Sitting of 20 January 2000

Preamble
The House met at half-past Eleven o'clock
PRAYERS
[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]
Oral Answers to Questions
  EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT
  The Secretary of State was asked—
  EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

    Class Sizes
    Mr. Nick St. Aubyn: If he will make a statement on the cost of his plans to reduce class sizes for five, six and seven-year-olds. [103675]
    The Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. David Blunkett): We are providing a total of £620 million to deliver the infant class size pledge, £200 million of which is for capital, which will provide an extra 2,000 classrooms. We are providing an extra 6,000 teachers, and we will achieve the class size pledge early.
    Mr. St. Aubyn: Is it not a fact that the Government originally estimated the cost of fulfilling that pledge at £100 million? Whatever the value of the pledge, is it not grossly incompetent of the Department for Education and Employment to spend six times the original estimate? Does the Secretary of State recognise that, if his Department had worked in partnership with independent schools to offer first-year schools provision, the pledge could have been delivered at a fraction of the cost? Does not that failure to work with the private sector show a lack of imagination on the part of the Minister and his colleagues? Will he welcome the intention of Surrey county council's local education authority to explore the use of independent schools, so that the pledge can be delivered with value for money while building bridges between different education providers in the local community?
    Mr. Blunkett: With respect to the hon. Gentleman, he appears to be mixing different Conservative policies, and not addressing the issue of class size. There is no suggestion that class sizes could be reduced by using the private sector. No one has said that the class size pledge, which has reduced the number of children in classes of more than 30 from 500,000 to 180,000, and which will
    956
    reduce the number to nil within 18 months, could be achieved by buying places in infant classes in private schools that do not exist.
    Mr. St. Aubyn: They do.
    Mr. Blunkett: The hon. Gentleman may say so, but we are spending money on 6,000 additional teachers to make a reduction in classes possible. We are spending on capital to ensure expansion so that more people may have choice. We are keeping the pledge early, by spending at least £300 million of the money that would have gone into the assisted places scheme by 2002. All that will ensure a decent education for every child in every community, not just children for whom a private school happens to be available.
    Mr. Andrew Reed: I welcome the figures that my right hon. Friend has announced. It is rich to hear the Conservative party, which did not want to do anything about class sizes, moaning that we are spending too much money on reducing them. Will my right hon. Friend learn from the fact that money for the pledge has been ring-fenced? Will he ensure that all money passed from the Department for Education and Employment is passed on to schools? Will he ensure that much more funding is ring-fenced in future, so that local authorities such as Leicestershire cannot withhold money that the Government have given them for schools?
    Mr. Blunkett: I am always willing to learn from successful policies. I encourage all hon. Members to ensure that resources allocated for education are spent as intended, and that is why I have written to the leaders of every council and education authority. I want all Conservative, Liberal Democrats and Labour councils to fulfil commitments to the electorate to spend that money on education, not highways, repairs or spurious projects. It should be spent on ensuring that every child has a high-quality education. We shall monitor what happens over the next few weeks, learn lessons from that and take the appropriate steps.
    Mrs. Theresa May: While the Government are spending £620 million on keeping their pledge, secondary class sizes are rising. How much would it have cost to keep secondary classes at the sizes inherited by the Secretary of State? Will he confirm that, in order to maintain spending on education as a proportion of national income at the average achieved by the Conservative Government, the Government would have had to inject through the comprehensive spending review not £19 billion, but £32 billion?
    Mr. Blunkett: Average class size in both primary and secondary sectors fell from 24.9 in January 1998 to 24.8 in January 1999. We shall soon have the figures for the past 12 months. At the same time, the pupil-teacher ratio across the whole sector fell from 18.9 to 18.8 to one. By the end of the spending review, we shall have spent £200 extra on every primary school child, compared with a drop of £30 during the final three years of the previous Government.

    957
    At the end of the previous Parliament, gross domestic product had fallen as a proportion of national income by 0.3 per cent. By the end of the current Parliament, it will have risen by 0.2 per cent.
    Mr. John Healey: Is my right hon. Friend aware that an extra £500,000 has been put into schools in Rotherham this year to fund 18 additional key stage 1 teachers and help to slash the number of five, six and seven-year-olds in large classes? Does he recognise, however, that some schools prefer not to have mixed age groups, and that that can make it harder to reduce all class sizes to below 30? Will he reassure such schools that their approach will be respected as the Government move to keep the class size pledge in full?
    Mr. Blunkett: Yes, I can give that assurance.

    Higher Education (Cornwall)
    Mr. Andrew George (St. Ives): What assessment he has made of the higher education needs of Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly. [103676]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. Malcolm Wicks): That kind of assessment is one for the interested bodies in the region to make. We welcome the work being done by the combined universities in Cornwall partnership. In Cornwall, as elsewhere, higher education is critical to economic and social development. We recognise the strong demand for higher education in Cornwall, as shown by the 7 per cent. increase, between 1998 and 1999, of students from Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly who are studying at UK higher education institutions.
    Mr. George: I am grateful to the Minister for that helpful reply. However, Cornwall lacks the core university facilities that many other parts of the country take for granted. What security can Cornwall achieve in its plans to establish such core facilities? To do so, some assurance as to student numbers is required in the medium term.
    Mr. Wicks: Many parts of the country do not have their own university as such. However, as I pointed out, the work being carried out in Cornwall by Exeter university, Plymouth university and Falmouth college of arts is encouraging. I know that the Higher Education Funding Council wants an increase in higher education opportunities in Cornwall, as do we.

    Specialist Schools
    Barbara Follett (Stevenage): How many specialist schools will be established within the next two years. [103677]
    The Minister for School Standards (Ms Estelle Morris): Today, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced the names of 36 schools that will be
    958
    designated specialist schools. That brings the total to 480. Current plans mean that there will be 600 specialist schools by September 2001, and 800 by 2003.
    Barbara Follett: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Does she agree that that expansion shows the Government's commitment to modernising the comprehensive system? Will she do all that she can to encourage more schools, especially in the eastern region, to apply for that status?
    Ms Morris: I agree with my hon. Friend. There has long been a myth about the monolith of sameness in comprehensive schools. The specialist schools programme clearly shows that comprehensive schools do have strengths. They should be allowed to develop and build on those strengths. We should expect them to share their expertise with other schools, as happens under the specialist school programme.
    I am sure that my hon. Friend will be pleased that, today, we have announced that there will be two further specialist schools in her county—although they are not in Stevenage. I hope that further applications will be made from other areas, including Stevenage, and that there will be designations at a future date.
    Mr. Nick Hawkins (Surrey Heath): Does the Minister agree that one of the advantages of schools being encouraged to develop specialisms is that teachers and governors can be motivated to develop those schools further? Does she realise that there is a particular interest in developing specialisms in languages, in science and technology and in sport? Will she join me in congratulating France Hill school in my constituency? The school was known for its specialism in sport but, under the inspired leadership of Mrs. Jacqui Pearson, the head teacher, it has gone from strength to strength. The school has recently been given a most successful Ofsted report, and will tomorrow receive its basic skills award.
    Ms Morris: I congratulate Mrs. Pearson, her staff and everyone who worked in the school and the community to raise standards. It is interesting that, in specialist sports schools applications, the quality of grades needed to secure designation is possibly higher than in any other specialism. The quality of work developed in such schools—both with students and in the wider community—has the potential to transform what is going on in some quite disadvantaged areas.
    I join the hon. Gentleman in applauding the school and in recognising the effects on motivation. The key to being granted specialist school status lies in the preparation that schools and governors have had to undertake to receive the designation. They are required to have a clear head and a clear eye on targets, and to face staff development. They need to ensure that everyone in the school has those targets and objectives as the endgame—they must work together co-operatively to achieve them. We applaud that process, as much as the outcome, in the specialist schools that we have announced today.
    Mr. Jonathan Shaw: May I tell my right hon. Friend about the spectacular bid that she will receive from Holmesdale community school in Snodland in my constituency? It will bring together the process industries in the Medway valley and it will be one

