental or health hazard and, if so, to stop its commercialisation. That has been the recognised duty of Governments in the European Union and Britain for some years.
The Advisory Committee on Novel Foods and Processes and the Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment assess and prevent respectively health hazards and dangers to the environment from genetically modified crops. Both committees comprise some of the most eminent academics and experts in their relevant fields and both have the authority to demand that further tests be done if they are not satisfied on any point when a new genetically modified food is brought before them. It should be emphasised that, under that arrangement for advice to Ministers, there has not been a single case of genetically modified food causing ill health, and no genetically modified crops have yet been permitted to be grown commercially, so they have certainly not damaged the environment.
I am glad that the Select Committee on Science and Technology roundly condemned the unjust attacks that have been made on the public-spirited men and women on the two advisory committees who have served the community well. To promote the view that genetic modification in general should be banned, irrespective of any scientific evidence, Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth unjustifiably and unscrupulously attacked the objectivity and competence of the committees and those who serve on them with the vehemence of fundamentalist cults. Now it appears that Greenpeace is ready to vandalise the very fields that will produce evidence on whether genetically modified trees damage the environment. That is not just an abandonment of legality; it is a demand to abandon science and rationality as a foundation of public policy.
The Select Committee made various suggestions for adapting and adjusting the current regulatory system, most of which the Government accept in their response to the report. The predominant need is to establish public confidence in the regulatory arrangements through far greater openness in the way in which the two advisory committees operate. However, that move will be nullified if individual scientists and the media continue to deal with the issue as they have done since Dr. Pusztai's television appearance.
134WH
Dr. Pusztai's experiments, on which he based his televised claims, were incomplete and some had not been carried out at all. His interpretation of his data was disputed within his own Rowett Institute and by an independent statistical analysis which was commissioned by Dr. Pusztai and presented to the Select Committee. Dr. Pusztai contradicted what he had said on "World in Action" when he gave public evidence to the Select Committee. None of his work had been reviewed by his peers. The Royal Society had Dr. Pusztai's work reviewed by six of the most eminent authorities in the field. They concluded that his work was
"flawed in many aspects of design, execution and analysis and that no conclusion should be drawn from it."
Despite all that, Dr. Pusztai's original assertions continued to be quoted on various television programmes and in the press as though they were firm and definite conclusions, giving rise to solemn pontificating and assertions that the Government were not doing enough.
Dr. Gibson: Is my hon. Friend aware that there have been attempts to repeat Dr. Pusztai's experiments, but that they have been unrepeatable?
Mr. Beard: No, I was not aware of that, but it lends force to the point that I was making.
Mr. Alan W. Williams: While we are involved in this character assassination of Dr. Pusztai, will my hon. Friend confirm that, in his evidence, Dr. Pusztai told us that his initial interview with "World in Action" was cleared by the Rowett Institute and that his work had now been published in The Lancet, having been peer-reviewed before publication?
Mr. Beard: It has certainly been published in The Lancet but, as The Lancet said, as a means of publicising it and in no way as an endorsement of the results.
Mr. Chaytor: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Beard: No, I will not give way again.
Such coverage was, and is, recklessly irresponsible journalism playing on justified anxiety arising from the BSE scandal.
Modern biotechnology springs from a great British achievement: the discovery of the structure of DNA. Many British scientists have built on that, giving Britain a world lead in science and making us second only to the USA in applying that knowledge through biotechnology. However, public hostility to genetic modification, even under the strict Government regulation that has now been whipped up, puts that position in jeopardy. As a country, we are again in grave danger of inspiring leaders of science but having to watch the USA and Japan reap the economic benefits. That is the context in which the Select Committee asked academia to ensure that scientific staff were able to respond effectively and competently to the media. In their response, the Government accepted that. Concerted action is needed throughout universities. It

135WH
would be appropriate for the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals to take the lead in recommending how that can best be achieved.
The Select Committe also recommended that media editors and reporters should establish a code of conduct for dealing with scientific information and that it should be endorsed by the Press Complaints Commission and the Broadcasting Standards Commission. The Government do not endorse that recommendation on the grounds that the newspaper industry's code of practice—as overseen by the Press Complaints Commission—the BBC charter and the Independent Television Commission's code of practice already require accuracy and impartiality. However, the Government seem uncharacteristically complacent, as none of those safeguards has had any effect over the past 18 months.
The inadequacy of the Press Complaints Commission is well illustrated by the Select Committee's own complaint about the way in which coverage of this issue has been handled. Perhaps the most blatant distortion of the facts was a Daily Mail headline, which has already been referred to, linking GM foods and meningitis. No evidence was presented in the text to justify the headline: like many of the Daily Mail's headlines on this issue, it was a deliberate scaremongering tactic without factual foundation. The Press Complaints Commission has filibustered and prevaricated over the complaint for months instead of objectively adjudicating as it should. Even if the complaint is now upheld, it is far too late for any rebutal to have an impact. If that is the way in which a complaint from a House of Commons Select Committee is handled, are we to expect the PCC to provide better redress to the scientific community at large?
There is no suggestion by the Select Committee of any limitation on either academic freedom or press freedom; both are essential to a healthy democratic society. However, there is a need for self-discipline by both academics and journalists to avoid abuse of those freedoms. The promotion of public debate on scientific issues is vital if Britain is to build on its immense scientific heritage and benefit fully from the opportunities that are being created. Britain cannot prosper with a public culture that is hostile to science. The past 18 months have shown that neither academia not the media are providing the conditions for that debate. If the Select Committee's mild proposals to create the right conditions are not accepted, it is incumbent on the Government to come up with an acceptable alternative approach. It is not, however, constructive to rely on a Press Complaints Commission of proven inadequacy.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Before I call the next speaker, I want to re-issue my warning about time. If speeches continue to be long, not all hon. Members will be able to contribute.
4.29 pm
Dr. Desmond Turner: I shall try to keep within a more reasonable time frame, especially as many of the points that I want to make have already been covered.
We must debate the subject rationally: we have not yet achieved that. We are making progress and have gone beyond where we were a year ago, when, the debate
136WH
was polarised between unhelpful commercial pressures and those who seemed to assert that genetic modification was morally and religiously indefensible witchcraft.
Monsanto made almost as great a contribution to the public unacceptability of genetically modified foods as did Dr. Pusztai and the way in which his work was used. I am quite glad to see the richly deserved negative effect on Monsanto's stock value—it is nice to see capitalists being hoist by their own petard. Monsanto was pressing the commercial exploitation of GM food technology in a country with no food deficiency—we have a surplus—on the ground of modifications with no human benefit. For food consumers, insect or herbicide resistance is neither here nor there. The company sought entirely commercial benefits of no benefit that the consumer could immediately appreciate. The public might have been more receptive had Monsanto tried to create rice strains that would produce vitamin A or crops that would survive in arid climates and so benefit the third world, but it did not do so. It simply sought profit and thought that, by an expensive advertising campaign, it could get the British public to buy its products. It had the opposite result and it is now virtually impossible to sell GM foods in this country—they have almost disappeared from supermarket shelves.
That result is not necessarily happy because it has set us back. Monsanto should have been more responsible; it got itself and other agri-merchants a bad name by trying to tie farmers to its products. Its use of suicide genes meant that, instead of being able to keep seeds to use the next year, as third-world farmers commonly do, farmers had to buy from the supplier more expensive seed and the products to go with it. It is no wonder that agri-business got itself a bad reputation and it fingers deservedly burnt.
I am afraid that Dr. Pusztai, and those who seized on his evidence, have also done us a great disservice. Dr. Pusztai's starting proposition was perfectly respectable. I do not think that any member of the Select Committee on Science and Technology would argue with the proposition that the development of animal models in which to look for toxic effects of GM foods, or any other food substance, is desirable. There was nothing wrong with that scheme.
Dr. Lynne Jones: Should not the public be pleased that there is Government funding for such research? The results have never been validated, but had they been such projects would never have been exploited.
Dr. Turner: I thank my hon. Friend. It must be remembered that the subject of Dr. Pusztai's experiments was not a modification being developed with a view to commercial exploitation but a modification for use as a test model. Nobody in his right mind would want to rush to market with a potato modified to produce a potent toxin. No sensible person would do that, but Dr. Pusztai was testing such a potato. His first experiments, which received all the publicity, did not even use the genetically modified potato. They used an ordinary potato laced—spiked—with the toxin. You would not expect rats to like that. In addition, the procedures and experiment design that Dr. Pusztai used

137WH
was so bad that all that you could legitimately deduce from his experiments is that potato alone is not an adequate diet for rats. You would say that of feeding human beings on potato alone.
Dr. Gibson: Chips are all right.
Dr. Turner: Well, they have a bit more to them.
The experiment was linked with the press hysteria and misrepresentation that has been referred to. The situation was not helped by the senior management at the Rowett Institute, who handled it badly. They took time to wake up to the fact that the Rowett, a Government-backed institution, had released factually untrue material. We must get away from that, and get down to real evidence for whatever we do in future.
Happily, we have not, so far, faced a real threat in this country because the foods licensed have not done any harm. There is not the remotest evidence of harm to consumers and there have been no crop releases. Campaigners for fixed moratoriums—of three or five years—are being simplistic. It would be much better to take the line of my right hon. Friend the Minister and say that there will be no commercial releases until we have sufficient information on individual crops. It does not matter if that takes three years, five years or longer. There should be no releases until we have the evidence. That is the only proper line to follow, and that is the line that the Science and Technology Committee would endorse.
We should do more to test products than has been done in the past.
Mr. Jon Owen Jones: I am sorry to interrupt by hon. Friend, but will he explain what additional useful information can be obtained by commercial testing of GM crops in this country that cannot be obtained from tests carried out abroad?
Dr. Turner: The ecological circumstances are different. You cannot translate results from the growing of a field of maize in the United States to our own ecology because ours is much smaller and more diverse. Only about a third of the United States is under cultivation and those areas are separate from wildlife areas. The areas are mixed in the British countryside. You cannot extrapolate from American results to the British countryside. You must demonstrate the effects here. I think that many hon. Members will share that view.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: There have been an awful lot of "yous" this afternoon. The hon. Gentleman has got into the habit of using them.
Dr. Turner: I humbly beg your pardon, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I shall refrain from sheep farming in future.
I was about to say that I want the Advisory Committee on Novel Foods and Processes to go beyond the principle of substantial equivalence in assessing the safety of prospective foods, because that is a bit crude and inadequate. We do not want to allow "coulds" to remain, or to leave potential hazards uninvestigated. We
138WH
should look at least for evidence from feeding trials, to ensure that no unsuspected toxic effects arise from manipulation. Manipulation is much more precise than hybridisation but it is not all that precise. Science cannot yet control exactly where on a chromosome a gene will be inserted. We cannot be 100 per cent. certain that the effect will be what was intended. We must take that into account and be sure.
I do not have a problem with the precautionary principle—depending on the limits that you set to it. If you were to take it to its logical extension you would test every food that we now eat, many of which are extremely toxic—for instance, if they are not cooked properly. You must be a little sensible and bear in mind that it is impossible to prove—[Interruption.] My apologies, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is absolutely impossible to prove a negative: one can only do one's best.
Future regulations perhaps need a little tweaking in the way I have set out, but we have a reasonable Committee structure, especially with the new Committees that have been established, and I have confidence in the Food Standards Agency's approach to the matter—and, from the environmental perspective, that of my right hon. Friend the Minister.
We owe it to the consumer, ourselves and British science—which we must not endanger, because biotechnology is our only real growth industry and it would be folly for the future of the British economy and British jobs to endanger it unnecessarily and on the basis of false accusations—to reach a properly rational position on genetic modification.
4.44 pm
Mr. Alan Simpson: I congratulate both Committees on the reports that have been presented, and particularly welcome the fact that we are able to consider them jointly. I also welcome my right hon. Friend the Minister and thank him, even before he has said anything, for the nod that he gave to confirm that he will attend the Montreal conference on biosafety. That is wonderful news for those of us who look for something more substantial than the working agenda that was allowed in Cartagena.
I endorse the report of the Environmental Audit Committee and I have substantial praise for the Science and Technology Committee. Perhaps I may gallop through in the time allowed and identify the matters where there is common cause among those of us who are campaigning for a five-year freeze and the right of consumer choice, and the matters that are open to substantial dispute. The call, in the Science and Technology Committee report, for a full audit trail of GM foods and crops, from seed to supermarket shelf, is welcome; so is the call to define thresholds because it is vital to separate GM from conventional crops. Also important is the call for the right of local discretion to be built into the framework of European rules. Perhaps most important is the demand that the precautionary principle should underpin our approach to a science that applies to medicine and agriculture. It will prove phenomenally helpful if we can also obtain amendments to directive 90/220 to ensure an assessment of the cumulative effect of GMOs and an extension of publicly funded research into their environmental impact. All

139WH
those developments would be as welcome to those who have been campaigning for a freeze as to the supporters of the biotechnology industry's claims.
Less happy is the lack of clarity about where thresholds should be set. The answer has already been provided outside the House and in the marketplace. I understand that Sir Paul McCartney has already taken the decision to move the whole of the Linda McCartney food range out of any contact with GM organisms. The company is setting a threshold of zero and can see no reason to accept any other. To accept any other is like suggesting that it is possible to be a little bit pregnant. The advice is that one should not be pregnant at all if one does not want to be. The public have the right to exercise the choice: something that is said to be GMO free should be exactly that.
Dr. Lynne Jones: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Simpson: I will not, I am afraid, because I want to try to squeeze what I have to say into six minutes.
I am also pleased that many Japanese beer manufacturers have adopted such an attitude: to ensure that their products will be GMO free, they are buying huge acreages of land in the United States. We should not be afraid of setting a zero threshold.
It would have been a help if either or both of the Committees had been able to approach a little closer to the Genetically Modified Food and Producer Liability Bill, which I presented last year, and connect the issue with a direct responsibility: producer liability. I expect that to become one of the most important benchmarking elements by providing commercial linkage. It will produce clarity in the minds of those who say, "This is a wonderful, whizz-bang science and we should charge ahead with it," if they know that they will be financially liable for all consequential damage. I am keen to pursue that approach.
I urge my right hon. Friend the Minister to have a second look at another issue. Before we decide that Codex is the legitimate body in which to invest new responsibilities, it is worth recognising that many of the criticisms of it by the sustainable farming and environment movements are based on its being dominated by commercial interests that have pushed for early and unrestricted release of GMOs into the environment. The structure of Codex may have to be tackled in much the same way that my right hon. Friend has addressed the credibility and independence of some of our scrutiny Committees.
It is wrong, however, to suggest that there must be a strengthening of the novel foods process. It is remarkable what such a scientific revolutionary process can do, but, as a Parliament, we assume wrongly that it cannot be dealt with under the existing regulatory regime. It is mistaken to describe a revolutionary scientific process as though it were a different form of cake decoration. We need new benchmarks against which to scrutinise the possibilities of the science and the consequential risks and damages that may be associated with it. It is not enough to refer to the absence of proof of damage: absence of proof is not proof of absence. It is important to recognise that it is our duty, as people who set the regulatory framework, to stick by the right to exercise precautionary principles and say, without
140WH
being ashamed or apologetic, that claiming the right to buy time to put ourselves in a position to know more is an act of responsibility rather than a missed economic opportunity.
We have committed the dreadful error of allowing the commercialisation of biotechnology processes to drive the time agenda which says that, if we miss out now, the process will be gone for ever. The Science and Technology Committee was right when it said:
"At the current rate at which food manufacturers are withdrawing GM ingredients or ingredients derived from GM sources from their products, there will be no market for GM food in this country."
The pressure is not to be on that bandwagon when it goes over the cliff. We must return to an issue that is more about sustainability and the defining of different scientific benchmarks.
Mention has been made of the ability to transform crops; the potato was taken as an example. Companies in the United States are producing genetically modified potatoes with Bt toxin built into them. Such crops produce their own insecticide; they do not need to be sprayed because it is as though insecticide factories are chugging away inside them. We can all buy crops, nutrients for the soil and pesticides from garden centres, but bottles of pesticides have no cooking instructions on their labels. I am concerned about health warnings. We need new scrutiny systems by which to assess genetically modified crops that would deal with the revolutionary change in the scientific base. I am not being anti-science, but the five-year freeze demand is part of the process of buying time for ourselves so that we can act responsibly on the basis of good science rather than poor science.
Some time during early February, we are hoping that Professor Terje Traavik from Tromso university will address a meeting at the House of Commons. He is one of the world's leading scientists and has studied horizontal gene transfer and its risk implications. I should be delighted if my right hon. Friend the Minister could find time in his diary to talk to Professor Traavik during his visit here. It is important that we are familiar with some of the implications and risks of horizontal gene transfer, the extent of which we are only now beginning to understand. That will be a way in which to reconnect the scrutiny process with the uncertainty agenda of the public.
At the end of February, I shall be talking to farmers in the United States about why the European public will refuse to buy their crops. Some of them are now questioning whether they want to grow them. Law firms in that country are initiating class actions for damages from biotechnology companies and I shall want to discuss with them how class actions for damages can be initiated in the United Kingdom. The issue of liability must connect with that of scientific scrutiny.
We know already that an agenda has been formed, without our permission, in the developing world about food sufficiency. It is important for both Select Committees to recognise that to a great extent that is not driven by a clamouring demand for access to genetically modified crops. Much of it is based on the desire to put on the global agenda, first the right to sustainability criteria and, secondly, the right to sufficiency criteria in terms of World Trade Organisation negotiations or what flows from them. Some of those criteria are

141WH
reflected in the demands of the Indian Government that countries be allowed to produce for food sufficiency, rather than be made to leave their markets open either to short-term commercial exploitation to feed the west, or to the long-term transfer of the ownership of their biodiversity to corporate acquisition, which will also do them no favours other than bequeathing long-term gifts of even greater insufficiency and poverty. If my right hon. Friend the Minister intends to bring something to that agenda in Montreal, I hope that it will lead to the balancing of the opportunities that may exist in the science against the risks and rights of other people to determine their own sufficiency and sustainability agenda in future.
Colleagues have warned about the irresponsibility of those who are part of the freeze campaign, but I refer them back to the Asilomar declaration. In 1975, some of the pioneers in biotechnology—the scientists who did the ground-breaking work in that area—said, "We do not know enough about the downside." One of my footballing colleagues was part of that process, but those who did the ground-breaking work said then that there should be a moratorium on the commercialisation of biotechnology until more was known about the broader consequences for human and environmental health, and the impact on the ecosystems on which we all depend.
The moratorium, for which genetic scientists called, was undermined by the companies saying precisely what some hon. Members have said earlier—that unless such matters are pushed ahead, we shall be left behind. The pursuit of crude science for commercial gain, not necessarily for societal or environmental gain, has shifted the agenda to its current position. I am probably one of the greatest admirers of Monsanto because no organisation has helped to move the agenda away from biotechnology and back towards sustainability in the way that it has. I am not advancing an anti-science argument: I am trying to put the case for good science as opposed to poor or crude science. There may be huge potentials in biotechnology and they may be greater in relation to medicine than to agriculture.
A different agenda is opening up about how the world can feed itself sustainably. It is one of the most exciting parts of the broader political agenda of our time. The problem is that, politically, few of us have had the remotest connection with it. National Governments in the industrial world have been among the worst at understanding the new agenda. However, if we trust people just because they are scientists, we shall be judged harshly. We have had enough experience of the best-intentioned advice taking us down catastrophic paths in terms of human health, animal health and environmental damage.
The jury is out on biotechnology. It was not out on Tommy Archer. When he was charged with acts of vandalism about which we have been warned—pulling up GM crops—the jury said that it was a legitimate and socially responsible action in response to the risk of horizontal gene transfer into soil bacteria. Tommy Archer may be proved right and we may prove to have been well behind in understanding the balance between risk and opportunity. Our duty is to exercise a precautionary responsibility towards the people who
142WH
elect us. We must not surrender them to short-term commercial exploitation and, perhaps, long-term catastrophic damage to human and environmental health. Buying the time to set down new benchmarks for scientific scrutiny may allow us to take the sensible decisions for which both Select Committees are calling.
5.1 pm
Dr. Brian Iddon: There is no doubt that we have crossed the threshold of a second green revolution. Like all revolutions—scientific, political or otherwise—it is almost impossible for one individual to do anything about it, and it would be difficult for Governments to interfere in this exciting revolution.
I agree with the conclusion of the Environmental Audit Committee, that we should try to push the revolution in a direction that is good for all mankind. This revolution is unlike the first green revolution in that our constituents are much better informed than they have ever been, because of the internet, satellite systems and better education in the developed world. Electors are questioning the people they have elected more than ever before. There have been difficult circumstances, such as a series of food scares involving E. Coli, salmonella, listeria and, more recently, the much more sinister BSE crisis, which has not ended yet. It is no wonder the public are concerned. The media have been irresponsible and have generated a kind of hysteria.
I am much more concerned about genetic modification occurring naturally in micro-organisms, leading to new diseases that will be drug-resistant in future, than I am about controllable development of GMOs. All the problems that we have experienced have occurred in that way, apart from perhaps the prion.
People have talked about baselines against which we can measure progress, especially if the commerical production of GM crops and foods is allowed. In parallel, organic farming, which I welcome, is developing. I was an organic farmer in my youth. I had lettuces covered in aphids and cauliflowers in caterpillars—everyone is welcome to the organic food that I used to produce. I hope that we are not going back to those days. We also have farmers returning to integrated crop management systems. It will be very difficult to set a baseline for the development of any one of these three areas and measure them intelligently. The Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions has published 150 sustainable development indicators, among which there are headline indicators, which is a welcome advance and will put us in a much better position to set baselines than ever before.
No one has mentioned civil liability for environmental damage. We must get a hold on that issue. Will liability lie with the companies that sell the products, the farmers who grow the crops, or the Government who licence the crops to be grown? Who will decide the framework of the legislation that might be forthcoming in future? Will it be single countries like Britain, or a combination of countries, such as the European Union, or will the matter be agreed at a global level? It is an important question which must be debated.

143WH
I feel sorry for the scientists who are involved in GM work. They have faced many difficult crises, some of which have been mentioned this afternoon. In any important development, we must weigh the risks against the benefits. I have studied seriously the benefits in food that could be gained from the development of GM crops. I have also tried to understand the risks. There is no doubt that there are risks, but if we push the development of GMOs in the right direction, using all Government pressure, the benefits will far outweigh the risks. GM foods are often sold on the basis that they taste better and last longer. I do not think that that is much of a selling point. It could be a bigger selling point if we developed GM foods with better nutritional properties. They could have a higher protein content and more vitamins.
There is a possibility of producing disease-resistant crops and decreasing the amount of pesticides used by farmers. That argument may have been oversold, but it is a possibility. We should not forget the lower energy demands that would be a consequence of that, because of lower production of chemicals and reduced transport costs, including crop-spraying costs. We can reduce soil tillage and protect good micro-organisms in the soil. There is the exciting possibility of increasing crop yields. The benefit that attracts me the most is the possibility of genetically modifying crops in such a way that, like leguminous crops, we can get them to fix their own nitrogen from the air. That would be a major single advance if it were possible. Consider the damage that nitrates in watercourses do.
In our Select Committee debates, we dealt mainly with crops for foodstuffs, but crops that produce chemicals are being developed, for example, as energy sources. The world will run out of oil and not too far into the future, chemists will need new resources for chemicals. We can produce non-food crops by GM technology. For example, it is possible to enhance the production of certain chemicals in oil-producing crops to produce drugs. I like the idea of growing new crops on highly contaminated land that has been almost written off because of earlier industrial experiences. We can grow crops to take up contaminants and store them so that they can be burned or destroyed in some other way. That is an exciting prospect.
Mention has been made of the hungry and starving in the world. One hundred million people are starving and a further 800 million, at least, are hungry. I accept that we are probably growing enough food worldwide to feed them, but there are serious political and economic problems of transporting the food from the European Union to starving people in Ethiopia. Genetic technology delivers the possibility of feeding them. The patents will run out one day. We can determine how long patents should last, but there is the possibility of handing to people crops that they can grow on dry soil, in frosty conditions and in adverse climatic conditions of all kinds. We are in the process of climate change, so we cannot ignore the possibility that some of us north of the tropical belts will begin to experience difficulties with crop production far into the future. There is an opportunity of handing to the people in all difficult parts of the world the possibility of growing crops for themselves where they live.
144WH
Hon. Members have mentioned marker genes. We may all be against the antibiotic-resistant marker genes, but it was one of the easiest changes to introduce. I agree with the Select Committees that it must be taken out, and the technology exists to do so. However, we need to put another marker gene in its place. I agree with other hon. Members that we need to trace every genetically modified foodstuff. From growing the grop to putting it on the plate, we need to trace it right through the food chain, and marker genes are absolutely necessary to do so. An analytical technique is being developed that is capable of detecting genetically modified food to well below the 1 per cent. threshold to which the European Union has agreed—even to small fractions of a percentage—but that can be done only if a marker gene is present in the crop.
There are other difficulties. I do not have time to list them all today. If we get it wrong, we could produce unknown viruses or other unknown micro-organisms. We might produce foods that give rise to new allergies or toxic effects, but scientists and the Government have the ability to control that. I have worked with many scientists over the years, and I fully appreciate that their research has only one purpose—to advance the cause of human nature. They are working not to damage it, but to try to enhance the quality of life.
Demands have been made to stop the development of GM crops, largely on the grounds that we do not need them; at the very least, a moratorium has been called for on commercial development in the United Kingdom, if not throughout the world. The former is a luddite reaction, and the Government have rightly made it clear that they will not allow commercial planting until we are satisfied that the risks have been reduced to an acceptable level. They will never be reduced to zero. We take risks in everything that we do. However, if we allow GM crops to be released for commercial growing, we must be persistently involved in post-release monitoring. That monitoring must be funded by the Government as well as by others.
As has been said, we are at the cutting edge of genetic engineering, which will have huge commercial benefits for the country. We must not even begin to listen to the luddites, or the research will go underground. Scientists will carry on the work, but we shall not hear about it because it will be driven underground—or, even worse, it will be driven abroad. I warn the Chamber that Zeneca moved its research and development in genetic engineering to what was at the time a much more conducive atmosphere—the United States of America.
The added danger of giving in to the doom merchants is that it will have a knock-on effect on genetic engineering in the health arena. Some difficult debates lie ahead of us. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson) and I witnessed that the other evening during a debate on therapeutic cloning.
I am aware of the risks. As elected Members of Parliament, we must be absolutely sure, by watching all developments, that they are made for the good of mankind. We must also try to reduce the risks to a minimum.
5.14 pm
Mr. Tim Yeo: I warmly welcome this afternoon's debate. I congratulate both Select Committes on having produced outstanding reports, both of which have made a valuable contribution to the debate that raged during 1999, often producing more heat than light. Each of the reports is admirably rational, and has helped to act as a counterweight to some of the more emotive contributions to the debate.
I start, as others have done, by acknowledging that the Minister—I welcome him here this afternoon—is conspicuous as being one of the few members, if not the only member, of the Government who recognise the importance of the environmental questions raised by the use of genetically modified crops. I congratulate him on that. I regret that the Government's approach last year was characterised by a good deal of confusion and a fair amount of incompetence.
My hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Horam) said that in February 1999 the Leader of the Opposition suggested, as did I, that the Government should take the advice of English Nature and delay commercial planting of genetically modified crops until research had shown that they were environmentally safe. The commentators in the Press Gallery were astonished when the Prime Minister poured scorn on the idea. He said that it would not be sensible to do so and that the scientific evidence did not support it. He said that public concern would increase if such delay were imposed. That was an early example of the Prime Minister's tendency, which we now see more frequently, to make claims that are utterly without justification.
On 4 February, the then Minister of State at the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker), told the House that commercial planting could take place as early as the autumn of 1999. On 18 February, the Deputy Prime Minister and the then Cabinet enforcer, the right hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham), sent a "Dear Colleague" letter to all hon. Members. It said:
"We believe it would be appropriate to allow a move to limited and carefully monitored commercial production after, say, one year of farm-scale trials."
Happily, matters have advanced a bit since then. Both Select Committee reports took the view that it was important to establish what scientists had to say before allowing commercial planting.
The Committees' advice and calls made by the Conservative party and many members of the public have been heeded, at least in part. I cite that letter not only to point out that some of us arrived there a little ahead of the Government, but to emphasis the extent and nature of the Government's recent change of policy. I hope that the Minister understands that many people would like to hear the new policy reiterated without equivocation as often as possible. I hope that he will use this opportunity to confirm that the Government will not permit any commercial planting of GM crops until it is clear that it is environmentally safe to do so, and that he will confirm that no abitrary timetable will be imposed.
I have enormous respect for the hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Simpson)—I know that his prospects in the Labour party are already pretty low, so
146WH
it will do him no harm to say that—although I do not share all his views. However, I do not believe that it is right to campaign for a specific five-year freeze. It is not scientifically sound. We must wait until research tells us that it is safe. I do not know how long that will be; it could be more than five years, it could be less.
It is important to proceed rationally. I hope that the Minister will confirm that that is the Government's intention, and that there is no fixed timetable. I say that because, paragraph 33 of the Government's response to the Environmental Audit Committee, specifically states that the agreement does not extend beyond the year 2002. There seems to be a time limit on it.
Both Select Committee reports raise a wide number of issues and I have time to touch on only a few of them. The Science and Technology Committee's recommendation (h) referred to the need for EU regulations to
"permit local discretion in relation to specific farming practices and habitats in any particular region."
I strongly endorse that recommendation. If Britain is to protect its biodiversity and if we are to maintain and improve the high-quality environment that people want and deserve, we cannot allow a situation whereby a majority of votes at EU level leads to genetically modified crops being planted in Britain, possibly against the wishes of the British people and of the elected Government of the day. The Government's response to that recommendation was couched in very general terms and I hope that the Minister will reassure us that the Government will be ready to defend local habitats where necessary.
Recommendation (i) of the Science and Technology Committee report refers to the precautionary principle, to which other hon. Members have referred and which is also mentioned in the Environmental Audit Committee report. The Minister will be well aware of the widespread public concern about the consequences of not applying the precautionary principle in relation to several aspects of GMOs. The Government's response to recommendation (i) is extremely vague. It makes no reference to the precautionary principle but refers only to an "appropriate precautionary approach". It would be helpful if the Minister could explain his distinction between an "appropriate precautionary approach" and a precautionary principle, which was the phrase used in both the Select Committee reports.
Another issue of great and topical concern is that of GM crop trials. Since that programme of trials is expanding rapidly and will cover a much greater area in the coming year, it is important to address some of the anxieties. First, will the Minister tell us whether the Government are confident that none of the produce from those trials will inadvertently be consumed by people who would wish to avoid doing so? Secondly, is he satisfied that he has the resources available for monitoring the trials, which will enable him to be sufficiently rigorous in ensuring that all the conditions attached to them are properly enforced? This is probably the right moment to say that I condemn absolutely and without reservation any unlawful disruption of the trials. Critics of GM crops—those who want to prevent them from being grown in this country—should confine their actions to legal forms of protest, of which plenty are available. By the same

147WH
token, it is equally fair to say that the companies carrying out the trials also have a duty to honour the conditions laid on them. Unfortunately, there have already been examples of those conditions being breached.
Thirdly, will the Minister tell us what compensation may be available to neighbouring farmers, whether conventional or organic, whose crops suffer contamination from nearby GM crop trials? There is little comfort for those farmers in the Government's response to recommendation (n) of the Environmental Audit Committee report, on liability. I strongly endorse paragraph 55 of that report. The news today of a study commissioned by the Soil Association, which questions the adequacy of the isolation distances, is another example of why the question of compensation is extremely relevant and urgent. Fourthly, in regard to the evaluation of crop trials and the measurement of the possible environmental gain from GM crops, does the Minister accept the need to compare the effect of GM crops on the environment, not just with the effect of continuing to farm intensively on the same land, but with different methods of farming on that land?
I disagreed with the Science and Technology Committee on one issue: its recommendation (t), referred to by the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath), which suggested that the Government were right to rely exclusively on data provided by applicants when making assessments. That may be acceptable in several, if not the majority of, instances, but it cannot possibly be right to depend totally in every case on information provided by organisations that have a substantial commercial interest in the outcome. I am interested in the Minister's view on that.
I should like to touch on the concept of substantial equivalence in regard to assessment.
Dr. Michael Clark: On our response to recommendation (t), may I point out to my hon. Friend that we did not say that it would be appropriate or practical to use applicants' own data exclusively. We meant that it should not be rejected as biased information and that it should be included in the assessment.
Mr. Yeo: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that clarification, which I entirely accept. In paragraph 61 of its report, the Science and Technology Committee expressed a limited and qualified reservation about relying too heavily on substantial equivalence. In responding to recommendation (v), the Government did not refer to substantial equivalence. Are we to take it from that omission that the Minister has no doubts about the use of the principle of substantial equivalence?
Paragraph 52 of the Environmental Audit Committee report refers to the need for better labelling. Consumers are entitled to know the country of origin and the method of production of the food that they eat. Labelling should also specify whether a product contains GM ingredients. The threshold for such a declaration is a matter for debate and will no doubt be periodically reviewed. I understand that it is technically possible to measure a very small content of GM
148WH
ingredients, so I hope that the Government will in due course move below the figure of 1 per cent. that is currently used.
Many hon. Members have rightly referred to the biosafety protocol. The Environmental Audit Committee report expresses a clear view on that, in paragraph 48:
"explicit subordination of a multilateral environmental agreement, such as the Biosafety Protocol, to international trade rules would be a deeply unfortunate precedent to set."
That puts it rather nicely. The Government's response to it was, however, characteristically opaque. Paragraph 40 states that multilateral agreements should have equal standing and status with international trade rules. I hope that the Minister will be able to tell us what will happen when there is an absolute conflict between the two. If both sets of rules have to be dealt with and they are in direct contravention to each other, one will clearly have to come down on one side or the other. I hope that the Minister will also say whether he believes the precautionary principle will have a role in the protocol.
Finally, on the question of animal feed, the Science and Technology Committee acknowledged in paragraph 35 of its report the need to extend the separation of genetically modified and conventional crops for the purposes of animal feed and meat products. I am sure that consumer pressure will in any case force moves in that direction and it would be helpful if the Government gave such developments their support. I note that, in their response to that Report, the Government did not refer to animal feed.
In conclusion, although I recognise that GM crops have the potential to confer great environmental and productivity benefits, they also—espeically, perhaps, in a small and crowded island such as Britain—carry significant environmental risks. The scientific evidence suggests that such environmental concerns are much more relevant than any health risks about which people have been concerned.
I urge the Minister to proceed with care and not to run risks with our environment. I believe that the protection of the British environment does not need to inhibit our role as a leader in the biotechnology industry—a leadership that will be strengthened, not weakened, if public confidence in the Government's handling of the issue is restored.
5.29 pm
The Minister for the Environment (Mr. Michael Meacher): Having listened to the debate for most of the past three hours, I believe that it is one of the best and most outstandingly enlightening debates—despite the differences involved—that I have heard in the House for a long time. I warmly congratulate the Chairs and members of the Committees on two reports that set out an improved and balanced framework for sensible debate. All power to hon. Members' elbows in ensuring that that new spirit prevails, because it is certainly needed. I also thank the two Chairs for the fair and balanced way in which they presented the reports.
We have considered the two reports extremely carefully. Last year, we published the Government's formal responses, to which the hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) referred at some length. As we explained then, many of the Committee's

149WH
recommendations have already been acted on. We have opened up and strengthened our regulatory procedures, as we were asked to do, and we have introduced a more strategic approach through the new commissions—the Human Genetics Commission and the Agriculture and Environment Biotechnology Commission—and the Food Standards Agency.
We have worked to ensure that the GM debate is based to a greater extent on scientific fact by, for example, launching the GM information site, for which we received credit from Greenpeace and the Consumers Association, so it cannot have been that bad. We offered to host the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development conference on GM foods, which will take place in Edinburgh shortly, and we are increasing consumer choice by leading the way in Europe in pressing for an agreement to extend labelling requirements to caterers and restaurants, which have now been extended to additives; and by supporting other farming methods, especially organic farming. We inherited a programme valued at about £1 million a year; it is now £19 million a year. Many people would say that that is still not enough, but it is certainly a considerable increase.
We have tried to put in place what I regard as the four central props of a sensible policy. The first of those props is to strengthen the regulatory procedures in respect of the Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment. We have extended its brief to require it to take into account, not only direct, but indirect effects and not only immediate, but delayed effects—and cumulative effects, to which I shall return. We have ensured that ACRE is free of commercial interests—not that I doubt the integrity of people with an industrial background, but, like Caesar's wife, ACRE must be seen to be above reproach, and we must avoid even the public perception that an improper influence might be involved. We have also ensured that the Advisory Committee on Novel Foods and Processes has opened up its workings to the public gaze, which I strongly support.
The second prop is the farm-scale evaluations, which many hon. Members mentioned, and the four-year programme. No widespread growing will take place before 2003, and it will do so then only if a null hypothesis is generated. The hon. Member for South Suffolk was kind enought to refer to me generously. As I have repeatedly said, no commercial planting will take place until we have sufficient evidence to judge authoritatively whether damage to the environment is involved. Many people think that, once the four-year period has passed, commercialisation will take off. That is not so. The null hypothesis case must be demonstrated not only to me or to the Government, but on the basis of evidence that will be made fully and transparently available.
The third prop is the important strengthened directive 90/220, which Environment Ministers agreed last June. A string of important measures has been introduced to strengthen the regulatory system, especially post-market monitoring, which is important. Some hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon), mentioned the ending of the use of antibiotic marker genes. He is right. Ethical
150WH
considerations will be brought into account—it is not an easy issue, but they should certainly be included. Licences will have a 10-year limit in order to keep the matter continually and genuinely—not merely continually, as they say in Whitehall, where everything is continually under review—under review. The fourth prop is the biosafety protocol; the international trading element is very important and I shall certainly attend negotiations on that subject.
Hon. Members made many points, which I shall try to cover. The hon. Member for Rayleigh (Dr. Clark), who made a fair and generous speech, referred to the need for honesty in newspaper reporting—I am sure that we would all agree—and to the need for morality in relation to not only the experiment but the consequences. I understand his point. It would be an advantage to be able to prevent potato rot or to provide crops that can grow in more saline or frosty soils, for example. The problem is that those in the biotech industry have shown far more interest in the producer—themselves—and their own benefit than in the consumer. However, that does not mean that potential for the consumer does not exist.
I understand the argument that many hon. Members have made that potential benefit exists for developing countries. The problem is the lack, not of biotech, but of control over rapidly expanding populations and of proper land redistribution and farm reform. Those aspects, too, are important parts of the process. I agree with whoever said that Monsanto, by patenting the terminator gene, has probably been the most successful company possible in turning public opinion against its own interest. Although it has now desisted, that caused undue but great, and probably justifiable, anxiety in the minds of the public about its intentions.
The hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Horam) made several points. He mentioned the need for a Government statement on the benefits of GM. Once again, I have been stereotyped as being on the sceptical wing, but I would be the first to recognise that GM has many potential benefits, and not only in respect of medicine. It has provided insulin for diabetes, helped protect people undergoing chemotherapy from infection and produced safe blood products for haemophiliacs. In dealing with agriculture, however, it is a different matter, and in the face of such opposition, many people would ask, "Why bother?" I accept the argument of my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East. I do not think that people are interested in rosier apples, sweeter taste or longer shelf life, but if GM can add proteins, reduce fats or produce pest-resistant foods, we would be wrong not to continue to investigate that potential. All members of the Government recognise that such benefits may be possible.
The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) asked how I could be sure that farm-scale evaluations would not be rubbished. I cannot be sure, but the protocol for the evaluations, which was published in February 1999, is on the table and has been endorsed by English Nature. The interim report on the conduct of the first year of the trials was published in November. The trials are being carried out to the highest scientific standards according to published guidelines, and are being overseen by a scientific steering committee, which is independent of the Government, and which includes two representatives of English

151WH
Nature, one of the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds and several other academic representatives. The trials are entirely independent of industry and are being funded by the Government. Although they will no doubt be attacked, they have a firm foundation. We are trying to do it properly.
My hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock) made several points with which I shall try to deal quickly. Her first point was about consumer choice and the 1 per cent. threshold. We should like to go below that as soon as possible, and I am keen to reach a 0.1 per cent. threshold. I am told that a laboratory in Birmingham can achieve that, but we do not yet know whether it would be feasible throughout the country. We are investigating the matter, and have asked the Agriculture and Environment Biotechnology Commission to review the situation within two years.
Secondly, my hon. Friend mentioned Tesco, which has now gone back on what I imagine it sees as a slightly premature statement. Certainly, its action had no basis in scientific evidence and it has made its full support for the trials clear. Its proposed ban will operate for only one year after the fields have been used for GM crops, and it covers only field vegetable and salad crops. It has been specified that the crop following the GM planting in the farm-scale trials will be maize or wheat, so the issue will not arise.
My hon. Friend also asked what I meant by unacceptable effects of GM. That is not my decision or a decision for civil servants and other Ministers. The judgment will have to be made on evidence that will be put before the public and on which there will have to be a public debate. She also asked about marketing consents granted during the trials. Each approval is based on its own criteria. Therefore, seeds registration or pesticides approval will proceed if they meet the criteria. Even if all approvals are granted—GMO marketing, seeds registrations and pesticides approval—the produce, which could be fed to animals, will be labelled, including meat and milk.
My hon. Friend was right to raise the question of the difference between GM in contained systems and in open fields, but the farm-scale trials are about the impact on biodiversity, and we can get that evidence only if they are based on open-field trials. All the products have already been tested in the laboratory and in much smaller field-scale trials.
152WH
I shall attend the biosafety protocol meeting. Let me make it clear that the United Kingdom and the European Union, which we fully support, will insist on the three principles that we upheld at Cartagena. They are: that an advanced, informed agreement must govern the first trans-boundary movement of GMOs to other countries; that adequate labelling and documentation must be provided so that importing countries know what they are doing and understand what is involved; and that we cannot and will not accept the savings clause that the United States and the Miami group are demanding, as it would subordinate the biosafety protocol to the rule of the World Trade Organisation and free trade. We will not stand for that, because it would blow acceptance of the technology out of the water.
I am rapidly running out of time. The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome referred to separation distances, as did several other hon. Members. Separation distances are not intended to secure a total insulation of the effects of GM crops from the surrounding countryside. Given the messy nature of the world in which we live, that is not possible. Even if we accepted the Soil Association's figure of six miles, that would simply be exercising a precautionary measure to reduce cross-pollination. I accept that the issue is extremely fraught and I well understand many people's unhappiness about it. We are trying to ensure that UKROFS, the UK register of—what does the "f' stand for? Well, we are trying to ensure that the Soil Association and its friends discuss SCIMAC—the supply chain initiative on modified agricultural crops—with the industry to see whether they can agree. I do not think that Government can simply lay down the law. The settlement must be between both types of farming, so that they can live together.
The hon. Gentleman also said that we are not the cheerleaders for biotech, and we are not. We are not pro-GM or anti-GM. We are pro-safety, pro-environment and pro-choice. He raised the question of animal genes in crop plants transferring to the environment. No crops with animal genes have been tested in the UK and we have an assurance from the industry that there are no proposals to develop such crops.
It being fifteen minutes to Six o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the sitting lapsed, without Question put.

DEFENCE

  Falklands Conflict
  Jane Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many service personnel who served in the Falklands conflict originated from Northern Ireland; and in which(a) regiments and (b) other parts of the services they served. [104394]

  Mr. Spellar
  The Ministry of Defence does not hold a centrally collated record of the origins of servicemen and their individual deployments that contains the information requested for all three Services. Full details could be provided only at disproportionate cost, following detailed examination of individual records.

  However I can advise that available data show that some 95 Army and 29 RAF individuals who served in the Falklands operations are recorded as having originated from Northern Ireland and I will write with further details concerning regiments and units in which they served.

  Defence Vetting Agency
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 21 December 1999,Official Report, column 468W, concerning the move of the Defence Vetting Agency to York, if he will estimate the number of people living within 50 miles of York who will be working at the Defence Vetting Agency. [104667]

  Mr. Spellar
  The Agency is in the early stages of forming up at York. It will be taking on staff (mainly from HQ 2nd Division but also through local recruitment) at various points between now and early 2001, when the Agency will reach its full strength at York of 181. Many posts are still unfilled.

  It is expected that all permanent staff working for the Agency at Imphal Barracks in the eventual workforce will live locally and commute daily. It is not our normal practice to check on the distance that individuals commute, but a random survey suggests that the overwhelming majority of our York-based workforce will live within 50 miles of York.

  In my earlier answer I explained that, in addition to the 181 DVA staff who will be based at Imphal Barracks, the Agency would employ 130 Investigating Officers who would work from their homes. The location of these Officers is tied to the major areas of MOD employment across the UK. The Officers are tasked from, and report to the Agency at York, but will very rarely travel there.

  Territorial Army
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the outcome of the feasibility study into compulsory mobilisation of the Territorial Army to sustain peace support operations in the Balkans. [105415]
  208W
  Mr. Spellar
  The Feasibility Study has concluded that compulsory mobilisation is feasible in both legal and practical terms. This will enable the TA to make a major contribution to front-line operations and reflects and supports the intent of the Strategic Defence Review that the Territorial Army should be usable. At the same time, as a result of the reduction in UK force levels in the Balkans, we judge that compulsory mobilisation is not operationally necessary at this time. We will keep the possibility of compulsory mobilisation under constant review in the light of the prevailing operational conditions.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Regional Aid
  Mr. Ashton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what reasons underlie the policy of referring applications to his Department for regional aid or assistance to the Minister of Agriculture. [104173]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Department asks the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food for advice on all Regional Selective Assistance (RSA) applications with an agriculture element to ensure that there are no EC restrictions on projects being eligible for assistance in this respect. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is responsible for decisions taken on awards of RSA.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he will reply to the letter from the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed of 9 August to the Minister of State about the inclusion of postcodes in telephone directories. [104094]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  [holding answer 10 January 2000]: I replied to the right hon. Member yesterday.

  IPPC Charges
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment he has made of the level of IPPC charges in other EU member states; and if he will make a statement. [104101]

  Ms Hewitt
  The system of IPPC charges, which is still under consideration, is the responsibility of the Environment Agency. The Agency consulted on an interim charging regime last autumn, and is considering the outcome of that consultation. The Agency will be monitoring the implementation of IPPC in other member states including their charging policies.

  Minimum Wage
  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he expects the review of the current minimum wage to be completed. [104688]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  The Government received the Low Pay Commission's Report on the impact of implementation of the national minimum wage at the end of December. Once Ministers have had an opportunity to consider the Report's findings, both the Report and the Government's response to it will be published.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Philippines
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what plans she has to put contracts for the Government of the Philippines Bridge Replacement Project under the existing offer of aid and trade provision out to tender in the United Kingdom. [104034]

  Clare Short
  The first component of the Philippines Bridge Replacement Programme, for emergency steel panel bridging, was negotiated with the Mabey Group and is due to be completed shortly. The second component is for various types of steel bridging and a range of design and advisory services. This is being negotiated with a consortium of Balfour Kilpatrick and Cleveland Bridge.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  Old Vehicles
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many(a) cars and (b) motor-cycles which are more than 25 years old are in use in the United Kingdom. [103155]

  Mr. Hill
  The number of vehicles more than 25 years old at the end of 1998 in Great Britain was as follows:Cars: 256,392 (1.1 per cent. of licensed stock)
  Motor Cycles: 91,173 (11.2 per cent. of licensed stock)
  At present, we do not have this information for Northern Ireland.

  Concessionary Travel
  Mr. Martin Bell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what account he will take of the European Court of Justice judgment on 15 December, in amending his policy on permitting local authorities to grant local travel concessions to men aged over 60 years. [104150]

  Mr. O'Hara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to equalise at the age of 60 the eligibility for the minimum half price local bus concession for older people following the judgment in the case of John Taylor and Liberty v. HM Government. [104057]

  Mr. Hill
  Legal advice is that this judgment does not have implications for concessionary fares on local transport.

  Road Accidents
  Mr. Blizzard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the accident rates including fatalities for(a) single and (b) dual carriageway roads. [104116]
  210W
  Mr. Hill
  Accident rates on single and dual carriageway roads are given in the table.

  Accident rates for single and dual carriageway roads in Great Britain: 1998

  Accident rate per hundred million vehicle kms

  Single carriageway

  Dual carriageway1

  All roads2

  Fatal

  0.8

  0.4

  0.7

  Fatal and Serious Accidents

  9.9

  4.0

  8.2

  All Personal Injury Accidents

  59

  27

  52

  1 Includes motorways

  2 Includes accidents at roundabouts and those where carriageway type is unknown

  Driving Licences
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what published standards are set for the Driver and Vehicle Licence Agency on the time taken to process driving licence applications that include reference to a medical condition; and what standards in respect of such applications the Agency has achieved in the last three quarters of 1999. [104056]

  Mr. Hill
  The service standards for applications involving a medical investigation are published in the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency's Service Guide. This states that the Agency's Medical Unit aims to complete its investigations:

  (a) within five weeks of receiving an application for a car or motorcycle licence;

  (b) within seven weeks of receiving an application for a large goods/passenger carrying vehicle licence.

  When medical investigations take longer than this, applicants are advised on an individual basis.

  Excluding December, where final figures have yet to be available, in the last three-quarters of 1999 the Agency achieved an average performance of 44 per cent. of car and motorcycle applications and 66 per cent. of large goods and passenger carrying vehicles being processed within the published standard.

  Action is being taken to bring this service up to standard and the position is steadily improving.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what is the average time between applying for and receiving(a) a driving licence and (b) a driving licence that includes reference to a medical condition. [104055]

  Mr. Hill
  The Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency undertakes to issue driving licences and return original documents to customers within three weeks (15 working days) of the date of receipt of their applications. This three-week standard has been met or bettered consistently throughout the year.
  211W
  In cases where a driver declares a medical condition— amounting to some 1,100 applications a day—because of the increased complexities of the service the standard is five weeks for a car licence and seven weeks for a bus or lorry licence. Some current cases in these categories are taking longer. Action is being taken to bring this service up to standard and the position is steadily improving.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what published standards are set for the Driver and Vehicle Licence Agency on the time taken to process driving licence applications; and what standards in processing applications the Agency has achieved in the last three quarters of 1999. [104054]

  Mr. Hill
  Where there are no medical considerations, DVLA undertakes to issue driving licences (and return original identity documents) to customers within three weeks (15 working days) of the date of receipt of their applications. This standard is set out in the Agency's Customer Service Guide. This three-week standard has been met or bettered consistently throughout the last three-quarters of 1999.

  Trunk Roads (West Sussex)
  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he will next announce approval for trunk road improvement schemes or new by-passes in West Sussex. [104275]

  Mr. Hill
  "A New Deal for Trunk Roads in England" set out our investment priorities and a programme of studies to consider problems on the trunk road network. Among the studies is one on the problems of congestion between Worthing and Lancing on the A27. It is considering specific local problems within the area to be covered by the wider study, to commence later this year, looking at congestion, safety and environmental problems between Southampton and Folkestone. In the light of the findings of these studies, it will be for the Regional Planning Body to consider whether to recommend to the Secretary of State any trunk road improvement schemes as part of their regional transport strategy.

  Airport Traffic
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list in order of air traffic movements over the last five years the airport traffic at(a) Heathrow, (b) Gatwick, (c) Luton, (d) Exeter and (e) Guernsey. [104595]

  Mr. Mullin
  The last five full years for which air traffic movements data are available are 1994 to 1998 inclusive. The air traffic movements over these years at Heathrow, Gatwick, Luton, Exeter and Guernsey are listed in the table.

  1998

  1997

  1996

  1995

  1994

  Heathrow

  442,412

  430,706

  428,342

  421,289

  411,608

  Gatwick

  242,547

  229,665

  211,686

  192,806

  181,879

  Luton

  47,748

  40,287

  31,029

  21,716

  17,161

  Guernsey

  40,085

  39,625

  40,632

  40,902

  39,850

  Exeter

  8,608

  7,877

  7,870

  8,844

  10,198

  Millennium Dome
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement about the future use of the Dome site. [104438]

  Ms Armstrong
  The Government launched a competition last year for the long-term use of the Dome after the Millennium Experience. The short list of bidders will be announced shortly.

  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what estimate he has made of the financial value of the Dome site. [104437]

  Ms Armstrong
  The Dome site is on offer as part of the assets available in the Government competition to find a long-term, financially viable and sustainable use for the Millennium Dome. The Government estimate of the financial value of the Dome site is restricted as commercial-in-confidence.

  Lindane
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what steps his Department takes to monitor the effects of lindane. [104610]

  Mr. Mullin
  The Department funds the monitoring of chemicals, including lindane, in air and the marine environment and the Environment Agency also monitors for lindane in marine and fresh waters. The effects of pesticides on wildlife and companion animals are monitored by MAFF's Wildlife Incidents Investigation Scheme.

  Newly Qualified Drivers
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans the Government have to introduce regulations to compel newly qualified drivers to display warnings on the vehicle they are driving that they are newly qualified. [104448]

  Mr. Hill
  A number of safety improvements for learners and new drivers, including this one, are being considered as part of the Road Safety Strategy which is to be announced shortly.

  GM Crops
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to authorise further field-scale trials of genetically modified crops. [103775]

  Mr. Meacher
  I announced a renewed voluntary agreement with industry on the conduct of the farm scale evaluation programme on 5 November 1999. Under the agreement, plantings for the farm scale GM crop evaluations are limited to 20–25 fields per crop per year, subject to the advice and requirements of the independent Scientific Steering Committee overseeing the programme. This covers the plantings through to 2002 for the crops in the programme—GM fodder maize, and spring and winter oilseed rape, all modified to be tolerant to a herbicide. Subject to the advice of the Scientific Steering Committee, a fourth crop, beet modified to be tolerant to
  213W
  a herbicide, may be included in the programme for the same three years. Proposals for any other field scale plantings of these crops during the farm scale evaluation period will be decided by the Scientific Steering Committee, taking into account the relevance of the proposals to biodiversity.

  Countryside (Access)
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the progress of the Government's Access to the Countryside proposals. [103779]

  Mr. Mullin
  The Government's proposals to improve public access to the countryside will be included in the Countryside Bill, announced in last year's Queen's Speech. The Bill will also include measures for improving rights of way. The access provisions of the Bill (which we expect to be introduced into Parliament shortly) will build on the proposals set out in "The Government's Framework for Action, Access to the Countryside in England and Wales", issued in March last year.

  Planning Regulations
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the impact on farming of local planning regulations in(a) Gloucestershire and (b) the South West. [103790]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  Development control policies, and their impact upon any particular sectoral interest, are matters for the local planning authorities concerned, as set down in their development plans and having regard to national and regional planning policy guidance.

  Driving Agencies
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the report prepared by the Audit Commission on the DVLA and DSA; and what action he intends to take as a result of this report. [104645]

  Mr. Hill
  I understand that the Public Services Productivity Panel intend to publish this report shortly.

  Home Improvement Agencies
  Angela Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what steps he is taking to appoint a national co-ordinating body for home improvement agencies in England to serve from 1 April 2000. [105137]

  Mr. Raynsford
  I have invited Collective Enterprises Limited to enter into post-tender negotiations with the Department. Subject to the satisfactory completion of these negotiations, I expect to award them a contract to act as the national co-ordinating body for Home Improvement Agencies in England for four years from 1 April 2000.

  The Department invited Care and Repair England Limited (the current national co-ordinating body) and Collective Enterprises Limited to submit tenders. Both offered a comprehensive range of services. However, Care and Repair England's tender was substantially more expensive and I believe that Collective Enterprises
  214W
  Limited offer significantly better value for money. I look forward to working with them to build on the foundations which have been laid.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Public Safety Radio Communications Service
  Mr. Hope
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress has been made towards the agreement of a contract for the Public Safety Radio Communications Service; and if he will make a statement. [105317]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Chief Executive of the Police Information Technology Organisation (PITO) issued a letter of instruction to proceed to British Telecom plc before Christmas, authorising them to invest in the project infrastructure. Negotiations on the Framework Arrangement and the model service contract are continuing and I hope they will be concluded by the end of January. PITO will be asking individual police authorities to sign service contracts by the end of February.

  CCTV Tenders
  Mr. Hope
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has for announcing the results of the current round of CCTV bids. [105319]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  I am planning to make an announcement on Monday 17 January.

  Departmental Productivity
  Mr. Crausby
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action he is taking to increase the productivity and reduce the running costs of his Department. [103850]

  Mr. Straw
  The Home Office has a Public Service Agreement commitment to deliver 3 per cent. per annum running cost productivity gains, and is currently on target to deliver this for 1999–2000.

  A joint Home Office and Her Majesty's Treasury ministerial review of productivity is to be led by both the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my noble Friend, Lord Bassam of Brighton and the Financial Secretary to Her Majesty's Treasury and is intended to focus on four key areas:

  Personnel Management;

  Information Technology;

  The Home Office Estate; and

  Procurement Planning.

  Asylum Seekers (Algeria)
  Ms Kingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many asylum applications, made by Algerians, have been decided by the Immigration and Nationality Directorate in each of the last three months; [104371]

  (2) how many asylum applications, made by Algerians, have been decided by the Immigration and Nationality Directorate in each of the last three months, where the applicant has been in detention; [104372]
  215W
  (3) how many asylum applications have been made by Algerians in the last three months. [104374]

  Mrs. Roche
  The available information is that in September 1999, 135 nationals of Algeria, excluding dependants, applied for asylum in the United Kingdom. This figure fell slightly to 115 in October and 90 in November.

  Information on how many asylum applications, made by Algerians, have been decided by the Immigration and Nationality Directorate in each of the last three months is not currently available.

  Information on Algerian asylum seekers who have had a decision and who had been detained at some point could be obtained only at disproportionate cost through the examination of individual case records.

  Ms Kingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many Algerians have been(a) removed and (b) deported in each of the last three months; and what proportion of these had previously claimed asylum. [104373]

  Mrs. Roche
  The latest available information relates to arriving passengers during the period April-June 1999. Thirty-eight Algerian passengers were refused leave to enter and removed from the United Kingdom in April 1999, 28 in May 1999 and 21 in June 1999. Those data are provisional and do not show whether or not the person concerned had claimed asylum. This additional information could be obtained only by examining the individual case files.

  Data for Algerian nationals removed or departing voluntarily under illegal entry or deportation procedures during this period are not yet available.

  Konrad Kalejs
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assistance will be given to the Australian law enforcement authorities in their inquiries into the case of Konrad Kalejs. [104514]

  Mr. Straw
  We have made it clear to the Australian authorities that any relevant details they sought would be made available to them, including those details held by the Metropolitan Police.

  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the case of Konrad Kalejs. [104513]

  Mr. Straw
  I issued a full statement on 6 January. I have placed copies of the statement in the Library and am sending my hon. Friend a copy.

  Electoral Register
  Mr. Hawkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received from the Direct Marketing Association on commercial and charity use of the electoral register; and what response he has given. [104646]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Since the publication of the summary of recommendations of the Working Party on Electoral Procedures on 13 July 1999, Home Office Ministers have received two written representations from the Direct Marketing Association, dated 23 September 216W
  and 22 November. In response to the first of these, I held a meeting with representatives of the Association on 9 November for a full discussion of the issues that concerned them. Following consideration of the second letter, I wrote to the Association on 12 January 2000.

  Probation Service
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to introduce the Private Finance Initiative into the future development of the Probation Estate in England and Wales; and if he will make a statement. [104742]

  Mr. Boateng
  No decisions have been taken about the future financing of the Probation Estate in England and Wales as a whole and a range of options, including the Private Finance Initiative (PFI), will be considered in due course. Local PFI initiatives are currently being considered for probation services in Mid Glamorgan, Avon and Essex.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to centralise the Probation Estate; and if he will make a statement. [104741]

  Mr. Boateng
  The plan to centralise the Probation Estate will be developed as part of the arrangements to modernise the Probation Service in England and Wales. Details are not yet available.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to out-source clerical and administrative support for the Probation Service in England and Wales; and if he will make a statement. [104740]

  Mr. Boateng
  I have no current plans for out-sourcing this work.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will publish the report commissioned by his Department into the case for the centralisation of the Probation Service estate in England and Wales; and if he will make a statement. [104744]

  Mr. Boateng
  The decision to centralise ownership and management of the Probation Service estate was not dependent on the survey of the Probation Service estate, a copy of the report on which will be placed in the Library in due course.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to introduce a revised case recording and management system for the Probation Service in England and Wales; and if he will make a statement. [104743]

  Mr. Boateng
  A project is currently under way to redevelop the current case recording and management system for the Probation Services for England and Wales, involving representatives of these Services. A project board has been established; a user requirement has been produced and a specialist Information Technology project manager has been recruited.

  Involuntary Manslaughter
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations his Department
  217W
  has received on his plans to propose legislation on the Law Commission's recommendation of an offence of involuntary manslaughter. [103801]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  We have received written representations from hon. Members, interested groups and members of the public about the Government's response to the Law Commission's report "Legislating the Criminal Code: Involuntary Manslaughter". The issue has also been raised in a number of parliamentary Questions.

  We are currently considering the recommendations of the interdepartmental working group which has been considering the Law Commission's report and will consult our colleagues shortly.

  Access Arrangements
  Mr. Livsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many court welfare officers in England and Wales received training in(a) 1997 and (b) 1998 to deal with access arrangements for children following separation and divorce; [104396]

  (2) what training courses exist for court welfare officers to deal with the problem of parental alienation. [104397]

  Mr. Boateng
  The comprehensive induction programme for family court welfare officers includes modules on working with children and separating families. Available records indicate that 75 people completed the whole programme in the period April 1997 to March 1998, and 50 in the period April 1998 to March 1999. The need for any additional training is assessed by individual probation services and provided by either the service itself or an external agent. No information is collected centrally on this additional training.

  Sudbury Prison
  Mr. McLoughlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will estimate(a) the percentage of prisoners who were serving a life sentence and (b) the number of prisoners in Sudbury Prison at six-monthly intervals over the last 10 years. [104644]

  Mr. Boateng
  The latest available provisional information for life sentence prisoners is for 30 November 1999. On that date, 7 per cent. of the prison population in England and Wales were life sentence prisoners. Information on the population of Sudbury prison over the last 10 years is given in the table.

  Population in Her Majesty's Prison Sudbury 1989–99

  Date

  Number

  1989

  30 June

  537

  31 December

  518

  1990

  30 June

  524

  31 December

  464

  1991

  30 June

  534

  31 December

  436

  1992

  30 June

  450

  31 December

  402

  218W

  Population in Her Majesty's Prison Sudbury 1989–99

  Date

  Number

  1993

  30 June

  455

  31 December

  406

  1994

  30 June

  441

  31 December

  401

  1995

  30 June

  387

  31 December

  377

  1996

  30 June

  474

  31 December

  456

  1997

  30 June

  504

  31 December

  462

  1998

  30 June

  493

  31 December

  488

  1999

  30 June

  499

  30 November1

  505

  1 Latest available

SOLICITOR-GENERAL

  CPS
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Solicitor-General what recent assessment he has made of the record of the Crown Prosecution Service in bringing persistent young offenders to trial in Merseyside. [103806]

  The Solicitor-General
  During my visit to CPS Merseyside in September last year, I was able to see at first hand the efforts made by the CPS and other local agencies to reduce the time it took to prosecute persistent young offenders. The average time taken from arrest to sentence is steadily decreasing, and the Area anticipates further significant reductions as a result of fast tracking arrangements that are being adopted throughout Merseyside.

  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Solicitor-General if he will make a statement on the Commission for Racial Equality's investigation into the Crown Prosecution Service. [103808]

  The Solicitor-General
  The Crown Prosecution Service is in discussion with the CRE regarding the proposed investigation and hopes to find an agreed way forward. The CRE will reach a conclusion and notify the CPS before the end of January 2000.

  Dr. George Turner
  To ask the Solicitor-General what progress he has made in ensuring greater effectiveness in the application of information technology within the Crown Prosecution Service. [103809]

  The Solicitor-General
  I am pleased to report that significant progress has been made in developing effective IT in CPS.
  219W
  The Review of the CPS led by Sir Iain Glidewell reported in June 1998. It recommended the creation of a new post, Director of Business and Information Systems. That post has been filled and an Information Systems Strategic Plan developed. This plan provides a two-step approach to delivering effective IT support to lawyers and caseworkers, as well as that needed for effective administration and control.

  In July 1999, the CPS was awarded £12 million from the Government's Capital Modernisation Fund. This money together with existing CPS resources will fund Step 1, the Connect 42 project. This will provide access for lawyers and caseworkers to networked PCs across the 42 CPS Areas. It will also enable secure electronic mail connections with its partners in the Criminal Justice System.

  Step 2 of the Modernisation Programme, the Compass project, is procuring a Managed Service through a PFI contract. This will use the IT infrastructure of Step 1, and complement it with a case management system designed to meet the needs of front line CPS staff. It will provide the ability to work with electronic case files and allow information to be exchanged much more easily with other organisations in the criminal justice system through speedier electronic communications between computer systems.

  Piloting of the Connect 42 project is planned for March 2000, with national rollout following over the subsequent 18 months.

  The CPS plans to advertise its requirement for the Compass project in the Official Journal for the European Communities in second quarter of 2000.

  Dr. Palmer
  To ask the Solicitor-General if he will make a statement on the rights of audience exercised by Crown Prosecution Service lawyers in the higher courts. [103810]

  The Solicitor-General
  In February 1997 limited rights of audience were granted to employed solicitors, allowing them to appear alone in appeals and uncontested cases in the Crown Court or to act as juniors in cases in which leading counsel are instructed. CPS higher court advocates began to exercise those rights in August 1998, since then the volume of work undertaken by them has gradually increased.

  The impression that the Attorney-General and I have gained from our visits to various parts of the country is that the higher court advocates have been well received by judges and the Bar.

  By mid-2000 nearly 200 CPS solicitor higher court advocates will have been trained. The CPS is now considering its future strategy for deploying its lawyers in the Crown Court in the light of the Access to Justice Act 1999, which grants full rights of audience to all lawyers.

  Serious Fraud Office
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Solicitor-General if he will make a statement on the recent performance of the Serious Fraud Office. [103807]
  220W
  The Solicitor-General
  In 1998–99, the Serious Fraud Office obtained 34 convictions from the 42 defendants tried. The SFO continues to be an effective deterrent against serious and complex fraud.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Football Task Force
  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport which members of the Football Task Force supported the majority report on commercial issues. [104444]

  Kate Hoey
  The Football Task Force did not vote on any issue during its deliberations and all members of the Task Force signed up to the report in its published form. The particular views of individual members of the Task Force on particular parts of the report on commercial issues are therefore not known.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Libya
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the British Ambassador's discussions with the Libyan authorities concerning the alleged discovery of parts for Scud missiles at a British airport. [104450]

  Mr. Hain
  The British Ambassador in Tripoli called on the Libyan Foreign Ministry on 10 January to protest about the Libyans' attempt to import missile parts via the UK. The Libyans took note of our serious concerns.

  Iraq
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on what grounds the UN Sanctions Committee banned the import of bulls to Iraq; and if he will make a statement. [104421]

  Mr. Hain
  An application to import 15 bulls to Iraq was made to the UN Sanctions Committee in late November. The Committee had no objection to the import of the bulls. However, the application also included the supply of a number of vaccines which were of potential dual use concern. Additional information on these vaccines has therefore been requested.

  Iran
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Iranian Foreign Minister concerning the position of the 13 Jews in Iran detained without trial, during the Iranian Foreign Minister's visit to London; and if he will make a statement. [104515]

  Mr. Hain
  My right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary raised the cases of those detained on espionage charges, including 13 members of the Iranian Jewish community, with Foreign Minister Kharrazi during his visit from 10–12 January. Dr. Kharrazi assured them both that those detained would receive a fair trial including access to families and legal representation.
  221W
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has further to pursue with Iran the case of the 13 Iranian Jews detained without trial. [104516]

  Mr. Hain
  My right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary raised the cases of those detained on espionage charges, including 13 members of the Iranian Jewish community, with the Iranian Foreign Minister Dr. Kharrazi during his visit to London from 10–12 January. We and our EU partners will continue to raise this issue with the Iranian authorities at every possible opportunity.

  British Overseas Territories
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 20 December 1999,Official Report, column 318W, on overseas territories, what plans his Department has to introduce an Order in Council to ensure that the British Virgin Islands, Cayman Islands and the Turks and Caicos Islands change their existing legislation on homosexual acts. [104706]

  Mr. Battle
  The White Paper on the Overseas Territories (OTs) states that it is HMG's intention that OT legislation should comply with the international obligations to which the UK is subject. We pressed the OTs to announce before 31 December 1999 their intention to introduce legislation to decriminalise homosexual acts between consenting adults in private. That date having passed, we will shortly be reviewing the situation.

PRIME MINISTER

  Joined-up Government
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Prime Minister when the Performance and Innovation Unit will publish reports on its studies into Accountability and Incentives for Joined-up Government and Analysis and Modelling in Central Government. [104852]

  The Prime Minister
  The Performance and Innovation Unit reports of these studies entitled "Wiring it Up: Whitehall's Management of Cross-cutting Policies and Services" and "Adding it Up: Improving Analysis and Modelling in Central Government" have been published today.

  The two reports are key elements of the Modernising Government agenda for better policies and better services. They set out a blueprint for joined-up policy making and service delivery supported by evidence-based analysis.

  Copies have been placed in the Libraries of the House and are also available from the Vote Office.

  Intelligence and Security Committee
  Mr. Blizzard
  To ask the Prime Minister when he expects to make an appointment to the Intelligence and Security Committee. [105234]

  The Prime Minister
  I have appointed my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster, Central (Ms Winterton), to be member of the Intelligence and Security Committee in 222W
  place of my hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), who left the Committee following her appointment as a Minister.

  United Kingdom European Delegations
  Mr. Blizzard
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will announce the full composition of the United Kingdom delegation to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe and Assembly of the Western European Union. [105233]

  The Prime Minister
  The United Kingdom Delegation to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe and Western European Union is as follows:

  Leader

  The right hon. Terry Davis MP

  Full representatives

  Substitute Members

  David Atkinson MP

  Malcolm Bruce MP

  Sir Sydney Chapman MP

  The right hon. The Lord Clinton-Davis

  Michael Colvin MP

  Mrs. Ann Cryer MP

  Tom Cox MP

  Mike Hancock CBE, MP

  Lawrence Cunliffe MP

  Robert Jackson MP

  Bill Etherington MP

  Ms Jenny Jones MP

  Paul Flynn MP

  The Lord Judd

  Mrs. Maria Fyfe MP

  The Baroness Knight of Collingtree DBE

  The Lord Kirkhill

  The Lord Lucas of Crudwell

  Keven McNamara MP

  Ms Chris McCafferty MP

  Jim Marshall MP

  Gwyn Prosser MP

  Edward O'Hara MP

  Syd Rapson MP

  The Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede

  Miss Geraldine Smith MP

  The Lord Russell-Johnston

  David Taylor MP

  John D. Taylor MP

  Dr. Rudi Vis MP

  John Townend MP

  John Wilkinson MP

  James Wray MP

  David Wilshire MP

  Anthony D. Wright MP

SCOTLAND

  Hughes Report (Dunblane)
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland for what reasons the report on Thomas Hamilton by Sergeant Hughes is subject to a 100-year closure. [104520]

  Dr. Reid
  As the report contains sensitive information about children and alleged offences against them, it was considered appropriate that it should remain closed for 100 years. This closure is in accordance with current Government guidelines published in the White Paper "Open Government" (Cm 2290 (1993)). The Crown Office will deal with any requests for access meantime.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Land Register
  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if a decision has been made on the proposal to restore price paid to the Land Register; and if he will make a statement. [105318]
  223W
  Jane Kennedy
  After extensive consultation, the Lord Chancellor has decided to restore "price paid" to the Land Register. This is consistent with the Government's policy to improve the house buying process by making important information more readily available, particularly at an early stage of the process. Information included in the Land Register should be as comprehensive as is practical and proper—property value is of great interest to people and there is no good reason why it should not be available.

  The information will not be inserted retrospectively. All applications received by the Land Registry on or after 1 April 2000 will have the price paid entered on the Land Register where it is practicable to do so. As with other data, the Land Register will provide the current information. Hence, on a subsequent change of ownership, the original price paid will be removed from the register.

  This change in practice will bring the Land Register for England and Wales into line with many other jurisdictions where the price paid for property is a matter of public record. This includes most of Europe and, notably, Scotland where this information has been publicly available since 1617 without appearing to cause any problems.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Drugs Education
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what level of support is being made available by his Department to primary and secondary schools for the delivery of drugs education in the financial year 1999–2000; and how much will be available in the following two years. [102794]

  Jacqui Smith
  Specific support to schools for drug education is available through the Standards Fund, via Local Education Authorities.

  During 1999–2000, £7.5 million has been made available through the Standards Fund Drug Prevention Grant. For the financial year 2000–01 the Drug Prevention Grant will be incorporated into the larger Social Inclusion: Pupil Support, Drug Prevention and Youth Service (SIPS) Grant. A total of £140 million will be available through the SIPS grant and minimum of £7.5 million is available for Drug Education; however, LEAs may opt to spend more.

  In line with the Anti-Drugs Strategy, the Department is seeking to deliver drug education within the wider context of Personal, Social and Health Education (PSHE) and the Healthy Schools Programme. We are supporting the development of PSHE through Standards Fund moneys, £12 million will be made available during 2000–01 for the development of PSHE and Citizenship in schools.

  Levels of funding for 2001–02 and beyond fall into the coming CSR period and are yet to be agreed.

  Teaching English as a Foreign Language
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what representations he 224W
  has received from industry concerning the role of higher and further education colleges in the teaching of English as a foreign language. [104440]

  Mr. Wicks
  We have received representations from private training providers.

  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what discussions he has had regarding the role of further and higher education colleges in the teaching of English as a foreign language. [104441]

  Mr. Wicks
  My Department holds discussions as appropriate on this issue. For example, we have been closely involved with the Further Education Funding Council's review of English as a Foreign Language courses.

  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has to involve institutions engaged in the teaching of English as a foreign language in reforms of higher and further education. [104443]

  Mr. Wicks
  In any reforms of further and higher education, we always welcome the views of institutions engaged in teaching English as a foreign language.

  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what discussions he has had with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office regarding the role of the British Council in the teaching of English as a foreign language. [104442]

  Mr. Wicks
  The Department holds discussions periodically with the British Council about its role in promoting the learning of English as a foreign language.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  CSA Computer System
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will set out the time scale for(a) the tendering process and (b) the production of the new computer system for the Child Support Agency; and if he will estimate the likely total cost of this project. [104705]

  Angela Eagle
  Discussions are currently in progress with the Department's private sector partner, the Affinity consortium, on the overall scope of the IT solution, a contract to develop and operate a new computer system, and the time scales for delivery. Costs are subject to negotiation.

  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if the existing computer system operated by the Child Support Agency could support the calculations of maintenance liabilities under the new formula proposed in the Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Bill. [104704]

  Angela Eagle
  It might be possible to amend the Child Support Computer System to support a certain amount of work under the new system, but not without some difficulty.

  Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Bill
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if it is his policy under the provisions of the Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Bill that benefits will be suspended for offenders immediately following the Probation Service issuing breach proceedings on individual cases; and if he will make a statement. [104745]

  Angela Eagle
  The Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Bill, which is currently being considered by Parliament, will reinforce the link between rights to benefits and responsibilities to society. Offenders aged 18 to 59, who are referred to Court for breaching a specified community sentence, will be subject to a benefit sanction from the first practicable benefit payday after the relevant benefits office receives a notification from the Probation Service that court proceedings have been initiated.

  In the case of Jobseeker's Allowance and certain Training Allowances, benefit will be withdrawn. Hardship payments will be available for vulnerable groups and others at risk of hardship. Income Support recipients will have their benefit reduced by 40 per cent. or 20 per cent. of the single person's adult rate, subject to their circumstances.

  This measure will initially be piloted. During the pilots the sanction period will be four weeks.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people he estimates will have their benefits suspended per annum following a breach of a community sentence under the terms of the Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Bill; and if he will make a statement. [104747]

  Angela Eagle
  It is not possible to provide an estimate of the number of people who will have their benefit withdrawn or reduced following a breach of a community sentence. Data collected by the Home Office indicate that, in England and Wales, around 25,000 people a year are currently referred to Court for breach proceedings. No information is held about how many of these are in receipt of Social Security benefits. After this measure is introduced, there is expected to be some behavioural effect which will reduce the number who breach their sentences.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security under the provisions of the Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Bill, how much money will be set aside for the Hardship Fund to be used in the case of withdrawal of benefits for the first financial year for which the provisions are implemented; and if he will make a statement. [104746]

  Angela Eagle
  There will be no "Hardship Fund". Hardship payments will be made, where appropriate, from general benefit expenditure. Similar arrangements already exist for making hardship payments where Jobseeker's Allowance is withdrawn as a result of labour market employment sanctions.

  Pension Arrears
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what estimate he has made of the numbers of 226W
  (a) widows and (b) pensioners awaiting payment of arrears of pensions in the Norwich, North constituency; [104519]

  (2) what steps he is taking to rectify the problems associated with payment through the National Insurance Computer System; [104518]

  (3) what estimate he has made of the number of staff hours of work necessary to distribute back-payments of pensions to (a) pensioners and (b) widows in the Norwich, North constituency. [104517]

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

  I refer my hon. Friend to the answers given on 2 December 1999, Official Report, columns 294–95W, to the hon. Members for Northavon (Mr. Webb) and for Havant (Mr. Willetts).

  Ministers have taken a personal interest in addressing the system problems and have been actively involved in NIRS2 development, stabilisation and recovery.

  The system problems affecting payments are our top priority. These payments relate to individuals who claim contributory benefits (Retirement Pension, Widows Benefits, Incapacity Benefit and Jobseeker's Allowance); and individuals who have contracted-out of the State Earnings-Related Pension Scheme and rebate payments are made to the Personal and Occupational Pension Provider who maintain their pension scheme.

  The Inland Revenue, Benefits Agency and Andersen Consulting, through joint working, have made significant progress in clearing these problems. The vast majority of problems have been resolved and most of the functionality is in place and working. A plan has been agreed with Andersen Consulting for the delivery of the remaining functionality by 31 March 2000.

  For the Norwich offices, of the outputs received relating to Widows, 79 remain to be cleared. For Retirement Pension, of the outputs received, 746 remain to be processed. However, until all claims have been reviewed it is not known in how many cases arrears will have been due.

  The Benefits Agency has put in place contingency procedures to deal with back-payments to Pensioners and Widows utilising existing staff, which includes overtime working where appropriate. Up to 31 December 1999, the Norwich offices have worked 313 hours in dealing with claims to Widows Benefits and 2,823 hours on Retirement Pensions. Not all the cases dealt with have had arrears of benefits due.

  All Work Test
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on the exemption or otherwise from the all work test of those who were incapable of work between 1 December 1993 and 12 April 1995 under the transitional award of Incapacity Benefit. [104423]

  Mr. Bayley
  The all work test was introduced as the means of determining incapacity for work for benefit purposes from 13 April 1995. Under transitional arrangements, people who were entitled to the former
  227W
  invalidity benefit between 1 December 1993 and 12 April 1995 (ignoring breaks of eight weeks or less) and who were aged 58 or over on 13 April 1995 are treated as satisfying the test as long as they continue to provide a doctor's statement as evidence of incapacity. In effect, the all work test is not applied to them.

  Similar arrangements were made for people who at the time of the change were entitled to an income-related benefit (Income Support, Housing Benefit or Council Tax Benefit) on the grounds of incapacity for work.

  Jobseeker's Allowance
  Mr. Canavan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will take measures to ensure that Jobseeker's Allowance is paid to workers who are temporarily unemployed and not receiving wages during school holidays at(a) Christmas and (b) other holiday periods. [104369]

  Angela Eagle
  The Court of Appeal has confirmed that ancillary workers who are not entitled to receive Jobseeker's Allowance during term-time because of the hours they work are also not entitled to Jobseeker's Allowance during the school holidays.

  We understand that the appellant in that case has applied for leave to appeal to the House of Lords. We are awaiting the outcome of that application.

  Ancillary Workers
  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many ancillary workers affected by the Social Security Commissioner's decision CIS/14661/1996 of December 1997 have(a) inquired about ex-gratia payments and (b) been given ex-gratia payments; and for what average amounts. [104104]

  Angela Eagle
  A total of 1,950 requests for ex-gratia payments have been received from ancillary workers affected by CIS/14661/1996. Of these, one ex-gratia payment of £337.03 has been made and 206 cases remain outstanding.

  Ex-gratia payments can be considered only where there has been a loss of statutory entitlement to benefit. Since subsequent legal decisions reversed the effect of CIS/14661/1996, the current position is that there was never any statutory entitlement to JSA during school holiday periods for this group. Further ex-gratia payments cannot therefore be made under the law as it currently stands.

  Winter Fuel Payments
  Mr. O'Hara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what factors underlay his decision not to pay the Winter Fuel Payment for 1999 to 2000 to people who reach the age of 60 after September 1999 but before 31 March 2000; and if he will reconsider his policy. [104082]

  Angela Eagle
  In order to issue Winter Fuel Payments automatically, without incurring disproportionate administration costs, most eligible people aged 60 and over are identified through official departmental computer records. These records hold the key information needed 228W
  to establish entitlement. The records are used to decide whether people are entitled for at least a day during a specified qualifying week.

  The current process for identifying those who are entitled and determining the amount payable takes around 10 weeks. Therefore, to ensure people receive the payments in good time to help with their winter fuel bills, the qualifying week must precede the onset of winter. This winter the qualifying week began on 20 September. Making the payments as early as possible in the winter ensures that the very elderly, who will include the vast majority of those who are most frail, have their payment when they need it.

  There are currently no plans to change the method of determining eligibility.

  Ms Atherton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if the extension of Winter Fuel Payments to men aged 60 to 65 years will include(a) the £10 Christmas bonus and (b) previous winter fuel subsidy schemes. [104378]

  Angela Eagle
  The extension of Winter Fuel Payments to everyone aged 60 and over who is resident in Great Britain applies to the Winter Fuel Payments scheme only. Payments will be backdated to the start of the scheme.

  Mr. O'Hara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how men aged 60 to 64 will claim the winter fuel payment for 1999 to 2000 and previous years; and what is his estimate of the cost for 1999 to 2000 and previous years. [104061]

  Angela Eagle
  It will be necessary to determine the names and addresses of people who are newly eligible for Winter Fuel Payments. As the information we hold may not be up to date, we will need to introduce a claims process for Winter Fuel Payments. This process will need to be developed carefully and appropriate IT systems built to deal with claims. The Benefits Agency are currently working on the operational issues for delivery.

  There is no need for people newly eligible for Winter Fuel Payments to contact the Benefits Agency now. An announcement will be made, and an advertising campaign will begin in a matter of months.

  Equalising the age of entitlement for Winter Fuel Payments at 60 for men and women will mean annual expenditure may increase by an estimated £85 million. Backdating the payments to the start of the scheme for up to 1.9 million people will have an estimated one-off programme cost of £115 million.

  Secondary Education
  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make benefits available to support 19-year-old students who wish to remain in full-time secondary education. [104276]

  Angela Eagle
  Responsibility for financial support of 19-year-old students who are in full-time education rests primarily with the student support system. Benefits are available only to full-time students who fall within certain vulnerable groups, such as lone parents and the disabled. We have no plans to change this.

  Attendance and Disability Living Allowances
  Mr. O'Hara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what number and proportion of people aged over 60 years or over are entitled to, but are not receiving,(a) Attendance Allowance and (b) Disability Living Allowance. [104058]

  Mr. Bayley
  There are no reliable estimates of the number of people aged 60 years or over who might be entitled to these benefits if they were to make a claim.

  However, provisional take-up estimates covering all ages and based on the disability follow-up to the Family Resources Survey are 40 per cent. to 60 per cent. for Attendance Allowance, 30 per cent. to 50 per cent. for the care component of Disability Living Allowance and 50 per cent. to 70 per cent. for the mobility component.

  Nursing Home Residents (Income Support)
  Mr. O'Hara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many residents of residential or nursing homes(a) in total, (b) aged 65 years or over and (c) aged under 65 years who are entitled to preserved rights to Income Support are being charged more than the level of their preserved rights to Income Support. [104060]

  Mr. Bayley
  At August 1999, we estimate that 36,000 people resident in residential care or nursing homes who have preserved rights to Income Support and are being charged more than the level of their preserved rights to Income Support, 16,000 of these are aged under 65 years, and 20,000 are aged over 65 years.

  Notes:

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

  2. Numbers have been rounded to the nearest thousand.

  3. Cases where charges exceed the IS limits are based on the Income Support limit amount for the type of care provided for the claimant, and the actual charge made for the claimant. No account is taken of the amount paid to the claimant in respect of personal expenses.

  Source:

  Income Support Statistics Quarterly Enquiry, August 1999.

  Mr. O'Hara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many residents of residential or nursing homes(a) in total, (b) aged 65 years or over and (c) aged under 65 years have preserved rights to Income Support. [104062]

  Mr. Bayley
  At August 1999, 84,000 people had preserved rights to Income Support. 36,000 are aged under 65 years. 48,000 are aged over 65 years.

  Notes:

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

  2. Numbers have been rounded to the nearest thousand.

  Source:

  Income Support Statistics Quarterly Enquiry, August 1999.

  Residential Care
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what discussions he has had with local 230W
  authorities in England and Wales in the last year as to the provision of long-term residential care within that authority's area. [104049]

  Mr. Bayley
  None.

  Pneumoconiosis
  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) how many claimants are in receipt of awards for pneumoconiosis, broken down by(a) disease category, (b) age and (c) coalfield; [104253]

  (2) how many claimants in receipt of an award for category two pneumoconiosis or more were first diagnosed with category one, broken down by (a) age and (b) coalfield. [104254]

  Mr. Bayley
  The information requested is not available. Such information as is available is set out in the tables.

  The number of awards of industrial injuries disablement benefit in payment for pneumoconiosis (prescribed disease D1) by industry, and, within the coal industry, by age, and by government office region

  Industries1,2

  Number of Pneumoconiosis currently in payment

  All industries

  12,100

  Mining (and agglomeration) of hard coal

  7,800

  Other mining and quarrying

  300

  Manufacture of other non-metallic mineral products

  500

  Manufacture of basic metals

  300

  Manufacture of motor vehicles, trailers and semi trailers and other transport equipment

  900

  Construction

  1,200

  Other industries

  1,200

  1 Industries are based on the Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) of economic activities 1992.

  2 Figures are rounded and may not sum. For a 10 per cent. sample, figures are statistically reliable where there are 200 or more in the sample.

  Source:

  DSS (Analytical Services Division) 10 per cent. sample data, including an adjustment for late statistical returns. Figures are for April 1998—the most recent data available.

  Ages1

  Number of pneumoconiosis currently in payment in the coal industry

  All ages

  7,800

  Under 60

  400

  60–64

  400

  65–69

  900

  70–74

  2,200

  75–79

  1,800

  80–84

  1,300

  85 and over

  700

  1 Figures are rounded and may not sum. For a 10 per cent. sample, figures are statistically reliable where there are 200 or more in the sample.

  Source:

  DSS (Analytical Services Division) 10 per cent. sample data, including an adjustment for late statistical returns. Figures are for April 1998—the most recent data available.
  231W

  Government office region1

  Number of Pneumoconiosis currently in payment in the coal industry

  Great Britain

  7,800

  North East

  800

  Yorks and Humber

  1,700

  East Midlands

  1,000

  East

  —

  London

  —

  South East

  —

  South West

  —

  West Midlands

  700

  North West

  500

  Wales

  2,500

  Scotland

  200

  1 Figures are rounded and may not sum. For a 10 per cent. sample, figures are statistically reliable where there are 200 or more in the sample.

  Take-up of income related benefits by pensioner benefit units 1997–98

  Income Support

  Housing Benefit

  Council Tax Benefit

  Total

  Average number of recipients1

  1,470

  1,830

  2,600

  5,870

  Numbers entitled but not receiving benefit1

  530–870

  0–250

  640–1,190

  1,170–2,310

  Percentage take-up rate

  63–73

  88–100

  69–80

  72–83

  1 Thousands

  Notes:

  1. Estimates are based on the 1997-98 Family Resources Survey.

  2. Estimated numbers entitled to but not receiving benefit have been rounded to the nearest 10,000 cases. The sum of the components (the individual benefits) may not add up to the total due to rounding.

  3. A pensioner benefit unit is defined as a single person aged 60 or over or a couple (not necessarily married) at least one of whom is aged 60 or over.

  4. The estimates under "Total" in the table refer to the total of Income Support, Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit. They should be regarded as rough estimates only because they count recipients of more than one benefit more than once and count those entitled to but not receiving more than one benefit more than once.