    959
    of the most innovative bids that she will receive. The head teacher, Mr. Ian Hobson, has performed a monumental task; since he arrived at the school, he has dragged it up from a low position, so that it is now going somewhere. If the school can get the status that it wants, that will be the icing on the cake.
    I understand that bids have to be entered in March. When will my hon. Friend make an announcement about the next round? Obviously, the schools that are to have a new status in September will need time to prepare.
    Ms Morris: I compliment my hon. Friend on his tenacity and admire him for it. He has been lobbying on behalf of the school before I have received the application, which has made it a bit difficult for me to pursue the matter, but that is his job and he does it very well. If the school's application is very innovative, I will look forward to receiving it with greater eagerness than might otherwise have been the case. We hope to announce the results of the next successful round in the summer, and we expect and shall ensure that those schools will have sufficient time to prepare their plans.
    Mr. Phil Willis: The Minister knows that Liberal Democrat Members support the broad thrust of specialist schools. We are, in particular, delighted that very few of those schools have taken the option of selecting by aptitude.
    Does the right hon. Lady agree, however, that the success of specialist schools, particularly in maths, science and modern languages, greatly depends on recruiting high quality teachers? Does she share our disappointment that the figures announced last week show yet another drop in the number of applicants for postgraduate certificate of education courses in all those subjects? Despite golden hellos, we have failed to meet our targets. What does the Minister intend to do to make up that deficit and recruit high-quality teachers who want to work in specialist schools?
    Ms Morris: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his complimentary remarks about the specialist school programme. I know that his constituency has greatly benefited from the programme, and he has always been kind enough to recognise that.
    The hon. Gentleman is wrong about the effect of the golden hellos. Last year, golden hellos in maths and science were responsible for an 18 per cent. increase and a 3 per cent. increase respectively in the numbers of PGCE students beginning courses at the start of this academic year. I am entirely confident that our initiative on golden hellos for modern foreign languages this year will bring about equally good results.
    I take seriously the hon. Gentleman's point that it is no good pretending that historically we have found it easy to recruit young and not-so-young teachers to areas of short supply. One of the ways in which specialist schools can contribute is by giving a clear message that the country values teachers in those specialisms. We should put those teachers high on our agenda, and make it clear that their jobs are marvellous, fulfilling and rewarding.
    Specialist schools do not have as much trouble recruiting teachers as they might have. The crucial point is that specialist schools will take on the responsibility for training other teachers, and that is how we shall raise
    960
    standards and, in turn, entice more people into the profession. We need to achieve good teaching in those subjects at school level. With the Green Paper proposals to reform the profession, we will make teaching more attractive and attract the quality and calibre of people that we need.

    Beacon Schools
    Mr. David Kidney: What steps he is taking to develop new technologies in beacon schools. [103678]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. Michael Wills): Beacon schools, like all our schools, are benefiting from the £700 million of investment that the Government are making in information and communications technologies in schools up to 2002. Beacon schools are already using those technologies imaginatively, and they have an important part to play in promoting them in other schools.
    Mr. Kidney: When I last spoke to the head teachers of the two beacon schools in Stafford—the primary schools of Barnfields and Oakridge—they both spoke with obvious warmth about their positive experience of beacon school status and the enthusiasm not only in their school but in all the other schools with which they have created links for sharing best practice.
    Both head teachers, however, said that they thought their school could do better. One was looking forward to the completion of the third phase of investment in the national grid for learning equipment and contact. The second head teacher would welcome access to greater computing expertise, which the school does not have. Is my hon. Friend hearing similar comments from the head teachers of other beacon schools? Can they look forward to receiving a little extra assistance with information and communications technologies, which will enable them to do their job that much better?
    Mr. Wills: I thank my hon. Friend. I am delighted that the beacon school programme has been so warmly welcomed in his constituency. I assure him that there will be further investment in these technologies. Between 2000 and 2002, we are putting something like £450 million into the national grid for learning in England. We are also developing new and imaginative ways of spreading best practice in such schools. On 2 December, we announced an important new partnership with the IBM International Foundation, which will help beacon schools to develop and will further spread best practice.
    Mr. Ian Taylor: There is quite a lot of anecdotal evidence from schools and industry that the Government's rhetoric and resources are admirable, but that their implementation leaves a lot to be desired. Does the Minister have a sense of priority about the recent report from the Cabinet Office entitled "E-commerce at its best.UK", which contained specific objectives for educational achievement in technology? When does he expect to deliver those objectives, because they are much more accelerated than the ones that his Department has announced?
    Mr. Wills: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind comments about our programme for the national grid for

    961
    learning. I know that he has been a pioneer of many of these technologies for many years, and I welcome that. The reports that we receive from schools suggest that the programme is already having a significant impact. We are working on the standards that we shall expect all children to achieve in the technologies, and we shall make an announcement at the appropriate time.
    Mr. Barry Sheerman: Although many of us welcome the initiative of beacon schools and the resources that they receive, will my hon. Friend remember that the average school is crucial? In an average school in our constituencies, too often only a nominal one hour a week is spent on the computer. Students cannot use the computers in their classrooms during the lunch break—they are locked out—and they have minimal access to them after school. That is the truth in many of the schools that we visit. Will my hon. Friend redouble his efforts to make sure that average schools open up so that this country can become the leading information-learning country of Europe at the very least?
    Mr. Wills: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for reminding us of the needs of all schools. The Government are committed to ensuring that every single school and every single child in this country can benefit from these technologies. That is why we are making the investment that we are. We are investing not just in technology and hardware, but in training teachers through the new opportunities fund, which is providing £230 million to make sure that every teacher in every classroom knows how best to make use of the technologies. My hon. Friend can be assured that we will continue to do that.