  Stakeholder Pensions
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what research he has undertaken, and what assessment he has made, of the level and pattern of debt among the target group for stakeholder pensions. [104143]

  Mr. Rooker
  Some information is available from departmental and other surveys on levels of debt generally, although no specific assessment has been attempted which would link such data to information about pension provision and the stakeholder pensions target group. Stakeholder pension schemes will give up to 5 million people on moderate earnings the option of a secure, flexible and value-for-money funded pension. We believe that those who can afford to save for their retirement should do so, but the affordability of pension contributions in relation to other commitments is a matter for individual decision.

TREASURY

  Air Passenger Duty
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proportion of Air Passenger Duty revenues derive from flights within the United Kingdom; and what was the value of such revenues in the last financial year. [104439]
  232W
  Source:

  DSS (Analytical Services Division) 10 per cent. sample data, including an adjustment for late statistical returns. Figures are for April 1998—the most recent data available.

  Pensioners (Benefit Entitlement)
  Mr. O'Hara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his estimate of the number of pensioners entitled to but not receiving benefits, excluding the double counting of those entitled to but receiving more than one credit. [104079]

  Mr. Rooker
  Information on numbers of pensioners entitled to but not receiving benefit was previously provided as follows. It is not possible to break down the total number any further so as to avoid all double counting, as we do not have the information available in this format.

  Mr. Timms
  It is estimated that Air Passenger Duty (APD) payable on domestic UK flights accounts for some 8–9 per cent. of total APD revenue, amounting to approximately £70 million for the financial year 1998–99.

  Mutual Societies
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will issue information to the public on the rights and entitlements of policy holders and borrowers from mutual societies in relation to the disposal and ownership of these organisations. [104521]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Mutuals can take a variety of legal forms. Entitlements to distributions on a winding-up, merger, or conversion are matters for each mutual to determine.

  Developing Country Debt
  Ms Drown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer on what basis his Department has calculated that the recently agreed $100 billion debt relief package represents cancellation of two thirds of developing country debt. [104370]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The total debt stock of the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries likely to qualify for relief under the enhanced HIPC initiative as having an unsustainable debt burden after traditional debt relief mechanisms is $143 billion. The enhanced HIPC initiative will reduce the debts owed by these countries by $100 billion, or two thirds.
  233W
  We want the enhanced HIPC initiative to start a new virtuous cycle of debt relief, poverty alleviation and economic development. The transformation of the IMF's structural adjustment facility into the Poverty Reduction and Growth Facility means that, for the first time, the IMF and World Bank have agreed to stand back and let countries develop their own poverty reduction strategies in partnership with the population and civil society.

  Having helped to secure multilateral funding for the initiative, the Government have decided that the time is right to take the extra step of eliminating all the bilateral debts owned to us by the poorest countries. Our pledge of 100 per cent. debt relief for countries qualifying under the HIPC initiative will cover all debts (both pre cut-off date debt and post cut-off date debt) owed to ECGD by these countries.

  Drug Trafficking
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent measures have been taken to tighten control of UK borders in order to prevent drug trafficking; and if he will make a statement. [104360]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Customs continually review the deployment of their anti-smuggling and investigation staff both nationally and locally to ensure they remain in line with priorities and changing patterns of smuggling risk.

  Customs maintains agreements with private companies and border agencies to ensure close co-operation.

  Customs have recently installed an Automatic Number Plate Reader at Dover in a joint project with Kent Constabulary and are in the process of installing similar systems at other ports.

  Asset Sales
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the items in the National Assets Register sold by his Department, its agencies and associated public bodies since 22 March 1999, stating in each case the amount of money realised; if he will estimate the total amount raised from such sales to date; and if he will make a statement. [104476]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave the right hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude) on 8 November 1999,Official Report, column 438W.

HEALTH

  Health Expenditure (Essex)
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what estimates he has made of the expected deficit in the Mid Essex Hospital Trust area for health care in the financial year 1999–2000; [98555]

  (2) what estimates he has made of the expected deficit in the North Essex Health Authority area for health care in the financial year 1999–2000. [98556]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 24 November 1999]: The income and expenditure positions of the Mid Essex Hospital Trust area and North Essex Health Authority area are forecast at Quarter 2 (September 1999) as given.
  234W
  These forecasts were prepared before the announcement by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on 21 December 1999 of an extra £134 million for the health service; £90 million relating to the costs of generic drugs has been allocated to health authorities. North Essex Health Authority has been allocated £1.5 million of this. The remaining £44 million will be allocated, as required, to meet the cost of clinical negligence claims.

  The income and expenditure position of North Essex Health Authority in financial year 1999–2000 is forecast at Quarter 2 (September 1999) to be a surplus of £970,000.

  The income and expenditure position of Mid Essex Community and Mental Health in financial year 1999–2000 is forecast at Quarter 2 (September 1999) to be a deficit of £149,000.

  The income and expenditure position of Mid Essex Hospital Services in financial year 1999–2000 is forecast at Quarter 2 (September 1999) to be a deficit of £4.2 million.

  Mid Essex Hospital Trust
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people in the Mid Essex Hospital Trust area have been waiting 12 months or more for treatment. [104445]

  Mr. Denham
  The most recent published inpatient waiting list figures are those for October 1999. These figures show that, at Mid Essex Hospital National Health Service Trust, a total of 1,024 patients were waiting 12 months and over for treatment at the end of October 1999.

  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people had been waiting more than 18 months for treatment in the Mid Essex Hospital Trust area between 1 November 1999 and the latest date for which figures are available; and how long each patient waited or was waiting for treatment over 18 months. [104446]

  Mr. Denham
  The last published figures for waiting times are those for October 1999. These show that at the end of October 1999, no patients waited over 18 months for treatment at Mid Essex Hospital Services National Health Services Trust.

  The next published figures will be those for November 1999, due to be published in the week commencing 10 January 2000. Until these figures are published, no centrally collected and validated figures are available.

  Mammograms
  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what target his Department sets NHS trusts and health authorities for the maximum period for a patient to be notified of the results of a mammogram X-ray; and what is the actual maximum period for patients served by Essex Rivers Healthcare Trust in the most recent period for which figures are available. [101364]

  Yvette Cooper
  The National Health Service breast screening programme sets standards to ensure that the performance of all breast screening programmes is monitored on a consistent national basis. One of these is that at least 90 per cent. of women should receive the
  235W
  results of their mammogram within two weeks. This is to minimise the anxiety for women who are awaiting their results. This standard is monitored by local screening programmes and regional quality assurance teams.

  Essex Rivers Healthcare NHS Trust (Colchester and Chelmsford breast screening unit) screened 11,147 women between 1 April 1999 and 31 August 1999. 78.3 per cent. of women were sent their results within two weeks. 93.6 per cent. of women were sent their results within three weeks. 0.3 per cent. (41 women) waited over five weeks for their results. The trust is looking to appoint a further radiologist to help reach the minimum standard of 90 per cent. of women receiving their results within two weeks.

  NHS Pension Scheme
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assumptions the actuary made at the time of the last report on the NHS pension scheme about the proportion of(a) contributing members (b) deferred members and (c) pensioners on their death who would have qualifying partner survivors; and what assumptions he makes currently. [104268]

  Mr. Denham
  The National Health Service Pension Scheme only pays survivor benefits to legal spouses or dependent children. The Government Actuary assumed that the proportion of members married at death varies by age. The proportion increased with age up to retirement, and then reduced with increasing age thereafter, allowing for the likelihood that the spouse may have predeceased the member.

  The actuarial assumptions are based on an analysis of the experience within the scheme. For the last report, it was assumed that on average 66 per cent. of contributing and deferred members would have an entitlement to a survivor's benefit, if death occurred in the following year. The assumption for pensioners was 50 per cent. These assumptions will be reviewed as part of the next report, which is expected to be available around mid-2001.

  Transplant Surgeons
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the adequacy of the number of serving transplant surgeons in the NHS. [104312]

  Mr. Denham
  At national level we do not plan centrally the numbers of consultants who specialise in transplant surgery. We plan the numbers of consultants in general surgery and related specialities, taking into account information gathered from a range of sources, including the medical Royal Colleges, Regional Postgraduate Medical Deans and National Health Service management, which includes information about consultants specialising in transplant surgery.

  At local level, it is NHS trusts and health authorities who are accountable for the quality of the services they provide, to determine how their services are configured and delivered, in the light of local circumstances, in order to provide quality services to patients. This includes deciding on the number and grades of posts in their locality.
  236W
  At national level, The Speciality Workforce Advisory Group (SWAG) advises on the numbers of higher specialist trainees needed to meet future requirements for consultants. SWAG has advised previously that general surgery has been a speciality with shortages of consultants. Over the past four years, it has recommended increases in the numbers of higher specialist training opportunities. We are now satisfied that there are enough training opportunities in general surgery for there to be sufficient candidates qualifying for consultant posts over the next few years.

  Representations have been made to the Department about shortages of transplant surgeons in the NHS. We will continue to engage in discussions with the Royal College of Surgeons and the Regional Postgraduate Medical Deans and others responsible for training and career prospects, with the aim of ensuring that all the organ transplant services are fully supported.

  Christie Hospital NHS Trust
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health on what occasions since 1 May 1997 a Minister in his Department has visited the Christie Hospital NHS Trust. [104606]

  Mr. Denham
  It has so far not been possible for any of the Ministers at this Department to visit the Christie Hospital.

  Cancer Patients
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the Government's target is for the maximum length of time cancer patients will have to wait(a) to see a consultant after a GP has referred them and (b) to be treated once a consultant has seen the patient.[104447]

  Mr. Denham
  From April 1999, patients with suspected breast cancer have been able to see a specialist within two weeks of their general practitioner referring them urgently for investigation. We will roll out this approach to other cancer sites so that by the end of 2000 we will make this high quality standard of care available for all suspected cancer requiring an urgent specialist appointment. We will also tackle patient uncertainty about the timing of their treatment through the cancer services collaborative, part of the booked admissions programme, which will improve patient access to diagnosis, treatment and care. The cancer services collaborative currently covers a population of 14 million. Lessons learned from the collaborative will be shared with the wider National Health Service from 2001.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Sir Sydney Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he will provide a substantive reply to the Question tabled by the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet on 24 November 1999 for answer on 29 November relating to health spending in Barnet (ref. 100215). [104603]

  Mr. Denham
  I replied to the hon. Member on 11 January.

  Hip Operations
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will place in the Library a copy of his reply to the letter of 1 December from Professor William Bonfield concerning statistics on hip operations. [104510]

  Mr. Hutton
  A copy of the letter will be placed in the Library.

  Organic Produce
  Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he is taking to inform the public of the benefits to health of organically grown produce. [103788]

  Yvette Cooper
  The Government have not published specific advice on the health benefits of organically grown produce. This is because at present there is little information available on which to make meaningful comparisons between nutrient contents or organic and conventional produce.

  A study commissioned by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on the nutritional composition of organically grown fruit and vegetables found only small differences in levels of some nutrients between organically grown and conventionally grown fruit and vegetables. However, it did note that confounding variables, such as differences in the variety grown and the age of samples, made it difficult to draw comparisons. A handful of similar studies have been published in the mainstream scientific literature since. In general, these have found no consistent or significant differences in nutrient content between organic and conventional produce.

  The Government stress the importance of a balanced diet for good health based on evidence based studies. We have funded, through the Health Education Authority, a variety of projects aimed at improving access to, and availability of, healthy eating choices and at encouraging people to eat less fat and more cereals, fruit and vegetables.

  Leicester NHS Trust
  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) when he will appoint a Chairman for the University Hospitals of Leicester NHS Trust; [104607]

  (2) when he expects the Chief Executive of the University Hospitals of Leicester NHS Trust to be appointed. [104608]

  Mr. Denham
  On 11 January Philip Hammersley CBE was appointed to serve as Chairman of the University Hospitals of Leicester National Health Service Trust for the period 17 January 2000 to 31 October 2002.

  Following Mr. Hammersley's appointment, I expect the task of appointing a new chief executive for the trust to be addressed as a matter of urgency.

  Continence Services
  Ms Drown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he will publish the NHS guidance on continence services. [104357]
  238W
  Mr. Hutton
  We have recently received the report from the Working Group which was set up to advise the Department on guidance for continence services. We are now considering the report and hope to publish guidance shortly.

  Audiology Services
  Mrs. Betty Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he will receive the report of the working group into hearing aids and audiology services. [104730]

  Mr. Hutton
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave her on 6 December 1999,Official Report, column 444W.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Farmers (Early Retirement)
  Mr. Öpik
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he made of the projected costs of an early retirement scheme for farmers. [103782]

  Ms Quin
  Any assessment of the cost of an early retirement scheme would depend on a number of variables including grant rates, eligibility criteria, number of applications and administrative costs. However, given the potential sums involved and the mixed reactions to the proposals, we firmly believe that a much better use of the funds to help the agricultural sector is provided for in the rural development measures we have announced.

  Pig Industry
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what measures he proposes to take to support the British pig industry. [103783]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  Within the constraints imposed by the light nature of the EU pigmeat regime and the need to respect the law, I will continue to do all I can to help.

  Sir Robert Smith
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what discussions he has had with the Chancellor of the Exchequer on compensation for the pig industry in relation to the costs of complying with regulations to deal with BSE. [103795]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  I have had no formal discussions with my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer on this matter.

  Energy Crops
  Mr. Olner
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to increase support for energy crops; and if he will make a statement. [103784]

  Ms Quin
  On 7 December 1999,Official Report, columns 701–02W, my right hon. Friend the Minister announced plans for implementation of the EU Rural Development Regulation, which included support of around £30 million for energy crops. This will help the Government achieve their targets for greenhouse gas emissions and renewable energy generation.

  Countryside Stewardship Scheme
  Mr. Borrow
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to expand the countryside stewardship scheme. [103785]

  Mr. Morley
  I have already announced plans for a major expansion of the Countryside Stewardship Scheme. Over the next seven years, spending on agri-environment schemes will double. Of the £1 billion to be allocated during this period to these schemes, £500 million will be for the Countryside Stewardship Scheme. We will be discussing with farming and conservation organisations how the extra funding should be used to achieve the best environmental value for money.

  Mr. Grogan
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the value of the countryside stewardship scheme to rural conservation. [103798]

  Mr. Morley
  We believe, as do most environmental organisations, that the Countryside Stewardship is of considerable value to rural conservation, and I recently announced a very significant expansion of the Scheme. We are currently funding an independent study to assess the environmental benefits of the Scheme in more detail.

  Bovine TB
  Dr. Naysmith
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the incidence of bovine TB in the west of England. [103786]

  Ms Quin
  Provisional figures for the first nine months of 1999 show that there were 648 confirmed new cases of TB in cattle in Great Britain, mostly in the west and south-west of England, compared with 565 in the same period in 1998. That is why the Government are pressing ahead with their TB control strategy, based on independent scientific advice.

  Dairy Farming
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the prospects for dairy farmers over the next two years. [103787]

  Ms Quin
  All dairy farmers face challenging times as a result of reduced milk prices, increased liberalisation of world markets and progress on CAP reform. But the dairy fanning sector's ability to respond positively to these challenges will be helped by the high level of producer expertise and commitment, favourable farm structure and ideal climate for milk production.

  Farmers (Marketing)
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps his Department is taking to help farmers in marketing and product development. [103789]

  Ms Quin
  Many. For instance, £2 million was made available at the end of last year to support projects designed to help farmers improve their marketing. Over the next seven years I am providing £44 million for marketing and processing grants and additional expenditure for the marketing of quality agricultural products under the new Rural Enterprise Scheme.

  Food Labelling
  Mr. Coaker
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he is taking to improve the labelling of food to enable consumers to make better-informed choices. [103791]

  Ms Quin
  We are committed to promoting informed consumer choice. Because of the key importance of good labelling, the Government will shortly be announcing an initiative aimed at stimulating public debate and identifying the needs and priorities of ordinary consumers.

  Fisheries Council
  Dr. Ladyman
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the outcome of the December Fisheries Council. [103792]

  Mr. Morley
  The outcome respected the scientific advice while maximising catching opportunities for the UK industry. Cuts in UK quotas worth £30 million were avoided. The Council and Commission also committed themselves to introduce a recovery programme for Irish Sea cod.

  Organic Farming
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what recent assessment he has made of the environmental advantages of organic farming. [103793]

  Mr. Morley
  Evaluation of the environmental impact of organic farming is one of the three objectives of the Ministry's organic R&D programme, for which £2.1 million has been allocated for 1999–2000. Field studies on biodiversity and soil fertility on organic farms, following up earlier desk studies, and a study of nutrient recycling are in progress. Work on nitrates and ammonia emissions has recently been completed.

  Jean Corston
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many farmers entered into organic conversion in 1999. [103796]

  Mr. Morley
  Around 1,100 farmers applied for aid under the Organic Farming Scheme in 1999.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what further plans he has to support organic farming. [103774]

  Mr. Morley
  On 7 December 1999,Official Report, columns 701–02W, my right hon. Friend the Minister announced the Government's plans for spending on the Rural Development Programme for England. Under these plans, £140 million will be available over the life of the Programme for aid for conversion to organic farming.

  CAP
  Fiona Mactaggart
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the annual cost for the typical family of the common agricultural policy. [103794]

  Ms Quin
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary gave to my hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble (Mr. Borrow) on 25 November 1999,Official Report, column 748W.

  Beef Ban
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what discussions he has had with the Scottish Executive relating to the current French ban on British beef. [103797]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  My ministerial colleagues, my officials and I have been in regular contact with our counterparts in the Scottish Executive on the French import ban on UK beef.

  Organophosphates
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what research he plans to carry out on the effects of organophosphates. [103799]

  Ms Quin
  I refer my hon. Friend to my reply on 20 December 1999,Official Report, column 446W.

  Compensation
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the availability of monetary compensation to British fanners for the value of sterling. [103800]

  Ms Quin
  Up to £88 million in compulsory agrimonetary compensation will be paid to livestock and arable farmers this year, and a further £44 million next year. Optional compensation is available this year; figures are not yet confirmed. No decision has been taken on whether to pay any of this.

  Forestry Commission Land
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will name the areas of Forestry Commission land which he has approved for sale since May 1997 and give the acreage of each area. [102633]

  Mr. Morley
  The subject of the question relates to matters undertaken by Forest Enterprise. I have asked its Chief Executive, Dr. Bob Mclntosh, to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Bob McIntosh to Mr. Huw Edwards, dated 13 January 2000:
  I have been asked to reply to your question to the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food asking for the names of areas of Forestry Commission land approved for sale since May 1997.
  Firstly, I should explain that the Forestry Commission is responsible for deciding which areas to sell, in accordance with the policy and guidance laid down by Ministers. The Minister, therefore, does not approve individual areas for sale.
  242W
  I enclose a list of the woods in England which have been offered for sale since May 1997, including the area and Grid Reference.

  Forestry commission woods in England offered for sale since 1 May 1997

  Wood

  Area (Hectares)

  NGR

  Land at Dryderdale

  6.0

  SE 655 719

  Gravel Pit and Broomhill Woods

  6.0

  SE 703 458

  Dalby Bush

  36.0

  SE 640 715

  Mill Wood, Terrington (pt)

  24.0

  SE 644 735

  Foulshaw Moss

  220.0

  SD 458 825

  Ulpha Park

  29.0

  SD 191 912

  Simpsons Wood

  6.0

  NY 179 337

  Foulshaw and Wilderness

  57.0

  SD 458 825

  Barthorps Folly

  6.0

  TM 348 459

  Top Clump and West Belt

  4.5

  TG 145 211

  Oakhill Wood

  33.3

  SP 813 357

  College Wood

  51.0

  SP 791 331

  Gatten Plantation

  34.0

  SO 372 986

  Land at Oversley Wood

  0.6

  SJ 110 567

  Bishops Wood

  2.5

  SX 001 697

  Penny Wood

  1.0

  ST 985 442

  Staple Hill

  11.0

  SX 836 740

  Greens Wood

  1.5

  TL 277 170

  Friston Forest

  10.2

  TQ 535 018

  Channers Wood

  15.0

  SU 818 814

  Beech and Howlets Wood

  7.0

  SP 958 005

  Hoo Wood

  18.0

  TL 033 125

  Shabbington Wood

  2.6

  SP 632 106

  Deershill Wood

  11.0

  SS 520 172

  Priest Wood

  28.0

  TL 301 160

  Pt Fleming Estate

  20.8

  SU 420 175

  Stanley Cottages Wood

  31.0

  SZ 168 390

  Worsall Gill and Fox Covert

  30.0

  NZ 381 070

  Hugset Wood

  34.0

  SE 305 068

  Seaton Old Wood

  30.5

  SE 785 389

  Goss Hall

  4.2

  SK 344 620

  Black and New Plantation

  14.0

  SE 793 367

  Brandon Wood

  72.0

  SP 395 765

  Bedpark

  8.0

  SX 584 538

  Challock Benacre Wood

  25.0

  TQ 945 440

  Redcap/Catham etc.

  14.0

  SU 785 421

  Kennel Wood

  6.0

  SK 322 533

  Millerhill and Wigfield

  5.0

  SE 341 021

  Blackbrooks, Park Wood (Exchange)

  76.7

  SO 660 220

  Chilworth Common North

  12.0

  SU 410 182

  The Wilton Estate (Exchange)

  51.0

  SU 045 346

  Knowle Wood

  8.0

  SX 533 641

  Widow Bushes

  11.0

  TL 305 176

  Samgarth Woods

  71.0

  SD 132 945

  Intake Wood

  20.0

  SK 594 638

  Sawptt Copse

  9.6

  SU 527 103

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

Road Accidents: Child Deaths
Lord Davies of Oldhamasked Her Majesty's Government:
What policies are being developed to reduce the number of child deaths caused by road accidents.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Lord Whitty): My Lords, we are preparing a new road safety strategy and casualty reduction targets for a 10-year period to 2010. We expect to publish the strategy early this year, and clearly the improvement of child safety will be a central component within it.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I declare an interest as President of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents. On behalf of the society, I am pleased to hear the Minister's response, but does he recognise the distress of so many fellow citizens to learn that we kill and maim more children on our roads per head of population than most other countries in Europe? Therefore, is it not essential that in the forthcoming review of strategy the Government look very carefully at the question of traffic-calming measures and the reduction of speed limits on our residential roads, particularly those on which schools are sited?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, clearly child road deaths are a serious and tragic aspect of our society. It must, however, be put into perspective. Britain's road safety record is the best in Europe and probably the world in general. Although it is correct that we have a relatively bad record in relation to child pedestrians—it is an area of road safety policy that we must specifically address—it is not true of children in cars where the safety record is greatly improved, in part as a result of the better application of seat belts and vehicle design; nor is it the case in relation to cycling. Child pedestrians are at risk and traffic-calming and other such measures to curb speed will make a great difference.
Lord Brougham and Vaux: My Lords, is any advice given by teachers to children about running across the road? Yesterday I drove down Lupus Street and two children ran within a very short distance of my vehicle. One of them ran in front of me and caused me to brake
746
very sharply. I also congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Davies, on assuming the position which I held and which my noble friend Lord Astor also held.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I pay respect both to the noble Lord and my noble friend in that capacity. The work done by RoSPA in this area is very important, as is the education provided in schools. Clearly, some of the problem is related to children's behaviour. It is important that road safety features in our schools, and we are making a particular effort in that regard. That forms part of the education of children, not only when they are very young but at the point when they transfer between junior and secondary schools, where the level of accidents is particularly high. We are addressing that problem.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, is my noble friend aware of the scale of this problem? For example, in County Durham, 120 young people between the ages of 10 and 18 are either killed or seriously injured every year, and that has been the case for some time. Does my noble friend agree that more emphasis should be placed on road safety education in schools? I am concerned that once road safety was a very significant part of school curricula but that is not now the case. Does my noble friend agree that it would be advantageous if the Government did something about that?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, there is already substantial support to teachers and others within schools, including visits by police, but we are paying attention to the need to improve the educational aspect of road safety. Although my noble friend is right to say that there is still a problem in this area, I remember that when I was at school—which was a few years ago and traffic was not at anything like its present level—road safety teaching used the slogan "Three Like Me Killed Every Day". It is much, much fewer than that now; indeed, even in the past 10 years we have cut casualties among child pedestrians, which is the worst area, by 63 per cent. We are making progress but there is still some way to go.
Lord Elton: My Lords, the first supplementary of the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Oldham, asked whether the Government were aware that other European countries killed fewer children on the roads than we do. What steps are the Government taking to find out what others are doing that we are not?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, in this respect last year the department carried out specific research commissioned from the University of Leeds. One of the factors is the social aspect. Children in lower socio-economic groups are the most vulnerable. Children in Britain are more likely to be unaccompanied and need to cross busy roads. Therefore, we need to address that in terms of the total traffic management system, and that we shall do in our road safety strategy.
Lord Bradshaw: My Lords, in a recent letter to me the Minister said that motorists hated speed cameras. Are not the Government being somewhat swayed towards motorists? Is the noble Lord aware that every recent poll conducted by MORI, and the crime and disorder audits carried out in counties, showed that speeding often gives rise to people's greatest fear, particularly for their children?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, a few weeks ago we had a debate in which the noble Lord made a very effective maiden speech. Speed, particularly in residential districts, is a major cause of injuries to children and other pedestrians. We have recently received a technical report on speed which will be taken into account in our road safety strategy.
Lord Randall of St Budeaux: My Lords, how can we be confident that the measures referred to by my noble friend will work, bearing in mind that we have projections of huge increases in the number of car journeys in this country? What are the Government doing to help Surrey County Council, which has the highest death rate of any council in Britain?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, Surrey has proposed a number of traffic calming measures. It is true that the projections of traffic indicate a more severe danger. However, reductions in road casualties over the past few years have been achieved in the face of a substantial increase in road traffic.
On the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, although motorists who are caught hate speed cameras, by and large motorists are themselves parents and therefore recognise the need for restrictions on speed particularly in areas where children are likely to be present.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, child casualties are distressing. However, can the Minister say what wider road safety improvements will be implemented by the Transport Bill being considered by another place?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, road safety is not covered specifically by the Transport Bill in any great detail because most of the improvements in relation to road transport can be undertaken without new primary legislation. Some secondary legislation will stem from our road safety strategy. If the noble Earl will be patient for a week or two, or perhaps slightly longer, he will see the full range of what I believe to be a comprehensive and welcome contribution to road safety improvement.

Wales: Transport Needs
3.14 p.m.
Lord Islwynasked Her Majesty's Government:
What further consideration they are giving to the transport needs of Wales.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, responsibility for most aspects of transport in Wales
748
was transferred to the National Assembly for Wales on 1st July 1999. The main exceptions are railways, air and sea transport, which remain a matter for central government working in close consultation with the Assembly on matters affecting Wales. The Government are also involving the National Assembly as necessary to ensure that Welsh needs are reflected in the Transport Bill.
Lord Islwyn: My Lords, will the Minister appreciate that, when travelling with a first-class ticket from Paddington to South Wales on 2nd December last, I had to stand all the way to Swindon? The following day I protested to Dr M Mitchell, the general manager of First Great Western. To date I have not had the courtesy of an acknowledgement. Does the Minister appreciate that this is not untypical of the rail service that is being provided to and from Wales? It needs to be very much improved.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, my noble friend is right. I, too, have experienced sitting in an unmanned station for over an hour in Wales waiting for a connection.
I am sure my noble friend is aware that no one is guaranteed a seat without a reservation. However, should the situation that he described occur in future, contact should be made with staff on the train explaining the failure to obtain a seat and asking for an endorsement to the ticket. Not having received a reply to his complaint, my noble friend should take up the matter with the RUCC for Wales, which will investigate it on his behalf. I shall write to him with full details of the address of the Rail Users' Consultative Committee for Wales in Cardiff.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, is the Minister aware that her problem as regards lonely and deserted stations, and the problem of the noble Lord, are derived from the fact that seven separate franchises serve Wales? That is a ridiculous situation. Will the noble Baroness encourage the proposed strategic rail authority to introduce an all-Wales service so that the railways in Wales will at least become co-ordinated?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, the noble Lord raises an interesting question. As my noble friend identified in his Question, and as I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, is aware, over 90 per cent of long rail journeys involving Wales include leaving Wales to travel to England and back to Wales, or vice versa. For that reason, we believe that having a Welsh member on a strategic rail authority can better serve the aim of an integrated rail system that the noble Lord identifies.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, may I divert the Minister's attention to roads in Wales? They are also an integral part of the transport system.
Is the noble Baroness aware that under this Government the expenditure on motorway and trunk road maintenance is less than half the amount expended in the last four years of the Conservative

749
Government? Will that not have a damaging effect on the Welsh economy, including the economy of Cardiganshire—I am told that it will have a by-election shortly—and on Wales' links with the remainder of the United Kingdom?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, in his final point the noble Lord raises the important issue of the need for close co-operation, in particular with regard to the transport links of the north-west, mid-Wales and south-east Wales across the border into England. The noble Lord referred to the level of expenditure. I respectfully remind him that, on coming into office, during the period of the comprehensive spending review the Government considered a pattern which had been established by the Government of which he was a distinguished member.
Resources available for transport in Wales, while the responsibility of the Westminster Government, included an additional £12.5 million subsidy over three years to improve public transport networks. We are confident that the Assembly will continue to build on the work which we did prior to the establishment of its responsibility for roads in Wales.
Lord Glentoran: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the noble Lord, Lord Islwyn, was fortunate to be able to buy a ticket?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I am aware that many people have such a difficulty. I am sure that the Rail Users' Consultative Committee, be it for Wales or for England, will be interested in taking up the experience of anyone in the country who has a difficulty.
Lord Geraint: My Lords, can the Minister give an assurance that road and rail services to Ceredigion will be improved for the by-election on 3rd February?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I cannot give an assurance that the Assembly will be able to improve the road and rail networks, but I shall be in a position to comment on the effectiveness of the networks.

Monetary Policy: House of Lords Committee
3.20 p.m.
Lord Barnettasked the Chairman of Committees:
When the House of Lords committee on the Monetary Policy Committee of the Bank of England will be set up again.
The Principal Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Tordoff): My Lords, first, I must apologise for the fact that the Chairman of Committees is unable to answer the Question. He is in Australia attending the conference of Commonwealth Speakers on behalf of the Lord Chancellor.
750
Noble Lords will be aware that the Monetary Policy Committee of the Bank of England was set up as an ad hoc committee following the report of the Liaison Committee of 20th July 1998. The question of whether it should be set up again will be considered at the next meeting of the Liaison Committee on 7th February.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, I should make it clear that I do not blame the noble Lord for that totally inadequate reply because he is not even a member of the Liaison Committee. However, I do blame the House's authorities, whoever they are. Some noble Lords will know who they may be, and perhaps those in the usual channels, who are sitting not too far away, can tell us.
Is the noble Lord aware that when the subject was debated on 4th November, there was on all sides of the House agreement and a strong demand for the committee to be set up again as a new Select Committee? Can he assure us that he will at least press the House's authorities for an earlier meeting of the Liaison Committee than is at present planned? Is there any reason why it cannot meet without the Chairman of Committees, or should we all move out to Australia in order to hold it? Indeed, it might be better to hold a meeting of the Liaison Committee without the noble Lord because the demand is that the committee shall meet as quickly as possible to set up a committee on the Monetary Policy Committee.
The Principal Deputy Chairman of Committees: My Lords, the House's committee on the Monetary Policy Committee was discussed at the meeting of the Liaison Committee in July. That was before the debate on the report. Indeed, it was before the report was published, although we had a pretty good idea of what was happening. I say "we", but the noble Lord is correct in saying that I am not a member of the Liaison Committee. However, I attend in my role as chairman of the European Communities Committee.
There were a number of items for discussion and several suggestions came from members who wanted ad hoc committees set up. The subject was deferred until the autumn. I am aware that the autumn has passed, but it should be borne in mind that until late in the year there was some confusion in your Lordships' House about who would be here. I believe that that is one of the reasons for the delay.
Baroness Hogg: My Lords, can the House be given a waiting time guarantee on this Question, given that an Answer is long overdue?
The Principal Deputy Chairman of Committees: My Lords, the Question was tabled for today, but as regards when the committee will be set up I can say only that it will be discussed at the meeting of the Liaison Committee on 7th February. There is no chance of bringing the meeting forward.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware of any steps that may have been taken in the meantime by Her Majesty's Government to ensure

751
that the committee is provided with accurate and consistent statistics upon which to make proper judgments?
The Principal Deputy Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I am not clear to which committee the noble Lord refers; the Liaison Committee or the committee on the Monetary Policy Committee.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, perhaps I may reinforce the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Barnett. It always was a mistake that it should be regarded as an ad hoc committee. The report described its task as one of critical interpretation. Is it not a fact that the arrangements affecting the Monetary Policy Committee and the Bank of England are not those for a temporary phenomenon but one that is here for the long term? Therefore, is it not right that the same consideration should apply to the committee in order to make use of the expertise which exists in all parts of the House?
The Principal Deputy Chairman of Committees: My Lords, that may well be so; no doubt the Liaison Committee will take it into account when it deliberates on 7th February. However, the committee was originally set up as an ad hoc committee almost two years ago and was regarded as such until the end of its deliberations when the results of the report suggested that it should be made permanent.
Lord Peston: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware of how puzzled I am by his answers? The report was published last July and was widely acclaimed. It contained several explanations of why the committee must carry on. We discussed the subject in a widely acclaimed debate. Like the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, I believe that the committee should be made permanent, but that is another point.
One is left in a complete puzzle about what goes on in this place. One does many things and produces reports which are a credit to your Lordships' House and then no one does anything about anything! Those of us on the Back Benches must then ask how the place organises itself so that it is capable of taking a rational decision on a matter of some importance. I would never criticise my good friend, the Principal Deputy Chairman of Committees, but is he aware that many of us would like someone to do something sooner rather than later and learn a lesson about taking other decisions on other matters?
The Principal Deputy Chairman of Committees: My Lords, yes, I am aware and, I am being made increasingly aware.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the importance of the Monetary Policy Committee was underlined this morning and therefore the importance of this House having a committee to monitor it is equally important and
752
underlined? Is he also aware that we on these Benches support the proper establishment of a permanent committee on this issue?
The Principal Deputy Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I am now aware. I suggest that the noble Lord may want to make the leader of his party aware. He is a member of the Liaison Committee which is charged with the allocation of resources to sub-committees.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, is there a settled view among the appropriate authorities on how many committees the House can manage? Are there any physical or other limits to the number of committees we may have as regards Clerks and rooms? Only a small minority of our now active membership sits on committees, but I am sure that some of the newer Members would welcome such an opportunity. What is the view of the appropriate authorities on the future of the committee structure of this House?
The Principal Deputy Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I cannot give a definitive answer. There are restrictions in terms of rooms, support from the Clerks and membership. However, that is changing with the increasing membership of your Lordships' House. Speaking as chairman of the European Communities Committee, after a difficult period during the summer when we did not know who would be available, we managed to staff and fill all the places on the Select Committees and the sub-committees. If rumour is true that there is to be a further infusion of new Members, I am sure that the task will become easier. However, the Clerks of this House have been seriously overworked in recent times. The situation has improved, but, as the noble Lord will know, some Clerks in the Committee corridor have run two committees, which is more than flesh and blood can stand.

The English Nation
3.29 p.m.
Baroness Youngasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they consider that the English are a violent nation.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Bassam of Brighton): My Lords, no! We do not believe that the English are a violent nation. We believe that in the new millennium we have the opportunity to promote a different sense of Englishness which focuses on the virtues of tolerance and ethnic and cultural diversity and continues to celebrate the nation's powerful contribution to the world of artistic, industrial, commercial and cultural endeavour. Let us in the new millennium collectively promote a new, more confident vision of our eclectic nation.
Baroness Young: My Lords, will the Minister accept that his Answer bears absolutely no relation to the remarks made by the Home Secretary, which were

753
racist, untrue and a complete insult to all the English men and women who fought in two world wars entirely so that people such as the Home Secretary and other Members of the Government might enjoy the free speech that we all enjoy today? Is he proud of the fact that the Home Secretary has now been reported twice to the Commission for Racial Equality for his racist remarks?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I do not accept that my right honourable friend the Home Secretary is in any way a racist. He has an excellent track record on that question. It is entirely a matter for individuals whether they decide to report the Home Secretary to the Commission for Racial Equality. The noble Baroness has taken his comments from an extensive programme on the question of "The Brits" on Radio Four entirely out of context. If she studies the transcript she will realise that my right honourable friend the Home Secretary was talking about the historical development of the United Kingdom.
Lord Baker of Dorking: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the Home Secretary said that in their history the English began by coshing the Welsh, then they coshed the Scots, then they coshed the rest of the world through the British Empire? Will the Minister remind his friend the Home Secretary that the British Empire was largely established, sustained and expanded by Scots? They really should not be denied their role in the hall-of-coshing fame.
Does not the whole episode reveal that, as a result of their constitutional changes, the Government have released an English backlash? Having created a voice for Scotland, a voice for Wales and a voice for Northern Ireland, and having done nothing about England—which is democratically and constitutionally unjust—they will not actually resolve that problem until they bring forward proposals to ensure that England's democratic deficit is reversed. Until they do that, their constitutional changes will be inherently unstable.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, there seemed to be many questions in the noble Lord's contribution to the discussion—
A noble Lord: Answer one of them!
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I shall endeavour to do so. As to the question of whether there should or should not be an English parliament, as the noble Lord is well aware that is not the policy of Her Majesty's Government. We continue to have confidence in the Parliament here at Westminster. It is worth reminding ourselves that some 80 per cent of the Members of the House of Commons are English MPs. The House of Commons is entirely competent to deal with all those matters for the United Kingdom which fall to it.
Lord Lipsey: My Lords, will the Minister agree with me that, although nowadays the English are of course a most peaceable people, they can nevertheless be provoked to violence by insensitive, poor, unthinking, unlistening government, such as the kind of government that provoked the Poll Tax riots in 1989, a tax of which—as I remember—the noble Lord, Lord Baker, was such a fervent advocate?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, my noble friend makes a powerful political point. In our new millennium we must encourage tolerance and diversity. Those values are ones which I want to see promoted throughout the United Kingdom.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, I should perhaps first declare an interest as a vice-president of the Royal Society of St George. The Minister says that the Home Secretary's remarks were taken out of context. Will he therefore tell us how it came about that there was so much leaking in advance of the particular opinion of the Home Secretary that the English are extremely aggressive and violent? Was that leaking perhaps done by Mr Alastair Campbell?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I have absolutely no knowledge as to who did what leaking where, when and how. As I said, I believe that the comments were taken out of context, but there is the beginning of an important and valuable debate about what "Englishness" actually is.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, before this all becomes too serious, is the Minister aware that my experience on the rugby field leads me to believe that the English are not an especially violent race? When I was playing in a match at Twickenham many, many years ago, an English forward was lying on the field after an especially untidy scrum when a Welsh wing forward came up and kicked him vigorously in the head. The Englishman's response was simply to look up and say, "Did you wish to speak to me?"
Does the Minister agree that whatever may be the failings of the English—and they are many—violence is not one of them?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, many strange things happen in scrums.

Race Relations (Amendment) Bill [H.L.]
3.36 p.m.
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 it self into Committee.—(Lord Bassam of Brighton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[THE PRINCIPAL DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (LORD TORDOFF) in the Chair.]
Clause 4 [Criminal investigations and proceedings]:
The Principal Deputy Chairman of Committees: Before the noble Lord, Lord Lester, makes his speech, I should perhaps point out that if Amendment No. 19 is agreed to, I shall not be able to call Amendment No. 20 under the pre-emption rules.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill Lord Lester of Herne Hill moved Amendment No. 19:
Page 6. line 7, leave out from ("19B,") to ("a") in line 9 and insert ("the court in granting such relief or remedy, or making such order, within its powers (other than the award of damages) shall have regard to the need to avoid serious prejudice to").
The noble Lord said: The Bill as it stands provides that no remedy other than damages shall be obtainable in an action brought against the police or the prosecution service unless the court is satisfied that such a remedy will not prejudice a criminal investigation or prosecution. In other words—if one can penetrate the double negatives in that rather unattractively drafted provision—the court must essentially find that the remedy is harmless to any possible investigation before it may be granted. That is an extremely stiff test, made worse by the use of the highly imprecise word, "prejudice". No degree of prejudice is specified; any prejudice will do, with the result that the test is to be applied by the courts in a vague, ill-defined and narrow way.
That stiff and ill-defined test applies to all non-pecuniary damages, including declaratory relief. In practice, that means that even where there is a clear-cut case of intentional direct racial discrimination, the court will not even be able to make a declaratory order that the police or the prosecution have acted unlawfully until it has satisfied itself completely that no possible investigation or prosecution could in any way be hindered. That is quite unnecessarily narrow and frustrates the need for an effective remedy.
The amendment aims to remedy those serious defects by providing that in exercising its discretion—I emphasise that this is a matter of judicial discretion, on which our courts are eminently well suited to decide on whether there should be a remedy—in deciding whether to award a non-pecuniary remedy—that is, a remedy other than damages, which are in any case always awarded subject to the courts' discretion—the courts should have regard to the need to avoid serious prejudice to any potential investigation or prosecution.
The requirement in the amendment for "serious prejudice" means that there must be a possibility of real and substantive harm before a complainant who has suffered racial discrimination is deprived of the relief to which he would otherwise be entitled. The amendment is modest. It preserves the vital right of the accused to a fair trial while ensuring that those who suffer from the civil wrong of racial discrimination can obtain effective remedies. Therefore, it seeks to preserve that vital fair balance between the rights of the accused in a criminal case and the rights of victims in civil proceedings.
That will mean that a court will be more able to grant a declaratory remedy where discrimination has taken place. That is important for the very good practical reason that one needs to have what is called a "finding" by a court or tribunal of an act of unlawful discrimination as a precondition for subsequent monitoring and enforcement action by the Commission for Racial Equality; for example, under Section 62 of the 1976 Act. Unless there is a finding, which means a declaratory judgment or order, the Commission for Racial Equality is powerless to take steps effectively to stop the discrimination from happening again.
As the Bill stands, the CRE will be unable to mount effective enforcement action against the police or the prosecution service unless the court is satisfied that no prejudice can arise. In making it easier to obtain a declaration, the amendment makes it easier for the CRE to use its powers where necessary. We can trust the courts to make quite sure, as they always do, that they will exercise their discretion before granting a declaration and to ensure that it is granted only in the interests of the justice of everyone.
The Macpherson report made clear that the police and prosecution service must be subject to the full force of the Race Relations Act, Although that seems extremely technical, it is not at all technical. As it stands, the Bill threatens, in the way that I have tried to explain, to restrict severely the possibility of obtaining effective redress in those, it is hoped, very rare cases where the police service or the prosecution discriminate on racial grounds. The amendment aims to remedy that fault. I beg to move.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: It is difficult not always to have some sympathy with the noble Lord, Lord Lester, particularly when he speaks about matters of which he has very great knowledge, as he does on this Bill and other issues.
I come to this matter very much as a layman. I am not a lawyer, as your Lordships know. However, in picking up some of the phrases used by the noble Lord, Lord Lester, it is important that where a question arises of a criminal investigation and a criminal trial, that should, at least in some respects while the matter is proceeding, take second place to the civil remedy for unlawful discrimination. I do not mean that every crime which is likely to lead to a criminal trial is inherently more important than unlawful discrimination. Clearly, unlawful discrimination can be of the most appalling character and can overtake all kinds of lesser criminal offences. That is what creates the difficulty in the whole design of this particular part of the Bill.
The noble Lord hoped that it would be possible for someone who believed he had suffered unfair discrimination at least to obtain a declaration or a decision on the matter from the tribunal or court. However, his amendment mentions relief and remedies as well as a declaration. During debate on the next amendment I shall come to the question of damages in

757
comparison with other remedies. It seems to me that remedies of whatever character are likely to prejudice an investigation, perhaps even only in a small way.
However, I believe that a more serious point also arises from what the noble Lord, Lord Lester, said. I give an example: the police may be in the middle of investigating a criminal offence—perhaps a serious one—and take a little while to complete their investigations, find the people they are looking for and gather all the necessary evidence, and so on. That can take a long time. In the course of that, someone who is involved may believe that the person being investigated has committed unlawful discrimination and begin the legal process for civil action against that character. That may occur while the criminal investigation is still proceeding. If the tribunal or the court decides that there has been unfair discrimination, the CRE then becomes involved and, presumably, from that point on, every morning looks over the shoulders, as it were, of the police who are investigating the crime. The same is true not only of the police in the course of the investigation but of the prosecuting authorities in the course of deciding whether or not to bring a prosecution, as well as of the court itself once it leads to a case.
I believe that, at least in ongoing cases, the mechanism of the race relations aspect of the case should await the decision of the court on the criminal offence. To do anything else seems to me to risk prejudice. Of course, I fully accept that that does not entirely extricate us from the problem. In a way, criminal investigations which do not lead to a court case in a comparatively finite period of time are never fully closed. The file is closed, as it were. However, if new evidence arises, maybe some months or, in some cases, many years later—I read of such a case recently in a newspaper—the file can be re-opened. If one had to wait until the file was completely closed, the race relations aspects would never cut in at all. Therefore, I am aware that there is a difficulty about the matter. But with respect to the Government and the noble Lord, Lord Lester, I do not believe that either has been successful in hitting upon the solution to the problem.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: I am sure that the noble Lord is right that our attempted solution may not be perfect. But is he aware that that is part of a quite normal problem in relation to civil and criminal proceedings? For example, if there are traffic offences and negligence proceedings the courts are frequently in the position of having to decide how to deal with civil proceedings—perhaps for negligent driving—and criminal proceedings for driving without due care or reckless driving.
Does not the noble Lord agree that it is a matter for the courts' discretion to decide how to deal with those problems rather than seeking to fetter them in a particular way in the context of this particular Bill?
Lord Cope of Berkeley: The noble Lord may be right. As I understand it from my limited knowledge of the matter, generally speaking, in the circumstances which the noble Lord outlined the negligence part of
758
the proceedings waits until the criminal case has been completed. The civil proceedings then get going and a decision is made as to whether or not there was negligence.
Of course, in civil proceedings there is a different standard of proof and a different mechanism altogether for deciding the issue. That is part of the difficulty. The requirement in a criminal trial is to prove the matter beyond a reasonable doubt whereas the requirement in a civil case is less. That is one of the reasons that the negligence claim must be left until the criminal matter has been dealt with.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Lester, that a certain amount of discretion will have to be left somewhere, not least to overcome the problem to which I referred earlier of when exactly the file may be regarded as having been closed so that the civil issues can proceed. But at this point in time I am not entirely convinced that either formulation will provide a satisfactory answer to the problem.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: The noble Lord, Lord Cope, has begun to point us in the right direction. It is not an unusual or unique problem; but this amendment raises the issue of whether the test should be lower than that which is presently in the Bill.
The intention of the test in new Section 4A in Clause 4(1) is to ensure that as far as possible the courts are satisfied that relief sought does not prejudice the investigation or prosecution of the process, thus preserving the criminal court as the forum for determining guilt or innocence.
It also serves to reinforce our commitment to trying to achieve the aims of reducing crime and the fear of crime and dispensing justice fairly and effectively. That is an objective which we all share. The test proposed in this amendment would shift the balance of the test which the civil court should apply. In our view that may bring about the undesirable outcome of civil cases being allowed to proceed notwithstanding that there may be some adverse effect on the criminal process, which, again, falls short of serious prejudice.
Furthermore, in order to determine whether the remedy sought will cause serious prejudice—I use the noble Lord's term—the civil court will have to examine in more depth the substance of the criminal investigation. Such action may itself prejudice the investigation or subsequent proceedings, particularly where media publicity, as often is the case in such matters, begins to arise from the civil proceedings.
The proposed amendment may, therefore, undermine our overall objective of ensuring that granting the relief sought will not prejudice a criminal investigation, any criminal proceedings or decision to institute criminal proceedings. Prejudice in those circumstances means detriment.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: But on that view I do not understand why the Government would allow a remedy in damages to be awarded. The present clause states that,
"No remedy other than damages shall be obtainable".

759
Therefore, the Government are to allow a damages award to he made, even though the court is not satisfied about whether it will prejudice a criminal investigation. I do not understand the logic of saying that you can obtain damages for racial discrimination when there is a criminal investigation but you cannot obtain a finding of discrimination.
Surely an award of damages is predicated upon a finding of unlawful discrimination. If that is so, why cannot the court make a declaration giving the finding and therefore allowing the CRE to use its follow-up powers? I simply do not understand the logic of the Government's position.
I understand the logic of the position of the noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley. He says that there should be no remedy, including damages. That is what I understand his later amendment provides. But the Government's position is that you can have a damages award but not a declaratory award. There can be no finding. I find that completely impossible to understand.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: The problem is the complexity of the test which the noble Lord seeks to impute into the legislation.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: I am not addressing whether the prejudice should be serious or not. That is the question of the test. Let us leave that to one side and assume that I am wholly wrong and that the test should be simply one of prejudice. I am asking why the Government intend to allow damages to be awarded but not a finding of unlawful discrimination.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I believe that I understand the point which the noble Lord, with his usual legal wisdom, is making. But is not the case that a declaration or injunctive relief could prejudice the case and also the issue of damages, which may be separate from that? Of course I listen to what he has to say on this point. But in these circumstances we are concerned that prejudice will mean detrimental disadvantage, which is what we are trying to avoid. We believe that there is little point in complicating what is essentially a straightforward matter by identifying degrees of prejudice.
We believe that this merely places an additional and unnecessary burden on the civil courts. Having listened to that point, I hope that the noble Lord will agree to withdraw Amendment No. 19. I shall take account of the points which he has raised in the debate. I shall read what he said in Hansard and reflect further upon it. But we wish to keep things simple. Therefore, although all these mechanisms may not be perfectly in place, I hope that we can make some more progress on this issue.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: I am sorry not to be entirely satisfied with the Minister's reply. When I move Amendment No. 20, I shall deal with the point about damages as opposed to other remedies.
760
I am concerned that the investigation process should not be prejudiced in any respect while it is proceeding, not only in the legal sense of prejudicing it but also in the more ordinary sense of the criminal investigation being delayed and confused. The police will be doing their best to solve the crime; to bring together the evidence; and to find the right people to charge and to give evidence. I am concerned that in the course of doing all that they may be delayed and the matter much complicated by the necessity to respond at that stage to the racial accusation.
Afterwards, when the investigation has run its course and the individual concerned has been prosecuted and the criminal aspect has been dealt with, those concerned should be answerable for what happened in the course of the investigation. But we do not want the life of the police, the prosecuting authorities and the courts made more difficult in the pursuit of solving crime by having those proceedings taking place at the same time.
I am not making a judgment that no racial discrimination can possibly be worse than all crime. Of course that is not the case. Slightly looser wording and perhaps the introduction of the word "serious" in respect of the prejudice may be a partial answer to this very difficult question. But it seems that we are still left with a considerable difficulty.
4 p.m.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I begin to see more degrees of difficulty having listened to what both the noble Lord, Lord Lester, and the noble Lord, Lord Cope, said. I recognise what the noble Lord, Lord Lester, says about the implications of awarding damages. We will seek to reconcile the issue. The noble Lord, Lord Cope, is right about the complexity and the fact that the civil proceedings may have a bearing and undermine the validity.
Lord Goldsmith: Does the noble Lord agree that a degree of confusion creeps in over the question of remedy in the event that proceedings are concluded and whether proceedings should be continued during the time that there is a criminal investigation or criminal proceedings? My understanding of the Bill is that new subsection (4D) deals with the point made particularly by the noble Lord, Lord Cope, that proceedings would not continue for racial discrimination so long as there were criminal proceedings afoot or a criminal investigation had been decided upon. It happens to be the same test which the noble Lord, Lord Lester, criticises under new subsection (4A), but I do not see, unless I have misunderstood, that he seeks to amend that test under new subsection (4D). However, the test there is whether or not there will be prejudice to any criminal proceedings. Does the Minister also agree that the court is likely, when looking at prejudice, not to have regard just to any fanciful prejudice but to something which it is satisfied is, indeed, prejudice?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: That was a helpful intervention. I think that the noble Lord, Lord

761
Goldsmith, has read the situation accurately. For that reason I believe it would be most helpful if the noble Lord, Lord Lester, would kindly withdraw his amendment. I am quite happy, as I said earlier, to pick up any loose points that may have arisen from today's debate. We believe that our simple approach is perhaps the best way forward.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: I am grateful to everyone who has taken part, including the noble Lord, Lord Goldsmith, for a very helpful intervention with which I agree. I shall come later to new subsection (4B). It may require separate consideration. It is right that the Bill gives two kinds of protection of criminal investigations. One appears in new subsection (4A) and the other in new subsection (4D). New subsection (4A) deals with the remedies that can be granted for unlawful racial discrimination. New subsection (4D) deals with the kind of protective orders that are necessary to preserve the integrity of, for example, criminal proceedings.
To make clear beyond doubt what our position is, it is very important that the Commission for Racial Equality—which certainly supports the amendment—should be in a position to have findings of unlawful racial discrimination as the foundation for its monitoring and follow-up powers under the 1976 Act. The problem about awards of damages alone is that they do not qualify, technically, as a finding. But I repeat that it is wholly illogical to allow an award of damages to be made which is predicated upon there having been a finding of unlawful discrimination without allowing the actual finding to be made.
I can see that the defect in my amendment is that it may go too far in allowing, for example, injunctions to be granted that may be wholly unnecessary. If the Government do not do so themselves, I am minded to narrow the scope of my amendment at Report stage to make sure that a finding can be made or a declaration granted in addition to an award of damages, but not an injunction. That is very easy, technically, to do. One comes later to new subsection (4D). I hope that I have made our position clear. I hope that we can reach a consensus before Report stage as to how to reconcile the rights of the accused with the rights of victims in this context. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Cope of Berkeley Lord Cope of Berkeley moved Amendment No. 20:
Page 6, line 7, leave out ("other than damages").
The noble Lord said: This is a continuation of the previous debate. The point has already been made by the noble Lord, Lord Lester. I do not see what the difference is between the award of damages, on the one hand, and the other remedies which may be open to the court, on the other. Any other remedy, any other finding, is apparently likely, in some circumstances at any rate, to prejudice the criminal proceedings or the investigation whereas damages will never do so. That seems to me an inherently unlikely proposition to write into the statute book.
To put it at its lowest, I do not think that this amendment can do any harm. If damages never do look like prejudicing criminal investigations or
762
proceedings, then the court would be able to grant them just as they could another remedy. On the other hand, if the amendment is not passed and the damages at some stage—in some circumstances which we may or may not be able to envisage at the moment—do seem likely to be prejudicial, then, with the Bill as it stands, nothing could be done about it. The prejudice would take place, and nothing at all could be done. At its lowest, it seems to me that the amendment has something to commend it. I commend it to the Committee.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: Our intention in framing new subsection (4A) is to strike the right balance between the interests of individuals in pursuing a legitimate claim under the Race Relations Act, on the one hand, and reducing delays in the criminal justice system, on the other, meeting the legitimate needs of victims and witnesses and promoting confidence in the criminal justice system.
The amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Cope, and the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, would, as we understand it, remove the ability of a claimant under new Section 19B of the Bill to pursue any remedy in a case against the public prosecutor or investigator unless they could satisfy the civil court that the remedy itself would not prejudice the criminal investigation. That much is clear.
The main thrust of the Race Relations Act is to provide financial redress for victims of discrimination. We consider it highly unlikely that the award of damages would, of itself, prejudice criminal proceedings or investigations whereas other remedies, such as injunctive relief, may have that effect. For that reason we think it right that claimants should be able to obtain financial redress wherever possible. The present wording of new subsection (4A) makes that clear. However, in the few cases where consideration of the award of damages might have a prejudicial effect, the civil court could, in such circumstances, exercise its power to stay the proceedings until such time as the risk of prejudice to the criminal proceedings had passed. As it currently stands, the Government could not therefore agree to Amendment No. 20. I hope that the noble Lord will consider withdrawing it.
I am, however, happy to consider the points made in this and the earlier debate, look at the two amendments together and see if we can better perfect the situation so that there are no apparent contradictions in the way in which the legislation seeks to work.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: I accept entirely that the Minister and the Government are trying to seek the right balance. We are all trying to seek the right balance in this matter. However, I am still not in the least clear what is special about damages. The Minister said that he thought it highly unlikely—not impossible—that damages could prejudice a case or an investigation. If the possibility exists, we should not rule it out. The noble Lord did not say that it is certain that damages could not prejudice a case. He just said that it is highly unlikely. That is probably right. But he

763
also pointed out that, with regard to the matters to which we shall come a little later, the court has the right to stay proceedings. I fully understand that. However, that does not affect the immediate right to have a remedy such as damages, or for that matter another remedy, which might or might not prejudice the ongoing investigation and proceedings. The fact that there is a stay is a separate matter which is valuable and important and provides some of the balance that is required by otherwise preventing or limiting the remedy that there might be.
Lord Goldsmith: If the Act works as the Bill intends, does the noble Lord agree that in a case where criminal proceedings are taking place, there will be a stay of those proceedings until the criminal proceedings have come to an end? At that stage, the proceedings would revive. If the applicant cannot get damages in the proceedings, there will be nothing the applicant can get at all. Does the noble Lord agree that at that stage the only prejudice could be in relation to subsequent or other proceedings where an injunction might give rise to prejudice but an award in the instant case would not?
Lord Cope of Berkeley: I am not sure that I follow all the ramifications of what the noble Lord said. In the first place, I am concerned not only about proceedings but also about investigations and matters before the proceedings take place. In the second place, I realise that quite often the stay in the civil proceedings is what will prevent the prejudice taking place in the criminal proceedings. But I do not see that anything in the Bill, if it were amended in accordance with my amendment or, for that matter, if it were unamended, would prevent damages or any other remedy being awarded when the civil proceedings restart after the criminal proceedings have been concluded, whichever way that turns out.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: Perhaps I may help the noble Lord by suggesting what would happen. Let us suppose that there is a whole series of multiple complaints by black alleged victims alleging racial discrimination and that criminal proceedings against them and against the police are really complicated, which is not unheard of. One might then need to be able to grant effective remedies and at the same time preserve a fair trial. Is not the noble Lord, Lord Goldsmith, right that it is important to have the prophylactic protective order under new subsection (4D), which is there to ensure that one can hold up the civil proceedings until after the criminal proceedings have occurred in a particular case but then be able to award the victim in that case an effective remedy, whether by way of damages or a finding, thereafter? Is there not otherwise a danger in such a multiple case
764
that someone who is wholly innocent and a victim of race discrimination simply will not receive an effective civil remedy?
Lord Cope of Berkeley: He would receive his remedy, whether by damages or otherwise, when the civil case proceeded following the stay.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: I have not made that point clear. There will then be other investigations and other proceedings. They may be wholly separate. With the very loose test here, the danger is that fettering the judge's discretion in the way that the noble Lord's amendment would do would mean that there was no remedy at all.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: I now understand. The point that the noble Lord was seeking to make was with regard to multiple proceedings affecting different people. I do not see that that alters the considerations as to whether damages are special enough to be given a special position under new subsection (4A) by comparison with other remedies. It is just as important that someone in the unconnected case which has been completed should be able to get any kind of remedy—not only damages but any kind of remedy which might otherwise have been available—assuming that it will not prejudice some of those in the multiple case.
The point of the amendment is to ask why damages are special. I am not trying to deny someone having a remedy. It is the stay which will delay the remedy. Certainly, we do not want to prejudice other cases or investigations or have other cases or investigations prejudiced. But I still do not see why damages are so special in this respect that they should be singled out as permissible in new subsection (4A) when nothing else is and when, by definition, if they are awarded, they will be prejudicial as it were.
The Minister does not seem inclined to speak again, but he said earlier that he would consider the matter further. In view of that, I do not think that noble Lords would wish to make a final decision, even on Amendment No. 20, which deals with the lesser of the two points involved. Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill Lord Lester of Herne Hill moved Amendment No. 21:
Page 6, leave out lines 43 to 48.
The noble Lord said: This is a continuing dialogue on another version of the same problem. New Section 57(4D) states:
"Where the decision to institute criminal proceedings has been made or the criminal proceedings have been instituted, the court shall grant a stay or [in Scotland] list of the proceedings … unless it is satisfied that the continuance of those proceedings would not prejudice any criminal investigation and would be unlikely to affect any issue which might arise in the criminal proceedings".
One has there a very broad prophylactic power, where criminal proceedings have been commenced, for the court to be able to grant that protective order.

765
However, new subsection (4E) at the moment deals with the opposite—where no decision to institute criminal proceedings has been made. It states that,
"the court shall not grant a stay … unless it is satisfied that the continuance of those proceedings would be contrary to the public interest or might prejudice any criminal investigation, the decision about instituting criminal proceedings or any subsequent criminal proceedings".
I am not aware that I have ever seen anything quite like that in any other statute. I do not understand why the provision is necessary. This is exactly the kind of situation where common law discretionary powers in the courts could deal with some unforeseen problem. The danger of the provision as it stands is that it deals with cases where criminal proceedings are not instituted. Therefore, it deals with cases where new subsection (4D) is not necessary. We do not understand why new subsection (4E) is then included. It seems to us that new subsections (4A) and (4B) between them enable the courts to make quite sure that any remedy granted will not prejudice a prosecution. In other words, they give adequate powers to secure a fair balance between the rights of the accused in criminal proceedings and the rights of the victims in civil proceedings. This is therefore a probing amendment to try to understand why the Government think that what seems like a fairly extraordinary provision is necessary. I beg to move.
Lord Goldsmith: I do not know the answer to the question posed by the noble Lord. I look forward to hearing it myself. One of the difficulties may be that the new subsection (4D) contains an important power. I believe that noble Lords agree with that. Perhaps one needs to spell out why it is important. The potential prejudice to criminal investigation may be, for example, that people who are defendants in such criminal proceedings find that in civil proceedings they are required to undermine or prejudice their defence by giving evidence or giving explanations. There are all kinds of examples of that. I do not understand there to be any doubt that the new subsection (4D) is an important prophylactic power, as the noble Lord has said.
Some noble Lords may have been concerned that in the absence of something along the lines of the new subsection (4E), the court may take the view that it now has power to stay in circumstances which do not fall within (4D). I have much sympathy with the point made by the noble Lord, that the common law would normally provide such a power. However, I understand the concern, where specific powers are given in one circumstance, that it may be thought that, unless the position is spelt out that the court has discretion in the other circumstances, it may believe that it does not. That is the only suggestion that I can offer on this matter. If that is why it is there, in substance it may be a good thing to include it.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: There is a sense in which these two new subsections—(4D) and (4E)—are in the wrong order. The situation in which there is no decision to institute criminal proceedings for the time
766
being is likely to arise before criminal proceedings are instituted as opposed to afterwards. I do not argue that the drafting should be altered in that respect.
I believe that there is the difficulty of possible prejudice to continuing investigation before a decision to prosecute has been taken one way or the other. Therefore, in law there has to be something like new subsection (4E). As to whether that needs to be specified in the Bill, or whether it is covered by common law is a matter upon which I do not feel qualified to pronounce. Such discussions as I have had on the point suggest that it is desirable that it should be in the Bill. I leave that to those who know more about it than I do.
The important point is that no prosecutor, the police or other investigator should get into the position—which they may if this amendment were carried and nothing else happened—of being pushed into taking a decision to institute proceedings by a pending civil action so as to seek the advantage of new subsection (4D) and a stay in those proceedings if (4E) or some common law substitute were not available.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I believe that my explanation will be helpful. The presumption in subsection (4E) in Clause 4(1) of the Bill, is that proceedings will not be stayed where no decision has been made to institute criminal proceedings, unless the court is satisfied that to continue the civil proceedings would be contrary to public interest or might prejudice any criminal investigation, the decision about instituting criminal proceedings or any subsequent criminal proceedings. That will place a heavy burden on an investigator or prosecutor seeking a stay. They will have to be in a position to satisfy the court on the likelihood of prejudice to criminal investigations or proceedings before they could secure a stay of a claim under the Act.
It is necessary to have this power available so that when there is justification, the court can hear arguments to allow it to decide whether a stay is appropriate. Of course, a stay does not remove the availability of a remedy. Proceedings, which have been stayed, can be resumed once the grounds for the stay are no longer present. It may be argued that the court could grant a stay without this provision. That is correct, but without the test in new subsection (4E) of the Bill, the courts may apply a lesser test—that is the critical issue—when deciding to stay a claim under the Act which would not be beneficial to claimants.
I hope, with that explanation, that noble Lords will feel able to withdraw their amendment.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: Before the Minister sits down, perhaps he can help me to decide what to do. He said that there is a heavy presumption in favour of the alleged victim of race discrimination. If he looks at new subsection (4D) and compares it with new subsection (4E) he will see that in new subsection (4D) the test is that the circumstances "would not prejudice" any criminal investigation. Looking at new

767
subsection (4E) one sees a looser test: "might prejudice". The test is not "would prejudice", but "might prejudice". In addition, there are the words,
"would be contrary to the public interest or might prejudice".
Given that new subsection (4E) is an obstacle to the right of effective access of an alleged victim of race discrimination to justice—in other words, it operates to debar an alleged victim of race discrimination by, let us say, the Police Service—I do not understand why what seems to be a stricter test against the alleged victim is inserted in (4E) than in new subsection (4D). What is meant by,
"contrary to the public interest"?
That is an additional test—in addition to the "might prejudice" test rather than the "would prejudice" test. Why does it say "might prejudice" rather than "would prejudice" if the Government's intention is that this should be a strict test in favour of the victim rather than something that may violate Article 6 of the convention on human rights read with Article 14, the right of effective access to justice?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I can see why the noble Lord may be concerned. He is helpfully drawing attention to the different quality of tests that may apply in each of the subsections. I am happy to reflect further on the way in which those tests may operate, on their interrelationship and on how they may work. If the noble Lord is happy to withdraw his amendment today, I am happy to agree to look further at the wording so that there is consistency of application in this area where there may be good cause to have that kind of consistency.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: I am happy to withdraw the amendment in the hope that the Home Office will think carefully, not only about the debate, but also about Articles 6 and 14 of the convention on human rights on the right of effective access to justice.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: Before the noble Lord actually withdraws the amendment, he should give some thought to the question of which is the tougher test in the circumstances. In the subsection (4E) case, where the criminal proceedings have not been started—indeed they have not even been decided upon and the investigation is continuing—it would be extremely difficult to prove that a civil action would definitely be prejudicial. Inevitably, it is a little more unlikely. That is why the words "might prejudice" are in there, whereas the test in subsection (4D), which is expressed the other way around, says "would not prejudice".
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: I shall not prolong this matter, but perhaps I can make my concern clear. The starting point is the common law right and the convention right of effective access to justice for the remedy for unlawful racial discrimination. That is the starting point. That has to be balanced against the
768
right of the accused to a fair trial in criminal proceedings. New subsection (4E) deals with a case where there are no criminal proceedings.
Lord Goldsmith: Would my learned friend—sorry, that is my day job—would the noble Lord consider that new subsection(4E) does not impose an obligation on the court to stay where there are those tests? It is a prohibition on the court from staying, except where that test is satisfied. Therefore, a court would still have a discretion. The noble Lord may also take into account that in considering that discretion the court would be likely to balance considerations. One aspect would be how long the stay would be before the criminal investigation had been concluded, and balance that against the hardship to the victim of having to wait for his remedy. I offer those suggestions as the noble Lord is considering this amendment and they may assist in understanding why the word "might" is there.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: Perhaps I may complete my point. The problem is that we cannot oust the jurisdiction of the court or deprive a person of effective access to a remedy under the human rights convention except where necessary; that is, not where it might be contrary to public interest or might prejudice a criminal investigation, but where it is necessary and proportionate to protect a legitimate stated aim.
My concern is that that confers a power on the courts to exercise their discretion in a loose way. Although the Human Rights Act may come to the rescue, it ought not to be left to the Human Rights Act; we should get it right in this Bill. We should not write on the face of the Bill something which gives too wide a power to prevent the victims of race discrimination having effective access to justice. I have made my points, supplemented by the points made by other noble Lords. The Minister indicated that he will reflect upon this, as I am sure we all will. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill Lord Lester of Herne Hill moved Amendment No. 22:
Page 7, line I, leave out subsection (2).
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 22 is part of the continuing problem and deals with the questionnaire procedure which, if I may say so without being self-regarding, was my invention in the 1976 Bill. It is a useful procedure which allows potential victims of discrimination to question someone they feel has been discriminating against them before deciding whether or not to launch proceedings. If the person being questioned refuses to answer or answers in a tricky way when the matter comes to the county court or employment tribunal, they are able to exercise a wide discretion in deciding, as a matter of evidence, what to make of the way in which the respondent has or has not replied to the questionnaire. It is similar to what lawyers call a "letter before action" but is of a statutory and formal kind.
Amendment No. 22 seeks to remove the proposed special right of public authorities—nobody else—as respondents in claims in new Section 19B to apply to the court to prevent any inference from a failure to reply to the questions in the statutory questionnaire, or from any particular reply where such reply would prejudice criminal proceedings or reveal the reason why a prosecution was not brought forward.
We entirely accept that there is a need to prevent discrimination cases turning into a civil version of a criminal trial. That is common ground. But there appears to us to be no need for this provision because Section 65(2) of the 1976 Act already says that a court or tribunal can draw inferences only if the respondent,
"deliberately, and without reasonable excuse",
failed to reply in an adequate manner. The fear that a reply would prejudice criminal proceedings or turn a discrimination ca se into a guilt-determining exercise would surely qualify before any court as a reasonable excuse for failing to reply. This provision is therefore unnecessary because it is already adequately dealt with in the 1976 Act. I beg to move.
Baroness Whitaker: Can my noble friend the Minister tell the Committee how the Bill will implement the relevant undertaking of my right honourable friend the Home Secretary contained in his letter of July to the CRE—it was copied to me as the then vice-chairman of the Camden Race Equality Council so I should perhaps declare an interest—when he wrote,
"We accept that there should be a duty on courts and tribunals to draw inferences from the failure of respondents to complete s.65 questionnaires and that there should be a time limit of 8 weeks".
The point at issue is that the answers to the questionnaire giving details of the respondent's personnel procedures and practices, and so forth, are a crucial aid in proving discrimination. If an applicant is well represented, the legal representative can tease all this out, but it is often the case that the applicant is unrepresented. Without the evidence from the questionnaire it is difficult to flush out what we call "institutional racism". A refusal, therefore, to answer questions is important.
I hope that we shall see a duty on courts and tribunals to draw an inference from a refusal, particularly as my right honourable friend the Home Secretary said that this will be implemented. As far as I can see it belongs in this part of the Bill but, as will be evident, I am net a learned Lord and shall be happy to see it wherever it fits. Perhaps the Minister will give his attention to that for a later stage of the Bill.
Lord Goldsmith: The noble Lord, in moving this amendment, in a sense said that the reason for tabling the amendment is simply because the clause is unnecessary. It is relevant to consider, therefore, that there is no issue in relation to two aspects. First, I agree with the noble Lord that there is no issue on the importance of the questionnaire procedure and of the courts having an ability and, in appropriate circumstances, a duty to draw adverse inferences. As my noble friend Lady Whitaker said, sometimes that
770
is the only way of proving discrimination and it is an important weapon. The second point not at issue is that the court would and should be able to take the view that an adverse inference should not be drawn because of the circumstances.
All that comes down quite simply to this. Section 65(2) of the Act to which the noble Lord, Lord Lester, referred says that the court will not draw such an inference where it appears that the respondent had a reasonable excuse for not answering the question. The clause makes it plain on the face of the Bill that it would be a reasonable excuse if a criminal investigation was under way. For my part, I feel that that should be a reasonable excuse if it would significantly prejudice that criminal investigation.
It is right, therefore, that the Bill should make it plain that there is that exception in those circumstances—limited to those circumstances—as a way, as the Minister said earlier, of making sure of a balance between protecting victims of crime, of seeing a criminal investigation properly pursued and the rights of those subject to discrimination being properly maintained.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: We have to be careful. First, I entirely agree that the questionnaire procedure is important. It needs to be preserved and continued in a valid way in the context of this Bill as it worked under the Act. The noble Lord, Lord Lester, explained that it was his invention in the first place and he is to be congratulated on the fact that it was an important element in making the existing Act effective.
We are also all agreed, as has come out already, that we do not want to prejudice either proceedings or-investigations of criminal offences. Clearly in some cases the answers to questionnaires could do that. What struck me was the difference between proposed new subsections (4A) and (4B). For example, the Crown Prosecution Service could, presumably, always say, "Well, we won't reveal the reasons behind a decision not to introduce criminal proceedings". Indeed, taken by itself, new subsection (4A) would be a complete let-out for the CPS from the whole effect of the Bill. It is only when it comes to the consideration of such an application by the court that questions of prejudice have to be considered.
I would have expected mention of the word "prejudice" to appear in subsection (4A) in that those who make the otherwise unsatisfactory reply, as it were, to the questionnaire would have to do their best to explain to the court why they thought it would prejudice proceedings. In some cases that would be obvious and those concerned would not need to "bang on" about it, but in others it may be a matter of doubt. We certainly do not want to give the CPS, or anyone else for that matter, a free run under this legislation.
I agree with the Government in their response to the comment made by the noble Lord, Lord Lester, that this provision is specifically directed at public authorities. Of course, it is not public authorities generally; it relates to those concerned with criminal

771
investigation and prosecution. I believe that they should have a special position. However, whether that special position arises from the necessity to include such a clause or whether Section 65(2) of the Act can be relied upon is a different question. Either way, it places investigation and prosecution authorities in a different position.
I should also point out that the reason I do not think that the prosecuting and investigating authority should be left out of the matter is that this was absolutely central to the Lawrence case. The decisions that were made in the course of that investigation regarding whether or not to prosecute were absolutely crucial in the Macpherson report. Indeed, as we all know, a private prosecution was mounted at one point; so there can be no question of leaving such authorities out in these matters.
We should also bear in mind the point I made earlier that, in one sense, no criminal investigation is ever wholly closed. The possibility of it being re-opened and considered again can occur at more or less any point, even many years after the file has lain dormant or been put into the long-term pending filing system of the police. I give way to the noble Lord.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: I am grateful to the noble Lord. Following his line of reasoning, I wonder whether the noble Lord will agree with me in the following example of a case of someone who has been the victim of race discrimination in this context. New Subsection (4B)(a) applies to a case where no decision to institute criminal proceedings has been made. The noble Lord will see that it is very wide in giving what the noble Lord, Lord Goldsmith, referred to as a proper reason within the statute. It refers to,
"any decision to institute criminal proceedings or any subsequent criminal proceedings and would not be contrary to the public interest".
That is not just the criminal proceedings in relation to the alleged victim. We are dealing with a case where there has been no decision to institute criminal proceedings of any kind. Does the noble Lord agree that that, at any rate, seems to be far too wide a protection of the investigative and prosecutorial system and that it would entirely frustrate or negate the ability of a victim to obtain an effective remedy?
Lord Cope of Berkeley: The noble Lord has made a good point. In a sense, it brings us back to his earlier point about multiple investigations and proceedings. In particular, the inclusion of the word "any" is a difficulty in this respect.
However, when discussing an earlier amendment the noble Lord also questioned the meaning of the phrase,
"contrary to the public interest".
I must admit that my first expectation was that this was a term of lawyers' art, which would be well documented in some books. Indeed, I made enquiries in that regard when considering the Bill but did not get a very clear answer as to what might be "the public
772
interest". I think that it could be used extremely widely in some cases. The noble Lord has also made a good point in that respect.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I should, first, register my gratitude to all those Members of the Committee who have contributed to this short debate, which has been very illuminating. I am grateful for the comments made from all sides of the Chamber.
My noble friend Lady Whitaker is absolutely right to remind the Committee that the Government have agreed that there should be a duty on courts to draw adverse inferences from the failure of respondents to complete the Section 65 questionnaire. Indeed, that is one of the issues that the Government intend to consider and address in the equalities Bill that we promised in our equality statement on 30th November last. My noble friend gave us a very helpful and valuable reminder in that respect.
The Government accept that there is some force in the argument advanced by the noble Lord, Lord Lester, that it may be unnecessary to provide an opportunity for an early court decision on whether a refusal to respond to a questionnaire issued under Section 65 of the Act is reasonable where a public investigator or prosecutor believes that a reply may prejudice a criminal investigation or proceedings.
However, we feel that it is essential for claimants, investigators, prosecutors and the courts alike to make clear on the face of the Bill that a Section 65 questionnaire need not be completed where it might prejudice criminal proceedings or investigations. We believe that this is consistent with the theme running through Clause 4 of trying to strike a balance between the ability of an individual to seek redress through the civil courts, while ensuring that the commitment to reduce crime, and the fear of crime, to dispense justice fairly and effectively and to promote the rule of law is not undermined or weakened.
For that reason, I am able to tell the Committee that the Government are prepared to reconsider Clause 4(2). On that basis, I rather hope that the noble Lord, Lord Lester, will be content and feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Avebury: Before the Minister sits down, I should remind him that this is the second time that he has been asked about the phrase,
"contrary to the public interest".
Is it not possible for the noble Lord to give Members of the Committee some explanation of the meaning of the phrase in the two contexts that have been mentioned?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: It would perhaps be helpful to give some further thought to what is "in the public interest". I believe that it is in the public interest for us to get this piece of legislation right; that is what we seek to do. Indeed, that is the purpose of this debate

773
and the important discussions that we have had. I think that we should rely on that. We will take this matter away and consider it further.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: It is very good news that there will he an equality Bill and that the point about drawing inferences raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, will be addressed in it. It is not, of course, worth debating that issue today. It is also very good news that the Government have agreed to reconsider this matter because of the need to ensure effective access to justice in cases of this gravity. Therefore, on that basis, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 4 agreed to.
Clauses 5 to 7 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 23 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Lord Lester of Herne Hill Lord Lester of Herne Hill moved Amendment No. 24:
Before Clause 8, insert the following new clause—
GENERAL DUTY ON PUBLIC AUTHORITIES
(" . For section 71 of the Race Relations Act 1976 there shall be substituted—
"General duty on public authorities.
71.—(1) Without prejudice to its obligation to comply with any other provision of this Act, a public authority to which this section applies shall have due regard to the need—

(a) to eliminate unlawful racial discrimination;

(b) to promote equality of opportunity between persons of different colour, race, nationality or ethnic or national origins; and

(c) to promote good relations between persons of different racial groups.

(2) The compliancy of each public authority to which this section applies with the requirements of this section shall be subject to inspection and appraisal in accordance with regulations to he made by the Secretary of State after consultation with the Commission for Racial Equality.
(3) This section applies to every body or other person specified in Schedule A1 or of a description falling within that Schedule."").
The noble Lord said: I believe that this amendment is the most important amendment that we are considering. It is as important as the amendment that we considered on Tuesday. It seeks to impose a positive and enforceable duty,
"to eliminate unlawful racial discrimination … promote equality of opportunity between persons of different colour, race, nationality or ethnic or national origins; and to promote good relations between … different racial groups".
If I may say so, in an equality Bill one would expect this to apply not only to race but also to other forms of forbidden discrimination, such as gender discrimination. The all-important enforcement mechanism is for now to be determined under this amendment by the Secretary of State after consultation with the Commission for Racial Equality. I shall explain a little later why we have left the provision in that form at the moment.
The significance of a positive duty is that it would require public authorities to act to prevent racism, which is preferable to using the law only to seek redress after discrimination has taken place. Only a positive duty can prevent delay and prevarication by public bodies in confronting and eradicating institutional racism which the Stephen Lawrence inquiry identified as all too common in some of our public authorities.
A duty to promote racial equality is not a novel concept in our race relations legislation. Section 71 of the 1976 Act—this was very much a child of the late Alex Lyon MP as Minister of State, as I recall—imposes a similar duty on local authorities, but, without any effective means of enforcement, this has had a limited and uneven impact. The purpose of our amendment is to create a clearer, more enforceable and more direct positive duty covering all public authorities and not just local authorities.
As the Minister has indicated, a few days before the publication of this Bill the Government published their equality statement, acknowledging that an obligation on public bodies to promote racial equality needs the force of statute. We very much welcome that. They have undertaken to legislate for this,
"as soon as parliamentary time permits".
Why cannot this be done now in this Bill in relation to race discrimination? That would then serve as a model and as an experiment when parliamentary time is found for the wider equality Bill. There is no need for delay; the Bill constitutes a perfect opportunity to introduce such a duty.
The Government have made progress in requiring public bodies to take action to eliminate inequality. The legislation establishing the Greater London Authority, the Welsh Assembly and the Metropolitan Police Authority all provide for a duty to promote racial equality. My noble friend Lord Dholakia played a particularly prominent part in relation to the Greater London Authority provision; namely, Section 404. But the problem with these statutory duties is that they remain essentially unenforceable. Any duty must be backed with a strong enforcement mechanism developed in consultation with the Commission for Racial Equality, as our amendment requires.
There is one example of an elaborate enforcement mechanism; namely, the detailed procedure in Schedule 9 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 which requires designated public authorities to adopt schemes for the regular appraisal of the extent to which they are abiding by their duty to promote equality. The Government were happy to introduce such a scheme for Northern Ireland; why therefore should not a similar enforcement mechanism be introduced here?
It is intended that the Secretary of State will specify measures that public authorities will need to take and will give additional powers to the Commission for Racial Equality to require evidence of compliance and to take enforcement action where there is evidence of non-compliance. The central purpose is to create an effective but not excessively bureaucratic system of monitoring and enforcement modelled, for example, on the Northern Ireland scheme.
The CRE has repeatedly expressed its disappointment that the Government have failed to require all public bodies to use their purchasing power to promote equality by building equality requirements into their external contracts, service level agreements and grants. I recall what is often forgotten; namely, the White Paper of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, entitled Racial Discrimination of September 1975. This is what the second Wilson government committed themselves to. Paragraph 19 of the paper states:
"Since 1969 all Government contracts have contained a standard clause requiring contractors in the United Kingdom to conform to the provisions of the Race Relations Act 1968 relating to discrimination in employment and to take all reasonable steps to ensure that their employees and sub-contractors do the same".
Paragraph 20 states:
"it would be the intention of the Government when new legislation about racial discrimination is enacted—
that was the 1976 Act—
"to require a similar undertaking to comply with its provisions as a standard condition of Government contracts. The Government has considered whether its duty to take an active role to eliminate discrimination requires something additional. It would be an unacceptable burden to require all contractors to supply as a matter of form full particulars of their employment policies; but the Government cannot passively assume that a formal condition in a contract is all that is required. It is therefore intended that it should be a standard condition of Government contracts that the contractor will provide on request to the Department of Employment such information about its employment policies and practices as the Department may reasonably require".
That never happened. After the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, left to become president of the EEC Commission, the commitment disappeared. Therefore, although that is the provision that the White Paper promised, it never came into being. Oddly enough, it was introduced across the Irish Sea when in 1989 the government of the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher—of which the noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley, was a distinguished member—introduced some extremely strong and effective monitoring in the Fair Employment (Northern Ireland) Act 1989. However, we still do not have fulfilment of the commitment in the 1975 White Paper on race discrimination. We still have nothing that is equivalent to the situation in Northern Ireland.
The Cabinet Office has published strong guidelines providing that all government departments must implement policy appraisal in order to assess the impact of their measures. In those circumstances we see no good reason why, now that we have the Bill before the Chamber, an opportunity should not be taken to introduce the positive duty. We have left out of this amendment the schedule that is in the Northern Ireland Act. The reason we have left it out is simply because we do not want to tie the Government's hands, or the hands of the CRE, in negotiating a sensible method of monitoring which is effective without being too onerous. We could have written in the Northern Ireland provisions literally verbatim.
The reason we refer to the positive duty applying to public authorities designated in a schedule—this goes back to a point that we raised at the very beginning in
776
Committee—is because this is a different situation from the one we were considering previously as regards the duty on public authorities not to discriminate unlawfully. When one is dealing with a positive duty, it is vital that there be a schedule with a list of public authorities to which the positive duty can be applied in a well targeted and phased way so that we do not impose unnecessary handicaps on very small bodies, for example, and become unnecessarily legalistic or bureaucratic.
I hope that the Committee will consider that the amendment is well designed and is not over-intrusive. It does not seek to legislate for everything. It leaves a discretion with the Government, in consultation with the CRE, to work out an effective system of monitoring. It is much more modest than anything which occurred under the Conservative government or under the Labour government with regard to Northern Ireland. We very much hope that the Government will take the opportunity provided by this Bill to begin the experiment of having a proper, enforceable positive duty in Great Britain, as exists in Northern Ireland. I beg to move.
5 p.m.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: The noble Lord, Lord Lester, was right when he said that one of the most important things to consider when putting a statutory duty on public authorities to take some action or to have regard to some matters is the way in which it will be enforced and appraised. The weakness of his amendment is that it leaves that issue extremely vague. When I say "weakness", I mean weakness as far as Parliament is concerned. We are given no indication in the amendment—nor, unless I missed it, were we given a great deal of indication in the noble Lord's speech—as to how this inspection and appraisal might work.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: Perhaps I can help. It is all in a schedule to the Northern Ireland Act 1998. I have not spelled it out on the face of the Bill but, of course, that can be easily looked up and provided. The model is in the Northern Ireland Act which Parliament passed in 1998. As I said, I can be criticised for being too flexible, but that is where one finds the best model nowadays.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: When I said "weakness", I was thinking of a weakness as far as concerns Parliament and the way it will work. It is, of course, a strength—governments like legislation that is vague enough to allow them to put it into action the best way they can. I know that from being on the other side of tables of this kind.
The noble Lord said that the Northern Ireland legislation is a model. I have some knowledge of that from the time when I was a Minister in Northern Ireland in 1989, at a time when all this was coming into being. The situation in Northern Ireland is now different in a number of respects. First, it was certainly different in 1989 in that there was on-going, extremely violent terrorism and many deaths at that point—3,000 in total in the past few decades. There was a

777
tremendous background of violence which required extremely strong measures to try to reassure the public. It also meant that extremely strong measures were much more acceptable to people as a matter of fact.
Secondly, the discrimination causing the difficulty in Northern Ireland was of a simpler character. There were two basic sides, as it were—two parts of the population in Northern Ireland to consider—as opposed to the large number of people who, potentially, may be discriminated against in the context of this legislation—not only from the racial point of view in the sense of ethnic minorities, but also gypsies and so on, as we discussed the other day. So it is a much more complex situation.
I appreciate that the Northern Ireland example may be the model that the noble Lord, Lord Lester, has in mind, but there is nothing in the amendment to say so. If we were to pass the amendment as it is, it would be entirely for the Government to decide—with very little say from Parliament's point of view—how the enforcement, the appraisal and the inspection should be managed. I should prefer an amendment which would leave Parliament in greater control of what might happen.
In a sense, that is a quibble about the drafting of the amendment. As far as concerns its main point, the Government have already accepted that there should be a general duty of this character, presumably enforced in some way that we have yet to hear about in any detail. I am not conscious that we have heard in outline how the Government intend that that should happen. We have this wonderful expression of "when parliamentary time is available", which one has heard before. Indeed, one has used it before on other occasions.
The Home Office appears to have taken up an enormous slice of parliamentary time this year without succeeding in getting round to this particular piece of legislation. It obviously has a great deal of other priorities ahead of this at the moment. In those circumstances, the opportunity to insert the duty in this Bill—and to avoid the necessity of bullying the noble Lord the Captain of the Honourable Corps of the Gentlemen-al-Arms, and his colleagues in the Commons, into finding yet more time for the Home Office—is one which most departments, if they are keen on something, would be happy to accept. This gives the impression that perhaps the Government are not so keen on the idea, or at least that they want to kick it into the long grass at some point. I leave the Minister to explain what is meant by the different phrases that have been used.
Lord Patel: I support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill. I repeat that I am not a lawyer and that I cannot speak on the finer legal points, nor can I pretend to fully understand them. But I know that the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, who is an expert, will keep us right.
778
I speak in support of the new clause, which gives Secretaries of State the duty of inspection and appraisal to ensure that the public authorities actively promote racial equality policies. It is not good enough for authorities to prove that they have a written policy; active steps must be taken to eliminate racial discrimination, direct and indirect, and to promote equal opportunities.
My experience is of the National Health Service. Everyone in the health service should be personally committed to a culture in which prejudice of any kind is unacceptable. I support the Department of Health in its efforts to tackle racism and I support its pledge of zero tolerance of discrimination, whether caused by patients or by staff.
I also welcome the circular sent to managers across the NHS in March 1999 which stated that,
"employees must be proactive and positive in tackling racism".
But I question whether managers have taken heed of this directive. It is vital that NHS trusts, health authorities and primary care trusts, when they are established, have an equal opportunities policy. This new clause will ensure that such NHS bodies are appraised so that their policies are promoted actively.
An important issue for the health service is its recruitment and selection procedures, to which I referred at Second Reading. Equal opportunities practices for doctors in employment and within general practice ensure justice for all applicants for posts, enable selection of the best available candidates and deliver services to the community by a workforce which reflects its diversity. Organisations reflecting diversity in their staff can develop more fully their businesses and social potential, which will lead to more cost effective use of resources.
Some doctors—such as women, certain ethnic groups, overseas doctors and disabled doctors—often fail to gain the post for which they are qualified. The British Medical Association identifies that one of the main causes of under-representation of these groups can be attributed to lack of equal opportunity practices in recruitment and selection procedures. There is a serious anomaly in the race relations legislation, an issue I raised at Second Reading. I k now that the Minister replied that this would be covered in employment legislation.
I had intended to move an amendment because the Race Relations Act does not provide protection to a large number of GPs in partnerships, or to doctors seeking to become partners in general practices. Those in partnerships of five or fewer are outside the protection of the Act. There are 5,000 practices with two to five partners, involving 17,500 doctors. However, I have not been able to do so as such an amendment would not fall within the Long Title of the Bill. However, I am in favour of a positive legal duty on public authorities to act to prevent discrimination. That may prove to be a partial remedy for what I have been unable to do through the Public Bill Office.
I refer again to the Government equality statement mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, and I support what he had to say. A statutory,