    Secondary Schools
    Mr. Michael Jack (Fylde): What steps he has taken to enable local education authorities to improve a secondary school's infrastructure if pupil numbers are substantially increased. [103679]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Jacqui Smith): My Department provides financial support where a local education authority has shown that there are insufficient school places in an area to cope with the projected increase in pupil numbers. This support covers the additional teaching area that is needed, as well as any necessary expansion to schools' ancillary areas.
    Mr. Jack: I thank the Minister for that reply. However, there seems to be a breakdown between the policy intentions that she has outlined and the reality for the Lytham St. Anne's high technology school in my constituency. She may be aware that it has received a great many extra pupils over the past few years, but the infrastructure of the school has not expanded to meet that demand. For example, there is a restriction on the number of pupils who can take school dinners, because they have a problem in getting them through in the lunch hour. Is there any further guidance that she can offer me on the steps that could and should be taken by Lancashire education authority to deal with that problem? If not, the school will not be able to function as effectively and efficiently as it should to serve the extra pupil numbers.
    Jacqui Smith: Given the concern that the right hon. Gentleman has expressed about school infrastructure, I am sure that he will welcome the doubling of investment in school buildings that will be made under this Government.
    With respect to the right hon. Gentleman's constituency, the Government have provided financial support for 374 secondary and post-16 places in the Fylde. That support amounts to £2.6 million. I also understand that two major extensions have been completed to the Lytham St. Anne's high school and a 175-place extension is planned. There has also been work to provide additional toilets and a purpose-built staff room. The Government have made the money available to the local education authority, and it appears to be being spent in the school.
    Mr. Christopher Leslie: May I take the opportunity to thank my hon. Friend and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the more than £170 million package of infrastructural improvements that has been put together for the Bradford district school reorganisation? I commend to my hon. Friend, for example, the project at the Salt grammar school in my constituency, where a new 29-classroom block is being planned to provide for extra pupil numbers. I urge her closely to monitor the financial package in the Bradford district so that we can complete the important transition to the new system on time and to budget.
    Jacqui Smith: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the significant resources that the Government put into general investment in school buildings and surplus place reorganisation, and the capital expenditure that that necessitates. I can assure him that we monitor carefully the spending that goes into surplus place reorganisations to ensure that that process takes place and that it is based on value for money; and to ensure also the objectives that the authority has set down.
    Mr. Tim Boswell: Does the hon. Lady agree that school sixth form may require expansion to meet demand? Does not the issue of where the capital funding will come from remain unsolved? At the same time, the safeguards that the Government have developed for funding the continuation of sixth forms, let alone their expansion, depends on the flimsiest of defences: a single year of baseline numbers. There is also the threat of withdrawal of sixth forms by the Learning and Skills Council for alleged inadequacy. Does not this amount—in the view of schools and local education authorities—to a set of proposals for 16 to 19-year-olds that aims a pistol at the heart of sixth forms?
    Jacqui Smith: The hon. Gentleman is talking nonsense, given the clear objectives that have been laid down by the Government in relation to post-16 education: to bring at last some coherence to the system that funds education and training, to promote high standards for all our children post-16 and to protect school sixth forms that are doing a good job.
    To return to the question, we want the doubling of capital investment that the Government have undertaken to ensure that, for all children in school, both pre-16 and post-16, we no longer have what we inherited from the

    963
    previous Government: crumbling schools, leaking roofs and a failure to promote the standards that this Government are promoting.

    National Child Care Strategy
    Mr. Jim Cunningham: If he will make a statement on progress made by child care partnerships in meeting targets set for them under the national child care strategy. [103680]
    The Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. David Blunkett): The early years partnerships and child care partnerships at local level were given a target in the current financial year of creating 82,000 places. By the mid-year point at the end of September, they had tripled that half-year target by creating 76,000 of the 82,000 places. That is more than the number of child care places that were created over the last four years of the Conservative Government.
    Mr. Cunningham: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the child care strategy is another example of the Government delivering on their election promises, and that it will go a long way towards helping families?
    Mr. Blunkett: That strategy will have the role of providing developmental care for young children, including an additional 48,000 free places for three-year-olds in nursery school that would not have been available but for the Labour Government. It will also free families to make choices about returning to work and about their arrangements to support family learning.
    Mr. Nicholas Soames: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Pre-School Learning Alliance—I am sure that he, like me, has great respect for that organisation—reports this year that 1,500 playgroups have closed and 1,700 more are likely to close as a direct result of Government policy? Does the right hon. Gentleman believe that that is a helpful contribution to policy?
    Mr. Blunkett: I am sure the hon. Gentleman knows that, over the past two years, we have provided £500,000 to help to protect playgroups and other providers when the market changes locally and parents consequently make different choices. Eighty per cent. of the funding that we are making available will go into the private and voluntary sector to provide new places when parents want them. Parents also have the choice of a nursery place rather than a pre-school place.
    We want people to work together so that seamless care and nursery education can be provided throughout the day and the week. We are pleased that the Pre-School Learning Alliance has agreed to meet that challenge and work to ensure that we can provide comprehensive care.
    Mr. Maria Fyfe: At a recent meeting in Scotland of single-parent organisations, there was unanimous welcome for the money that the Government have provided for pre-school care and care out of school hours. However, the organisations asked what steps had been taken to help parents who need
    964
    full-time care, or those who work unusual hours—for example, nurses who work shifts and find it impossible to find care for their children.
    Mr. Blunkett: There are some interesting experiments in care during working hours to offer family-friendly, flexible working provision, including in the national health service. I will write to my hon. Friend with some examples that can be passed on to the trust and health board in her area, so that parents can use not only formal provision, but excellent child-minding provision, which plays a key part in creating flexibility and ensuring that children receive decent, high-quality care during unsocial working hours.
    Mr. Theresa May: Whatever the Secretary of State claims in his answers about the number of child care places that are made available, the Department's figures show that the number of places in playgroups and with child minders fell last year. In March last year, the Government said that they would spend £8 billion on child care. In his recent speech on social exclusion and the politics of opportunity, the Secretary of State confirmed that £470 million would be invested in child care in England during this Parliament. Is the difference between the two figures the first sign of the pain that education will suffer as the Government try to fulfil the Prime Minister's pledge on NHS spending—or was the figure of £8 billion simply an aspiration?
    Mr. Blunkett: The difference is accounted for by the fact that the £470 million constitutes the direct investment in ensuring that the infrastructure is in place. The total sum for the period to which the hon. Lady refers includes: the working families tax credit disregard, which will invest directly in the parent's choice of provision; investment in nursery education; and the sure start programme, which will play a key part in meeting the needs of children and families and enhancing their capacity to develop informal as well as formal care in the community.
    It is not the job of Government alone to provide child care and early-years places. That provision should be made through a partnership between families and the broader community to ensure that there is a range and diversity of care, and that we all fulfil that responsibility.
    Mr. Syd Rapson: In what ways his Department is helping parents to find out about the child care places in their area. [103681]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Ms Margaret Hodge): All partnerships are developing information services based on minimum service standards. ChildcareLink, a freephone national child care information line, and child care website was launched in December. A separate project to provide local information points in outlets such as supermarkets and doctors' surgeries was piloted in the autumn.
    Mr. Rapson: Does the Minister agree that it is essential that mothers and fathers, especially in Portsmouth, North are able to gain not just access to child care, but information on education and employment—in other

    965
    words, joined-up information? Does she agree not only that access to child care is important but that confidence that child care facilities are of high quality is equally so?
    Ms Hodge: I agree entirely that joined-up information is what parents and families require. The pilots that we have run in supermarkets provided information not just about child care places, but about jobs available locally, training opportunities, benefits and community health services. I also agree that parents will take advantage of the new child care places only if they are assured that those are of a high quality.
    Mr. Owen Paterson: It is not going to be easy for parents to find out about child care places if playgroups are closing. Can we have a straight answer to the question posed by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames)? [HON. MEMBERS: "Where is he?"] Why have 1,500 playgroups closed, and why does the Pre-School Learning Alliance suggest that 1,700 will close this year? In a rural area such as mine, playgroups are vital.
    Ms Hodge: I am sorry that the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames) has left the Chamber. He seems to have gone for an early, and probably a long, lunch.
    On the subject of playgroups, it has often been put on the record, and I am happy to put it on record again today, that the real damage to playgroups has been done not by the present Government but by the previous Government, who introduced the ill-conceived nursery voucher system, which was based on competition, not co-operation. Under our system, co-operation through partnerships will ensure a strong role for playgroups in future.