779
enforceable obligation to promote racial equality and to eliminate discrimination is required to prevent prevarication and delay by public bodies, including the NHS, in confronting, and taking action to eradicate, institutional racism. That is far preferable to using the law to seek redress only after discrimination has taken place. I support the new clause since at least it will provide for monitoring of compliance in public authorities in promoting equality of opportunity.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Dholakia: I, too, support the amendment tabled in the name of my noble friend Lord Lester and those of the noble Baronesses, Lady Prashar and Lady Howells, and the noble Lord, Lord Patel. I was delighted to hear of the examples given by the noble Lord, Lord Patel, in his contribution to the debate.
We should bear in mind that what we are proposing is in effect already on the statute book as regards Section 71 and how it affects public authorities. However, what we are proposing here is in reality an amendment to the Race Relations Act that will include public authorities in that Act. I shall argue and give examples of why Section 71 has not been effective. For that reason it is right and proper that, although the provisions of Section 71 apply to public authorities, there needs to be a more fundamental approach in terms of compliance provision. It is vital, therefore, that we support this amendment.
During the passage of the Greater London Authority Bill I was fortunate enough to be able to impress upon the Minister the need for such a provision to be included in that legislation. I recall going to see the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, and I do not believe, in the early stages, that he was happy about it. However, over a period of time the strength of our argument was such that not only did I receive the support of his party but also that of the Conservative Party in promoting the measure. Should the Minister give me a nod and a wink that he is prepared to listen again, I shall shut up and sit down and save much effort in putting forward my arguments once more.
Many of the arguments have already been put to the Committee. My noble friend Lord Lester spoke of the position in Northern Ireland. However, we should not forget that provisions are already in place as regards the Scottish Parliament and now for the Greater London Authority and for the Metropolitan Police. We are discussing substantial powers. Earlier I mentioned the Government's own recently published statement on equality which acknowledged an obligation upon public authorities to promote equality needs. Therefore, as my noble friend Lord Lester said, this amendment should act as a model for other equality provisions in further legislation that may be brought forward.
In our view, the enactment of a strong, clear, enforceable legal duty ought not to be delayed. Only by imposing such a duty upon public bodies will the Government give tangible reality and consistency to their commitment to racial equality. Obviously, that
780
was reflected in the Stephen Lawrence inquiry. A statutory duty of the obligation to promote racial equality and to eliminate racial discrimination is required to prevent prevarication and delay by public bodies in confronting and taking action to eradicate institutional racism.
For a number of years I worked for the Commission for Racial Equality. It sees no real evidence that the present non-statutory guidelines, such as those in place for civil servants in relation to policy appraisal for equality of treatment, have been effective in changing the factors that influence government policies. Similarly, the obligations on local and police authorities that have been in place since 1976 under Section 71 of the Act have had a very uneven and limited impact. That is why it is significant that we need a positive legal duty to oblige public authorities to act to prevent discrimination.
I have mentioned Section 71, which places duties on all local authorities. However, when one examines those duties, one finds that the performance indicators on racial equality in local authorities' annual reports to the Audit Commission show clearly that, despite Section 71, areas of local government employment practices and service delivery remain wholly outside equal opportunity programmes. No longer can we depend upon the power of the commission, because a close examination shows that there is none. The commission has become a laughing stock. Matters are simply left to local authorities. If an authority is well intentioned it will put in place good practices, but if it is not, then nothing can be done about it.
Furthermore, one can examine the confirmed high level of complaints to industrial tribunals where 15 per cent of all cases heard before those tribunals come from local authorities. That reveals how ineffective are the local authorities themselves in eradicating discrimination. We shall miss a golden opportunity, which has been pointed out not only by Macpherson but also by Scarman, if we continue to keep faith with the section in the Race Relations Act. It has hardly worked at all.
The noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley, put the argument to the Committee that we must define in precise terms what we are approving here. It is right and proper that, if the Government decide to take these proposals on board at Report stage, then it will be possible to implement them by regulation. It is also perfectly feasible to indicate those public authorities that should be included under such regulations. These proposals are not out of place. All that is required is the will of the Government.
Many noble Lords who have contributed to the debate on this amendment represent, to a large extent, the interests of ethnic minority communities. They have stated in clear terms again and again that it is about time that the Government looked at this provision. They have the experience and the examples of what is happening in their areas. I hope that the Government will take account of the body of opinion that exists in the Chamber. If they do so, they will be delivering a great public service in relation to other

781
legislation and how equality issues may affect it. Occasionally, such matters are overlooked. For that reason, it is not good enough to wait for some later date or until after the next general election. Harold Wilson said that a week is a long time in politics and no one can anticipate what will happen at the next election. I hope that the Minister, who was wise enough to agree with the amendment I tabled to the GLA Bill, will now say, "Yes, this is the right approach" and will take it on board.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, in the debate in this House yesterday a noble Lord remarked that, if a week is a long time in politics, a decade is a short time in diplomacy. I would say that, when we look back to the 1976 Act, 20 years is an even shorter time in the field of race relations. As my noble friend said, I hope that we shall now seize this opportunity to impose a duty on public authorities which has been so widely demanded by ethnic minorities throughout the country. If we do riot take up the opportunity we have today then I fear that we shall have to wait for another 20 years. As my noble friend Lord Lester pointed out, in 1976 we missed our chance of putting into place something along these lines.
I also wish to take up what the noble Lord, Lord Cope, said about my noble friend omitting to include a schedule in this amendment, which is equivalent to Schedule 9 of the Northern Ireland Act. I am sure that my noble friend would have done that if there had been time to consult the Home Office and the Commission for Racial Equality and arrived at a suitable form of words which would be the equivalent of that schedule.
I believe that my noble friend Lord Dholakia hinted at a solution to the problem. If the Commission for Racial Equality already has firm ideas about how that should be translated in terms relevant to England that would be satisfactory. I do not accept entirely what my noble friend said as regards Schedule 9 reading across exactly to English conditions. There may have to be some minor variations. But if the conditions are of relatively small character and consultation with the Commission for Racial Equality could take place between now and Report stage, then we would not have to give the wide discretion to the Government which the noble Lord, Lord Cope, has criticised. I agree with him that it would be much better if we can put this matter on the face of the Bill, but if we do not have the agreement of the Government in principle to the amendment then we shall be wasting our time in entering into consultations.
I wish to take this opportunity to ask the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, another question which arises out of this brief discussion, particularly its relationship to Northern Ireland legislation. As the noble Lord will recall, under Section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act, United Kingdom departments which operate i a Northern Ireland had to he designated under Section 75(3). As I believe is usual in these cases the procedure is that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland had to write to all the United Kingdom departments to ask whether they had any objection to being designated. When I last
782
made inquiries about this matter I was told that every single United Kingdom department had responded favourably to the request except the Home Office. That was at about the time we rose for the Christmas Recess and Section 75 of the Act was due to come into operation on 1st January. Can the noble Lord say whether the Home Office replied to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland before the deadline and was it willing to be designated under Section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act?
It is not a trivial point. One would hope that there is a certain degree of conformity in legislation on both sides of the Irish Channel. If the Home Office is to be subject to Northern Ireland legislation it would surely be highly incongruous if it did not have a similar obligation as regards the rest of the country. Otherwise one is saying that Northern Ireland is a separate land. It is treated in a very superior way as regards obligations placed on public authorities. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Cope, will agree that paradoxically the scope of the legislation is far wider even though there are only the two communities. Northern Ireland legislation extends to gender, nationality and so forth, whereas we are talking about a more limited sub-set of provisions in Northern Ireland.
As I say, paradoxically, even though one has the major problem of religion between the two communities, Northern Ireland legislation extends through a wide spectrum of differences between different sections of the population. When we consider gender later on I hope that the same considerations will apply and that we shall place on public authorities the obligations contained in the Northern Ireland legislation which provide an extremely valuable model. If the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, can answer my question, I believe that it would help the Committee in its deliberations on this particular legislation.
Baroness Uddin: I had no intention of speaking in this debate because I have been absent for much of it. I therefore beg the Committee's indulgence to speak in support of this particular clause.
Unless we promote legislation imposed by statute on local authorities and public bodies, then we shall fail to respect the confidence of the community. It is not simply a matter of being 20 years too late as regards race relations legislation. So much has happened since the death of Stephen Lawrence. The community had such expectation not simply in the black and Asian sectors but across all sections of it. So much aspiration relies on this one Bill in finally laying to rest assumptions that we will tolerate racism under any statutory obligation and through the services that we provide. There has been a great deal of discussion about indirect discrimination. I have great concerns about that. I hope that we shall be able to address that fairly soon.
Leaving that matter to one side, as a long-standing councillor for Tower Hamlets I remind the noble Lord, Lord Lester, of the dreadful way in which the Liberal council used Section 71 to champion racist policies against the communities in that borough. I say

783
that because of what the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, said about the ineffectiveness of Section 71 over a very long period. I shall refrain from commenting any further on the record of the Tower Hamlets Liberals and their abuse of authority and power and the degradation of the Asian and Muslim community in that part of the borough.
I very much urge the Minister to accept this particular clause because, after all that has been done since this Government came to power and the aspirations which have been raised in the community across the country, I do not believe that we can afford to lose the confidence of the community and fail the aspirations of every single person who has supported the Stephen Lawrence report. We cannot possibly let those people down. I do not believe that it is a party political matter or that we can wait for the equal opportunities statement to be produced and treated as an afterthought. That is how it will appear. I urge my noble friend to accept this new clause and I am delighted to support it.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: It is always interesting and perhaps difficult for Ministers to disagree with something when they have every sympathy with the proposal put in front of them. The nature of our disagreement on this particular amendment is not as regards its principle, spirit, intent or direction but simply a matter of timing and content. It is for that reason we are unable to support the amendment which the Committee is discussing.
I have found the contributions to the debate very interesting, helpful and illuminating. I believe that all Members of the Committee who have spoken have made very important points which take our discussions forward. I was much impressed by what the noble Lord, Lord Lester, said in his opening remarks on this issue. He addressed it very practically, forcefully and laid out a very good case. We agree with it. As I have made clear in the past, it is the Government's intention to legislate to promote a positive duty in this field. There is no disagreement between us on that matter.
The noble Lord also gave us a very interesting history lesson on the development of this particular aspect of legislation. It was very thoughtful and helpful in reminding us about the position from which we started. In that context it is worth saying to the Committee that Labour, whether in local or national government, has always been at the forefront of these arguments. We have an excellent track record as regards this issue.
The Committee will be aware that my political background is local government in which I spent a long time—perhaps too long in the view of some colleagues. I was very proud to lead an authority which was at the forefront of these issues. Although race was perhaps not the biggest consideration in my local authority area, certainly it was an important concern. Issues of sex equality and race were very much part of the authority's forward thinking. In many respects I believe that local government has in its policymaking
784
and thinking made out a clear case for introducing a positive duty. In a sense, in many areas national government has caught up with the best achievements of local government. I believe that local government should be congratulated on that. Positive promotion has spread not simply across local government but into a whole range of areas within the public service. I believe that over the years the public service has in general responded well in that respect.
The Government have made clear their position. It is not their intention to kick this issue into the long grass. We have made clear our intention to consult on how a duty to promote equal opportunities in relation not only to race but to sex and disability may work in practice. We are fully committed to the introduction of a legislative duty when that consultation has taken place and we have had the opportunity to take into account the views of all concerned when they have been properly sought. That opportunity for consultation is very important. We want to get it right and ensure that in this complex legal field we create that positive duty in the right framework.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: Can the Minister inform the Committee what consultation took place in Northern Ireland before the very extensive system in the Northern Ireland Act 1998 was imposed by Parliament?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I am confident that the noble Lord is aware that there was not necessarily extensive consultation in Northern Ireland. But a very special set of circumstances applies to Northern Ireland and I believe that that must inform our debate this evening.
We want to achieve a society in which public bodies uphold the duty to promote equal opportunities so that it makes a practical, telling difference to the way that citizens live their lives. That must be right. For that to happen we need to explore how to set up workable arrangements to which public authorities can adhere and develop proposals for an effective and proportionate system of enforcement.
The noble Lord, Lord Cope, raised the whole question of enforcement. He pointed out that there might well be weaknesses in the amendment in that it rather side-stepped the issue of enforcement. Some may argue that precedents in Northern Ireland provide a good model. However, it is far from clear that it would be appropriate simply to transpose those arrangements lock, stock and barrel to Great Britain. For example, the scale of activity required to appraise and inspect all the public authorities, as the amendment requires, would be phenomenally resource intensive. We cannot afford to set up a bureaucratic, administrative nightmare. I say to those members of the Committee who, quite rightly, support the spirit of this amendment that we must focus further time and attention on the important issue of how a positive duty to promote is to be introduced, policed and made to work. We believe that workability is very much at the heart of our debate.

785
The Government are committed to introducing a duty on public bodies to promote equality of opportunity in the areas of race, sex and disability. We want to present our options and proposals for consultation later this year before we introduce legislation. At that point we shall be able to seek and positively encourage views from all quarters on what will be a wide-ranging duty to promote positively equal opportunities. We have not been slow to move forward in this Area. In the meantime, we shall continue to press ahead with administrative action, as we have been doing throughout the life of the Government. We have built on the mainstream guidelines issued to policymakers, making careful progress, but progress nevertheless, on the targets set for ethnic minority recruitment, retention and promotion. I am sure the Committee accepts that that has been an important aspect of the administrative work of the Government to take forward this whole area of policy.
I am reluctant to become too embroiled in the matter raised by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, except to say that I am conscious that the Home Secretary replied to the question and that we must make progress in that field. The Home Office, as with all other departments, is very much on side in the context of Northern Ireland. I ask the Committee to consider very carefully what I have said. We all want to make progress and clearly there is a political consensus.
Lord Avebury: I did not really expect the Minister to give me an answer on the Floor of the House. Will the noble Lord write to me, and place a copy in the Library, saying whether the Home Office has signed up to Section 75(3) of the Northern Ireland Act? Can he do so before Report stage?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I shall happily ensure that the noble Lord receives a reply to clarify the situation. There is a political consensus on this matter. But we need to work to give it practical effect by its introduction into legislation across the whole range of equality issues. For that reason we need a process of careful consultation. I shall carefully reflect on what has been said this evening. We shall continue to keep the matter very much at the forefront of our thinking. I hope the Committee accepts that the Government have not merely expressed good faith in this matter but have, since May 1997, made progress in policy and implementation in this field. I congratulate all those who have given effect to that progress, particularly those in the public service. On that basis, I ask the noble Lord to accept the Government's good faith in this matter and to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: Of course we accept the Government's good faith. What we do not accept is the Minister's dismal and deeply disappointing reply. We all agree on the political objective: in that sense there is a consensus. What deeply divides us is that we on these Benches believe that the means to give effect to that objective must be found now in this Bill and not at a
786
future indeterminate date. We have the opportunity in the Bill to give the Government the authority to introduce a satisfactory scheme.
I have been criticised, perfectly fairly, by the noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley, for not seeking to write into the Bill the kind of detail that appears in the Northern Ireland Act so that Parliament can examine it in detail. My reason for not doing so is my desire to preserve flexibility for the Home Office, other government departments and the Commission for Racial Equality to be able, with the authority of Parliament, to come up with a scheme sooner rather than later related to race discrimination and equality as an experiment or model which can be examined when there is an equality Bill either during the lifetime of this Parliament or, if necessary, at a later date. The Minister has given no coherent reason for the need to delay. As far as I am aware, there was no consultation about what happened in Northern Ireland.
I should like to address the question of the difference between Northern Ireland and Great Britain, which was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Cope. I am sure the noble Lord did not mean to imply that the problems of race discrimination are any less serious in Britain than those of religious and race discrimination in Northern Ireland. I should like to share with him and the House a recollection pointing to the danger of any other point of view.
Some years ago, on behalf of a Home Secretary no longer alive, I was consulted by an extremely senior and now retired Home Office civil servant. He took me to lunch and said, "I should like to ask you what we should be doing about race equality and race relations". I was about to travel to Belfast in order to give advice there about human rights in Northern Ireland. With this senior official, I went through all the options, platitudes and obvious things that needed to be done, including the need for a positive duty. Each time I came to another proposal he said, "That is politically impossible". I asked "Why are all these proposals, including a positive duty, politically impossible?" He replied, "There is not sufficient political will". I said, "I am going to Northern Ireland this afternoon where there is plenty of political will because they have burnt the place down. The place is full of rioting and killing. Is the only way in which we shall get action in Britain for us to distribute boxes of matches to the ethnic minority to follow suit so that there is sufficient political will?" He sighed and said, "I cannot see how I can get my political masters"—they were Conservative, not Labour—"to have sufficient political will in Britain because in Britain race relations are still relatively peaceful".
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I have listened with interest to the point the noble Lord makes. In a sense—I invite him to agree—he makes the case for the argument that I put. It is accepted that there is a political consensus here. We need to get this right. It is right that we find the time to have important consultations on this issue not least because we are not talking just about a positive duty to promote race equality but a positive duty to promote a number of

787
other equality issues. For that reason we need to get it right. We have the political consensus. Now let us get right the interrelations between that positive duty and its multifaceted aspects.
I invite the noble Lord at least to reflect that consultation is important. It may not have been an absolute priority and necessity in the urgent and special circumstances of Northern Ireland, but with the complexities that this issue brings, such consultation is right.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: I fully agree with that. That is why the amendment gives authority to the Government to apply that duty in a manner which is based on consultation between the Government and the Commission for Racial Equality. If necessary, we can add a wider consultation duty. But the amendment gives the necessary authority so that the Government can proceed now in the field of race discrimination rather than waiting to deal with all the complexities of other kinds of discrimination.
The United Kingdom has been criticised by the UN Human Rights Committee for not taking steps with sufficient vigour, and by the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination as recently as 1997. It criticised the United Kingdom for the lack of a similar positive legal duty on bodies working in the fields of health, education, social services, planning and housing as that which applied to local authorities. So we stand condemned by two respected international human rights bodies in the race discrimination field.
I do not use emotive or exaggerated language. I simply say that it is unacceptable for the United Kingdom to be pilloried in that way because of the refusal by consecutive governments to take effective action. The time is right. There is no reason why that duty cannot be included in this Bill any more than in the Greater London Authority Act, or in the Northern Ireland Act.
The noble Baroness, Lady Uddin, mentioned the sad story of the Liberals in Tower Hamlets. The first appalling job I had to do when I became a Member of this House was to investigate what some members of my party had done in Tower Hamlets. My somewhat strong report speaks for itself. We took, I hope, effective action—if one makes party political points, stronger action than has been taken by some parties in some parts of the country. The Liberal Democrats in Tower Hamlets needed this duty to be imposed on them, as do Labour and Conservative members in all public authorities.
We will not wait. The noble Lord, Lord Patel, kindly described me as an expert. I am not an expert. He is an expert. The reason that the noble Lord and the ethnic minority Peers in this House are experts is because they are potential or actual victims of race discrimination. They have the kind of expertise that I as a white, middle class liberal lawyer living not in Hampstead but in Herne Hill, next to Brixton, lack. I may be Jewish, but I am not visibly different in the same way that
788
people of a different colour are. This House has a special expertise. Thanks to this Labour Government there are Members of this House from the ethnic minorities. I ask the Minister to listen carefully. From all sides of the House, they will not tolerate any further prevarication.
Therefore, I shall press something like this amendment with or without further detail. I shall withdraw the amendment, but I promise to return to the issue at Report stage. If we do not have a commitment by then, I propose to divide the House. I hope that we shall then at last unite together to get something sensible on the stocks so that we can proceed not with all deliberate prevarication but with all reasonable speed.
I am sorry if I sound a little cross; I am very cross. The answer given by the Minister is wholly unsatisfactory. I hope that Members of the Committee on all sides agree with me. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 8 agreed to.
Remaining schedules and clause agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported to the House without amendment.

Care Standards Bill [H.L.]
5.48 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath): My Lords, in moving that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill. I should like to apologise to the House for something I said on Monday. The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, moved Amendment No. 5 intended to ensure that private GP call-out services would be regulated under the Bill. In reply, I indicated that all wholly private GPs would be covered by the provisions in the Bill and that we would not be regulating only premises.
I am sorry that my comments were not wholly accurate. The Bill as currently drafted will regulate premises where private GPs provide treatment but not all private GP services. I apologise to the House for the error. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, for drawing attention to the issue and I recognise fully the concerns which prompted his amendment. We shall look carefully at the options for tackling those concerns, in particular whether we might seek to use this Bill for that purpose or whether there are other more appropriate approaches. I shall, of course, let the noble Lord know the outcome of our thinking. I beg to move.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Hunt of Kings Heath.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Lord Murton of Lindisfarne) in the Chair.]
Clause 20 [Regulation of establishments and agencies]:
Lord Clement-Jones Lord Clement-Jones moved Amendment No. 46:
Page 10, line 28, leave out ("may-) and insert (-shall").
The noble Lord said: Without being out of order, perhaps I may take the opportunity to thank the Minister for his response. He made it as soon as he was aware that his previous statement was incorrect. I look forward to hearing the result of the ruminations within the department.
In moving Amendment No. 46, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 55, 57, 61 and 62. I am getting too long in the tooth to trade wording with Ministers, particularly as regards "may" and "shall", and I should not like the Minister to believe that I do not accept that for many technical and historic reasons the vast bulk of duties on Ministers exist as "may" rather than "shall". However, in Committee it is important to try to elicit from Ministers the depth of their commitment, hence I propose the use of the word "shall". I give the Minister due warning that I shall not take the proposal through to Report stage.
It is important for the Minister to give an assurance. Those from the voluntary organisations who have briefed me are concerned that the wide discretion to make provision in regulations covering many important aspects of the regulation of private healthcare—for instance, complaints procedures—could dilute the effectiveness of the measure. They and we on these Benches want to see a firm commitment from the Government to make provision as regards the essential details of the regulations.
Amendment No. 55—and I see that Amendment No. 56, tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Howe, is similar—is designed to tease out more about the meaning of the word "welfare" because it is not clear. The proposal in Clause 20 provides regulation-making powers which will cover the management, staff, premises and conduct of establishments and agencies. Subsection (1) provides for regulations which will be key to the registration of establishments and agencies.
Subsections (1)(d) and (1)(e) provide powers to make regulations to ensure that, overall, children's homes, care homes, residential family centres and independent fostering agencies must secure the welfare of the people placed in or through them. The proposal to make establishments responsible for the welfare of persons is warmly supported by ourselves and by others who take a strong interest in the Bill. It is a welcome move from previous legislation, which merely concentrated on premises and facilities. However, we believe that the clause should be strengthened still further by defining the word "welfare". If it is not defined, it leaves open the possibility of the unscrupulous home owner responding in very narrow terms.
The incorporation in statute of the promotion of health, the prevention of ill health and the rehabilitation and recuperation of individuals in support of their daily activities places greater emphasis
790
on the quality of care and treatment and leaves little room for ambiguity. I urge the adoption of Amendment No. 55.
Finally, we on these Benches strongly support Amendments Nos. 58 and 59, tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Howe. I beg to move.
Earl Howe: I rise to speak to Amendments Nos. 49, 51, 52 and 63. I shall speak also to Amendment No. 56 which closely resembles Amendment No. 55. The Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee of your Lordships' House has observed that the Bill, of its very nature, requires a substantial number of powers to be delegated to secondary legislation. I do not seek to argue with that judgment. It is a framework Bill and it is not appropriate to include everything in it. Ministers must have flexibility to amend regulation in the light of changing circumstances. However, we need to be certain that the scope of such delegated powers is appropriate.
One of the risks in a Bill of this kind, which is almost bursting at the seams with regulatory provisions, is that there is a temptation for a government to regulate just a little too much. That tendency seems to be manifest in Clause 20. I should like to hear from the Minister why, for example, he feels it appropriate to regulate the fitness of premises to be used as an agency as distinct from premises in which there are residents or patients—and I quite understand why they need to be regulated. We need to know why the number of people working in an agency is a matter for government.
The financial position of a business and the way in which it keeps its accounts are of considerable importance for its viability and for all who depend on it. However, are they matters for government to pronounce upon and to regulate? In any case, how are inspectors supposed to make a judgment on what the financial position of an establishment or agency is? Will they be qualified in finance and accounting? I doubt it. I doubt, too, that an inspector even when presented with, say, a business plan and a detailed cash-flow forecast, could be sure that they made sense. Still less could he be sure that a bank manager would continue to place his confidence in the management of a particular business.
I am prepared to accept that clear and accurate record keeping is important for the proper operation of any of the establishments covered by the Bill, but is it necessary to include Clause 20(3)(c) when subsection (1)(f) provides for the management and control of the operations of an agency? If it is, I should like to know why.
In considering Clause 20, the Committee needs to bear one general point in mind. The raison d'être of the Bill, as the Government have repeatedly emphasised, is to minimise the scope for abuse or poor treatment of vulnerable people and generally to raise standards of care. Any power to regulate that appears on the face of the Bill should therefore pass a simple test: do such regulations contribute significantly to those two overriding aims? If the answer is "no", the Bill should

791
not provide for them. I believe that it focuses too much on management and administration and not enough on the quality of care.
Lord Rix: Before speaking to Amendment No. 70, which is included in the group, I, too, want to clear up a point which arose in the report of Hansard on Monday this week. In col. 437, it was reported that I said:
"For that reason, noble Lords may wonder why I have tabled so many soulless amendments".
I remember once many years ago, when I was an actor, an unkind critic once accused me of not knowing my farce from my elbow—I hasten to add that the word is spelt: F-A-R-C-E. It is quite clear that, unfortunately, the Hansard reporter last Monday did not know her Middle English from her Latin, soul being Middle English and solus, "alone", being Latin, often in a dramatic context. I believe that the actress Greta Garbo was fond of saying that she wanted to be alone, but she never said that she wanted to be solus, as far as I am aware. I hope that the matter is cleared up and I should like to say that the Hansard department was quick to apologise and printed a correction the following day, but your Lordships might not be aware of that particular correction.
I turn now to Amendment No. 70. Many publicised abusive situations involving adults demonstrate the need for clearer prescription by way of regulations, regarding what is acceptable behaviour management for adults as well as for children. In many circumstances, restraint is nothing more than gross violation, but in a small number of cases it may have a legitimate role in serious risk management. Mencap is currently involved in three pilot projects exploring methods for responding to challenging behaviour in non-aversive ways. I believe that the Government have a legal responsibility to advocate and enforce best practice in behaviour management so that assault is no longer legitimised in the name of restraint.
6 p.m.
Lord Laming: Amendments Nos. 46, 47 and 48 deal with a real issue; that of "may" or "shall". Clause 20 places a wide range of responsibilities on the Government to deal with the regulation of establishments and agencies. Although I have a certain sympathy with the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, I believe that for such a wide range of functions, the use of "may" rather than "shall" is helpful. I regret that I cannot support Amendment No. 63 because the Burgner report, which looked into many of the issues relating to the regulation of establishments, identified the need for establishments to maintain good records.
Such establishments deal with people who not only have a wide range of needs but who often come from many different parts of the country. Bad record-keeping was one of the reasons why abusive situations were allowed to develop in some establishments. The regulations do not need to be intrusive, but together they create a framework which is the foundation for
792
good practice. I greatly hope that it will be accepted that good practice depends on good administration, good management systems and proper systems which are capable of being evaluated by external sources which include inspectors.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I have been in the House too long to enter into a lengthy argument about "may" or "shall"—I have heard it so many times—but I slightly prefer "may" for the reasons given by the noble Lord, Lord Laming.
I want to comment on the point made by my noble friend Lord Howe about agency premises. It is important that there is not legislation in too many forms covering the same matter. Premises for any kind of office or business, which is what an agency basically is, already come under town-planning law and would certainly come under health and safety legislation also. I wonder whether including this provision in the Bill in that way would make them subject to too many different forms of legislation.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I shall speak first to my Amendments Nos. 68 and 115 to 118. Amendment No. 68 is a minor amendment to ensure existing Children Act powers are fully replicated in the Bill. The regulation-making power is already contained in the Children Act 1989, in Schedule 4, paragraph 4(2)(i). Under that power, the Children (Secure Accommodation) Regulations 1991 have been made, governing specific requirements made of children's homes where children's liberty is restricted.
I should point out that the Bill allows the continuation of the current system, whereby such establishments are not only duly registered as children's homes by the national care standards commission, but will also then be subject to a further approval on behalf of the Secretary of State before they may be used as secure accommodation for children.
The regulatory powers in Schedule 4 of the Children Act are repealed by the Bill's provisions. Any regulations made under those powers would fall with that repeal, unless the powers are re-enacted. The power on secure accommodation was omitted in error in the drafting of the Bill. It is essential to provide proper protection for children in such establishments. Among their other provisions, the existing regulations provide for the important approval of the Secretary of State in respect of such matters as the placement of children in secure accommodation, the appointment of persons to review placements and the requirements for record-keeping. The amendment allows the provisions of the existing regulations to remain in force.
I turn now to Amendments Nos. 115 to 118. The amendments are intended to ensure that Clause 44 properly reflects the provision in Clause 20 which sets out the regulation-making powers for independent fostering agencies. Our intention is to enable, as far as

793
is appropriate, the same requirements to be made of local authority fostering services as are made of independent fostering agencies.
The amendments bring the provisions into line. In practice, they mean that regulations may be made about staff in local authorities who carry out work on the fostering functions covered by that part of the Bill. Rather than applying only to fully employed staff, as currently provided for in the Bill, the amendments would ensure that regulations made under those powers in respect of relevant fostering functions would apply to staff who are locum and self-employed, but who carry out functions for the local authority.
I turn now to the amendments moved by other Members of the Committee. Amendments Nos. 46, 57, 61 and 62 raise the issue which, as the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, suggested to us, is familiar: whether the legislation should say "shall" rather than "may". We discuss that issue on just about every Bill which passes through your Lordships' House and indeed, I have no doubt that the noble Earl, Lord Howe, when he was a Minister, defended the use of "may", as opposed to "shall".
However, I understand that Members want me to specify our commitment in terms of the regulations. The reality is that the regulations will be made. The legislation in front of us simply would not work if the regulations for regulated services to meet were not set out. The intention is quite clear and I doubt if there is any disagreement on the matter.
I turn now to the concerns raised by the noble Earl, Lord Howe, as to whether the sum total of the regulations that will be enacted will place too many burdens on the establishments to be regulated. I understand that concern, but I believe that he will understand also that a careful balance has to be drawn in terms of protection of the public interest and ensuring that we are not over-burdensome on the homes and other establishments that will be regulated under the Bill. I believe that we have the balance right.
I turn first to Amendment No. 49, which would exclude domiciliary care agencies, fostering agencies and voluntary adoption agencies from regulations made under Clause 20(1)(c) to ensure the fitness of premises. I understand why noble Lords have asked why the premises of an agency must be so regulated. In fact, there are a number of very good reasons why that needs to happen. First, agencies will usually hold confidential records about service users. We believe that the registration authority will need to be able to ensure that an agency's premises are secure in order to prevent unauthorised persons gaining access to areas where such records are kept.
Additionally, agencies will often need to have space to meet in private. I t is proposed, for example, that the national minimum standards for domiciliary care will include standards relating to the supervision of staff. That is likely to involve an annual interview between an individual member of staff and his supervisor. That would need to be ir private and, therefore, an agency's premises would need to facilitate that. I understand the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, but
794
I am not at all sure that the provisions which she mentioned in relation to town planning or health and safety will meet the requirements which we believe are needed in relation to those offices.
The effect of Amendment No. 51 will be to exclude registered agencies from the regulatory provisions relating to the numbers and types of persons required to work at an establishment or for the purposes of an agency. We regard the regulation of agencies as being as important and necessary as the regulation of establishments such as care homes. We cannot agree that the regulatory powers for agencies should be weaker than they are for establishments; for example, it is essential that the power exists to ensure that staff who deal with vulnerable children in fostering or adoption agencies hold relevant professional qualifications and have appropriate experience where the position demands it. Such a requirement forms part of the present inspection arrangements for adoption agencies. Certainly, we would not want regulation of those agencies by the commission to be any less comprehensive and rigorous than the current system. I can assure your Lordships that the regulations and standards set on staffing will be reasonable and based on consultation with all interested parties.
I turn to Amendment No. 52, which seeks to remove a critical power of the new commission to protect those who depend on regulated care services. This concerns the issue of financial viability. We believe that it is especially important that organisations which provide care should be financially sound and unlikely to put at risk the vulnerable people who depend on them to meet their everyday needs. That principle has been recognised in a judgment relating to fitness under the Registered Homes Act 1984, and we do not want to weaken the protection which current legislation affords us. By making it clear that the financial position of an establishment or agency will be made the subject of requirements, we are ensuring that would-be providers are thoroughly prepared to demonstrate that they have the means to run their business.
In answer to the point raised by the noble Earl, Lord Howe, the type of information which is sought now and which will be required in future relates to cash flow forecasts, business plans, audited accounts of previous trading, and so on. Of course, I accept that the routine inspection officer should be able to read those accounts. However, I am certain that the commission itself will be able to employ expert people who can advise on those issues.
I turn to Amendment No. 55. I support entirely the noble Lord's concern to ensure that a wide interpretation is taken of the meaning of "welfare". Equally, we must be careful not to define it in a way which might be limiting. However, we are currently considering whether the Bill is drafted in a way which ensures that "welfare" includes promotion of health in particular. If that is not the case, or if there is any doubt, we shall bring forward an amendment at

795
Report stage. I believe that the noble Earl, Lord Howe, will accept the same response in relation to his Amendment No. 56.
I turn to Amendment No. 63, which relates to record-keeping. The principle of regulating record-keeping in nursing homes, private hospitals and residential homes is already well established under the Registered Homes Act 1984. There are extensive requirements on homes to maintain records concerning the conduct of the home, including the care, nutrition and health of residents, the recruitment and training of staff, and the health and safety precautions taken. It is essential to maintain those if a service is to be run effectively and monitored by the regulatory authority. I believe that record-keeping as evidence of the care provided—or not—has featured regularly in tribunal decisions about the fitness of a home.
I turn to Amendment No. 70. I doubt whether any Member of your Lordships' House would ever accuse the noble Lord, Lord Rix, of being "soulless". Those of us who had the pleasure of watching him for many years in the Whitehall farces believe that he has brought great joy to many people and he continues to do so in this House. I agree with the noble Lord's amendment and the sentiments which he expresses that the physical management of users in residential and other settings requires improvement. We know that there have been a number of worrying occurrences over recent years, culminating in the recent television programme "Macintyre Undercover", which have indicated that staff sometimes do not act in an appropriate way when caring for people who need protection from physical harm. Occasionally, techniques are used which are entirely inappropriate to users of care services.
Perhaps I may say to the noble Lord, Lord Rix, that the Department of Health is working with the British Institute of Learning Disabilities to consider the best ways to provide guidance for care providers on the appropriate use of physical intervention with people in their care. In addition, it is certainly our intention to make regulations regarding the appropriate use of physical constraint for adults where it is unavoidable. We had intended to make such regulations under Clause 20(1)(d) —the clause which we have just discussed—for securing the welfare of persons accommodated in homes. However, I can assure the noble Lord that we shall introduce a specific regulation-making power at Report stage if there is any doubt that that power is wide enough to extend to physical management. We shall certainly take away this matter and give it further consideration.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Rix: Perhaps I may thank the Minister, first, for his very kind words about my past life and my present occupation and say how grateful I am for the recognition of the need for regulations in regard to restraint. I am happy to accept those assurances and I know that Mencap, too, will be delighted.
Earl Howe: I express my thanks to the Minister for that very comprehensive reply. Obviously, I shall read carefully what he has said and reflect on it. I am particularly grateful for what he said about the two amendments regarding the definition of "welfare". That was most helpful. Of course, I understand that in any Bill of this kind a balance must be struck between the amount of regulation that will impose burdens, and considerations of protecting the public. However, at the same time, as the Minister will recognise, quite a lot of the regulation in Clause 20 is new if compared to the 1984 Act. I believe it is right that we should at least explore the rationale for each of the new provisions.
On the question of agency premises, I take on board what the Minister has said. Of course, it is important that there should be locked filing cabinets and secure record-keeping. However, there appears to be a provision in Clause 20(1)(f) which fits more neatly the point that he seemed to be making. That provision requires that regulations may,
"make provision as to the management and control of the operations of an establishment or agency".
I should have thought that the security of a set of premises would fit more neatly into that.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I am grateful to the noble Earl for giving way. I am advised that he is quite right to point to that subsection. However, I am also advised that that might not necessarily extend to the keeping of records, which is why we have a specific power to make regulations about records.
Earl Howe: I am grateful. I must obviously take that very seriously.
As regards record-keeping, I stress that I am not in the least worried about that provision appearing in the Bill. Clearly, records must be kept and kept properly. But Clause 20(1)(f) seems to be a new provision compared with what is in the 1984 Act. It refers to,
"the management and control of the operations of an establishment or agency".
It occurred to me that that would embrace record-keeping and I am all in favour of Occam's Razor applying wherever it can.
Lord Clement-Jones: This has been a slightly disparate debate with rather different amendments being brought together in this grouping. However, I know that the Committee will be grateful to the Minister for, in particular, his undertaking to look again at whether a definition of "welfare" is required. I am grateful too for what he said about Amendment No. 70 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Rix, in terms of whether physical management is brought within the existing wording.
I thank the Minister for his assurance on the lead amendment, Amendment No. 46. I take that to mean that essentially he is saying that the regulation of care

797
and other establishments will not work unless regulations are made in each of those areas covered by Clause 20. I am grateful for that assurance. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 47 to 49 not moved.]
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 50:
Page 10, line 41, leave out ("numbers of persons, or").
The noble Earl said: I kept this amendment separate from those in the previous group because the issues which I wish to raise under its umbrella are rather different from those which we have just been discussing.
On Second Reacting, I spoke of my concern that this Bill and, in particular, the statements of minimum standards due to be introduced under Clause 21 for all their merits—and I understand the merits of wishing to have minimum standards—pose an extremely serious difficulty for many residential care homes which currently do not meet one or more or the proposed standards.
I shall expand on that issue when we reach Clause 21. But there is one aspect of it which I wish to raise now; namely, staffing ratios. One of the consequences of eliding the definitions of "care home" and "nursing home", as the Bill does, is that any attempt to arrive at a neat formula for staffing ratios runs into difficulties. Until now, residential homes and nursing homes have each had their own formulae to determine appropriate staffing numbers. They are not particularly sophisticated formulae but are based broadly on numbers of beds in use.
In so far as a formula can ever be acceptable to everybody, in the case of care homes and nursing homes, it has, in each case, performed a useful role. But with a single legal definition of a "care home" under this Bill, what possible formula will work? How will it be possible to assess the staffing requirement without knowing what are the needs of the individual user? The only way that I can see which would be fair to all would be to have in place some sort of nationally accepted mechanism for assessing such need.
Have the Government given any thought to that issue? What conclusions have they reached? Is the Minister aware of a system by the name of Minimum Dataset which is in use in a number of states of America, I understand, mandatorily, as well as in several other coumries, which is designed to generate standardised data on the type and degree of services that are needed to deliver the desired outcome? Is there not a case for looking carefully at such a system in order to avoid what would inevitably become an unlevel playing field around the country and, what is more, an unlevel playing field which is difficult to level out?
Some of us were disappointed not to see in the Bill any role for the commission in planning and predicting the need for services in care homes and in assessing unmet need and regional variations in the level of unmet need. Do the Government plan to give the
798
commission such a role, as was proposed by the Royal Commission on Long-Term Care? If they do, how do they believe that that could be done without some sort of accepted national formula such as I have described?
We return again to the point that it is not just the quality of management in an establishment which governs the quality of service; it is whether the purchaser of that service is purchasing the right sort of service to meet the needs of the user—in other words, whether the resources devoted to meeting those needs are appropriate. The commission should be assessing that.
Leading on from that is the whole question of fees. If the users in care home A have a different level of need from the users in care home B, that would argue for two different rates of fee. I realise that that is very difficult territory but I should be grateful if the Minister will tell me whether my logic is right—I do not mind if he tells me it is wrong—and, if so, how the Government approach that issue. I beg to move.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My noble friend has raised a number of points and I wish to add more questions to what he has said. He mentioned the question of fees. There were stages in the past when the fees for nurses went up and up until they reached the point at which all local authorities decided they would pay only a maximum amount. That helped to control the prices.
But if certain standards are imposed on the care home—there must be X number of staff—it may be impossible to comply with that and keep within the price which the local authorities and the Department of Health are prepared to reimburse.
I am greatly concerned that much of this care legislation is designed specifically to ensure that all those services are paid for 100 per cent by the people in the homes or, in cases of need, by someone who pays on their behalf, as opposed to being paid for by the National Health Service. Of course, that is free at the point of delivery. We still have no satisfactory clarification on that. There has been clear demarcation in a court case with regard to care which should come under the National Health Service and be totally free to the patient and care which should be paid for by the patient. That issue arises here. We must be quite sure that a major purpose of this Bill is not to push a dividing line between those two aspects in order to ensure that as many people as possible have to pay.
As the Minister knows, I believe that we should look again at the whole of the National Health Service rather than trying to find different ways of dividing up the cake. My noble friend said that the Bill creates a single, legal definition of a "care home". Therefore, it is defining the difference between national health provision and a care home.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I am sure that we are all indebted to the noble Earl, Lord Howe. In his short amendment, he has opened up an enormously wide area for debate. I hope that Members of the Committee will forgive me if I duck the opportunity of

799
rising to the challenge in particular of the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, in terms of the funding of long-term care and so on. The noble Baroness will know that the Government set up a Royal Commission. We are still considering the deliberations of that commission and both the majority and minority reports.
I should say also, in relation to the specific question of the impact of regulation on the costs of running such homes, that we are likely to deal with that issue, as the noble Earl suggested, a little later in our debate this evening. But I recognise that it is a matter of considerable interest and, clearly, it is a matter at which we must look extremely carefully.
This Bill is about maintaining the public interest. It will help to raise standards in those establishments where many vulnerable people are receiving care and support.
I turn to the specific issue raised in relation to staffing and the specification of staffing numbers and ratios, to which the noble Earl has drawn our attention. The first point I wish to make is that current legislation governing nursing homes contains similar powers for specifying numbers of staff. We start from the premise that we would not want to introduce legislation that actually weakened existing law in this area. I should also say that the quality of care provided by social care agencies must now relate closely to the number of staff available and their quality and training. Setting standards as to numbers is an important element of the process of regulation.
Under Section 25 of the Registered Homes Act 1984, health authorities may make it a condition of registration of a nursing home that a specified number of nurses with particular qualifications must be on duty at specific times, the numbers calculated according to the number of patients and their condition. In this way, health authorities can ensure that an adequate standard of nursing care is provided. In the Bill, we wish to take forward this power and extend it to cover the staffing arrangements in other residential establishments or agencies. I should say to the noble Earl, Lord Howe, that we will ensure that the commission takes a reasonable approach and is not too prescriptive.
As noble Lords are aware, Clause 21 gives Ministers the power to set minimum standards. These will have to be followed by the commission. Its decisions as to whether regulations and national minimum standards regarding staffing levels are being met will need to be based on the assessed needs of those receiving the service, including their dependence on others to carry out their activities of daily living as well as their need for nursing care or general support and supervision. The minimum standards, in particular, will flush out the details of that. The staffing requirements will vary according to type of home. I hope that that gives the noble Earl some assurance on the point he raised.
I should also say specifically in relation to ratios that the noble Earl might have pointed to the standards proposed in Fit for the Future? that set a ratio of qualified nurses to unqualified care assistants for residential and nursing homes for older people. I
800
should stress, as I have stressed before, that this is a consultation document. While I think that there are many things in it that are extremely valuable, there are other matters which, as a result of consultation, we would wish to change. We are not convinced that adopting ratios is the only way to approach staffing requirements. I should certainly be happy to look at Minimum Datasets and any other suggestion as one way forward. I do believe that at the end of the day effective regulation does require that a view is taken about issues to do with staffing.
6.30 p.m.
Earl Howe: I am once again extremely grateful to the Minister. Obviously, the whole question of staffing ratios is an important matter. I do not seek to evade that point for one second. Neither would I suggest that the law should be weakened in any way. My point was simply how do you specify what the correct ratio should be when user needs vary so very widely once one has brought together those two definitions?
The Minister was most helpful in a number of things he said, particularly that assessed needs will govern staffing ratios that are laid down for each type of care home and that minimum standards will vary according to the type of home that is under consideration. I am grateful also for the assurance that the Government's approach to the proposals in Fit for the Future? are being approached with an open mind by Ministers. I think that is good to hear. I know that some of the feedback that the department has received has been positive and some not so positive. Provided that we know that nobody is wedded rigidly to the proposals, I think that does give us some comfort.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I hope the noble Earl will allow me to intervene. I think that because a lot of the debate about the consultation paper that we have issued has concerned matters to do with staffing ratios and room sizes, people may perhaps have had the impression that the paper is only concerned with those aspects. I think that a reading of the document will also indicate that it is concerned with other indicators of quality. Clearly, when we come to consider the results of that consultation we shall have to take into account the comments raised by your Lordships about the need to have indicators of outcome of quality and not just issues to do with staffing and size of room. However, I do think that size of room and staffing are also important issues.
Earl Howe: Yes, I entirely agree. It is the fact that there are other quality indicators that means that so many care homes out there would fail to meet the standards in one way or another if Fit for the Future? were to be enshrined in regulation or at least in ministerial direction. It is not simply room size and staffing ratios that are proving the problem for a number of places.
I think that this has been a very useful exchange. I will read carefully what the Minister has said. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 51 to 53 not moved.]
Lord Clement-Jones Lord Clement-Jones moved Amendment No. 54:
Page 11, line 5, at end insert—
("( ) All regulations applying to the care of children away from their homes may—

(a) ensure that those providing such care are under a general duty to safeguard and promote the welfare of children in their charge;

>(b) ensure, so far as is practicable, that children's wishes and feelings are ascertained by those caring for them on all matters affecting them and are given due consideration, having regard to the children's age and understanding;

(c) secure that children have ready access to—

(i) confidential information and advice;

(ii) help from an independent advocate; and

(iii) complaints procedures with an independent element;

(d) prohibit corporal punishment and other humiliating or otherwise inappropriate forms of punishment, including the deprivation of food, drink, clothes, sleep and contact with relatives or the imposition of distinctive clothes or labels;

(e) prohibit children's restriction of liberty as a method of punishment or control, unless secure accommodation has been approved by the Secretary of State and a court order has been obtained under section 25 of the 1989 Act;

(f) prohibit the use of medicine or the withholding of medicine as a method of punishment or control;

(g) take active measures to prevent and deal with bullying;

(h) make provision for the periodic review of the child's placement and welfare.")