    New Deal (Scotland)
    Mr. Jim Murphy: If he will make a statement about the new deal in Scotland. [1036821
    The Minister for Employment, Welfare to Work and Equal Opportunities (Ms Tessa Jowell): The new deal is working in Scotland. The latest figures show that more than 19,000 young people and more than 2,500 long-term unemployed adults have found jobs through the new deal. We are on course to meet our manifesto commitment of getting 250,000 young people off benefit and into work across Britain.
    Mr. Murphy: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Is she aware that, despite the opposition of all the parties in Scotland, long-term youth unemployment in Scotland has decreased by three quarters, from just over 16,000 to just over 4,000? Does she agree that the nature of the problem has changed, away from an entire generation that had been ignored and unemployed to a much smaller number of hard-core, long-term unemployed young people, where unemployment may be endemic throughout the family? Can she assure the House that, as the new deal develops and the nature of the problem changes, she will bear those experiences in mind?
    MsJowell: I thank my hon. Friend for those perceptive comments, which reflect a clear understanding of the challenges facing the new deal. He is right to say that,
    966
    building on the success of the new deal to date, we are turning our attention to providing more intensive support for young people coming on to the first stage of the new deal—the gateway—who lack basic skills and for whom that lack, unless it is addressed, will be a long-term obstacle to their employability. That is an important practical step towards tackling the problem of inter-generational unemployment, to which my hon. Friend referred.
    Several hon. Members rose—
    Madam Speaker: Order. I remind hon. Members who are rising that the question relates entirely to Scotland. I call Mr. Beggs. If he is prepared to put a question relating to Scotland, I will take it.
    Mr. Roy Beggs: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I represent the constituency in Northern Ireland closest to Scotland.
    Madam Speaker: That will not do.
    Mr. Beggs: I am now proceeding to my question, Madam Speaker.
    I welcome the announced success of the new deal in Scotland, but will the Minister confirm that it has dramatically reduced unemployment not only there, but elsewhere in the United Kingdom? Will she assure the House that she will ask those in the Government who can influence investment and a reduction in unemployment to encourage opportunity for those who come on to the employment market through the new deal? That is the only way in which people who have previously been unemployed can share in the nation's increasing wealth.
    Madam Speaker: The Minister should be aware that the substantive question relates entirely to Scotland and her answer must relate to Scotland.
    Ms Jowell: I accept your guidance, Madam Speaker. I can confirm that the experience of the new deal in Scotland is representative of that across the United Kingdom. The key issue is the promotion of employability as an important part of maintaining economic stability and the benefits of economic growth.
    Mr. Richard Allan rose—
    Madam Speaker: Now we shall see how close Yorkshire is to Scotland.
    Mr. Allan: I understand that the new deal programme in Scotland has underspent considerably in respect of initial projections. Has the Minister had any discussions with her colleagues in Scotland about how to reallocate those resources, and can she explain how future new deal enhancements such as those she described will take place, given the Scottish dimension and the devolution of the programme to the Scottish Parliament?
    Ms Jowell: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. The new deal is a United Kingdom programme and I regularly meet the Scottish new deal task force, to which I pay tribute. Certainly the initial costs have been

    967
    lower than anticipated, but my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer set out clearly in the pre-Budget report the ways in which we shall intensify support for young people and those older people who have been unemployed long term. We shall announce detailed proposals on both sources of additional help in due course.
    Mr. Ian Davidson: My constituency is not the nearest to Northern Ireland, nor to England and Wales, but it is one of the nearest to the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Eastwood (Mr. Murphy).
    Is the Minister aware that, although the new deal has undoubtedly been an enormous success in Scotland, the figures recently produced by the Trades Union Congress show that constituencies where the fall in unemployment has been greatest tend to have the least absolute unemployment? The constituencies that were worst off remain the worst off, even after the introduction of the new deal. Does she accept that many young people who have vanished from the ranks of the unemployed have not gone into jobs, but seem to have disappeared from the registers altogether? There seems to be no record of where they have gone and there should be additional effort and additional expenditure to make sure that the real needs of those youngsters at the very bottom of the pile are followed up.
    Ms Jowell: My hon. Friend makes two important points. He referred first to the level of long-term unemployment in respect of which the new deal will build on its success and work harder in areas where unemployment rates have traditionally been highest. We have to redouble our efforts there to ensure that the young and older long-term unemployed people are given the skills to get them off benefit into work.
    My hon. Friend's second point is a matter of real concern. Across the United Kingdom, about 160,000 young people appear to have dropped off the edge of our society. The new deal clearly has important help and support to offer them, and I hope that, in due course, we shall be able to introduce proposals to extend help to them.

    Skills Development (Trade Unions)
    Mr. Peter L. Pike: What steps his Department is taking to support the role of trade unions in developing skills. [103683]
    Ms Julie Morgan: What steps his Department is taking to support the role of trade unions in developing skills. [103684]
    The Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. David Blunkett): We have made £12 million available to all trade unions. What we are doing involves 100 projects, and 50 unions working with employers. They have already managed to provide basic skills and development courses for 200,000 employees. That has introduced new possibilities for negotiation and bargaining in the workplace, brought together employers
    968
    and trade unions in regard to the positive skills agenda, and ensured that more than 1,000 learning representatives have been appointed throughout the work force.
    Mr. Pike: I welcome the establishment of the union learning fund, but how many other unions might be able to take advantage of it, and what will be the priority in tackling the need for basic skills?
    Mr. Blunkett: The programme has been massively oversubscribed by trade unions wishing to be part of it. As I have said, it involves unions working with employers and, in many instances, working together. Basic skills, including skills in information technology, are a key priority.
    It is entertaining to note that the Transport and General Workers Union, working with colleges in the north-west of England, is using transport cafés to lay on information and communication technology courses for road hauliers and coach drivers who are stopping off for half an hour—thus bringing about an entirely new version of "chips with everything".
    Ms Morgan: Women now constitute 47 per cent. of the work force and 46 per cent. of trade union membership. Can my right hon. Friend reassure me that the principles of equal opportunity apply to all applications to the fund, so that women will have an opportunity to fulfil themselves through the trade union movement?
    Mr. Blunkett: I can give that assurance. We are keen for part-time workers to be able to take advantage of the scheme. Along with the local trust in Ipswich and Gardner Merchant, Unison has provided an across-the-board programme of basic in-service training. The National Union of Teachers, working with the Royal College of Midwives, has introduced an exemplary scheme offering information and communications technology training for its members in continuing professional development.
    Mr. Andrew Robathan: I want to ask about the development of skills by trade unions in my county of Leicestershire. I have here a document sent to me by the six teachers' unions, expressing their wish to develop skills in Leicestershire schools. They say that, unfortunately, because of the reduction in standard spending assessment, 39 per cent. of secondary schools are reducing staff and, moreover, that 30,000 secondary pupils will be in larger classes next year.
    Given the desire of trade unions to develop skills and education, will the Secretary of State address the problems that they have raised, which result from a reduction in the education SSA? Furthermore, instead of waffling on about reducing class sizes for children aged five, six and seven, will he accept that class sizes for all other age groups are increasing in Leicestershire and elsewhere?
    Mr. Blunkett: First, I will not accept that. Secondly, the SSA has not been reduced, and nor has the revenue support grant to match it. The SSA is going up by 5.3 per cent., and the Department has directly invested £50 million in addition to that. Over the spending review

    969
    period, there will be a real-terms increase of 16 per cent. on education, twice as much as the last Government invested throughout the last Parliament.
    Mr. John Bercow: As a member of the proletariat and a strong supporter of constructive trade unionism, and recognising that no one in the country has done more to create the climate in which such trade unionism can flourish than my right hon. and noble Friend Lord Tebbit of Chingford, may I assure the Secretary of State that Conservative Members accept that unions can assist in developing skills?
    Will the right hon. Gentleman also accept two straightforward points from me? First, whatever unions' inputs to the bargaining for skills programme, employee development schemes, the learning and skills councils and the union learning fund, we will soon need evidence from an independent report of their outputs in terms of the creation of new jobs. Secondly, will the Secretary of State accept that, given that only 19 per cent. of private sector employees are members of trade unions, it is imperative that training should be led by businesses small, medium and large?
    Mr. Blunkett: That is precisely why we have indicated that at least 40 per cent. of the places on the new learning and skills councils will be for those who have immediate or immediate past experience of business and commerce. Just to put the record straight for the London TEC Council, a total of £5 billion is going into adult learning.
    I accept that Lord Tebbit has enormous experience of trade unionism from the British Air Line Pilots Association. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the association will have access to those funds. What we will not be able to do is use the resources to train people to ride bicycles.
    Mr. Harry Barnes: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the different tradition of the Workers Educational Association and university extramural education for trade unionists, from which at least three Members who are currently in the House have benefited and from which many others have benefited in the past? Is anything being done to refurbish and remobilise that tradition, which has significant benefit in the spin-off for communities in that non-vocational education is developed?
    Mr. Blunkett: Through the national learning and skills councils, the WEA will, for the first time, have direct access to overall national resources, which will be a major boon in sorting out the current disparities in funding throughout the country. As my hon. Friend will be aware, we are keen to learn from the experience of the extramural provision from which he and others have benefited and to replicate it through the residential colleges, which continue to do an excellent job in providing mature students with adult learning on access and diploma courses, which often lead to people not only going into higher education, but returning to the workplace and their community to which they can then contribute the skills and potential that they have been able to develop on those courses.

    Teachers (PRP)
    11. Mr. Colin Breed: If he will make a statement on the funding arrangements for financing performance-related pay for teachers. [103685]
    The Minister for School Standards (Ms Estelle Morris): For an initial period starting in September 2000, we will establish a special grant to target resources for the performance threshold additional to, and separate from, schools' delegated budgets. Schools will be able to draw additional funds from the grant via their local education authority for each teacher who is promoted to the upper pay spine. There will be no quota on threshold successes.
    Mr. Breed: Does the Minister accept that, after two years, ring-fenced funding will disappear and schools will be required to meet those threshold payments from their own hard-pressed budgets? Does that not amount yet again to another deferred pay scheme for our hard-pressed teachers?
    Ms Morris: The hon. Gentleman is rather ungenerous. He talks about hard-pressed budgets, but I have just made it clear that we have held money back centrally to fund teachers who go through the threshold, that there will be no quota and that that money will be paid.
    We have made it clear that we want to ring-fence the money for two years. That covers the period of the current comprehensive spending review. We will want to learn from what has happened, but there is another tension that the hon. Gentleman must recognise: the wish of heads to control their budget. I think that there is agreement across the political parties that local management of schools has been a good initiative. We do not want to damage that. I hope that, over the next two years, we will get the balance right between giving assurance to heads that LMS will stay and to the teaching profession that extra money is there.
    The key message is that the money is there. It is ring-fenced for the next two years. As ever, we will review the position and make announcements on how the scheme will be funded after that.
    Ms Joan Ryan: Last week, I met secondary head teachers at schools in Enfield, North, and a more committed, positive and enthusiastic group one could not wish to meet. They are doing their very best for secondary school pupils in my constituency. They raised the issue of financial resources to support implementation of performance-related pay arrangements. I should like to clarify whether they will be able to use available financial resources to pay for supply cover while they are going through the appraisal process.
    Ms Morris: I add my thanks to those that my hon. Friend has already given to secondary school teachers in Enfield, North. She was kind enough to update me on that meeting, and I am very appreciative of all the work that those teachers do. I understand their scepticism. Under the previous Government, they spent 18 years being asked to implement initiatives, but without a penny to support that implementation. I think that that history is why they are still so sceptical about initiatives.

    971
    I assure my hon. Friend, however, that the Government have funded the Green Paper initiatives, and all our other initiatives, including training. We have ensured that every school is able to access those opportunities without detriment to the pupils whom they teach.
    Mr. Theresa May: I listened very carefully to the Minister's answer to the original question on this topic. Performance-related pay for teachers, however, is yet another example of the Government saying one thing but doing another. The Minister talks about the provision of central funds, but the reality—as she herself said in answer to the original question—is that that money is being held back centrally and top-sliced from money provided to local authorities to provide the £150 million required this year to meet pay increases for teachers going through the threshold, despite the fact that Ministers promised that all funding for the scheme would be provided centrally, from the £1 billion that was being allocated.
    Will the Minister confirm that that money has been top-sliced from local authorities' budgets—so that, overall, they are receiving less than they had expected—to fund pay increases that the Government have promised to fund centrally? She said that £1 billion would be allocated centrally, and that £150 million is being spent on teachers' pay increases, but how much of that £1 billion is being spent on administering the scheme?
    Ms Morris: The hon. Lady has a vivid imagination. The reality is that, even if we exclude the money for threshold payments, the SSA increase to local authorities is 5.4 per cent. If we include the money that will go to local authorities and schools as part of the threshold payment, the increase would come to 6.1 per cent. If she wants an argument about increases of 5.4 and 6.1 per cent., I will have it. But let us be clear: under the previous Government, in not one year did SSA increases anywhere near enough to touch either of those increases.The truth is that, after the announcement by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on 27 November, funding to authorities as part of the SSA increased by £154 million.
    If the hon. Lady adds all the increases together, they total 8.1 per cent., which is a record to be proud of. The increases will deliver higher standards, reform the teaching profession and, for the very first time, ensure that we have in place a mechanism for rewarding our best teachers. That is what we need.

    Drugs
    Mrs. Ann Winterton: If he will make a statement on his Department's policy on the exclusion of pupils found in possession of controlled drugs while on school premises. [103686]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Jacqui Smith): Circular 10/99, "Social Inclusion: Pupil Support", issued to maintained schools last July, makes it clear that it is for
    972
    head teachers to decide whether to exclude permanently for all drug-related incidents, although in some cases excluding for a fixed period may be a more appropriate course of action. We are planning to write to schools very shortly to clarify and simplify some of the exclusion procedures.
    Mr. Winterton: Although I welcome the fact that head teachers should be responsible for exclusions of pupils in possession of controlled drugs, will the Minister say what provision is made for children who are excluded? Are they sent to specialist centres, where they are given treatment to come off drugs? Is the decision about when those children are considered fit enough to return to mainstream education only for head teachers, or is it to be made in consultation with parents and others?
    Jacqui Smith: The hon. Lady has made a very important point on the need for schools, with other agencies, to develop policies on keeping children in school—whenever it is possible to do so, without disrupting the education of others—and on ways of ensuring that children who have come into contact with drugs are adequately treated. That is why we are doubling the support available for early intervention on exclusions and truancy and giving the help that all hon. Members want us to provide.

    European Directives
    Mr. Michael Fabricant: When he last met Ministers in the Department of Trade and Industry to discuss the impact on employment prospects of European directives relating to British business. [103687]
    The Minister for Employment, Welfare to Work and Equal Opportunities (Ms Tessa Jowell): My right hon. Friend and I often meet ministerial colleagues at the Department of Trade and Industry to discuss various matters, including matters relating to the European Union. Ministers at both Departments represent the UK on the Social Affairs Council, which provides a forum for discussion of European employment legislation.
    Mr. Fabricant: I thank the Minister for her answer. Many of us know that she is a reasonable person. We concede that membership of the European Union has brought some benefits to business, but does she accept that some European directives have damaged industry? She will be aware, for example, that the sale of Armitage Shanks in my constituency was a direct result of a European directive resisted by the previous Government but rapidly accepted by the Labour Government. Will she read the report to be published by the Institute of Directors early next week, which undertakes a cost-benefit analysis of the European Union for business? Will she ask her right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment to make a statement on the report when it is published?
    Ms Jowell: I am happy to study that report when it is published. Ministers at the Department for Education and

    973
    Employment and the Department for Trade and Industry believe that the implementation of European directives should not pose undue regulatory burdens on business and should strike a proper balance between fairness at work and the need to keep costs and burdens to a minimum. Yesterday we published figures that show that there are
    974
    more people in work than ever. We can be proud of that record. We intend to work with our European partners to build on that and ensure greater employability and more people in work in the UK and across the European Union. We shall be working together in Europe, not barking on the fringes.