The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 54, I wish to speak also to other amendments in the group. Perhaps I may make two apologies in reference to this group of amendments. I intend to speak to each of these amendments in turn. Clearly, there are a large number of points to be made on these amendments and it will take me a little time to go through them.
Principally, I wish to apologise on behalf of the noble Baroness, Lady David, who is unable to move these amendments. I was very pleased to attach my name to the amendments. The noble Baroness has been unavoidably detained on other business.
First, I shall deal with Amendment No. 54. This is an attempt to give some degree of consistency across the regulations governing the lives of children who are placed away from home. It seeks to list the basic safeguards to which all children should be entitled when living away from home. All except for paragraph (g) on bullying strategies currently apply to children looked after in children's homes but not all other institutions. The duty to take steps against bullying now applies to schools but not residential homes. The obvious merit of listing these safeguards in primary legislation is that they secure consistency across regulations and are much more visible, with the result, it is to be hoped, that all children and all staff are aware of them at all times.
It is profoundly unsatisfactory that children in the care of local authorities or otherwise placed away from home are protected only by regulations offering a
802
variety of rights and safeguards. Many such children experience changes in placement. Why should the change in placement mean that their needs or rights change? Why should these rights be embedded in rather obscure regulations about which frequently even the adults in charge do not know?
I move to Amendment No. 60, which is designed to secure that local advocacy services and independent complaints procedures may also be regulated. It attempts to introduce regulation-making powers in relation to two crucial local services for children affected by the Bill— independent complaint procedures and independent advocacy services. There are regulations under the Children Act requiring complaint procedures by local authorities and voluntary organisations accommodating children, but Part II services covers a much wider group of children.
The Government have confirmed the importance of both these services and yet do not give the Secretary of State powers to regulate them in the Bill. The purpose of this amendment is, therefore, simply to enable the Secretary of State to make regulations without recourse to further primary legislation in the future.
Turning to Amendment No. 108, it is well recognised that the Bill has come into being as a result of an appalling series of scandals arising from the treatment of children living in institutions and other placements away from home. One important safeguard against the abuse of such children is to provide them with advocates who are entirely independent of the services the children receive. We have already had some discussion as to that in Committee. Their only function is to listen to the children and promote their interests.
The need for independent advocacy has been confirmed by the official reports in this area. For example, the Warner Report. Residential Care: a positive choice, proposed that children in all forms of residential care should have access to an independent advocate. The Scottish review, Another Kind of Home, recommended that children,
"should be able to call on someone to act as their advocate".
The Warner inquiry report, Choosing with Care, said that children in children's homes should,
"have the support of their own advocates when pursuing serious complaints against star.
The Utting Report, People Like Us, commended the use of independent representative services such as that provided by A Voice for the Child in Care.
The safeguard of independent advocacy has been recognised by the Government in their Quality Protects programme, under which authorities are encouraged to provide independent advocacy services, but until such services are a statutory requirement children will be dependent on the goodwill and energy of individuals in the statutory and private sector. 'This amendment is designed to ensure that the current patchy service of locally based children's rights advocates and national advocacy services is transformed into comprehensive provision for all children who are living away from home.
I turn to Amendment No. 167. It is necessary to describe the powers and duties of the children's rights director in primary legislation—that is what the amendment attempts to do—so that this position can develop as the strongest possible defender and protector of children's rights. We had our earlier discussion about the possibility of a children's commission, but that does not at present form part of the Government's thinking.
Much of the thinking behind the Care Standards Bill as it relates to children is built upon the knowledge that thousands of children living away from home have been so badly neglected or abused in the past. We cannot waste this opportunity to develop a substantial national figure in the form of the children's rights director. who will ensure that children are never again failed in such a comprehensive way.
Finally, it is important in the composition of the commission that there is a member who has special responsibility for children's rights issues and also a member who has special expertise in disability and special educational needs as they relate to children. That is what Amendments Nos. 152 and 153 are designed to achieve. I beg to move.
The Earl of Listowel: I should like to comment on Amendment No. 108, which deals with the right to an independent advocate. I completely endorse what the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, said. I would simply add that recently the Minister was kind enough to assure me that he had considered carefully with his advisers my questions to him and that my questions had affected his thinking. That is exactly the assurance that looked-after young people need. They need to know that their concerns are properly considered and play a part in decisions made about them. The right to an independent advocate would provide them with that assurance. I hope that the Minister will give the amendment sympathetic consideration.
Lord Laming: I very much hope that the Minister will look favourably on Amendment No. 54. I say "look favourably" because I have a reservation about paragraph (e). From time to time—sometimes more often than that—any good parent has to restrict the liberty of a child. The way in which paragraph(e) is worded undermines, in a way with which I do not feel comfortable, the authority of staff to control children and young people. However, I hope that the Minister will look favourably on the general thrust of Amendment No. 54.1 hope also that the Minister will support Amendment No. 108. We have referred on a number of occasions to the need for these vulnerable young people in care to have access to an independent advocate. The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, referred to a number of authoritative documents that recommended access to independent advocates for children and young people in care. This is an opportunity for the Government to enact legislation to make that a reality for these young people. If the Government are able to accept Amendment No. 108, which I hope will be the case, Amendment No. 60,
804
dealing with the need to have regulations to inform that piece of legislation, follows on from that. I very much hope that Amendments Nos. 54, 108 and 60 will find favour with the Government.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: We had earlier discussions about the Bill as it affects the rights and welfare of children. The group of amendments is also about that important subject. The protection of children and the promotion of their best interests are among the strongest driving forces behind the reforms that the Bill will put in place.
I hope to be able to assure the Committee as to the strength and comprehensiveness of the provisions for safeguarding children and protecting their interests that the Bill will put in place. We are all aware of the cases where the current systems have failed, and where children have been harmed. Many Members of the Committee have of course been intimately involved in the inquiries into such cases. We are mindful of the forthcoming report of the Waterhouse inquiry.
Perhaps I may begin with Amendment No. 54. I welcome the opportunity to confirm the Government's commitment to ensuring the safety of children living away from home. A large part of that will be delivered by the regulatory system requiring children's homes and other places to meet strict standards for children's welfare. The Government have carefully considered Amendment No. 54. We fully support the motives behind the amendment, but believe that it is mostly unnecessary. By and large, the powers which it seeks to introduce already exist within the Bill or existing legislation. However, the amendment has brought to our attention the fact that the Bill probably does not give us all the powers we need to make regulations to protect children and promote their welfare in establishments and agencies covered by the commission. That is, in particular, the case in relation to children in hospices and private healthcare establishments. We will look at this point further and bring forward a government amendment in due course.
The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, raised an important point about the need to bring the regulation-making powers together so that there is clear understanding of the protection available for children living away from home. We will consider, when drafting the national minimum standards, how that can be achieved.
Perhaps I may turn to Amendments Nos. 60 and 108, which deal with advocacy for children. Advocacy is about effectively articulating the child's view, right or wrong. It is not about what the advocate thinks is best or in the child's welfare. Advocacy is grounded in Article 12 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, which assures to children capable of forming their own views the right to express those views freely in all matters affecting them. Although Members of the Committee have suggested that current provision is patchy, it would be right to acknowledge much of the good work undertaken by advocacy services provided

805
directly by local authorities or contracted by them to voluntary organisations. In addition, we are fortunate to have a number of national advocacy organisations which undertake important work with a wide range of children. The Department of Health has funded these organisations to prepare national standards for children's advocacy services. These were made the subject of extensive consultation last year and are due to be published in the spring.
Listening to children is a major theme of the safeguards review and the Quality Protects programme. Children's participation is a priority area for special grant under Quality Protects. This is a major initiative to improve service to children. It has at its heart children's participation and children's rights. A comprehensive programme of work with local authorities was launched last year.
We issued guidance to local authorities in October 1999 which stressed the importance of local authorities securing independent advocacy services for looked-after children. Local authority plans to develop these and related services are due to be returned to the department by 31st January 2000 and regional development workers are available to work closely with authorities on these issues.
Indeed, in taking forward children's participation as a basic principle underlining most of the Quality Protects programme, the Quality Protects project team within the Department of Health has focused on issuing good practice guidance to local authorities; commissioning a training pack for front-line social services staff to improve practice; arranging regional seminars for child-en; and working with representative agencies from the area of advocacy as well as national agencies to address, as far as is practical, their main concerns.
I have spoken at length because I believe that already we are making good progress in that area. However, to seek to regulate the provision of independent advocacy services is unnecessary. As I said, we have issued guidance on those services, consulted widely on national standards and are actively promoting that area through the Quality Protects initiative. Against that background we do not consider it necessary to regulate in this area.
The second part of Amendment No. 60 significantly duplicates current provisions available in the Children Act 1989 as to complaints as well as the powers in this Bill at Clause 20(3)(j) to make regulations requiring all registered providers to establish complaints procedures.
I turn briefly to Amendment No. 108. I am advised that using the terminology,
"all children … who are living away from home",
would cover a wide range of children. Not only would that cover all "looked-after" children, wherever placed. It would also extend to other children where currently local authorities do not have a role; for example, where a child, following separation or divorce, moves from one parent to another.
806
I turn to Amendments Nos. 152 and 167 which, in their different ways, are concerned with how the national care standards commission will, as a body, reflect the rights and interests of children in its management and governance. The proposal in Amendment No. 152 for a specific member on the commission's board with responsibility for children's rights, would, I feel, go against our intention as to how the commission will be managed and governed.
The commission must have the right balance of members to ensure that it undertakes its work effectively. It must be able to command the confidence and respect of the users of the services and their representatives as well as those who deliver them. Appointments will be made on the overriding principle of merit so as to achieve a board with the right balance of skills and background. We are not persuaded that there should be specific seats set aside for those from any specific interest or group. We shall, of course, ensure that some members of the commission have significant experience of children's social services and related issues.
If one were to make children's rights and welfare the responsibility of a particular member there would be the risk of marginalisation of this issue. It is important—this applies to many, if not all, public bodies—that all members of such a body should have the interests of all the registered services and their users at heart.
Amendment No. 167 seeks to pre-determine the role of the children's rights director by specifying responsibilities and functions on the face of the Bill. The Government's approach has been not to specify such responsibilities in primary legislation because of the risk that we may not get it quite right. The responsibilities to be carried out by the children's rights director will require further consideration and consultation and the role will no doubt develop and change according to how the commission settles into its important responsibilities.
Perhaps I can repeat a point I made in Committee only three days ago: this is an extremely important post. It will ensure, we believe, that the issue of children's rights and safeguards are given the highest priority by the commission. It strengthens the Government's commitment to improve children's safeguards. For that reason, we have said that the children's rights director's functions should be specified in regulations. We shall not leave the commission to decide what the responsibilities should be, but we expect that the role of the children's rights director will include a number of functions listed in the amendment. From what I have said I hope that the noble Lord will understand our determination to view this as an important appointment and one consistent with the whole thrust of the Bill.
Lord Clement-Jones: I thank the Minister for that comprehensive reply. I appreciate the care taken in considering each of the amendments in turn. I appreciate also his individual replies. As he will understand, the amendments were put together by a consortium of a number of voluntary organisations; in

807
fact, the key voluntary organisations concerned with children. Clearly, there are strong feelings that further safeguards are needed, particularly in the area of independent advocacy. I notice that the Minister referred to Article 12 of the UN convention. He recognised the work of the advocacy services and described excellently the way in which the Quality Protects programme is proceeding.
At the end of the day, the key point is whether such children have the right to advocacy. We can try to ensure that local authorities do things by circular; we can try to establish standards, programmes and so on, but in the end the UN convention requires the child to have the right to independent advocacy. I appreciate the Minister's attempt, within his parameters, to answer the matter in the most helpful way possible. But this is a major campaign that needs to be brought to fruition. That is strongly felt by the voluntary organisations, on these Benches, and elsewhere. We may want to return to the matter on Report.
I appreciate the Minister's reply on other matters. We have a great deal of food for thought, particularly in terms of Amendment No. 54. I appreciate his undertaking to look at the clause to see whether all the necessary powers are given to the commission in relation to children in hospices or private healthcare establishments and the undertaking to look at how all the standards applicable to children should be brought together in future. We shall read Hansard carefully in respect of that reply.
On Amendments Nos. 152 and 153, we had debates on the Health Act about the composition of various matters, such as PCGs, and so on. Of course, I appreciate the need to have a balance of expertise. Clearly, the Minister understands that it is important to have people who understand the issues. There is no question of trying to put a straitjacket on appointments to the commission. I believe that the answer lies in the way in which the department consults. The Minister commented, particularly in relation to Amendment No. 167, on the consultation regarding the powers and duties of the children's rights director. I see no reason why the department should not also consult, in relation to the members of the commission, with the same bodies as those with which it would consult on the way in which the children's rights director's duties will be exercised. I believe that that would be the sensible way forward. We look forward to that taking place. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 55 to 57 not moved.]
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 58:
Page 11, line 9. after first ("or) insert ("either—(a)").
The noble Earl said: In moving Amendment No. 58, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 59. The principle of subsection (2) of Clause 20 is difficult to argue against. Clearly, it is right, in the interests of public protection, that those who look after vulnerable
808
people in a care home or other establishment are properly qualified for the purpose. Part of that qualification is that they should have proved themselves to be fit and proper persons to the appropriate registration authority.
Under Part IV of the Bill social care workers will need to register with either the English or Welsh council before they can call themselves by that name. In Clause 20 we find that a condition of being allowed to work in certain capacities at a care home or agency will be that an individual is registered with one or other of the councils.
The question posed by the amendment asks whether it will be necessary for a qualified nurse, who works in a care home and is registered with the UKCC, to take out a further registration with either the English or the Welsh council. I do not believe that it should be a requirement for that person to do so and I hope that the Minister will be able to give me some sort of reassurance on that.
The question branches out into wider territory when we consider the role of healthcare assistants. The Minister knows my views on healthcare assistants, which are that they should be regulated and that if and when they are so regulated, the registration authority should be the same authority that governs nurses. There are all manner of arguments to support that, on which, for the sake of brevity, I do not propose to expound. But one thing is clear. If somebody registers with the UKCC, or whatever body it is that succeeds it, the consequences of doing so will be a distinct kind of professional training and development. The training and development that will ensue from registering with the GSCC or the CCW will be of a different kind.
If my argument is sound that healthcare assistants should be able eventually to register on the nurses' register, because that is where their professional skills and disciplines most naturally lead them, then the Bill ought to allow for that rather than oblige them, as it appears to do now, to register with one or other of the councils. I beg to move.
7 P.m.
Lord Clement-Jones: The Minister was kind enough to write clarifying certain questions that I raised at Second Reading. One of those was that there would be no problems and that we knew what the status of healthcare workers would be—as to whether or not they would be able to register in the future under the nursing regime as opposed to the regime established by this Bill.
The Minister's letter said that the review concerning the need and scope of regulation of healthcare support workers is now under way and is due to report in April. He said that the GSCC and any new regulatory body that might emerge from the review would be complementary; that there would be no overlap as each body will be regulated as a separate workforce.

809
We on these Benches are extremely keen to ensure that the Bill does not pre-empt the outcome of the above-mentioned review; that the possibility is retained of enabling the two registration systems to be designed so that healthcare assistants can register with the same body that regulates nursing. As I understand it, the RCN and others are having discussions with the Government on this issue, but we on these Benches seek the Minster's assurance that there will be the option of healthcare assistants being regulated by the body that regulates nursing, and that that option will not be closed off as a result of the Bill. We strongly support the amendments.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I am grateful to the noble Earl for allowing me to clarify the position of nurses, and also to debate a matter that is close to my heart; that is, the potential regulation of healthcare assistants.
There is no intention that qualified nurses should have to register with the general social care council. The definition of social care work in Clause 51 as it stands will extend to nurses working in care homes and domiciliary care agencies; but Clause 51 also allows us to make regulations exempting persons from the requirement to be registered with the GSCC. I can assure the Committee that we will make regulations exempting nurses who are on a statutory authorised register of nurses.
I turn to healthcare workers more generally. I confirm the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, that in December the Government announced that they had commissioned a review of the roles and responsibilities of support workers in healthcare settings. That review includes a wide-ranging consultation process. It will make recommendations on whether or not there should be some form of regulation of those staff to ensure public safety. It will take into account the Government's decisions about the regulation of unqualified staff in the social care sector. The outcome of that exercise is due in April.
My understanding is that there is no view yet on the outcome of the review. However, there is a clear consensus that healthcare workers should be regulated, though a great diversity on how it ought to be done. The review team is investigating the form that registration might take—registration, other models and costs. Of course, it is aware of the provisions contained in this Bill.
I fully understand the point made by noble Lords, that at the end of the day the last thing we want, as with nurses, is that if we regulate healthcare assistants in the future they will have to be registered under two regulatory bodies. We will, of course, ensure that if proposals are brought forward that will not happen.
Lord Clement-Jones: Does that mean that the Minister can confirm that nothing in this Bill pre-empts a decision that may be made in future?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: Nothing in this Bill pre-empts a decision to be made in the future.
Earl Howe: Once again that is an extremely helpful and reassuring response from the Minister. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 59 to 66 not moved.]
Lord Rix Lord Rix moved Amendment No. 67:
Page 11, line 50, at end insert ("and other residential provision for children living away from home").
The noble Lord said: In rising to move Amendment No. 67 I fear that some Members of your Lordships' Committee may have a sense of déjà vu, for this amendment runs on naturally from the penultimate amendments moved by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones; but I press on.
Disabled children are three times more likely than other children to live away from home. Where children are living away from home, whether on a longer or a shorter term basis, we want to ensure that there are consistent and safe child care practices, not only in children's homes but also in residential schools, family placements, respite units, NHS respite or longer-term units.
Those who work with "looked-after" children (if I may coin a phrase) should be afforded the best possible guidance and practice frameworks regardless of the location in which they are caring for the child. In view of the Minister's response to the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, I cannot believe that he will not accept my belt and braces addition to Clause 20, page 11, line 50. I beg to move.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I cannot go quite that far. However, I can say to the noble Lord that we intend the power to make regulations in respect of the control and discipline of children to cover all settings regulated by the commission. The Bill was drafted with the intention that regulations under Clause 20(1)(d) in relation to securing people's welfare should he sufficiently wide to allow provision in relation to the control and discipline of children. That would therefore give us all the necessary powers to ensure that such tight regulations are set in relation to such matters in any of the settings regulated by the national care standards commission where children are accommodated.
However, the noble Lord's amendment raises doubts about whether the Bill, as currently drafted, achieves that purpose. I am, therefore, very grateful to the noble Lord for raising this matter. We are currently considering this issue and intend to return with a government amendment in due course. We are particularly concerned that, as drafted, the Bill does not appear to give us the appropriate regulation-making powers in relation to hospices and other private healthcare facilities for children. On that basis, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Rix: With such an admission from the Minister, I cannot possibly press on with my

811
amendment. I am delighted to beg leave to withdraw it and look forward to reading the Government's amendment when it is eventually tabled.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Lord Hunt of Kings Heath moved Amendment No. 68:
Page 12, line 3, at end insert—
("(ba) imposing other requirements (in addition to those imposed by section 25 of the 1989 Act (use of accommodation for restricting liberty)) as to the placing of a child in accommodation provided for the purpose mentioned in paragraph (b), including a requirement to obtain the permission of any local authority who are looking after the child;").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 69 to 72 not moved.]
Clause 20, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 21 [National minimum standards]:
Lord Clement-Jones Lord Clement-Jones moved Amendment No. 73:
Page 12, line 10, leave out ("appropriate Minister") and insert ("Commission").
The noble Lord said: This is a very straightforward amendment, which is designed simply to ensure that the commission is able to set minimum standards. In addition, it is also designed to elicit an assurance from the Minister that moves are already under way to prepare the "minimum standards" referred to in Clause 21.
As we discussed earlier in Committee, the commission does not have the right at present to create those minimum standards. The appropriate Minister currently has the right to do so. When we deal with a later amendment, we shall discuss what legal status the standards in Clause 21 have. If one looks carefully at the wording of the clause, one realises that the position seems to be rather shaky. However, be that as it may, the commission is the closest to the actual establishments and agencies that are being regulated. As such, it is extremely important that it should have the right to set out what those minimum standards should be. In Amendment No. 85 we set out in a more comprehensive way various other matters which apply to the setting out of minimum standards.
Such amendments are really designed to give the commission a much more proactive role, which is something that many noble Lords have sought to achieve during the passage of this Bill. They are also designed to ensure that the Minister will give us the assurance that those minimum standards are actually being put together currently and that they will be set in place. I beg to move.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I must confess that I was somewhat puzzled by the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, because he did not seem to refer to the issue of whether the Minister or the commission should be responsible. Perhaps the noble Lord would care to say a few further words in that respect.
Lord Clement-Jones: In terms of the amendment, I thought I said that the commission should be responsible simply because it is closer than the Minister to the regulation of the establishments and agencies involved. Therefore, it is entirely appropriate for the commission to be the regulator.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I am most grateful to the noble Lord for that clarification. However, I fear that I must resist this set of amendments. The commission will, of course, be a powerful national body. It will have extensive responsibilities for regulating care services, maintaining standards, ensuring the protection of vulnerable children and adults, and encouraging improvements in the quality of provision. But it is not a policy-making body.
We believe that setting the national minimum standards involves key policy issues and that the responsibility should rest with Ministers. In developing the standards, for example, it will be essential, as already mentioned this evening, to consider most carefully the resource implications and the potential impact of those standards on providers. I believe that it is the Government who should take such questions into account.
Apart from those standards with a resource impact, there will be others that will cover very sensitive areas. We have already discussed the need for regulations covering the appropriate physical management of adults in care homes, where necessary. These are very difficult and sensitive issues and ones which, I believe, should be dealt with by Ministers rather than the commission.
I should point out to the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, that the commission will have an important role to play in assisting in the formulation of those standards. It can, of course, advise the Government on any changes that it believes might be necessary and the Government will always listen most carefully to such representations. I rest my case.
Lord Clement-Jones: I thank the Minister for that reply. There is a good deal in what he says which we shall certainly consider. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 74 to 79 not moved.]
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 80:
Page 12, line 14, at end insert—
("( ) In preparing or amending the standards set out in the statements, the appropriate minister shall consult any persons whom he considers it appropriate to consult.").
The noble Earl said: In moving the above amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 81 and 82. I start with some warm words for the Government's aims. No one can be against the idea of raising standards. It is a self-evidently desirable objective to which the Bill rightly devotes a great deal of attention. A perfectly natural extension of that aim is the thought that there should be standards of care below which no establishment should be allowed to

813
fall. That, in turn, begs two questions: first, what should those standards be; and, secondly, how are they best measured?
I do not believe that we can answer either of those two questions properly without acknowledging two facts. The first is that we are where we are. If we take the case of care homes, we may feel that some measurable features of some care homes fall short of what we should like to see. But these are homes where people already live; which have been approved by the relevant local authority for sometimes many years; and where, most importantly, in many—if not most—instances the residents are happy and well cared for.
Secondly, we need to acknowledge that changes to the physical fabric of an establishment or to staffing ratios carry with them a cost. If such changes are so important as to warrant being enforced by law, they need to be justified by arguments that everyone can accept as being robust. We also need to be quite clear who is going to pay.
I do not doubt that the array of minimum standards, such as is set out on the document Fit for the Future? should play an important role in identifying the kinds of matters on which we should be focusing in terms of easily measurable features. But it would be absolute folly—and morally quite wrong—if we were to treat such a document as a formal check-list that required 100 per cent observance. Not only is such a thing impossible if half of the elderly population in care are not to be deprived of their homes, but it would also serve, if I may so put it, to lose the plot. Standards of care in a care home are to be judged by more than simply physical features. We should therefore be extremely cautious in laying down mandatory, prescriptive rules unless there is no argument that they are essential and readily achievable.
What is it, more than anything else, that has prompted this Bill? It is surely the desire to stamp out abuse of vulnerable people. It is not abuse of anyone to ask them to sleep in a room measuring 9.9 square metres. It is not abuse if there happen not to be three double sockets in the room, or if the home does not possess a sluice. Any changes of this kind that are enforced, at any rate on existing care homes, have to be justified in terms of what is demonstrably harmful.
If we exclude for a moment measures to prevent what is demonstrably harmful, what is at stake here is people's personal choice. Some of us may find it odd that there are elderly people in Lancashire who enjoy being looked after in an environment that more closely resembles a boarding-house than a hotel. But there are hundreds of rooms in that part of the world licensed at 80 square feet. Are we now to say that that is unacceptable? Are we to say that there is no place for flexibility of judgment that recognises local practices and preferences? I hope not.
The cost of Fit for the Future?, were it all to be implemented, is, I. fear, a sum that we would find horrifying, if we knew it. We do not know it because Fit far the Future? is currently only a set of proposals and the regulatory impact assessment of the Bill cannot take account of it. However, I can tell the
814
Committee that the banks are taking account of it. As we sit here, there are care homes going into receivership as a result of what the banks perceive to be a tidal wave of regulation about to engulf the sector. In Brighton and Hove and in Hertfordshire, there is now an under-provision of nursing home beds, which was not the case a year ago.
There are many who think that the contraction of the sector—unless the Government take action to halt it—will be evident on two fronts: the closure or small, independent homes, for whom an all-purpose set of minimum standards will make no allowance; and the closure of local authority homes, because local authorities, as first-time registrants, will have an even bigger mountain to climb in terms of room sizes. The net effect will be to drive care provision into the hands of large, independent providers. Is that really what the Government want? If they do not want it, they should say now that minimum standards will be non-binding on the commission and that there will be room for flexibility and discretion where good reason exists. They should say also that they are not oblivious to the issue of costs. An earnest of such a statement would be to undertake that fees to care homes will be increased to reflect the cost of upgrading. That has to be a natural and fair consequence of what the Government now propose. Can the Minister provide such an undertaking today?
I return to Fit for the Future? and the many sets of draft minimum standards that are to appear over the next few months. We need reassurance that there will be full consultation on all such proposals with those who are professionally involved in each case. We need to be reassured that those people will be respected and listened to. I believe that it is wholly reasonable, as an additional safeguard, for there to be automatic parliamentary scrutiny of any minimum standards that receive ministerial approval, with the possibility left open for debate under the negative resolution procedure.
Clause 21 allows the Minister carte blanche to publish statements and amended statements whenever-he considers it appropriate to do so. That cannot be right. It cannot be sensible to let Ministers in this, or indeed any government, move the goalposts for a sector of the care industry without full debate on any adverse implications. I hope that the Committee will accept that I am not negative on the concept of national minimum standards, but I am a realist. I beg to move.
Lord Clement-Jones: I wish to speak to Amendments Nos. 83 and 84 which are grouped with Amendment No. 80. They are similar. Both are designed to ensure that where national minimum standards are imposed by the department—in the way that compliance cost assessments are required in certain instances—the Minister and the department are required to,
"publish guidance as to the necessary level of resources which on the best available information are required by such establishments or agencies to achieve such standards".

815
I speak to these amendments from the basis of strong support for a regime of national minimum standards and indeed for the standards proposed in Fit for the Future? I am sure that the Minister has seen the responses to the consultation. There is obviously strong support in many quarters for those standards. I do not want to detract from our support either for the detail of the standards or from the principle that they should be imposed. However, the amendment is designed to prevent the arbitrary setting of standards which are in a sense responsibility free. It would be perfectly possible for the department simply to take the view that it was rather removed from the process of regulation and that in any event most of the homes were not run by local authorities, which may need to be funded, but by the private sector which needs to contract to local authorities. The department could take a rather lofty view as regards what the cost of achieving such standards should be.
We are concerned to ensure that when minimum standards are set, careful thought is given to the costs involved. As the Minister knows, different financial issues have arisen in regard to the provision of care. There has been much debate as regards whether adequate resources are available in the system. Certainly, the independent sector believes that in many instances it is not being fairly treated by local authorities who, in turn, complain of lack of resources themselves. We therefore believe that it is not good enough simply to set national minimum standards. There should be an overview as to whether there are adequate resources in the system. That should be an essential part of the process—akin to a compliance cost assessment, as I mentioned.
Amendment No. 84, although similar, is not quite the same. One of the concerns that I expressed at Second Reading is that there will simply not be a sufficient level of resources in the inspection system to ensure that minimum standards will be achieved. On Second Reading I mentioned the Almost Half report of 1992 which made the point that there were not enough resources in the inspection system to ensure that standards were met. It seems pretty fruitless to have a clause that allows minimum standards to be set only to find that there are not sufficient resources in the system to ensure that those standards are achieved. We believe that when minimum standards are set it is important that the department should ensure that the inspection resources will be available to ensure that they are put into effect.
7.30 p.m.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: This debate has gone to the heart of most of the concerns expressed about how the regulatory system will work in practice and the impact that it may have on the financial viability of some of the establishments to be regulated. I hope that I can assure the Committee that these matters have been considered and that we intend—as ever—to keep the right balance between understanding the situation which providers will face and the necessary desire to ensure that vulnerable people are properly protected.
816
We have made clear our intention to consult on all national minimum standards, as we set out in the White Paper Modernising Social Services. As noble Lords will be aware, we have already produced Fit for the Future?—National Required Standards for Residential and Nursing Homes for Older People, and, as I have made clear on a number of occasions, we are considering responses, the closing date for which is in a couple of weeks' time. We shall give the responses careful consideration. I have indicated the flexibility of approach that we shall take when considering the responses to the consultation.
It is our intention to follow the same practice of consultation for each set of national standards and to seek views from all interested bodies and from people likely to be affected. However, we do not want to prevent the possibility of making minor amendments to standards or, perhaps, of responding rapidly with changes should circumstances warrant. We do not want our responses to be slowed down by a lengthy consultation process. It is here that we need some degree of flexibility. Standards on the use of measures to restrain and control, for example, may need to be amended quickly if they do not cover a particular type of unsafe or harmful practice identified in a particular home.
To summarise, we would expect to consult fully whenever developing national minimum standards, but I would be uncomfortable accepting amendments which would rule out any circumstances where a consultation might not be appropriate.
Amendment No. 81 concerns the discretion with which the registration authority may apply the national standards. I said, both at Second Reading and during our previous deliberations in Committee, that an element of discretion needs to be used when the national care standards commission is exercising its powers to make decisions. We think we have achieved that by the current wording "take into account", which we think is sufficiently flexible for those purposes.
It is worth recalling that the independent sector has, for a long time, been calling for national standards. That is because of the inconsistency of approach among many of the current registration authorities. We are determined to bring fairness and consistency to care services, but we accept that consistency has to be balanced with discretion.
The regulations will, as it were, form the bones on which the standards will form the flesh. So, for example, the regulations may require an establishment to provide adequate and suitable staffing, to take a point we have already discussed. These may be further defined in the standards to require, say, a minimum of 50 per cent of care staff to be qualified at NVQ level 2; they may bring in the ratios we have discussed; and they may bring in the national minimum data that the noble Earl has suggested we consider.
An inspector could find on a visit to an establishment which had hitherto met the standard that a turnover of staff had occurred which meant that the standard was no longer being adhered to at the

817
time of the visit We consider that it would be reasonable for the inspector to negotiate with the owner a time-scale within which the new staff should obtain the qualification. However, if it then happened that the establishment continually ran below the standard—perhaps because not enough money was allocated for training staff—the commission would want to issue a formal warning to the owner. If no improvement resulted, the commission would make a judgment as to whether to proceed to a proposal of cancellation of registration or to instigate a prosecution. The persistent failure to meet the standard would, in this case, be relied on as evidence of a breach of the relevant regulation or as evidence of a lack of fitness on the part of the registered person and the service provided. However, I hope that the Committee will see that there is an element of discretion in the way that that would be applied.
The noble Earl also mentioned the question of room sizes. We know that this issue causes concern. We shall consider responses to the consultation in this area; no final decisions have been made. However, to go back to the point I made at Second Reading, the 10 square metres standard, for instance, was contained in a building note issued by the Department of Health in 1973; and the National Association of Health Authorities, in its guidelines published in 1985, also used the same size area. So the issues concerning room size have been with us for many years.
Perhaps I may now turn to the question of whether there is a need for We national minimum standards to be laid before Parliament prior to them being published. As we know, there will be statements of national minimum standards for each type of registered service; each will be a detailed document building on the principles of the regulations to be made under Clause 20, as I have described. The aim of the standards is to give a more detailed indication of what will be required of registered services in those regulations.
We do not believe it is necessary for the national minimum standards to be laid before Parliament when it is already the case that the regulations on which they are based will have been laid before Parliament and subjected to its scrutiny. When one considers the amount of consultation which will take place in the development of each national minimum standard, I am certain that any person who wants to bring a point of view to bear will be heard.
Amendments Nos. 83 and 84 concern the resources needed by the providers and the regulators to implement and en force the national standards. We have already discussed the question of resources to providers. I fully accept the intention of the amendments that all new standards should be based on a realistic estimate of the resources needed to meet them. That is why I have argued previously that the national minimum standards should be decided by Ministers in order that they can take those factors into account. That is why, as a matter of policy, the Government are committed to publishing a regulatory impact assessment alongside any new standards.
818
As regards the costs to the providers, much of our discussion relates to Fit for the Future? and the Committee will have seen that that contains such an assessment. We recognise that some homes will have difficulties meeting some of the standards proposed. I can assure the Committee that we intend to give reasonable time-scales within which those standards can be finally agreed and met.
However, we have to recognise that many homes already meet—or even exceed—those standards, in both the private and voluntary sectors. As the noble Earl hinted, one of the sectors which will have most difficulty with the sizes suggested will be the public local authority sector. It is also worth making the point that the trend towards single rooms has risen quite dramatically, from around 40 per cent to more than 70 per cent in the past 10 years. So the market itself has, in a sense, recognised the need to raise standards and many providers are doing just that. One has to ask whether we would be wrong to inhibit that rise in standards.
I can assure the Committee that as the standards are drafted for each service to be regulated, they will be published with similar assessments as to their likely impact. In carrying out this assessment, the Government will pay close attention to any pressures on public expenditure which might arise from a set of standards and will consider these in the Comprehensive Spending Review. I hope that I have gone some way towards meeting concerns on those matters. The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, raised the issue of whether the registration authority itself would have enough resources to carry out its important responsibilities. Of course, the cost implications of any new standard will be considered by the Department of Health and by the Welsh Assembly in their annual determination of the registration authorities' budgets However, I can give a general assurance to the noble Lord that, of course, we want the new regulatory system to work and that means that we accept that the commission must be funded accordingly in order to carry out its work effectively. I hope that I have assured noble Lords on those matters.
Lord Clement-Jones: I thank the noble Lord for his remarks on Amendments Nos. 83 and 84. I shall look carefully at the assurances he has given when considering any further amendments.
Earl Howe: I thank the Minister for covering the ground so comprehensively. I wish to respond only briefly. I am reassured by the intention of the Government to consult widely on each set of draft minimum standards. That will be a good thing. However, the reason why I wanted to put the amendment on the face of the Bill is that, while it is acceptable for the Minister to express what is undoubtedly a sincere intention on the part of this Government, he cannot bind future governments and parliaments. For that reason, there is a case for including a provision as regards consultation arid I shall need to reflect on that.