Millennium Bug
12.32 pm
The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Margaret Beckett): As I promised the House on 15 December, I am reporting back on an event that was unique in human history—the millennium date change—and its effects—
Mr. Michael Fabricant: What about the year 1000?
Mrs. Beckett: The whole House will agree that the effects of the millennium date change on central Government and the national infrastructure in the UK were a unique event. The unprecedented feature of the date change is that it stimulated an IT project that met its deadline. I am pleased to confirm that so far, as predicted, it is business as usual in the United Kingdom. In what is believed to be the largest co-ordinated project since the second world war, thorough and detailed planning across government and the national infrastructure, both publicly and privately controlled, ensured a smooth transition over the date change.
There is no doubt that the work had to be done. The millennium bug was shown to have the capacity to wreak havoc among services which, though essential, we take for granted. The Government's objective in that work was always to ensure that the bug resulted in no material disruption to essential services. That objective has been achieved.
No Government Department has reported any significant problems. The alert status, contingency arrangements and staff cover of Departments and agencies over the date change meant they could deal quickly with the minor Y2K bug problems that were discovered. Across the national infrastructure, electricity, gas, water and telecoms as well as offshore oil and gas industries continued to operate as normal, and the markets and financial sector successfully resumed full trading on 4 January.
The Government spent an estimated £380 million on tackling the millennium bug in our own systems, although without needing to make special further additions to Departments' budgets. The investment made was both necessary and beneficial. Continued payment of benefits, pensions and child support could be ensured only by essential and major system changes. Many of MAFF's internal systems, such as those for processing common agricultural policy payments on time, required corrective action or replacement.
In the wider public sector, NHS trusts and Government agencies found problems that needed to be fixed. Problems in gas repayment meters and electricity prepayment meters were found and fixed. Elsewhere in the private sector—everywhere from finance to food and transport to telecoms—major potential problems were found and fixed, in time. There were, and no doubt will continue to be, further minor glitches.
Here in the UK, a retailers' card reader problem before the date change affected about 5 per cent. of terminals in shops, and hence the public. Although such problems needed to be rectified, there have been no further reports in either public or private sectors of problems which have caused a significant inconvenience to the public.
976
The sorts of failures experienced typically have been incorrect date displays appearing on internal reports and read-outs. They have had no impact on customers. Those problems were corrected swiftly and had no impact on operations precisely because organisations were on the alert for problems and had put business continuity plans in place. The same pattern has been evident internationally—no material disruption, but concrete problems. For example, both France and the United States experienced problems with military satellites.
However, the relief that success creates should not obscure the very real difficulties that have been faced and overcome—problems whose nature and scale could indeed have caused major disruption in our economy and society. The failure of many critical systems within a short space of time over the date change would have been disastrous, and literally thousands of faults—many of them serious—had to be dealt with before the date change. The work of Government Departments, of Action 2000 and of service deliverers was vital in ensuring that the infrastructure continued to work as well as it did.
A huge amount of preventive work was done on the bug across the world, including in Russia, Asia, Latin America and Africa. Those who came late to the work benefited from the advice and experience of those already prepared. However, not one of the 173 countries which attended the largest-ever special meeting in the history of the United Nations in June last year failed to recognise that all faced some serious problems.
The investment made will yield real benefits. All organisations have probed their operations in depth, and replaced or discarded much that was out of date or no longer needed. Many have discovered long-standing flaws that were not fully recognised in the past. For example, as part of the work on assessing critical services that might be affected by the year 2000 problem, the Dutch Government identified a resources issue in their emergency call-handling posts—their equivalent of 999—which potentially could have caused the entire system to crash if as few as 140 or so simultaneous calls had been received.
There has been global co-operation in which knowledge has been freely shared. We look forward to that co-operation continuing in many fields. Moreover, there are other lessons to be learned. This was recognised early on as a management issue, and not just an IT issue—and was so handled. That may well be why it came in on time.
Prioritisation of business-critical systems worked. That is why the public experienced little disruption, despite the problems that have arisen. Business continuity planning was successful in working around those problems that did occur and millennium-operating regimes meant they could be and are being fixed. The breadth and depth of that experience will have continuing value.
Similarly, proper and wide-scale planning ensured that 3 million people—by the police's estimate—attended the millennium celebrations in London alone without serious incident, and similar celebrations throughout the UK passed off successfully. I will be publishing in February detailed returns from Departments on the impact of the millennium bug, and this will be followed by a more detailed report on lessons learned and benefits captured.
I would again like to pay tribute from the whole House to the vast number of people in the UK across the public and private sectors who have worked tirelessly to ensure

977
no material disruption in the UK as a result of the date change—not least those who staffed the Government's millennium centre, which kept the media and the public informed. Our success in meeting the threat of the millennium bug is testimony to all their efforts.
The UK rose to the challenge of the millennium bug. As one of the world leaders in the field, we successfully advised others on how to meet it and assisted them to do so. For that work, and that of all who made the celebrations possible and successful, we owe a debt of gratitude, and we have together earned the right to pride in what has been achieved.
Mr. Angela Browning (Tiverton and Honiton): I thank the right hon. Lady for the early notice that she gave me of this statement and for coming back to the House with a follow-up report on the millennium bug, as she promised to do in December. I join her in congratulating all those in the public and private sector on the work that they have done and the smooth transition that has followed.
Although the Leader of the House paid tribute to many of the organisations and individuals involved, I noted that she did not mention the fact that the project was begun by the previous Government. Given the generosity of her remarks, I hope that she will accept that I wish to pay tribute to those of my colleagues who were involved at an earlier stage in the preparations for that smooth transition.
I hope that the Leader of the House will recognise that, in the final phases of the preparations for the year 2000 change, we were pleased to receive the information that she supplied. That is especially true of the information that she shared with me personally, and I wish to place on record my thanks. The information was both helpful and constructive. I shall miss our exchanges across the Dispatch Box on the subject, but I am sure that there will be other occasions.
Mrs. Beckett: I am grateful to the hon. Lady. As she says, these exchanges will no longer take place, but they have been constructive and for the general good. As she will be aware from the briefings that we were able to share with her, because so little went wrong in practical terms, compared to what might have happened, the real danger—with the benefit of hindsight—that had to be overcome was a public reaction that might have caused problems that could otherwise have been avoided. The approach that was taken by Opposition Front Benchers under her stewardship was helpful in ensuring that we did not exacerbate a potentially difficult situation. I appreciate that assistance and I am happy to put that on record.
I accept that preparations began just about under the last Government, in July 1996. I am also happy to confirm that the potential impact of the date change was recognised much earlier and very fully by some Conservative Members, not least the hon. Member for Hexham, I think. [Horn. MEMBERS: "Bournemouth, East]. I am sorry, I mean the hon. Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson). I have duff information which is the result of human error and nothing to do with the millennium bug. Several hon. Members from both Conservative and Labour parties, including my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr.
978
Miller), have long taken an interest in the issue and the Government appreciate the support that they gave in helping to raise awareness of potentially difficult problems and in ensuring that that was done in a way that did not create further unnecessary difficulties.
Dr. David Clark: I wish to add my thanks to both Front Bench teams for the way in which they have tried to co-operate to tackle the problem. I also wish to thank those who have worked so hard to make the transition appear so seamless. I urge my right hon. Friend robustly to reject the line of opportunists who have claimed, late in the day, that we have wasted vast amounts of public money, which was not the case. Will she also confirm that the management of the central Government Departments ensured that we took the opportunity to make large investments in upgrading to new IT technology? Not only did we overcome the problem of the millennium bug, but we have sound investment in IT for the next two to three years.
Mrs. Beckett: My right hon. Friend is entirely right. I hoped and anticipated that he would be here, as I want to pay considerable tribute to him. The hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) was understandably anxious to gain credit for those Conservative Members who had taken some action on this matter, but I know that my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) is very well aware of the great step change required by the programme and in the funding for it. He made that change within three weeks of the general election that brought this Government into office.
My right hon. Friend may not have spotted the fact in the information that has been made available, but he will be happy to learn that his initial forecast of the cost to central Government of dealing with the problem was accurate to within £10 million. That is because, contrary to early projections, a possible increase in the required expenditure has turned out not to be necessary. That is a rare example of an accurate forecast of the cost of such a project.
However, my right hon. Friend is also right to stress the value of the investment that has been made, and the potential dangers. British Nuclear Fuels plc had reported that fire alarm systems in some of our nuclear power plants were not compliant. It could have been very serious if an alarm had failed to work in the event of fire. My right hon. Friend will know that the United States Government took the trouble to keep running three non-compliant systems alongside the equipment that replaced them. All three of the non-compliant systems in that control group failed.
Mr. Richard Allan: The Leader of the House is right to praise IT staff in the United Kingdom across the board for their work on the project. However, as Chairman of the Information Committee, I should like to add my thanks to the many staff in Parliament who kept our systems running perfectly throughout the millennium period.
An IT professional commented to me yesterday that he thought that we should have a millennium bug every year—not to create work for staff in the IT sector, but because he said that the bug problem had forced reluctant

979
managements to modernise their systems in a way that they would not otherwise have done. The right hon. Lady was right to refer to the matter as a management issue.
Will the right hon. Lady consider building on the structures set up to deal with the millennium bug to ensure that all sectors are talking to each other as we move into a world increasingly dependent on IT, and in which IT systems are increasingly interdependent on each other?
Mrs. Beckett: I thank the hon. Gentleman, who chairs the Information Committee of the House. He and his colleagues were instrumental in examining what the House needed to do. I entirely share his view that, as always, the staff of the House deserve a great tribute from us for their work in keeping our systems going.
The hon. Gentleman is also right to identify some of the benefits that have emerged. The forced modernisation of systems is certainly a factor, but top managements across the developed world—and especially in countries such as our own—have been forced to engage with the questions of why and how they use IT, in a way that has not happened before. That has had considerable benefits already. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that part of the work now being undertaken is to identify and capture those benefits, for Government and across the wider economy.
A number of valuable lessons have been learned. For example, it appears that the extent of contact with small and medium-sized companies through the Government's information programme on this matter has been greater than in any previous programme.
Mr. Andrew Miller: I thank my right hon. Friend for her statement. For the first time since I came to the House, a statement for which I asked at business questions one Thursday has been delivered the following one.
My right hon. Friend raised an important point in response to my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) concerning the benefits that have been identified throughout the country. Would it not be helpful if Departments, when they make their reports, identified the benefits that have accrued to them, in terms both of the year 2000 issue and of the other managerial changes brought about as a result of the exercise?
Mrs. Beckett: I am glad to have been able to satisfy my hon. Friend's request on this occasion, but I hope that he will not take that as a precedent. It is not always so easy to arrange statements.
My hon. Friend is entirely right to identify the need for Departments to work out and declare the benefits that have accrued to them, and to learn from them. That is exactly what we are seeking to encourage them to do.
Mr. David Atkinson: That this country has avoided problems so far is great credit to the right hon. Lady, the right hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark), Action 2000 and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) pointed out, the previous Government, who established Task Force 2000 in response to my Adjournment debate in May 1996. However, will the right hon. Lady confirm that we are not yet out of the wood, since many computer
980
systems have yet to come up against a millennium computer date that they will not recognise, and since a special threat is still posed—a unique threat for this century—by leap-year day, 29 February. Will the right hon. Lady warn against complacency?
Mrs. Beckett: I am happy to endorse the hon. Gentleman's remarks, and I am grateful to him for his kind remarks about me. I suspect that we are all a great deal happier to share the credit today than we would have been had we had to share the blame instead. But that is fine—it is in the national interests as well as in ours.
The hon. Gentleman is right to point out that we are by no means out of the wood. Although I say that prioritisation and contingency planning worked—that is a very important lesson—and we have, as far as one can judge, avoided almost completely any impact that would cause problems for the public, the hon. Gentleman, and others in this House who have expertise and have been following the issue, will know that we have not avoided impact altogether. Hundreds of examples of problems—some of them quite serious in terms of running organisations—have occurred across the world and will have to be tackled. I have no doubt that many others will be uncovered.
The hon. Gentleman will be aware that we are seeing something of a recurrence of a problem that he will recall from the very beginning. The greatest difficulty then was getting people to share information because their lawyers told them not to, apart from anything else. People who have problems do not necessarily tell the world about them so, while not encouraging the blame-game that exposes organisations that have had difficulties, we must ensure that they and others learn from them. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that problems will occur until the end of year at the very least, and people must be aware of that.
Mr. Derek Wyatt: May I also add my congratulations to everyone involved? Will my right hon. Friend's report give a Department-by-Department analysis of embedded chips and their cost and, if possible, put that information in the public domain?
Secondly, I echo some of the remarks that have already been made, in that neither this Government nor the previous one have, in the past 10 years, received plaudits for the way in which they bought and delivered computer systems. We are all guilty. The people who have has been involved in the preparations have clearly learned a huge amount. It would be great if my right hon. Friend's report could recommend that they take over the way in which computers are bought and designed, and systems put into place. That would stop a huge amount of waste. Will my right hon. Friend consider that?
Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend makes an interesting point, and it is one of the issues that will have to be considered when the reports come in. I have taken note of his point about embedded chips. I have a feeling that we may have already asked Departments to do that, but I will make sure that his point is conveyed. There have been some comments in the press to the effect that, internationally, people did not bother to do things. A good example of latecomers benefiting from the experience of others is that people could identify where it really