819
I am reassured by his comments on the meaning of "taking into account". Clearly, while that was largely a probing amendment, that form of words did not, so far as I was aware, have a defined meaning in law. The Minister has been most helpful in putting some flesh on the bones. If it does allow for flexibility, then that is a good thing.
As regards the matter of the regulation of room sizes, technically, what the Minister said was correct; namely, that for a number of years room sizes have been laid down to the measurements he mentioned. However, what is also true is that local authorities have been able to exercise discretion. This has been very much a local matter, so that in different parts of the country rooms can vary in size. As I mentioned, in Lancashire the pattern has been to license residential and care homes with much smaller sizes of room. The same is true in areas of the south coast. My concern is that, at a stroke, such care homes, where people are living happily and are well looked after, would be consigned to oblivion. I do not believe that this has been sufficiently thought through and I hope that Ministers will take on board those concerns.
I am very unhappy that the Minister does not agree that there should be parliamentary scrutiny of the minimum standards. While it is true that the regulations will already have been laid—the Minister rightly pointed that out when he gave the example of staffing ratios—they will be phrased in general terms. All noble Lords would approve of regulations covering staff numbers, but, as I said at Second Reading, the devil is in the detail. I am not pressing for the affirmative resolution or making any other such pie-in-the-sky request, but if there are concerns, then Parliament should be given the opportunity to discuss them. I shall have to return to that matter.
The question of resources was addressed by myself and by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones. Resources lie at the heart of this matter and I am sorry that the Minister did not feel able to comment in any way on how the cost of upgrading might impact on the level of fees the Government would be prepared to see in place.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I thank the noble Earl. I thought that I had made clear that the Government will look at the potential cost of the introduction of higher standards. Furthermore, they will take those costs into account in any discussions on public expenditure decisions in the future.
7.45 p.m.
Earl Howe: At that point I must have been paying insufficient attention when the Minister was speaking and I apologise for that. I am most grateful to him.
I should like to point out that the two significant items of expenditure required under Fit for the Future? are, I believe, to enlarge the width of doors to 0.8 metres and to provide three double sockets in each bedroom.
820
I have been advised that those are two very costly items. If those requirements are imposed, please can we receive an assurance that they have not been merely plucked from the air, especially in the case of door widths. From what the Minister has already said, I am sure that he will examine that point carefully.
I am aware of the time, but can the Minister answer two specific questions on national minimum standards? First, how does he envisage such standards interacting with national service frameworks and, secondly, how will those standards be reflected in planning regulations?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I presume that the noble Earl is referring to the issue of private healthcare establishments as regards national service frameworks. When we debated this matter I referred to a number of policy developments and institutions concerned with the management of the National Health Service which might inform the standards that would be set for the private healthcare sector. That is the position, I believe. Clearly, when setting out the basis for a framework for the development of consistently high quality services throughout the National Health Service, elements will be contained in that framework that will be relevant to any national minimum standards set in relation to the Bill. However, it is a little difficult to say more than that until we have begun to develop further the national service frameworks.
I suspect that the noble Earl may be suggesting that national service frameworks should automatically be applied to the national minimum standards. However, I would not accept that because I must return to the distinction I drew in our previous debate; namely, that the regulatory function of the commission will be very different from the Government's responsibility to manage the NHS effectively. National service frameworks are concerned with effective management and the delivery of high quality services. However, of course they can inform the development of national minimum standards.
Earl Howe: I am grateful to the Minister for that response. I am not sure whether the Government have reached the point of thinking about how, and to what extent, the setting of national minimum standards will be reflected in planning regulations, which I do appreciate falls outside the remit of the noble Lord. Nevertheless, if national minimum standards are laid down, in however discretionary a way, it is a factor to be taken into account, and I should have thought that planning regulations will also need to take them into account.
As I said, I am aware of the time and at this juncture I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 81 to 84 not moved.]
Clause 21 agreed to.
Lord Burlison: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Air Traffic: Transatlantic Flights
7.49 p.m.
Lord Nasebyrose to ask Her Majesty's Government what is their policy on opening up transatlantic flights to new entrant carriers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, it is my pleasure to open this debate. Perhaps I may say how encouraged I am to see the Minister of Transport himself here to respond. I thank him in advance for doing me that courtesy.
Some may wonder why I have tabled this Question. The principle reason, as some noble Lords will know, is that I was an RAF pilot. I toyed with joining the airline industry as an executive, but decided otherwise. Before becoming Deputy Speaker and Chairman of Ways and Means in another place, I took some interest in the subject of air travel. Like your Lordships, I read the newspapers. Last November I was conscious that the issue of transatlantic services would come up for negotiation, as I understood it, some time in January 2000 and that the matter had been outstanding for many years. Therefore, I felt that it might be helpful to give the issue a nudge forward. I have been helped in my briefings by material supplied by Singapore Airlines and British Midland. Indeed, had any other airline briefed me, I would have been equally receptive.
It seems to me that there are three main considerations. First is the lack of competition and real choice for air travellers on transatlantic routes from the United Kingdom. Secondly, and equally important, is the continuing under-use of capacity at our regional airports. Thirdly, there are the specific difficulties that seem to be experienced by a number of new entrants, particularly British Midland and Singapore Airlines, in securing transatlantic rights from Heathrow. That is all against the background of the Government's White Paper issued about two years ago which said that transatlantic travel would be opened up.
I start with the first of the three considerations, the lack of competition and real choice on transatlantic routes. We have, a potential market in the United States of about 300 million people—as big as that of the European Union. I am concerned about British travellers. They have a very limited choice of airlines, as the examples will swiftly indicate. Between London and the United States there are 720 services a week, 95 per cent of which are supplied by just four airlines, two US carriers and two United Kingdom carriers. British Airways and American Airlines share 55 per cent of all services including 70 per cent on the London to Chicago route and 60 per cent on the London to New York route.
822
The restrictive UK-US bilateral agreement provides for only two carriers from each country to operate from each of the three London airports and only three non-UK/US airlines are allowed to operate on the transatlantic route. That means that the provision is less than 5 per cent.
As I looked into the issue, what really disturbed me was that if one is a British businessman one can only travel direct to 10 US cities. However, a German businessman, with whom we compete extensively in the United States, has no less than 18 direct services from Frankfurt. It appears to me that that is solely due to an "Open Skies" policy which we do not have.
Secondly, Manchester is a very important part o f the industrial base of the United Kingdom. It has only 48 direct services a week operated by only four UK-US airlines to just five cities. There are no services at all to the US west coast. Birmingham is the heart of our metallic industries. It has two airlines, both American, operating just 14 services direct to just two US cities. From Glasgow there is one direct service at the moment operated by Continental Airways to Newark.
This under-use of regional airports is not sensible. All the airports I have mentioned are Category A international airports, all approved for long-haul services. It is true that there are connecting flights via London and a few indirect flights over London to the US. But these are not dedicated flights from regional airports and do not directly benefit the regional airports themselves. Despite the decision of the previous administration to allow US and British carriers—the so-called third and fourth freedom operators—to operate to regional airports without restriction, there are still very few transatlantic services.
Airlines from other countries are still prevented from operating transatlantic services beyond the United Kingdom from regional airports. Surely the time has come to open up regional airports for transatlantic services to foreign airlines which, in the jargon, are called fifth freedom operators.
The Minister will have noted an Early Day Motion in the other place, supported on an all-party basis and signed by a substantial number of Members of Parliament. That indicates that this is a subject of interest right across the political spectrum.
I do not believe that there is much argument about the fact that regional airports play a very important role in job creation, overseas trade and commerce and that they relieve congestion at London. So fifth freedom services will help all those aspects. I ask Her Majesty's Government whether they intend to grant these rights to foreign airlines.
It takes time to build up any kind of service from a regional airport. For example, the Singapore Airlines route from Manchester to Singapore started in 1985 with two services a week. It took a considerable time to build it up to the current daily service. We need to recognise that it has not been a simple success story. There have been ups and downs. But that particular carrier stuck through thick and thin to ensure that the service was maintained. It seems pretty clear that if we

823
want to encourage the growth of regional air services we need to encourage airlines to operate from those airports.
I now turn to Heathrow. Considerable difficulties are being experienced by new entrants. London is in a different situation. It is our capital city and the main point of entry for those coming to the United Kingdom. It is absolutely vital that it remains the pre-eminent point of entry. But currently access to London and beyond is highly regulated. The existing bilateral agreement between the United Kingdom and US provides that only four airlines, two from each side, can operate transatlantic services from any one London airport. This agreement frustrates the attempts of British Midland to open a transatlantic service and enables a few airlines to dominate the route.
I am aware that negotiations have been taking place for a very long time. Can the Government say whether there has been any progress at all in liberalising the bilateral agreement and when we can expect a new agreement which will enable British Midland to join the route?
However, a British Midland service, welcome though it would be, would still not provide the greater choice of service that I believe British travellers deserve. The choice would still be between just a British and American carrier. As I mentioned, the other carriers on the route at the moment are Kuwait Airlines, which has three services a week, and Air India, which also has three. So there are six services which are non-British or American out of 175 a week. That is not a vast amount of consumer choice.
Rightly, our Government and our nation pride themselves on the fact that we are liberal country in terms of competition. That was reaffirmed 16 years ago in the Conservative White Paper which stated that the government would promote competition and that they would make it easier for new airlines to enter the market. As said, about two years ago the present Government said:
"We wish to see the liberalisation of transatlantic services…on the basis of fair competition...and with adequate protection for small and new entrant carriers against the abuse of market power".
So far there is little evidence of that happening.I move now from British Midland to Singapore Airlines. That airline, I understand, has been trying for about 10 years to open up a service from Heathrow to the United States. I am unclear why it has taken so long. I wondered whether Singapore was carrying out some kind of protectionism. I could not find any evidence of it. There appears to be a fairly liberal agreement between the UK and Singapore which enables an airline from any country to operate as many services as it wishes between the two countries. Given that we have three international airlines flying to Singapore whereas Singapore has only one, so far the agreement has been to our advantage. As I understand it, the Government of Singapore have granted UK carriers substantial rights beyond Singapore to Australia, including code-sharing rights, of which British
824
Airways has, quite rightly and understandably, taken full advantage. I also understand that "hubbing" rights have been made available. Whatever way one looks at it, equity and fairness suggest that Singapore Airlines should at least be given the opportunity to have some form of transatlantic rights.
What is the delay? I remind the Minister that in 1989 the government said that once Singapore Airlines achieved up to 21 services to the UK a week from Singapore the issue would be taken very seriously, but so far no progress has been made. What is the situation in relation to the US/UK agreement? As I understand it, the United States is quite happy for Singapore Airlines to operate across the Atlantic. I am not sure what is holding matters up at this end. It does not seem likely to be due to British Airways fearing competition. By any yardstick, British Airways is a very successful airline, well patronised by the public. Obviously, that is in the interests of the passenger.
Can it be that there is a worry about extensive over-capacity on the route? If passenger numbers fell it would be a worry, but I note from the January issue of Aviation Strategy that the existing British Airways and Virgin services have enjoyed load factors of 77 per cent. Would not every airline in the world wish that it could achieve that? Furthermore, they intend to increase capacity on the route by 10 per cent. The Minister will be aware of recent statements by British Airways that it intends to go up market. Certainly, if British Midland and, to an extent, Singapore Airlines came along, it would ensure that economy class capacity remained fairly constant.
Questions have been raised in the press about shortages of slots. I believe that that is a red herring. Slots are in any event a matter for airport authorities and not the Government. Suggestions have been made that, because Singapore Airlines has made an investment in Virgin, it does not really need this opportunity. I believe that its code-sharing agreement with Virgin is very similar to BA's agreement with Qantas. While British Airways flies direct to Australia and has a code-sharing agreement with Qantas, this is a very similar situation.
Whatever the reason for the delay, as far as concerns the British traveller it has gone on for too long. It is also costly to British industry. If one can travel cheaply to Amsterdam one can then fly to the United States at almost half the price one would pay if one travelled from London. That cannot be in the interests of British exporters. Therefore, I ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will expedite the request of Singapore Airlines for a transatlantic service.
In conclusion, I make four points. First, despite the best intentions of successive governments—I do not make any party political point—air transport remains one of the most highly regulated sectors in the world of transport and commerce. Secondly, that situation is detrimental to passengers and consumers who, according to all the information available, benefit from greater choice and competition. Thirdly, bilateral agreements, which restrict access to routes such as the transatlantic to just two participating

825
countries, have not served the interests of the consumer well, particularly the British businessman. Fourthly, those agreements are detrimental to the growth of regional airports.
In the interests of fairness and equity and greater choice and competition on the transatlantic route, I respectfully ask that the Government open up regional airports to fifth freedom carriers, hasten their negotiations with the US over British Midland and expedite the discussions next week, I believe, with Singapore so as to give Singapore Airlines the opportunity to provide greater choice to transatlantic travellers from Heathrow.
8.3 p.m.
Viscount Waverley: My Lords, I apologise to the House for rising to speak but I should like to make two quick points. The whole approach to transatlantic air routes is a throwback to a bygone era and is inconsistent with globalisation endeavours. Therefore, historic protectionist support for selected carriers must end. However, there is one caveat. A mechanism must be found whereby passenger and cargo services are not adversely affected by unprofitable carriers.
The noble Lord spoke about the regions. It has always appeared odd to me that many believe the centre of the universe to be London and the south-east. I believe that this Government should be instrumental in bringing about economic well-being in other regions by diverting, or creating, additional routes.
8.4 p.m.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, we are indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Naseby, for initiating this brief debate in a comprehensive manner. He put his questions in a broad context and I shall do likewise. This is a good opportunity to point out that in general Liberal Democrats support open skies policies and greater competition within an envelope of concern for improved environmental conditions in the air and around airports. We also favour the encouragement of a greater role for Stansted and, to a lesser extent, Gatwick in air transport and a much greater role for the major provincial airports. That point has also been comprehensively made by the noble Lord. A number of my honourable friends in another place put their names to the Early Day Motion to which the noble Lord referred.
The context of the debate this evening is the Bermuda II agreement between the US and UK which has been the subject of renegotiation for a long time. At the moment, it has the curious effect of creating in the provision of air transport into and from Heathrow what in any other industry would be described as a cartel. If in any other commercial operation only four operators were licensed to provide services, in most cases it would have the distinct ring of a cartel about it. It is certainly anti-competitive. The excellent services that are offered by all four airlines are provided at considerably greater cost per mile than
826
similar services from, say, Amsterdam and Paris which are both quite close to southern England. They are also provided at a considerable loss to British businesses, estimated to be £2 billion, that use those airlines because of the range of services and the convenience that they offer to passengers who originate in this country.
A second difficulty that arises under Bermuda II relates to the restrictions on rights of cabotage for UK airlines within the US. I do not believe that in this Chamber I need to waste time by defining "cabotage-. It is important to remember that the US is not similarly prohibited within the European Union, certainly not to anything like the same extent. The Government recently offered Federal Express the right to bring its trade into Prestwick, no doubt with great benefit to business, and to carry it onwards from Prestwick to other airports. Therefore, that limited cabotage right has been granted and we still have not been granted similar rights.
I understand that negotiations continue to consider further the liberalisation of Bermuda II. I understand that the terms of the limited liberalisation—the Government will return to them at the end of this month—are as follows. It would allow British Midland to operate two flights daily to two US cities; two US carriers each to operate two flights daily into Heathrow; a resumption of the Pittsburgh-Gatwick service; and the possible approval (I understand that the United States is not satisfied) of code-sharing between BA and AA. That would provide a new entry for British Midland into the US and a reciprocal increase in the number of US airlines operating into Heathrow but would not provide any abatement of the prohibition on cabotage within the United States.
If finalised, however desirable those arrangements may be to British Midland—it could use some of its current domestic slots to facilitate them—is gradual liberalisation between the UK and the US the right approach to achieve full competition across the Atlantic and fifth freedom rights for UK operators within the US? Does not it risk giving concessions to the US without gaining sufficient concessions in return? Let us be in no doubt. The apple—what everyone wants—is entry into Heathrow. We want onward movement and independent operation within the United States. We must not give away something without getting what we want in return.
In these partial negotiations, is the heavy concentration on the role of Heathrow and London rather than on the UK's regional airports justifiable? The noble Lord made the point effectively. In the context of the Government's most welcome announcement on 10th November last of the preparation of a new air transport White Paper, a key element of which is likely to be an increased role for the UK's regional airports, would it be more logical to encourage more transatlantic traffic to other major centres such Manchester, Birmingham and Glasgow?

827
There is also the complicated question about whether or not these bilateral negotiations are the right way to pursue this difficulty in European/United States relations. The EU is committed to an open skies policy. There are those who suggest that the EU would be a more suitable negotiating partner. I should like to hear the Minister on that issue. He will observe that I ask my three major questions at the beginning of my contribution to the debate. I hope that that will enable him to answer those modest queries.
The noble Lord, Lord Naseby, gave a comprehensive picture of the lack of mutuality between Singapore Airlines' position as an operator out of Heathrow towards the United States and BA's ability to operate onward out of Singapore. It has granted us full onward rights; and we are extremely reluctant to grant the same. I am bemused by the recent government response to Singapore Airlines; namely, that they can do nothing about the onward movements out of Heathrow into (for the sake of argument) New York or Chicago until the difficulties of the United States negotiations have been resolved. I understand that the two are not connected. Singapore Airlines has permission already from the United States Government to operate in and out of United States airports. Therefore, there is no difficulty as regards the United States. The difficulty resides in the Government's reluctance to grant to Singapore Airlines the right to leave Heathrow in the direction of the United States. That seems peculiar.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Naseby, that slots are not the problem. If the British Government were to give Singapore Airlines the right to such onward flight, as I sincerely hope they are about to do, the issue of slots would be determined by the relevant airlines committee at Heathrow and is nothing to do with the Government. Why do the Government appear to be so reluctant to give a more equal access to Singapore Airlines and thus behave in a balanced fashion?
In some sense airline alliances are an effort by international airlines to outwit the restrictions placed on transatlantic travel under the Bermuda II agreement. The Star alliance contains Lufthansa, British Midland—it has a large number of domestic slots at Heathrow—SAS, United, All-Nippon Airways, Air Canada, Thai Airways, Air New Zealand, Varig, and so on. That huge group of airlines is faced by BA, Qantas, American Airways, and so on, in the Oneworld alliance. One of the features of those groups is an effort to outwit the restriction on flights across the Atlantic through the code-sharing mechanism. Does the Minister agree that most of the other effects are not beneficial to the travelling public?
That increasingly obvious grouping of airlines must involve an anti-competitive aspect. The recent acquisition of shares in Virgin by Singapore Airlines suggests that it may be moving—perhaps reluctantly as regards Virgin—towards greater co-operation with one or other of the airline alliances. Does the Minister agree that there is potential for anti-competitiveness in that relatively new development in the airline industry?
8.20 p.m.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Naseby for raising the issue in your Lordships' House—the first time for a long while—and it is good that we have the Minister responsible to answer the Question tonight.
We on this side of the House are entirely in favour of liberalisation and did an enormous amount to achieve it within Europe and elsewhere. However, it must be balanced with the rights and interests of our airlines to maintain their business as best they can with the travelling public.
The Question refers to transatlantic routes; it does not refer specifically to Heathrow Airport. One must remember that Heathrow is not the only London airport; there is Gatwick Airport, too. Heathrow has only two carriers from each side of the Atlantic; British Airways and Virgin Atlantic on our side and American Airlines and United Airlines on the other. I am a veteran of the transfer to United Airlines and American Airlines from Pan Am and TWA, which was a most interesting experience. However, Gatwick, which is just as convenient for many people travelling from London, has no fewer than 11 carriers. Together, they serve 26 United States airports, which is more than any other European city. Therefore, one must look at the issue of competition overall.
We are not in favour of unilateral gestures on competition issues. I remember that a few months ago the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, asked about the unilateral offer to FedEx and other carriers and fifth freedom rights over Prestwick. It was then thought that we should receive some gesture from the United States, but I do not believe that anything whatever has been achieved. Perhaps the Minister can comment on that.
I am also keen to discover the state of play on negotiations overall. I understand that talks between Singapore and the United Kingdom are to take place in a few days' time. I do not expect the Minister to reveal his negotiating position—it would be wrong of him to do so—but we have more than 50 per cent of the UK/Europe market. That is a considerable achievement and therefore bilateral arrangements with the United States are most important.
Nevertheless, it is alleged that fares for business and first-class travellers are higher here than in the rest of Europe. I do not believe that that is the case for people in the back of the aeroplane because one can find extremely good bargains. I must declare an interest because nowadays my flying is done from Luton Airport which is, as we are all aware, the home of a very good and successful airline. Perhaps we should be looking for transatlantic flights from there! Stelios, where are you?
The issue before us today focuses on two applications; Singapore Airlines' fifth freedom rights and British Midland. Singapore Airlines state that the UK airlines have fifth freedom rights beyond Singapore. That is undoubtedly true, but, if my recollection is right, those rights were granted in exchange for others which Singapore Airlines wanted.

829
That was a "done deal". For Singapore Airlines now to say that the right should be extended to it over London is slightly disingenuous because if it wants those rights it should be offering concessions to UK airlines elsewhere. I was under the impression that those earlier rights were bought and paid for on a deal done some years ago.
The other question I have about Singapore Airlines relates to the fact that it has recently bought 49 per cent of Virgin Atlantic Through that partner it already has transatlantic rights from Heathrow, so why does it still want to operate over the Atlantic? That needs to be justified. If Singapore Airlines were granted the right, how many other airlines around the world would come knocking at this door? London to the United States is the biggest airline market in the world. Anyone would want to operate it. Therefore, I caution the Minister to take those points into account before deciding on the application.
As regards British Midland, I hope that the Minister can tell us what progress is being made in negotiations. Perhaps I may also take the opportunity to pay tribute to the department's negotiators. There are not only those who deal with the more glamorous places, such as Bermuda, but there are also those who slave away in places such as Lagos. I remember dealing with the Nigerians, which was an absolute nightmare. All the negotiators do a very good job and tribute should be paid to them.
If a British Midland deal means that two new US airlines have to come to Heathrow, so be it. It would be for the United States Government to decide which two, but that has proved difficult for them because they have many more airlines to choose between. That has been a difficult issue in the past. However, the failure of the British Airways/American Airlines deal opens up the opportunity to take a fresh look at the matter. I hope that the Minister can bring us up to date on how the Government intend to play that opportunity.
At the end of the day "open skies" means more than more airlines operating on UK/US routes. As the Minister will be aware, "open skies" has two different meanings; one which we would give it and one which the Americans would give it. As far as I am concerned, it means ownership and control, cabotage, wet leasing, Fly America and so forth. I am aware that some of those issues are not entirely under the control of the US Government: they are under the control of Congress where previously there have been considerable difficulties.
I am grateful to my noble friend for raising the Question and I very much look forward to the Minister bringing us up to date with the latest state of play in negotiations.
8.28 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Lord Macdonald of Tradeston): My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Naseby, for providing the opportunity to debate the Government's policy on
830
transatlantic aviation generally and the opportunities for new entrant carriers in particular. If I say that many of the points made today are familiar to me, it is a reflection of the exhaustive nature of the discussions which have taken place over a long time, including expertise in this House which is more extensive than mine. However, I stress that that familiarity results from the frequency of the discussions in past years rather than any paucity of ideas in your Lordships' House today.
The Government's policy on aviation generally is to support liberalisation. By "liberalisation", I mean the removal of those restrictions which stifle competition, inhibit efficiency and deny to consumers freedom of choice. But we must be clear about what liberalisation does not mean. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, for preparing the way for me on that point. Liberalisation does not mean liberally conceding competitive advantage to the carriers of any other state; it does not mean asking our carriers to compete with foreign carriers upon whom we may have lavished rights and privileges which have not been reciprocated; and it does not mean putting at risk the thousands of jobs in the UK which are dependent upon a healthy home-based aviation industry.
However, such a declaration of intent towards even handedness is not quite so easy to realise. I mentioned our carriers but they, of course, do not comprise "the industry"; they are a component of a much wider entity. Moreover, the carriers are, as is implicit in this discussion, in competition among themselves. Therefore, although we can often find areas of agreement between them, their competitive relationship means that we can never look to carriers generally to present a single point of view.
The airports, which have been mentioned, must be considered also: the London airports, the English regional airports and the airports in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. The interests of each category of airport and of the wider regions in which they are situated are not invariably the same. Nor are the interests of the airports and the carriers always aligned. Furthermore, the symbiotic relationship of the ancillary sectors of the industry with the carriers and the airports is such that, if the economic vitality of the host industry should be sapped, they too will feel the pinch.
The noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, raised the question of alliances, which is another dimension of more recent origin which we must bear in mind also. The co-operation of carriers in global alliances to provide greater choice can improve flexibility. Yes, of course there is the danger that alliances may work anti-competitively but we are, and shall remain, vigilant to ensure that the consumer is protected from any abuse of a dominant market position.
A respected commentator wrote recently that recording the fortunes of a nation's civil aviation gives an insight into that country's commercial, political and social development. The truth of that axiom is confirmed by an examination of civil aviation over the North Atlantic over the past 50 years, which

831
underlines the importance of the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, about the importance of that market. It is without doubt one of the most important arenas for both UK and US aviation. In 1998, some 17 million passengers and some 673,000 tonnes of air cargo were carried between the UK and the US. It is a credit to our carriers that, between them, they carried 60 per cent of the passenger total and 53 per cent of the cargo. That is the sign of an efficient sector of the industry providing a better service than its competitors.
As has been pointed out, the provision of air services between the UK and the US is governed by the Air Services Agreement commonly referred to as Bermuda II. That agreement confers upon each side a balance of opportunity if the carriers of each side exploit it effectively. That is not to claim that Bermuda II is the ideal template for efficiency and equity; if we can achieve even more opportunities for new entrant carriers to enter the market, the keener will be the competition, the leaner and fitter will be the industry, and the greater will be the advantages accruing to the consumer.
In other words, in UK-US aviation relations our goal must be the removal of anti-competitive restrictions and the ushering in of a new and liberalised regime: skies which are truly open to carriers of both sides, bringing benefits not only to aviation consumers but to UK plc as well—if I may put it that way. There are some problems at present—accusations have been made that the current arrangements cause excessive fares in business class. It is true that there has been a tendency for some business class fares out of the UK to be higher than those for the rest of Europe, but it is true also, as has been said, that economy fares tend to be lower. We recognise that greater competition could help to reduce business fares. That is one of the reasons why we have been pursuing a liberalisation package with the United States.
However, the question of whether we should adopt a more liberal regime, or—as the US would have it—an "open skies" regime is, as the noble Lord pointed out, problematic. The particular template for open skies being commended to us by the United States, for instance, would appear, at a cursory glance, to point the way to the broad, sunny uplands of liberalisation and healthy competition between contracting parties. However, I do not believe that it would work out in that way. The US template on offer would afford their carriers the rich pickings of our domestic market—which of course now includes the European Union countries—while our carriers would be kept firmly locked out of the Americans' domestic market by their denial to United Kingdom airlines of the right to carry passengers between points within the United States (a right known as "cabotage"); by their protectionist "Fly America" policy, under which US carriers have the monopolistic right to carry US public servants; by the US's refusal to countenance the so-called "wet-leasing" of British aircraft with their crews within their
832
territory; and finally, by corporate control through strict US limits on inward investment by UK companies.
All of those anti-competitive advantages the US wishes to retain while demanding of us their equivalent value under the so-called "open skies". Under that template, the skies are not open in the sense that I understand the word, nor is it the model for liberalisation of the kind that we should seek to construct.
I turn now to the question of transatlantic fifth freedom rights. We believe that fifth freedom traffic rights should be subject to negotiation with bilateral partners. Generally speaking, the UK seeks a balanced exchange of those fifth freedom rights. We receive many requests for transatlantic fifth freedom rights. They are particularly valuable, as has been said from the Benches opposite, especially as the UK-US aviation market is not fully liberalised and the operations of UK carriers are restricted. Until such time as the UK-US market is liberalised further, and in particular, until such time as all UK carriers wishing to operate from Heathrow to the US may do so, the United Kingdom will normally continue to resist requests for transatlantic fifth freedom rights from London unless a balanced exchange of rights is available.
The noble Lord, Lord Naseby, and others raised the question of those rights for Singapore Airlines. The points I have so far made relate to the bilateral position between the United Kingdom and the United States. Of course, there are other would-be players such as Singapore Airlines: carriers from third countries seeking fifth freedom rights to carry passengers between the UK and the US. Indeed, a number of countries have been pressing us for rights for a number of years; notably, in recent months, Singapore.
The noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, has the advantage over me in the length of his memory of those negotiations. Of course I take on trust what he says. He summed up succinctly the importance of Heathrow access, which I have attempted to underline. I hope that your Lordships will understand that I cannot go into detail on Singapore's request because the bilateral negotiations between our countries are scheduled to take place in Singapore next week, as has been mentioned already. However, I repeat that it has been our policy for some years that such rights are valuable and they will be traded, but only on the basis of mutual benefit to both countries.
The noble Lord, Lord Naseby, the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, and the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, raised the question of regional airports. Your Lordships' House will be aware that in 1998 the Select Committee on Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs reviewed access to the regional airports. In June 1998, prior to their appearance before the Select Committee, Ministers announced a new policy on international access to regional airports, which was to offer bilateral partners on the basis of reciprocity unrestricted third and forth freedom access to all UK airports except Heathrow and Gatwick.

833
Fifth freedom rights were not included in the offer and they remain the subject of negotiation and exchange of rights, except in exceptional circumstances. The Select Committee recommended that the Government should offer unrestricted access to regional airports. In their response, the Government agreed to review the policy in January 2000. Therefore, officials have been consulting the interested parties, the consultation exercise has just finished, and a decision will be made shortly.
I move on to the particular question of talks between the United Kingdom and the US. The request for the latest round of talks came from the United States. The two main agenda items were the resolution of a US problem relating to services between London and Pittsburgh, and proposals for a liberalised cargo regime.
As your Lordships may recall, in October 1999 British Airways took a commercial decision to suspend operations between Pittsburgh and London. That left Pittsburgh with no direct link to London and no spare gateway under Bermuda II for a US carrier to operate a replacement service. The UK has always been willing to help the US to solve its problems, but on the understanding only that any advantage accruing to the United States from the acquisition of an additional gateway would have to be balanced by advantages for UK carriers.
Currently, we do not require an additional gateway. Therefore, we are looking to agree a package of measures—a "mini-deal—which would allow the United States to re-establish a Pittsburgh service and give a new UK entrant an opportunity to operate to the US from Heathrow. In addition, a question arose about cargo. Reference was made to the encouragement which we had given to the prospects of a deal by opening up facilities at Prestwick to the American carriers—particularly FedEx.
A moment ago, I mentioned the protectionist policies on issues such as wet leasing, cabotage and inward investment, which serve to keep UK cargo carriers out of the United States domestic market. In spite of the ambitions of the US cargo carriers to operate in our United Kingdom market and their promises to bring pressure to bear on their own government to try to open up the liberalisation of the cargo market, we unfortunately remain unable to persuade the United States to level the playing field. Therefore, no progress has been made on that front in the past week.
With regard to the way forward in that area, I stress again that our primary goal is to secure full liberalisation. If we are not to reduce our leverage in future discussions, it is essential that any mini-deal should result in real benefits to the United Kingdom. However, perhaps unsurprisingly, negotiations on both Pittsburgh and cargo liberalisation were tough, and there remain serious differences of view between the two parties. Nevertheless, negotiations will resume in London later this month and we hope that further progress will be made then.
834
It was suggested by the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, that the European Union might be an influential negotiating ally for us in those areas. We are very well aware of that potential, and it is one that we are exploring positively. However, this is a complex issue which the Government keep under review in the light of bilateral talks with the United States.
In concluding, perhaps I may assure your Lordships that we can be certain of one thing; that is, that this Government will be guided in their decisions by an assessment of what is best for UK aviation generally. As your Lordships already appreciate, the challenge arises from the interests of the various players; not least, the consumers are in direct conflict. Therefore, our goal is a liberalised regime where there is equality of competitive opportunity for all carriers, the maximum of choice for consumers who wish to fly across the Atlantic, and economic advantages fairly distributed around the United Kingdom; in short, balanced skies truly open to all where all sides win.

Care Standards Bill [H.L.]
8.46 p.m.
House again in Committee.
Lord Clement-Jones Lord Clement-Jones moved Amendment No. 85:
After Clause 21, insert the following new clause—
("Codes of practice
CODES OF PRACTICE
.—(1) The Commission shall prepare and issue codes of practice giving practical guidance on the standards which are to be observed whether in relation to the national minimum standards applicable to establishments or agencies or otherwise.
(2) The Commission shall, when requested to do so by the Secretary of State, prepare a code of practice dealing with the matters specified in the request.
(3) In preparing a code of practice the Commission shall carry out such consultations as it considers appropriate (which shall include the publication for public consultation of proposals relating to the code).
(4) The Commission may not issue a code of practice unless—

(a) a draft of it has been submitted to and approved by the Secretary of State and laid by him before both Houses of Parliament; and

(b) 40 days (excluding any period when Parliament is dissolved or prorogued or when either House is adjourned for more than 4 days) have elapsed without either House resolving not to approve the draft.

(5) If the Secretary of State does not approve the draft code of practice submitted to him he shall give the Commission a written statement of his reasons.
(6) A code of practice issued by the Commission—

(a) shall come into effect on such day as the Secretary of State may by order appoint;

(b) may be revised in whole or in part, and re-issued by the Commission; and

(c) may be revoked by an order made by the Secretary of State at the request of the Commission.

(7) Where the Commission proposes to revise a code of practice—

(a) it shall comply with subsection (3) in relation to the revisions; and

835

(b) the other provisions of this section apply to the revised code of practice as they apply to a new code of practice.

(8) Failure to observe any provision of a code of practice does not of itself make a person liable to any proceedings, but any provision of a code which appears to a court or tribunal to be relevant to any question arising in any proceedings under this Act shall be taken into account in determining that question.
(9) The power to make an order under this section is exercisable by statutory instrument.
(10) Nothing in this section affects the Commission's powers apart from this section to give practical guidance on matters connected with its functions.").
The noble Lord said: I start by giving an apology. This amendment is proposed in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Nicholson, who is also the proposer of a Private Member's Bill on the issue of the regulation of private independent healthcare. The amendment imports what we believe to be one of the key elements of that Private Member's Bill, which we believe to be greatly preferable to Clause 21 in its current form.
During the debate on the previous group of amendments, the Minister spent some time discussing quite usefully what was meant by the words "shall be taken into account". We believe that the codes of practice set out in Amendment No. 85 are much clearer in law in terms of what the duties of the commission would be regarding inspection and enforcement. They are much clearer than simply a set of minimum standards which would be required to be taken into account. For that reason, we propose a set of codes of practice. Clearly, we have added in certain other bells and whistles, which we have already discussed, such as the way in which drafts of the codes of practice are submitted to both Houses of Parliament, the way in which they are laid on the Table, and so on, in terms of affirmative approval.
However, that is not the essence of the amendment. Its essence lies in proposed new subsection (8):
"Failure to observe any provision of a code of practice does not of itself make a person liable to any proceedings, but any provision of a code which appears to a court or tribunal to be relevant to any question arising in any proceedings under this Act shall be taken into account in determining that question".
That is of great importance because it sets a legal standard. I do not believe that it imports a lack of flexibility, which is how in a sense the Minister justified the wording of the current Clause 21. Indeed, it also makes it clear that the codes of practice as a whole will inform the way in which the commission carries out its business.
It is not entirely clear how Clauses 20 and 21 interrelate in terms of the Bill. Amendment No. 85 expresses more clearly the way in which minimum standards will operate. Indeed, under a great many pieces of legislation, codes of practice are the norm. Therefore, this is not an unknown practice; indeed, it is very common, and the legal effect of codes of practice is clearly understood. Therefore, I commend Amendment No. 85 to your Lordships. We believe that it will create a much clearer legal regime than the
836
current Clause 21 for the commission and, indeed, for any court or tribunal eventually required to adjudicate on the matter. I beg to move.
Earl Howe: I strongly support the thrust of this amendment. It is important that the commission should not, as it were, simply be the recipient of dicta from on high and implement those instructions. It should have a proactive role in the setting of standards and in relating national minimum standards to what is experienced on the ground and in proposing, up the tree, so to speak, improvements and variations.
The noble Lord has adopted an extremely imaginative and creative approach. Had I drafted the amendment, I might have done one or two things differently. But the essence of it has much merit and I hope that the Minister will take on board the thrust of it.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, for explaining the intention behind the amendment. I am not entirely convinced that his approach is better than the approach which we have adopted in the Bill, with a framework of regulations alongside national minimum standards.
The noble Earl, Lord Howe, suggested that there is a need for the commission to have a strong role in setting standards. While it is extremely important that Ministers should make the decisions on the national minimum standards, they will be informed by the views and experience which the commission has gained. One of the great advantages of setting up such a commission at national level is that because of the strong network of regional and local inspectors, it will be able to have a great deal of information and experience to offer the Government when it comes both to looking at national minimum standards and to revising them, as no doubt they will need to be revised, from time to time.
The amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, proposes that there should be codes of practice on the standards which regulated establishments will have to meet. That implies that the national minimum standards require significant interpretation. That will not be the case. They are intended to be free standing. They will also be self-explanatory. The risk is that the code of practice which the noble Lord suggests will add another layer of interpretation and will risk causing confusion as to what is authoritative—the national minimum standards or the code of practice.
If there is a question as to whether the standards will be sufficiently clear, I refer the Committee to the first example that we have published, the document Fit for the Future?. Whatever Members of the Committee may think about some of the points contained in it, the one thing that is clear is that it is not just a broad list of standards. A considerable amount of guidance material has been built into it. That clearly will be a model to follow with other standards as we develop them.

837
I have already described the relationship between the regulations and the national minimum standards. The commission's role is not simply checking whether the regulations and standards are being met; it is also expected to assist and advise providers on how to meet those standards. So if anyone has any doubt as to what a particular standard means, he will be able to contact the commission and ask for clarification. We want the commission to be able to hold more formal training events, such as seminars and conferences. I tabled an amendment on Monday to enable the commission to do that.
I assure the Committee that the proposals which we are bringing for ward will introduce tough new regulatory requirements. At the same time, the commission will operate sensibly and properly in relation to the development of national minimum standards. Decisions on those standards will be made by Ministers but they will be informed by the experience and work of the commission. The interrelationship between the two will enable us to develop a rigorous approach to regulation, but with flexibility and the ability to ensure that in developing standards, we shall have full consultation with all those concerned.
Lord Clement-Jones: I thank the Minister for that reply. With this amendment and the previous set of amendments, we have managed to tease out very helpfully from the Minister just what is the basis of Clause 21 and how it will interrelate with the rest of the Bill.
There are still same issues regarding the legal basis of Clause 21 which need to be considered. But it will be helpful to fit together the Minister's replies in response to the last two sets of amendments; to look at Hansard very carefully; and then to consider whether the totality of that is satisfactory. In the mean time, I thank the Minister for his reply and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 86 not moved.]
Clauses 22 to 27 agreed to.
Clause 28 [Inspections by persons authorised by registration authority]:
[Amendment No. 87 not moved.]
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 88:
Page 13, line 33, after ("time") insert ("in the event of an emergency, and
(b) during normal business hours in all other circumstances.").
The noble Earl said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 89, 90, 95, 97,109 and 110. These amendments all relate to the ground rules which should apply to the conduct of inspections. Clause 28 is drafted in a way which is rather too accommodating to the inspectors and insufficiently accommodating to those who are to be inspected.
The vast majority of inspections will be carried out in a constructive and friendly spirit. They will provide opportunities for sharing good practice. Above all, they
838
will need to be conducted in a manner which does not lose sight of their overriding objective, indeed the objective of the Bill; namely, to safeguard the well-being of the care home resident, the hospital patient or the child in the children's home, as the case may be
That being so, we need to look carefully at the powers which the Bill confers on inspectors. Of course, some inspections will be far from easy, where inspectors will need to stand on their authority and where the power to insist on access to people and records will need to exercised in a robust way. But that does not give us an excuse to overlook either people's rights or common sensitivities.
In these amendments, I suggest that it is unacceptable, other than in an emergency, for an inspector to demand entry into a care home or other establishment during the night. It is not fair, in normal circumstances, to inflict such a disturbance on, for example, elderly residents. I suggest that inspectors should produce identification as a matter of routine. We should pay proper regard to the conduct of interviews. Most interviews with managers or staff will be non-confrontational but some will be the exact opposite. If I were on the receiving end of such an interview I should want it to be in private; I should want to have somebody independent sitting on my side of the table; and I should want to be sure that whatever I said was correctly noted down. That is precisely the right that I would have in a police station. I see no real difference of principle if what I say to a police inspector carries with it the possibility of criminal charges being laid against somebody.
I believe that Clause 28 should make it absolutely clear that there are some areas into which an inspector should not consider it his automatic right to enter. The point of my amendment to subsection 3(a) is to relay a concern expressed to me by more than one source. All too often inspectors cannot resist making pronouncements on matters which are not within their remit. The examples quoted to me are pharmacy issues, fire regulations and health and safety matters. All of these are important, but they are not strictly the province of an inspector of a residential home, or such like, and should be left to those who are trained and qualified to give the correct advice. I hope that the Minister will be sympathetic to the thrust of these amendments. I beg to move.
9 p.m.
Baroness Barker: I have every sympathy with the sentiment behind Amendment No. 88 standing in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Howe. Of all the amendments at which I looked, this was the one that caused me the greatest problem. The problem is that abuse and malpractice does not happen during normal working hours. The most blatant of abuse occurs at the time when the most intensely personal care is taking place, and that happens to be very early in the morning and very late at night when people are going to bed.
Secondly it is not good enough to talk about "in the event of an emergency". When we talk about good practice, very small things which are not emergencies

839
but add up to the total quality of care in a home can be determined early in the morning. For example, I worked with one group of lay assessors who made very early visits. They looked at how long it took for hot water to come through the taps to fill baths, and so on. We have just been talking about the qualitative standards which are in Fit for the Future? I actually do believe that many of them will be best tested by out-of-hours inspections.
While I understand what has been said about privacy during interviews, I think that the wording of this particular amendment is misplaced. I hope that we can look at some of the spirit to which the noble Earl, Lord Howe, referred, but not use these particular words.
Baroness Pitkeathley: I rise very briefly to support what the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, on the Liberal Democrat Benches said. I understand entirely the spirit of the amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Howe, about invasion of privacy, and such like, but it is at those particular times of vulnerability that we have to be able to prove the standard is still maintained during those occasions. From that point of view, I oppose the amendment.
Lord Laming: Members of the Committee will see that I am not the noble Lord, Lord Rix. I wish to speak to Amendment No. 91 and also Amendments Nos. 92, 93, 94 and 96. I shall start with No. 91. Medically qualified and nurse inspectors have the option, in appropriate cases, of looking at personal medical records and of carrying out physical examinations. This option is, as the Bill stands, subject to the consent of the person concerned: that is, in the case of people who are able to give consent. Therefore, it is eminently reasonable. However, in the case of someone who, because of their disability, is not able to say or indicate either yes or no, there is no power to look at medical records or to examine the person. As a result, those who are most vulnerable have the least protection. If there have been rumours about improper restraint, the more able resident can authorise the doctor to look at their arms for bruises and check their medical records for explanations. With the more severely disabled resident the rumours cannot be followed up and, therefore, run away into the sand.
These amendments would allow the doctor or nurse to do their job properly unless the person refuses consent. In the case of checking medical records, this should not be controversial. In the case of physical examination, it is worth making clear that refusal to consent includes physical and not just verbal refusal; allowing someone without words to refuse examination.
I urge the Minister to take these amendments seriously as an attempt to secure equal protection for those who are the most vulnerable.
I turn to Amendment No. 93. This amendment would allow a third party to be present during examinations or interviews taking place as part of suspected abuse or malpractice cases. Not only may
840
this be of general reassurance to the service user, for example, allowing someone of the same sex to be present while being examined by someone of the opposite sex, but it may actually be crucial to determining the facts of the case. People with learning disabilities may lack the communication skills to make their views known without support. They may need support to help think what they want to say, or more likely, may need encouragement to answer a question. Interviews must be made possible, otherwise the most vulnerable people will be denied an opportunity to speak for themselves in often very distressing situations.
I now turn to Amendment 94. In speaking to this amendment I am not suggesting that there should be a requirement on inspectors to consult service users' wider contacts as a matter of course; but in a small number of cases—perhaps where the service user has communication difficulties—it may be appropriate to seek the use of relatives or advocates who may have been in regular contact with both the service user and the establishment in question. It is designed to be a helpful amendment. Under no circumstances should it be used as a substitute for seeking service users' own views, or placing less credence on them.
Finally, I turn to Amendment No. 96. There is something of a clash of principles when it comes to checking on domiciliary services. On the one hand, people are in control of what happens in their own homes and there is something fundamentally wrong about inspectors snooping around someone's home. The other principle is that people are at their most vulnerable in their own homes and deserve protection—better protection than looking through the files at the offices of the domiciliary services agency can offer.
The bridge between these two principles seems to be the right of the householder to invite the inspector in or keep the inspector out. Given that safeguard, enabling inspectors to visit people at home on occasions seems entirely proper and a valuable extension of their ability to be supportive. We have precedents for such visits in, for example, the role of the Lord Chancellor's Visitors. Even without that, and allowing for the necessarily modest scale of such visits, the question is, "Why not?", not "Why?". I believe that the Minister may be able to assure the Committee that such visits are both possible and intended.
Lord Lucas: I have a question which I think goes along with these various amendments. I wonder whether under Clause 28(3)(b) and (c) there is a right for the person making the inspection to obtain these records even if they are not kept at the premises in question.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: Perhaps I may first speak to my amendment, Amendment No. 111, which is part of the group. The amendment ensures that the provisions relating to inspection offences and the requirement for an inspector to be duly authenticated apply to Clause 42 as well as to Clause 41. The clauses deal with the inspection of adoption and fostering

841
services and it is essential that the provisions apply to both Clauses 41 and 42 to allow the inspectors to carry out their duties properly.
I turn to the other amendments in the group. They raise important issues about the nature of inspections and the balance, as the noble Earl, Lord Howe, put it, between the inspector and the inspected. The noble Earl raised a number of questions concerning the potential behaviour of those appointed as inspectors. One of the great advantages of the arrangements we shall put in place is that the commission will be able to ensure that those inspectors are given appropriate training, that there will be consistency and high standards in the way they operate, and that they will well understand the need for sensitivity, particularly to residents, in their approach to the way in which inspections are carried out.
In relation to Amendments Nos. 88 and 109. I should say that the normal business hours of a 24-hour care establishment would not be nine to five. As the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, pointed out, these establishments provide care in the evenings and at weekends, day or night. If inspection visits were to be limited normally to nine to five, many of the key aspects in the routines of care homes and other establishments would not be observed.
It is essential that inspectors are able to observe the arrangements for getting residents out of bed in the morning, their breakfasting, evening meal and how they are put to bed by staff. As the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, said, unfortunate happenings are not infrequently encountered in visits outside normal business hours. It is the experience of many registering authorities that inspectors have visited residential homes at 6 a.m. and found all the residents out of bed and dressed, simply for the convenience of the day staff coming on shift. An important feature of the draft national minimum standards for residential care of older people is that they must have choice. This should extend to whether residents wish to rise early or late and what they would like to eat. They should not be denied choice for the sake of staffing convenience. The same points could be made about the evening routine. It will be equally important to check that night staff are awake and alert. That can only be accomplished with evening visits.
Importantly, the provision for inspectors to carry out inspections at any time is already in the existing Registered Homes Act 1984 and the Children Act 1989. For the reasons I have outlined and the need to ensure that inspections of statutory and private provision are consistent and effective under the commission, I hope that the Committee will agree that it is important that inspectors have the ability to do what is set out in the Bill.
I agree very much with the concern expressed in Amendment No. 89 that the registration authority's inspectors should act only in accordance with the discharge of the registration authority's statutory duties. However, this amendment is not necessary to achieve that. The registration authority will only be able to take actions necessary or expedient to the
842
discharge of its functions. It follows that any person it authorises to work for it will automatically be under the same obligation. If an inspector has been authorised by the commission, he or she cannot do more than discharge its functions.
I can quite understand that there may be occasions—the noble Earl gave a particular example—when an inspector is thought to have acted beyond his powers or, in the case quoted by the noble Earl, in what might be considered to be an unreasonable way. In this case, the provider will have every right to complain to the commission about the inspector's behaviour. I make it absolutely clear that we shall issue directions to the commission to ensure that it has a satisfactory procedure in place for dealing with complaints about its staff and the way in which it exercises its functions.
I also take this opportunity to assure your Lordships that if a complainant is not satisfied with the commission's response, he or she will be able to take the complaint to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration as the commission will be a non-departmental public body.
As with Amendment No. 89, I thank noble Lords for suggesting Amendment No. 97, but I am not convinced that it would improve the protection of providers from bogus inspectors or could add anything in terms of preventing inspectors acting beyond their remit.
Turning to Amendment No. 90, I am sympathetic to the proposed change to the Bill's provision for interviewing managers of services. Indeed, there may be instances when it would be necessary to interview a manager in private—perhaps if he or she were unwilling to speak in front of the owner. Therefore, I want to take this away and give it further consideration.
On Amendments Nos. 91, 92, 93 and 94, I am sympathetic to the wish to strengthen the opportunities for residents of establishments to express their views to inspectors. Many noble Lords will have seen the recent television documentary, "Macintyre Undercover", which exposed ill-treatment of residents that had gone undetected by inspectors. In future we shall want to ensure that inspection methods are both sensitive, as I have said, and rigorous so that residents are enabled to express their views about their care in private and with the confidence that any concerns will be dealt with.
We have already commissioned work from the voluntary sector to help to improve communication between inspectors and people with learning disabilities, and to enable more service users to take an active role as lay participants in inspection.
We also intend that inspectors should actively involve relatives, friends and advocates of service users in the inspection process. Of course, staff in good homes will be, and have been, keen to enable this active flow of information. Any reluctance to help inspectors to acquire the fullest picture of what a home feels like to live in should, of course, prompt closer inspection. However, I am not convinced that the details of how those aspects of best practice can be built into

843
inspection are best dealt with on the face of the Bill. They can be achieved through directions from the Secretary of State to the commission. I can assure the noble Lord that we shall give directions to the commission on those issues.
In relation to Amendment No. 95, in essence it seeks to formalise the contact between inspectors and persons present during an inspection in a way that would not be conducive to good relations between inspectors and operators of registered services. To my mind, to introduce the idea of independent representation for service users when an inspector is wanting to ask them for their views on the service being received suggests a completely different connotation from that intended. It seems to imply that the service user is making a formal statement, as if in a police interview, and needs representation to safeguard his or her interests.
That is the opposite of what this is all about. We want to enhance the resident's or patient's opportunity to speak openly and frankly. I am concerned that the amendment would have the opposite effect. Inspectors will want to gain an honest view from service users about the quality of care being provided and we cannot, and should not, want them to be inhibited from expressing their views by being prevented from speaking privately.
I return to a point I raised at the beginning. There are many ways in which skilled inspectors can put service users at ease and create informal opportunities for them to talk privately. We do not intend that the general process of gathering information should be carried out as if interviewing anyone for a job, but we want to ensure that inspectors can be firm if they consider that they are being prevented from talking privately by, for example, a manager hovering at someone's shoulder. Nor is it intended that employees, owners or managers should be grilled by inspectors. We want to ensure that staff can feel free to respond honestly to questions, which may include them being asked what induction and training they have had; how well they are supervised; whether or not they have access to the right equipment, and so on, that they need to do the job. Those are the kinds of issues that would be routinely covered on inspections.
In their turn, managers could be inhibited from talking freely about the resources that they have to meet the standards, or they may want to discuss a problem and seek advice from inspectors in private.
One could go further and say that, as it will be necessary for commission staff to inspect without notice, giving the right of representation could allow operators of registered services to hamper or even to obstruct the inspection by refusing to co-operate unless their independent representative were present.
The case is different if something untoward is discovered and an offence is suspected by the commission. In those circumstances—this may be the answer to the noble Earl, Lord Howe—the inspectors would apply a caution under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act and begin a formal interview which would
844
then be recorded and may be used in evidence. But that is a different matter altogether. Of course, under those circumstances, persons cautioned have a right to remain silent, though it might harm their defence, and a right to representation. Again I say to the noble Earl that we intend inspectors to be properly trained to distinguish between those circumstances and act accordingly.
I have some anxieties in relation to Amendment No. 110. It would create a right to independent representation for any local authority employee in an inspector interview. In addition, the interviewee would then have the right to receive a written record of the interview. It is important that inspectors are able to do their job. Part of that job requires them to interview staff working for the local authority. It is important to remember the purpose of the interview. It will not usually be the case that the person being interviewed is the subject of a formal investigation. The interview will usually be part and parcel of the normal information-gathering exercise necessary for the inspector to report on the quality of care being offered. It is not likely that an employee will need independent representation to answer straightforward questions about his or her job. It would be difficult for the commission to do its job if the inspectors could not ask a member of staff of a local authority routine questions without that person being represented.
The concerns in relation to Amendment No. 96 are appreciated. The regulation and the domiciliary care process should not be limited to the head offices of domiciliary care agencies. I can assure the noble Lord that visiting service users and talking to their families and themselves will be a key feature of regulation of domiciliary care. Also, the commission will only ever undertake such visits and interviews with the consent of a service user, so there will be no need for any legal powers on the face of the Bill. The commission will be free to do that without specific enabling powers. But to ensure that the commission involves service users in the inspection of domiciliary care agencies, we intend to issue directions to the commission on that issue. We will make similar directions concerning the inspection of adoption and fostering agencies where it will be equally important to involve service users and recipients. In those cases, the commission will be required to interview a selection of the adult carers and also some of the children, where appropriate.
The answer to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, is "no". The Bill requires certain records to be kept, but those can be inspected wherever they are. I hope that answers the noble Lord.
Lord Lucas: Perhaps I may ask a couple of supplementary questions. I may have misunderstood but I do not believe the Minister addressed the questions raised on Amendments Nos. 91 and 92. Those amendments reverse the sense of the Bill as at present drafted and I do not see how that can be

845
achieved by secondary legislation. I should like to know why the Government do not feel that that is appropriate.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I am glad the noble Lord intervened. I was remiss in not responding to those specific points. In fact, I am sympathetic to those arguments and would like to take them away and give them further consideration.
Lord Lucas: My second question concerns a technical point—that may be a polite way of putting it. Clause 28(3)(b) gives the inspector power to inspect and take copies of any records. Subsection 3(c) adds,
"where those records are kept by means of a computer, require the records to be produced in a form in which they can be taken away".
Either that subsection is unnecessary because the inspector has the power to take them away and presumably that means that they are in a form which can be taken away, or this is an attempt to address the problem of encryption. It is very likely that these records will be sensitive. On any modern computer system they will probably be encrypted. If we suppose that they are encrypted, then nothing in subsections 3(b) or 3(c) gives the inspector the right to have a translation of those records into a readable form of English. I do not understand what subsection 3(c) is getting at. If it is addressing encryption, should it not be amended?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: That is a very interesting point. The noble Lord will not be surprised if I say that I would rather reflect on that question. I shall either write to him or return to the issue on Report.
Earl Howe: Once again, we have had a useful short debate. I am grateful to the Minister for covering the ground so comprehensively. I am particularly grateful to him for saying that he will take away Amendment No. 90 to see whether there is merit in what I say.
I entirely understand that there will be strong arguments for inspectors making inspections of care homes and other establishments outside normal business hours. On reflection, I think that the wording of my amendment is slightly wide of the mark. Indeed, facing the combined fire power of the noble Baronesses, Lady Barker and Lady Pitkeathley, as well as facing the Minister, can only give me cause to reflect very carefully on the merits of that amendment.
Nevertheless, as the Minister said, there are sensitivities involved and I believe that there is a germ of an idea in that amendment which could perhaps be put into a different form. I should tell the Minister that there are two points of view on the matter. This was not an idea that came out of my own head; indeed, it was strongly suggested to me that there should be some kind of restriction on the rights of inspectors to march into a premises at any time of their choosing.
I am also a little disappointed that Amendment No. 97 did not find favour with the Minister. Its purpose was to ensure that inspectors would be obliged to produce identification under all circumstances. I am
846
instinctively averse to the notion of people turning up at the front door of an establishment, demanding to be let in and not necessarily producing identification, unless someone is quick-witted enough to ask for it, before marching in. That does not seem to me to be the way that we should behave in this country and I am sorry that the Minister dismissed that point.
Amendment No. 95 refers to conduct during interviews. This all depends on what one means by "an interview". My idea of an interview is where someone takes a person aside and says, "I would like to talk to you in private about this matter". It is not a casual conversation where you pick up information, as you may do when you go round a care home and converse with someone. That is not an interview; indeed, an interview is something much more formal. Nevertheless, the information from the Minister about the provisions of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act was very helpful. Those are the sorts of circumstances where the interview becomes, shall we say, difficult and confrontational and which could lead to criminal charges. That was my chief concern in drafting the amendment in this way. I am grateful to all Members of the Committee who contributed to this debate and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 89 to 97 not moved.]
Clause 28 agreed to.
Clause 29 [Inspectors: supplementary]:
[Amendments Nos. 98 to 100 not moved.]
Clause 29 agreed to.
9.30 p.m.
Clause 30 [Arrangements which may only be made with a registered person]
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 101:
Page 15, line 25, at beginning insert ("Subject to subsection (3) below,").
The noble Earl said: In moving Amendment No. 101 I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 105. This is a simple issue. Clause 30 states that local authorities and NHS bodies who wish to delegate the provision of home care to an agency may do so only if the agency is a registered domiciliary care agency. I do not in the least disagree with that as a generality. However, I would not wish it to mean that individuals who leave hospital or a nursing home and then avail themselves of the direct payments system to arrange their own care at home should be prevented from doing so. The direct payments system has been a tremendous success, particularly for younger people requiring care at home. I hope that the Minister will be able to provide some reassurance. I beg to move.
Lord Clement-Jones: I wish to speak to Amendments Nos. 102 and 103. My noble friend Lady Barker will speak to Amendment No. 104. I believe that Clause 30 is one of the measures in the Bill that causes great bafflement. We have been baffled on certain points but the provisions of Clause 30 in particular give rise to the

847
question—as I read the clause—that the only domiciliary care agencies that require to be registered are those which discharge functions on behalf of a local authority or a National Health Service body.
Amendments Nos. 102 and 103 are designed to include private establishments in the measure. It seems rather extraordinary, if, in a sense, they are subcontracting from a body which is not a public body, that domiciliary care establishments are not required to be registered. It seems to me that the boot should be on the other foot. If anything, there seems a greater requirement for registration in those cases than where bodies subcontract from an independent clinic or a private hospital.
I hope that the Minister will consider this issue carefully. I do not know the basis on which the clause has been formulated. I do not know whether some issue of resources has been taken into account, or what the motives are behind it. However, it seems rather peculiar and rather unnecessarily limited. I look forward to the Minister's response.
Baroness Barker: Amendment No. 104 needs to be considered in the context of Amendments Nos. 102 and 103. As my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones said, we support and would wish to see the extension of measures which will guarantee the quality of as many domiciliary care services as possible. The Committee may not need to be reminded that perhaps the greatest uncertainty among older people is experienced by those who arrange their own domiciliary care and who do not go through the route of the NHS or local authority bodies. That constitutes a huge problem.
Having said that, Amendment No. 104 may appear rather strange. The objective is to ask the Minister what will happen to existing, workable arrangements under the direct payments scheme with providers who are not, and will not be, registered. I do not want anyone to misinterpret this matter. Anyone who works with older people will realise that the quality and the safety of domiciliary care providers is perhaps one of the biggest issues of concern to older people who are becoming slightly frail and who live in their own homes. This is a probing amendment in relation to the direct payments scheme as it works at present.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I am glad to have the opportunity to discuss with the Committee how the direct payments scheme fits into these arrangements. I believe that all Members of the Committee support the direct payment concept. The Committee will know that we are extending eligibility for direct payments to a greater range of people, including older people.
Let me begin by reassuring the Committee that Clause 30 applies only to local authorities and NHS bodies; it does not apply to persons purchasing their own domiciliary care, even if they are using direct payments to do so.
I should like to take this opportunity to reinforce what I said on Monday about our attitude towards the regulation of domiciliary care agencies. Let me make it
848
absolutely clear that we intend that all domiciliary care agencies will eventually be required to be registered, but not from day one of the commission's operation. We believe that it is better to take a more gradual approach because we do not want to overburden the commission when it starts its work. So, with regard to the registration of domiciliary care agencies, the question is "when" rather than "if".
I should also take the opportunity to make it clear that the requirement to register will not extend to arrangements between individuals for the provision of domiciliary care. So if people in receipt of direct payments want to use them to pay another individual, for instance, to come to their house, to get them up in the morning and to wash and dress them, that would never be covered by the provisions in the Bill. Clause 4(3) defines a "domiciliary care agency" as,
"an undertaking which consists of or includes arranging the provision of personal care in their own homes",
for the categories of persons listed. I can assure the Committee that the word "undertaking" here could never be construed as applying to an individual.
With regard to the amendment relating to independent healthcare bodies, it is unlikely that independent healthcare providers will be purchasing domiciliary care services on behalf of their patients in the way that local authorities do on a routine basis. Certainly on that ground I see no necessity to extend Clause 30 to cover independent hospitals and clinics.
Lord Clement-Jones: I thank the Minister for his reply. We shall obviously consider very carefully what he said. In a sense, it is a matter of judgment as to whether there is a need to tighten up the clause. I fully accept the commitment he made that eventually all domiciliary care agencies will be registered, but I am worried about the mechanism by which sub-contracting will be carried out in all cases if it was thought to be important at some stage in the future—for instance, if a mixed economy became rather more prevalent in the healthcare sector. It seems to me that there is not the necessary mechanism in the clause—and, under the Bill, I doubt whether it could be done by regulation—to ensure that the relationship with an independent body is made utterly clear in the way that the relationship between the domiciliary care agency and the local authority and the NHS body is made clear.
If it was thought desirable, for instance, to ensure that a domiciliary agency is registered if it sub-contracts from an independent hospital, it is not clear how that will come about and how, under the Bill, it can be enforced. I am not sure whether there is a legal entitlement to do so. That is why consumer bodies which have spoken to me about this matter are keen that the clause should be widened in the way we have suggested. I am not yet convinced by the Minister. Perhaps he can give some further clarification.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I am not sure that I understand the noble Lord. Perhaps he can explain a little more what he means by "sub-contracting".
Lord Clement-Jones: We are talking about the discharge of responsibility for a relevant function.

849
That is what I mean by "sub-contracting". It reflects the terms of the clause, which are wide in respect of an NHS body. But it seems to me that there is a gap; why are there not circumstances in which an independent hospital should not be treated in an identical way? It may be a part of their insurance policy that they are entitled to that form of home care and the domiciliary care agency is undertaking it as a result of that insurance policy. In those circumstances it seems that they need safeguards. While I fully accept that the Minister said that it is intended that domiciliary care agencies should be registered in the future, I am not sure how that will bite if there is a form of sub-contracting along the lines I have described.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: It may be that I am being dense here. As regards Clause 30, my understanding is that we are looking at a situation that concerns with whom a local authority or an NHS body may arrange for a relevant function to be discharged. I am afraid that the noble Lord has lost me in relation to where another body to which such a relevant function can be sub-contracted comes into this.
Lord Clement-Jones: The Minister was doubtful about whether there were many circumstances in which independent hospitals could arrange for the discharge of a relevant function. However, assuming that he was prepared to accept that there are circumstances in which they do so and they could do so, why does this clause not also apply to them? I do not believe that the Minister has fully answered that question.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: As I explained, in relation to domiciliary care agencies, we have decided to take a gradualist approach to their regulation. The gradualist approach requires those agencies under contract with a local authority or health authority to be regulated. We then stated that, over time, we will gradually extend that regulation to all domiciliary care agencies.
Lord Clement-Jones: How would that happen?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: It will happen through the provisions contained in the Bill which allow us to do that.
Lord Clement-Jones: We could spend many happy hours playing tennis on this one. I shall reflect on what the Minister said and no doubt he will do the same on my comments. I shall now leave it to the noble Earl, Lord Howe, to finish his amendment.
Earl Howe: No doubt I shall finish with some relief to all noble Lords. As regards my own amendments, I am most grateful to the Minister for his clarification on the issue of direct payments. He has satisfied a great many people who were uncertain and doubtful about the effects of the Bill on the direct payment scheme. I am delighted to discover that there will be no effects whatsoever. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 102 to 105 not moved.]
Clause 30 agreed to.
Clauses 31 to 33 agreed to.
Clause 34 [Provision of copies of registers]:
Lord Laming Lord Laming moved Amendment No. 106:
Page 16, line 34, at end insert (", including circumstances in which the interested party is in receipt of or has had an application for a direct payment").
The noble Lord said: Before I move Amendment No. 106, tabled in the name of my noble friend Lord Rix, I should draw the attention of the Committee to a misprint on the Marshalled List. The amendment should read:
"(", including circumstances in which the interested party is in receipt of or has made an application for a direct payment')".
In moving Amendment No. 106, I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 126 and 128.
These amendments are designed to ensure that users of direct payments are in a position to furnish themselves with high quality information as regards the registration and inspection history of services without financial cost. It is crucial that people who have been awarded public money to support their community care needs are able to make informed decisions on how best to use those resources. Can the Minister confirm that the power to charge for receipt of information will not apply to individual service users? I beg to move.
9.45 p.m.
Lord Addington: My name is attached to Amendment No. 127. It is very straightforward and a comparatively uncomplicated probing amendment. All it suggests is that in talking about registration we are speaking about information. It suggests that the most up-to-date technology should be used. I shall not use the word "modern" because what is modern today is old-fashioned and out of date tomorrow. That will be quicker and probably cheaper. I suggest that that should be allowed by the Bill. I hope that the Minister will confirm that.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I have great sympathy with all the amendments concerned with ensuring that service users can access information free of charge and in the appropriate form. I shall deal first with Amendment Nos. 106, 126 and 128 concerning recipients of direct payments. Under the current regulatory regime, local and health authorities which carry out regulatory functions are already required to provide copies of entries in their registers on payment of such reasonable fee as they may determine.
With the implementation of this Bill, the national care standards commission, or, in Wales, the National Assembly, will similarly be able to require the payment of a reasonable fee for copies of, or extracts from, its registers. Parallel provision is made for the councils to determine the fee for copies of their codes or registers.

851
However, the commission, the Assembly and the councils will all provide information free of charge if they consider that appropriate. I can assure Members of the Committee that it would not be normal practice for a fee to be charged for the provision of such information.
Indeed, it is intended that the commission and the councils should supply information from their registers and about any codes freely to all members of the public and not just to recipients of direct payments. In fact, it is only on rare occasions that the commission, or indeed the councils, would want to make a charge for information. If a business asked for a complete copy of the directory giving details of every care home in the country because it wanted to carry out business mailings to them, I believe that it would be reasonable for the commission to make a charge in order to cover the costs. But if the request for information was from an individual who simply wanted to know about care homes in an area, that information should be made available free of charge. Regulations made under Clause 34 will make that clear. Similarly, we intend to give the councils appropriate directions about when charges for their documents may be levied.
Turning to Amendment No. 127, I am rather glad that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, is not here to ask me more challenging questions about modern information systems. Of course, we want the councils to be able to give as much information as possible. We certainly intend that the registers will be available on the Internet as well as in the form of hard copy. However, the noble Lord's amendment has prompted us to consider whether such a provision is allowed for in the Bill as it stands. I should like to give that matter further consideration.
Lord Laming: I am grateful to the Minister for that very helpful reply. In the light of what he has said, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 34 agreed to.
Clause 35 [Service of documents]:
[Amendment No.107 not moved.]
Clause 35 agreed to.
Clauses 36 to 39 agreed to.
[Amendment No.108 not moved.]
Clause 40 agreed to.
Clause 41 [Inspection by registration authority of adoption and fostering services]
[Amendments Nos. 109 and 110 not moved.]
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Lord Hunt of Kings Heath moved Amendment No. 111:
Page 19, line 2, at end insert ("and section 42").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 41, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 42 [Inspections: supplementary]:
[Amendments Nos. 112 to 114 not moved.]
Clause 42 agreed to.
Clause 43 agreed to.
Clause 44 [Regulation of the exercise of relevant fostering functions]
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Lord Hunt of Kings Heath moved Amendment No. 115:
Page 20, line 36, leave out ("be employed by") and insert ("work for").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Lord Hunt of Kings Heath moved Amendments Nos. 116 to 118:
Page 20, line 42. leave out ("and types of staff to be employed by") and insert ("of persons, or persons of any particular type, working for").
Page 21, line 1, leave out ("the staff') and insert ("such persons").
Page 21, line 3, leave out ("the employment of persons by") and insert ("persons from working for").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 44, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 45 to 49 agreed to.
Clause 50 [Care Councils]
Lord Laming Lord Laming moved Amendment No. 119:
Page 21, line 34, leave out paragraphs (a) and (b) and insert ("a body corporate to be known as the General Social Care Council for the United Kingdom.").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 119, I hope the Committee agrees that Clause 50 is a very important provision. The general social care council will have a number of important functions, including the approval of courses and the award of qualifications in the social care field. To a large measure, that will influence the attitudes of social care staff and the quality of their work with vulnerable people. The council will also maintain a register of approved workers, handle issues of professional misconduct and maintain a list of those persons deemed unsuitable to work with vulnerable people.
However, the Bill does not establish a council but two separate bodies, one for England and one for Wales. Each will be organised differently. No mention is made of Scotland or Northern Ireland. We have a United Kingdom Central Council for Nursing and a British Medical Association. This clause gives the impression that for social care staff the United Kingdom does not exist. Already questions are raised as to whether the existing social care qualifications meet European standards. Are we to settle for up to four different councils which are separately and differently organised? Even worse, the Bill provides no machinery by which councils can exchange vitally important information or act in concert.
I well understand the implications of devolution, but surely it is possible for the Government to find a solution whereby, in a matter of such importance and sensitivity, it is possible to have a United Kingdom arrangement for the regulation, registration and deregistration of social care staff. It is no use noble Lords from time to time, understandably, expressing

853
horror when a member of staff who behaves unacceptably in one part of the country leaves his job only to be employed elsewhere and, at the same time, failing to use this opportunity to create one United Kingdom general social care council. I beg to move.
Baroness Pitkeathley: In rising to speak I declare an interest as chair of the General Social Care Council Advisory Group. In that capacity, I agree with the noble Lord that this is a vitally important part of the Bill. I understand entirely the concerns that lie behind the amendment. In a different scenario I might have been disposed to agree with him. The noble Lord is aware that I try to agree with him when I can. However, we must understand that devolution is a reality and that social care is a devolved function. Therefore, it is not possible to agree to the amendment. But I assure the noble Lord that all members of the General Social Care Council Advisory Group feel as strongly as he does about this matter and are determined to ensure that as far as that group is concerned there is a common approach, understanding and set of standards among the councils to be established. The guiding principle is the protection of vulnerable adults and the right of service users to a standard that applies across the United Kingdom. On that, I am sure we can all agree.
Lord Clement-Jones: That was extremely useful clarification from the noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley. Like the noble Baroness, I have some sympathy with the intent underlying the noble Lord's amendment. However, clearly it is a devolved matter. Therefore we are referring to maximum co-operation and commonality of' approach. In a sense we need to live with the devolved system and make it work in the best way we possibly can for those affected by the staffing of the establishments and agencies which are the subject matter of the Bill. When the Minister replies, can he give us an outline of the expected composition of the new GSSC? Can he also state the intended composition of the equivalent body in Wales?
It will be important to take account of the health aspects of care even though that may not be central to the GSSC's remit. Can the Minister confirm that ensuring a balance—I know that that is one of his favourite words—of members of the council will include medical representation?
Baroness Park of Monmouth: I listened to the debate with great interest. It is highly complicated and specialised and I hesitate to intervene. Can we be sure that there would be an absolute duty on the central council to pass on details of someone who behaves in a thoroughly unprofessional and undesirable way in one part of the devolved kingdom to the other bodies? Unless such a provision is in the Bill, it will be difficult to dislodge such a person when he moves from one place to the next. I recognise that in a sense it condemns an individual twice but it seems of little use to have the co-ordination proposed if such practical detail is not included in the Bill.
Baroness Barker: It is a most helpful debate. It is important to recognise that the problem identified by the noble Lord, Lord Laming, has existed for a considerable time. Social work departments in Scotland already come under a different regime from their counterparts in England.
I speak as someone who has spent considerable time in Scotland. It is of equal concern to the Scottish bodies to know that people registered in England who cause offence do not escape across the border. The noble Baroness's point about the need for co-operation between the different bodies responsible for registration north and south of border is valid and under the new devolution procedures it will not be difficult to discuss the issue with our counterparts in Scotland.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: It has been an extremely interesting debate. Having listened to the noble Lord, Lord Laming, I feel that we missed his presence during the many happy days we spent debating the Scotland Bill.
The decisions to have separate councils in England and Wales were announced in Parliament two years ago. It is the intention to have a separate regulatory body in Scotland. Scottish Ministers have recently issued a consultation document, Regulating Care in Social Work Services, which contains their legislative proposals for a Scottish social services council. I also understand that Ministers in Northern Ireland are considering their position on these matters.
That said, I entirely accept the spirit behind the noble Lord's amendment. It would be very unfortunate if, contrary to the interests of service users and the public, the regulation of social care workers were subject to significant and unnecessary differences between the four countries.
The logic of devolution is that all four councils can properly adopt different approaches. However, all the countries are committed to alignment where that is possible. The commitment has already been demonstrated; for example, the four UK countries have already commissioned the initial drafting of the codes of conduct for social workers as a joint exercise. That is an excellent foundation on which to go forward.
In due course, we intend to bring forward an amendment to the Bill which will place a duty on the new English and Welsh councils to collaborate. If possible, we will provide for them similarly to collaborate with any future regulatory bodies which may be created for Scotland and Northern Ireland.
In the consultation document, Regulating Care in Social Work Services, Scottish Ministers have said that the Scottish social services council will have a reciprocal duty placed on it. The extent of this collaboration will be to a degree for the councils themselves to decide, but we would expect them to consider in particular, first, collaboration on the standards of conduct and practice; secondly, consistency in the standards of education and training

855
for occupational groups leading to registration; and, thirdly, knowledge about individual registrants who have been removed or suspended from a register.
In relation to the composition of the membership, the intention would be a lay chair with a balanced membership of service users, carers and the public. There will also be employers, professional associations, trade unions and educational interests with a membership of 15 to 20. I hope I have demonstrated that we are alive to any potential problems. The preliminary discussions between the four countries seem most promising in terms of ensuring the necessary co-operation.
Lord Clement-Jones: Can the Minister say whether there will be medical representation on the council?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I do not want to go further at present. That matter needs to be considered, but from the broad range of interests involved one can see many potential backgrounds. However, I shall take into account the noble Lord's views.
Baroness Pitkeathley: It may be helpful if I report on the recent discussions of the Social Care Council Advisory Group, in which the issue was aired with great interest. There was a strong feeling that the council should not be aiming for representation, since it is impossible to have representation on all the groups. Rather, it should aim for an organisation which would work and in which the interests of all the user groups would be heard rather than represented.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: That is most helpful. It was unfortunate if I used the word "representational", particularly in view of my comments in relation to an earlier amendment. Clearly, at the heart one needs people with common sense. This is one of the most exciting parts of the Bill. It will have an enormous influence on helping to raise the status and professionalism of an extremely important group of people in society. Clearly, people of the highest quality are needed on the council. It is equally important that they must come from a broad range of backgrounds, but when they meet as a council they will meet as one corporate body.
Lord Laming: I am extremely grateful to the Minister for that helpful and carefully considered response. It is a source of great comfort to me that the noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley, is chairing the advisory group. I had hoped—perhaps rather naïvely—that it might have been possible to work towards a situation where the four countries of the United Kingdom had proper representation on a council or to work towards properly established regulatory machinery. I accept what the Minister said. The noble Baroness, Lady Barker, is quite right in that we have already experienced difficulties in the past because of the separate arrangements in Scotland. The motivation behind the amendment is simply that we do
856
not replicate those difficulties and that we try to avoid exactly the kind of problems to which the noble Baroness, Lady Park, referred.
I still hope that, following the Minister's extremely helpful response, it might be possible to go a touch further, but in the light of what he and the noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley, have said, I am happy to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 120:
Page 22, line 14, at end insert—
("who shall ensure, in particular, that each Council has access to information relevant to the discharge of its functions").
The noble Earl said: This is a straightforward amendment, the point of which is to ensure that full and up-to-date information is furnished to each care council. The background to that is, as I understand it, that the CCETSW has experienced a certain amount of difficulty over the past few years and has not felt itself to be—shall we say—as well briefed as it would like to ensure that training is kept up to date. There is a need to ensure, for example, that each council has access to information about the condition of the various services, about new and important developments which may affect those services and about anything that may affect staff numbers. That is the context in which I have tabled the amendment. I hope that the Minister will understand my purpose. I beg to move.
Baroness Pitkeathley: I again declare an interest: I have every sympathy also with the amendment moved by the noble Earl. Essential information is, of course, vital to the functioning of the councils. I believe that the councils are so welcome and have been so long awaited that the spirit is very willing to ensure that that exchange of information and provision of information will take place.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I am not convinced that the amendment is required but I accept the point that the noble Earl has raised. Ministers are responsible for the way in which the councils carry out their functions and are answerable for them to Parliament and to the Welsh Assembly. Therefore, they will want to ensure as a matter of course that the councils will have full access to whatever information is necessary. As I have said before, it is an extremely important part of the Bill. It would be in the interests and desires of Ministers to ensure that the body had all that it required in the way of information to carry out its job effectively.
Earl Howe: I am in part reassured by that response. I should like to believe that that is the way that it will work. I am sure that at the beginning, everyone will start out with the best of intentions. My fear is that, somewhere along the road, the system may not work as it should. I suppose that if mechanisms are put in place at the outset they will continue. But it is something to which we must be alert. I am comforted by the strength of the Minister's assurance on the issue

857
and before I withdraw the amendment, as I intend to do, I see that the Minister would like to add one more comment.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I am sorry to delay the proceedings at such a late hour. However, it is important to remember that this will be a non-departmental public body. It will be subject to review and, therefore, one would expect there to be the closest dialogue between Ministers and the council. It will be possible for problems to be ironed out and for discussions about the future direction of policy to take place. I believe that those will be the circumstances in which Ministers will be able to have confidence in the council and, as a result, will, of course, want the council to have all the information that it requires.
Earl Howe: I am grateful. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 50 agreed to.
Clause 51 [Interpretation]:
[Amendment No. 121 not moved.]
Lord Laming Lord Laming moved Amendment No. 122:
Page 22, line 40, at end insert ("or otherwise in connection with the provision of day services").
The noble Lord said: I am delighted that day centre workers will be included under the jurisdiction of the general social care council. Undoubtedly that will go some way towards driving up quality within that sector of work. However, the popular image of day care for someone with a learning disability is five days a week from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m. spent in a day centre. Developments over recent years have meant that the reality is quite different. Now there is a wide range of activities for which the day centre is sometimes the base, but often it is not. Those activities might include voluntary work, the use of local cultural or leisure resources, including the local library, environmental projects, such as collecting newspapers for recycling, and writing and publishing newspapers. The amendment seeks to bring staff who work in all those different settings within the scope of the legislation. Therefore, it is the quality of the support staff that is paramount rather than the location of the resource.
We have already touched on the definition of day services. The Minister was apprehensive of the wider definition. For my part, I cannot see the logic of protecting group activities in the day centres but ignoring one-to-one activities by staff outside them.
Incidentally, reference to day centres in Clause 51 seems to argue for a definition of day services at the beginning of the Bill, even if the day services are not to be included initially in the remit of inspection and registration. I beg to move.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I believe that the noble Lord has raised a most important matter in wanting to ensure that we will have the power to bring into the framework people who are not at present under the definition of "social care worker", if we believe that
858
that is necessary. Therefore, we propose to bring forward a government amendment to allow for the definition of "social care worker" to be extended where Ministers see it as an additional safeguard for the public.
Lord Laming: I am most grateful to the Minister for that reply. It gives me enormous pleasure to seek to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 51 agreed to.
Clause 52 [The register]:
[Amendment No. 123 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Baroness Barker Baroness Barker moved Amendment No. 123A:
Page 23, line 12, at end insert—
("(5) Each council shall publish, monitor and update a timetable for the training and registration of each and all types of social care workers.").
The noble Baroness said: Late as it is, I should like to spend a little time discussing this amendment, which, I believe, is probably one of the most important. We have talked a great deal over the past few days about the length of time that it will take to get the various commissions up and running. We have talked about the amount of time that it will take to set the minimum standards and to implement them.
This particular clause deals with staff. As your Lordships know, in any social care activity staff and the quality of staff are perhaps the critical factors which determine the quality of care. In the documents that we have so far produced, it seems likely that the training and registration of staff will start at the higher levels. However, the amendment seeks to draw attention to the fact that the most important levels of staff are the lowest ones—those in perhaps the most menial and manual jobs. It is in those kinds of jobs and areas where instances of abuse most frequently take place.
This amendment seeks to discover whether it is possible to start the training at that lower level of activity which is crucially important. We accept that the training and registering of 1.3 million staff will take an extremely long time. It will also have a tremendous effect on the whole care economy. For example, many voluntary organisations which are providers of care are extremely worried about the sudden imposition of the need to train staff. As we have said on many occasions previously, the training of staff has significant resource implications.
Therefore, we are asking for timetables to be set. We are seeking to ensure that the implementation of the training requirement does not lead to a dramatic disruption of services. It is entirely possible that the sudden imposition of a need to train vast numbers of staff may threaten the viability not only of care home providers but of all sorts of providers of social care. I am sure that that is not the Government's intention.
It is extremely important that we look at where there is abuse and seek to tackle that as a priority. Action on Elder Abuse runs a telephone helpline and, of the instances of abuse in care homes which are reported to it, the overwhelming majority are perpetrated by lower grade care staff. Interestingly enough, a very high percentage—from recollection, I believe it is about 25 per cent—of the instances of abuse in care homes is perpetrated by male care attendants. When one considers that the number of male care attendants in care homes is very small—because the vast majority are women—that is a significant factor. Organisations such as Action on Elder Abuse are telling us that that is the priority area and we should listen to what they say.
We have all said many times that we agree about the importance of training. We have also mentioned that having fully trained staff as soon as possible is important. But the whole process must be managed and manageable for providers of care. With those views in mind, I beg to move the amendment.
Baroness Pitkeathley: I declare an interest as a member of the General Social Care Council Advisory Group. The noble Baroness articulates very eloquently the anxieties of the whole field in regard to this matter. Indeed, the Social Care Advisory Group is no exception to that.
It seems to me that the anxieties stem from two sources. First, we have waited so long for this council and we are all keen and anxious that it should now move on and do its work. Secondly, we are all very anxious that there should not be a social work registration but a social care registration. And so there is no dispute about the principles of what the noble Baroness said.
However, there are practicalities involved in this. It is rather too early in the process to be thinking about the timetable. Even the shadow social care council does not yet exist. We are at a very early stage. I hope that we shall all take on board the noble Baroness's views about a timetable but I suggest that it is a little early to be thinking about that matter. However, we should take the principles very seriously and think about that a little further down the line.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, for raising this matter. While I do not accept that the amendment is the right way forward, I share her sentiments concerning the need for this process to be manageable.
We all wish to see far greater numbers of the social care workforce trained and qualified appropriately and, in due course, registered with the councils. We see that as a crucial driver to the highest standards of conduct, practice and care that we wish to see.
We have said that we expect that professional social workers will be registered probably early in the life of the council, perhaps by April 2002, given that the council will be up and running by April 2001. Almost all social workers hold a professional qualification.
860
With regard to the point raised by my noble friend Lady Pitkeathley, I want to stress that the councils will be responsible for all staff, not just for professional staff, whether they are in the private, voluntary or statutory sector. So we are therefore working towards a registration of residential child care workers as a priority group at the same time as social workers and persons in charge of care homes have been identified as the next priority group for registration. Work to identify the appropriate qualifications for this class of worker is already in hand.
Clearly, we cannot stop there. As a government, we are committed to raising the qualification levels in the wider workforce to much higher levels. That, in turn, will open the way to an extension of registration. To take the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, we need to be realistic. I think it would be difficult for the council to draw up meaningful timetables for training for which it would then be held to account, given the number of other players. In England we have charged the training organisation for personal social services in England with the responsibility for producing a training strategy in consultation with all employment interests in the field. We expect the councils and the wider employment interest to work closely together to discharge their own responsibilities to achieve higher qualification levels.
I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, that I do not think that there is anything between us in wishing not to see sudden imposition, wishing, as she said, to see the process managed and manageable, but overall seeing the process as a crucial way to raise standards in the whole social care field. While I do not wish to accept her amendment, I do very much accept the thrust of her arguments.
Baroness Barker: I wish to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley, for what she said. It is very reassuring to know that there is very little between us in this matter. In withdrawing the amendment, I do so in the knowledge that at this time, with many councils, many providers, looking not only to the national framework but also in the work they are currently implementing—modernising social services—there is a general move towards increasing quality of services. That is beginning to have an effect at local level. In withdrawing the amendment, I accept what the Minister says about needing to identify particular groups and to begin training in their functions. I still reiterate that untrained care staff have to be the next priority group for this kind of measure. I believe it would be one of the single most important ways of stopping abuse. I have been pleased to hear what noble Lords have said. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 52 agreed to.
Clause 53 agreed to.
Clause 54 [Grant or refusal of registration]:
Lord Addington Lord Addington moved Amendment No. 124:
Page 23, line 20, leave out paragraph (b).
The noble Lord said: The amendment removes the line from Clause 54 which states:
"(b) is in good health, both physically and mentally; and".
I should think that that line directly contradicts the Disability Discrimination Act. The DDA gives a defence against employing someone who is inappropriate for the job. The defence is reasonableness. I sat on this Bench for more hours than I care to remember going through that Bill and hearing the defence of reasonableness being put forward time and again so that people who were not capable of doing a job did not have to be appointed.
What is in the amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Howe, is much better than the Government's position but I feel that the words may be irrelevant if the DDA is applied. If the rest of Clause 54 is acted on, the training is good and people can acquire the skills, they will, by definition, have proved that they are capable of taking on the job. If we carry on with what the Government propose, we shall end up in the courts very soon. I suggest that the Government have slipped up here. I suggest that we remove paragraph (b) or include an amendment very similar to the amendment standing in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Howe. At the moment, I think that what is proposed breaks existing law.
Earl Howe: I support entirely what the noble Lord, Lord Addington, has just said. I was astonished to read the wording of Clause 54(1)(b). It begs all kinds of questions. The most significant point about it is its ostensible conflict with the Disability Discrimination Act. We really must ask what the provision is supposed to mean. What criteria will be used to assess someone's state of health and what will constitute a failure of this test? To me, someone's state of health is of significance in this context only if it is such as to make him or her inherently unsuitable to do the job of social care worker and therefore to be entered on the professional register. But (hat is not what the Bill says. I really do think that the wording should be looked at again if it is not to cause all kinds of difficulty when the council begins to set about the task of processing applications.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I am very sympathetic to the spirit of the amendments and can immediately reassure the Committee that I shall be bringing forward in due course a government amendment designed to clarify the extent of the councils' concerns about the health of applicants for registration. I want to make it clear that it is not our intention that the councils should be involved in making casual or arbitrary judgments about an individual's health or lifestyle when considering him or her for registration. The workforce must reflect the nature of society at large. We will expect the councils to take a balanced and reasonable approach, which would rule out from registration considerations of such issues as ageism, smoking or other unjustified bars.
862
However, I believe that for the service user the health of a social care worker is as much a quality issue as is the holding of an appropriate qualification. The process of making health checks is a common part of regulatory bodies' registration procedures. We are not breaking new ground by introducing them for the new councils. Perhaps I may again make it clear that it is not our intention to disbar people from registration simply because they are disabled or have mental health problems. But because this is a quality issue, we want the councils to be able to ensure that all applicants for registration, whether they are able bodied or disabled, are safe and competent to practise for the type of social care work for which they are applying to be registered.
The amendments also give me an opportunity to clarify the impact of this approach in the light of the Disability Discrimination Act. The noble Lord, Lord Addington, suggested that the proposed good health condition for registration contravenes that Act. We do not accept that that is so. The DDA applies to discrimination in respect of services and facilities provided to the public. It is possible, but unlikely, that a council's decision as to whether an applicant satisfies the registration conditions could be regarded as such a service or facility. Even if it is, the discrimination will not, in our view, be unlawful if it is necessary for the council to discriminate in order to perform its statutory registration function or to avoid endangering the health or safety of any person.
However, in the light of the amendment and the concerns that have been expressed in this area, we do think that our policy intentions should be more clearly expressed. I reiterate that there is no intention to discriminate against disabled people. Therefore, I shall consider the matter further and propose that we bring forward a government amendment at the earliest possible opportunity.
10.30 p.m.
Lord Addington: I believe that is called back-pedalling under fire with considerable good grace. That is something that I hope the Government will take on board generally. I believe that someone was trying to put on belt and braces and realising that they were putting them on the wrong suit. It went very badly wrong; at least it gave a very bad impression.
There are genuine worries in this area. I cannot help but feel that the Government should take on board at least the fact that, when all these other regulations are brought in, the process of proper training courses and individual job interviews—if you are required to use physical exertion, that will come into the equation—would stop the inappropriate person getting through. If this system has any validity or any teeth at all, those things are already there.
I hope that the Government take this on board. I appreciate what the Minister has said. It is as good an answer as we could reasonably expect. I hope that the Minister will take this back and tell his colleagues in his department and others that this type of approach must not happen again. Apart from anything else, it simply wastes our time.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: In response to the noble Lord, he has raised an important issue. As I have said, I am happy to take this amendment back. I can assure him that there is no question that this was intended to discriminate against disabled people. Indeed, it would be reprehensible if there were any such intention.
The more general points that he makes are, of course, matters that ought to be considered within a government-wide approach. I believe that the Disability Discrimination Act has been one of the most positive and progressive pieces of legislation that we have seen brought forward in recent years. I believe that it will have a most positive effect on the lives of many disabled people in this country. When one considers the enormous influence that the social care council can have on the lives of so many people, it is important that the criteria under which it operates are as sensitive to the needs of disabled people as can be. In taking this away and looking at what amendments we shall bring forward, we shall be mindful of the kinds of arguments put forward by the noble Lord.
Lord Addington: It is nice to know that we can produce a position that leads to a break-out of cross-party support. It is nice to know that the Government are capable of realising that even the past government got it right once in a while. True, they did so with a bit of prodding, but they did get it right—at least "righter".
Having heard what the noble Lord has said, this is one of those situations where we must pay attention to what has been said and make sure that we maintain the same degree of consensus. We must ensure that we can carry on this pressure so that we have an equal degree of consensus at all future dates when we deal with this problem. If we set something rolling this fast now, we shall ensure that we do not have any such matter in future debates, as the noble Lord has already said. I invite the noble Earl to get to his feet to show that the Opposition will guarantee that they will give us support.
Baroness Pitkeathley: Before the noble Earl rises, perhaps I may say how delighted I am with the Minister's response to the debate. How we see the Disability Discrimination Act in practice is very interesting. I know that all those who are concerned with how the general social care council will work feel that the way in which people with disabilities fit into it is tremendously important. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Addington, for bringing that to our attention. We have to be constantly aware of how people discharge their jobs, without judging them in a way which is discriminatory. I am sure that we are all happy with the outcome of the discussion thus far this evening.
Baroness Barker: I do not wish to delay my noble friend Lord Addington being able to hear the noble Earl, Lord Howe, but perhaps I can make a serious point to the Minister. We are talking about the physical wellbeing of staff. It is important to remember that in this type of work there are already in existence
864
quite a number of areas of policy and best practice which have a direct bearing on care homes. There are a great many standard procedures for control of infection, for disposal of waste and so forth, and also in relation to the issues of respiratory infections. Most staff are aware of the standards required when around people with vulnerable immune systems, such as not turning up for work when carrying a degree of infection.
Also, in work relating to lifting and handling, there is already a widely established good practice. For example, people have to be physically fit in order to carry out certain types of work; so some of the fears expressed by my noble friend Lord Addington could be dealt with by simply deleting this provision completely. I hope that that is one of the options the Minister will take into account when he considers his response.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: Perhaps I can answer the noble Baroness in that regard. I have said that between now and Report stage we will want to consider in full the best approach to this matter. Indeed, if the noble Baroness has examples of good practice that we can consider I shall be happy to meet her and examine them so that we can explore some of these issues.
The noble Baroness raised the issue of lifting. Coming from a background in the health service one of my great concerns over the years has been the number of injuries to nurses and other healthcare workers which has arisen from the lifting of patients. One of my concerns is that we have known for many years what good practice is in relation to how a patient should be lifted and the equipment that should be available. But despite that, many people are still being injured. It represents a major challenge for those in the health field. I am interested in the remarks of the noble Baroness that this is also an issue in the social care field.
We owe a lot to staff working in those fields and we must make sure that we have strong occupational health programmes and give as much training and support as possible, ensuring that they can lift in the most effective and safe way possible.
Earl Howe: Perhaps I may put in one further word. When I read the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Addington, I took it to be, in essence, a probing amendment. I now wonder whether there is not merit in the suggestion made by the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, that the Government's best course of action would be to omit Clause 54(1)(b) altogether. I am not sure what led the Government to put this subsection into Clause 54 in the first place. I shall re-read what the Minister said, but there is much to be said for considering the omission of that requirement altogether. The arguments we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Addington, were extremely persuasive.
Lord Clement-Jones: Before the Minister replies, perhaps the noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley, has a perspective on that point.
Baroness Pitkeaithley: I thank the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, but I think that I have had as much perspective as is needed tonight.
Lord Addington: Having actually achieved that rare thing of going from a point of being prepared to go into battle to discovering that everyone is actually on your side and there is no one left to fight, I should like to thank all those who have supported my argument. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 125 not moved.]
Clause 54 agreed to.
Clauses 55 to 57 agreed to.
Clause 58 [Codes of Practice]:
[Amendment No. 126 not moved.]
Clause 58 agreed to.
Clauses 59 to 64 agreed to.
Clause 65 [Publication etc. of register]:
[Amendments Nos. 127 and 128 not moved.]
Clause 65 agreed to.
Clauses 66 and 67 agreed to.
Lord Bach: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Alliance and Leicester Group Treasury plc (Transfer) Bill [H.L.]

  Colchester Borough Council Bill [H.L.]
  Presented and read a first time.
  House adjourned at nineteen minutes before eleven o'clock.

  Terrorism: Multilateral Discussion
  Terrorism: Multilateral Discussion
  EMU: Constitutional Issues
  EMU: Constitutional Issues
  Football Task Force Report
  Football Task Force Report
  Human Rights Joint Select Committee
  Human Rights Joint Select Committee
  Territorial Army Compulsory Mobilisation
  Territorial Army Compulsory Mobilisation
  Takeovers: Proposed Directive
  Takeovers: Proposed Directive
  Public Safety Radio Communications Service
  Public Safety Radio Communications Service
  Milk Banks
  Milk Banks
  Land Register: Price Information
  Land Register: Price Information