981
mattered to search for embedded chips and where it was pretty unimportant. My hon. Friend is right to identify that as an area of work that needs to be covered.
Sir Peter Emery: Will the right hon. Lady accept in retrospect that this is an illustration of both sides of the House coming together and of the House working at its best? The right hon. Lady said that there was no reason for undue alarm, although she could not hit the notion on the head entirely. However, people are suggesting that there will still be a major problem when we move from 00 to 01, at the end of this year and the start of the next. Will she analyse that in the report which she says that she will publish in February?
Mrs. Beckett: The report may well touch on those issues. The right hon. Gentleman will know that that is one of the points at which there may be further problems, but everyone who has been involved with the project recognises that there will never be another crunch point when so many different occasions come together as did at new year. For those who think that this is not really the millennium and who have strong views about the technicalities, there may be great celebrations next year, but most of us will not be celebrating on quite the same scale. The combination of events exacerbated the scale of the problems and the difficulties of dealing with them.
Mr. Brian White: In her report, will my right hon. Friend take account of three lessons in particular? First, will she consider the international co-operation, particularly the presence of Russian officers at various centres over the new year? The same process should be repeated when other crises arise so that an exchange of information may continue. Secondly, my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) courageously decided to put a great deal of information into the public domain against the conventional wisdom. Will the Government learn lessons from that about the benefits of freedom of information and open government, and will my right hon. Friend bring the point to the Home Secretary's attention? Thirdly, will she take note of charlatans who continue to provoke doom and gloom long after corrective action that they had asked for has been taken?
Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend, like my hon. Friends the Members for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Mr. Wyatt) and for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller), took a great interest in the millennium bug and have followed things carefully. My hon. Friend is entirely right about international co-operation. The Government have received great credit across the Commonwealth because of the practical support and financial advice that we gave. He was correct, too, to say that the co-operation between the militaries of the United States and Russia was unprecedented, and I am confident that other benefits will arise.
My hon. Friend was also correct to refer to the risks taken, and the courage shown, by my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields. I have said many times that Britain was seen as a world leader on the millennium bug, among the principal reasons for which were our communication across the national infrastructure and our
982
putting information into the public domain. People, including the United States co-ordinator, went on the record to recognise the worth of that.
My hon. Friend will recognise that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary shares his view about the worth of releasing information, but is concerned to ensure that the proper balance is struck in decisions about how to release information. My hon. Friend was quite correct in his general remarks about the benefits arising from our handing of the matter and the likelihood of long-term knock-on effects.
Mr. Michael Fabricant: The Leader of the House rightly said that we owe a debt of gratitude to the teams of software writers who ensured that we did not endure a national disaster. Does she accept that many of them were freelancers? Does she realise that we face a second millennium bug when the Government impose IR35 on 5 April? Is she aware that that will drive thousands of software writers and other information technology experts out of the United Kingdom? Thank God we shall have no major millennium problem next year because, if we did, we would be unable to cope with it once the software writers had left this country to earn money abroad.
Mrs. Beckett: The nature of the millennium bug project and the degree to which it affected the national interest meant that few people tried to make party politics out of it. One exception was the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) who, along with his many more unconstructive and, with the benefit of hindsight, entirely nonsensical remarks, demanded that I should take the blame for anything that went wrong over the millennium. The other exception is the hon. Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant) —typical.
Mr. William Thompson: I, too, declare my interest in the subject and thank the public services for defeating the bug. Does the Leader of the House think that the experience gained over the past year will help to ensure that future IT programmes for the various Departments will be finished on time; will not cost far in excess of the original estimates; will be bug free; and will work?
Mrs. Beckett: Although I would be too cautious to say that that would be the case, the hon. Gentleman is entirely right to state that those are the characteristics of the project and that they teach us some important lessons. The project can be achieved, if it is tackled in the right way—with the right objectives and management. Not only does that teach important lessons: it undermines the arguments of those who, on many other occasions, on many other IT projects, say that it is impossible to do those things. It is not impossible, if we get it right. The challenge to us all is to get those projects right in the future.
Mr. Tony McWalter: Those computer systems that were sensible enough to devote 11 bits to the date so as to allow four digits were resilient. However, doom and gloom will strike on 31 December 2048. Will my right hon. Friend assure me that she is working night and day in order to eliminate difficulties at that date?
Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend makes an important point. He has now sensibly placed it in Hansard;

983
consequently, I am confident that it will be noted by the Government of the day—in which it is just possible I may not be serving. Let me acquaint him and the House with the fact that my report to the Prime Minister on this matter included the suggestion made to me that there may be knock-on effects when today's new-borns retire. Although I am aware that my right hon. Friend bows to no one in his regard for his children, or in his responsibilities as a father, I took the view that he might not be too worried about the pension of a child who is not yet born.

Business of the House
1.1 pm
The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Margaret Beckett): The business next week will be as follows.
MONDAY 24 JANUARY—Second Reading of the Disqualifications Bill.
The Chairman of Ways and Means has named opposed private business for consideration at 7 o'clock.
TUESDAY 25 JANUARY—Remaining stages of the Electronic Communications Bill.
Remaining stages of the Disqualifications Bill.
WEDNESDAY 26 JANUARY—Progress on 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—Private Members' Bills.
I will give the House as much as I am able of the provisional business for the following week.
MONDAY 31 JANUARY—Second Reading of the Utilities Bill.
THURSDAY 3 FEBRUARY—Motions on the Police Grant Report (England and Wales).
Motions on Local Government (Finance) Reports. FRIDAY 4 FEBRUARY—Private Members' Bills.
I fear that, in the slight uncertainty occasioned by the changes in business that I had to announce last night, I am not able to identify today the business that will be taken in the middle of the week. However, the House will want to learn that, subject to the progress of business—I emphasise that point—I propose that the House should rise at the end of business on Tuesday 22 February and would not sit on 23, 24 and 25 February.
Sir George Young: The House is grateful for next week's business and for the indication of the business for part of the following week. Although we welcome the announcement of what is not so much a constituency week but a constituency half-week, does the right hon. Lady agree that the value of such an announcement is enhanced the earlier that it can be made?
Will the right hon. Lady tell the House the date of the Budget? Will she tell us on which day next week there will be a statement by the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport on the introduction of a new television tax?
In relation to today's business, I much regret that, at short notice last night, the Government decided to guillotine an important constitutional Bill. Although the Government put down motions to suspend the 10 o'clock rule in the name of the Prime Minister, when we reach 10 o'clock, they turn into a pumpkin and go home. The Government appear to prefer to curtail debate rather than to engage in it. Will the right hon. Lady confirm that it is vital that appropriate consideration is given to constitutional measures, even if it means sitting after 10 o'clock?
Would it not have been appropriate today to have a statement on the Wakeham report? Although we would not expect the Government to outline their policy, Members would have welcomed the opportunity to press

985
Ministers on timing. The Government are more interested in gesture than reform on this matter and, having urged Lord Wakeham to make haste, they now appear anxious to delay. Can we have an early debate so that we can press the Government on the timing and membership of a Joint Committee and on progress with the promised independent statutory appointments commission to end the Prime Minister's patronage of the second Chamber, which Lord Wakeham condemned?
After the Home Secretary's performance last week, when his decision on Pinochet was issued to the press before any announcement was made to the House, can we have an assurance that there will be no repeat of that discourtesy and that, when he reaches his final decision, the House will be the first to hear it?
Mrs. Beckett: I entirely accept the right hon. Gentleman's point that the value of the non-sitting days in February—or indeed of any non-sitting days—is greatly enhanced if the House has early notice of them. I regret that it has not been possible to give more notice, but he will know fully the reasons for that.
I cannot yet give the right hon. Gentleman the date of the Budget, but I hope to do so shortly, and I hope that that is helpful.
The right hon. Gentleman said that he regretted that a statement is not being made on the Wakeham report. I remind him that the report, which is a royal commission report to the Government, has barely been published, so it is a little early to make a statement. He suggested that the Government are more interested in gesture than reform. That comes fine from a member of a party that was not interested in reform at all and now shows every sign of being torn between gesture and reform. The Government are not anxious to delay. I can only say to the right hon. Gentleman that, when people have had an opportunity to consider the report, we shall decide what to say in the House.
The right hon. Gentleman is of course right to say that Lord Wakeham made observations about patronage, but it is a little churlish of him not to recognise that this Prime Minister is the first in history to be prepared to diminish his patronage by one jot. Not one Tory Prime Minister was ever prepared to do so. Indeed, recent Conservative Prime Ministers used their powers of patronage to stack the other place with Tory peers to bolster their numbers among hereditary peers.
The right hon. Gentleman also mentioned last night's decision on a guillotine. He knows perfectly well that that was on an important constitutional Bill, and the Government share his view on that, which is why we are putting forward a timetabling motion to provide an opportunity for discussion on the Bill. It is right that important constitutional matters should be fully debated. However, the right hon. Gentleman may not be aware that last night's debate concerned issues such as the use of the words "temporary" and "verifiable" in a Bill. I do not think that anyone who was here last night—
Mr. Eric Forth: The right hon. Lady was not here.
Mrs. Beckett: The right hon. Gentleman, who speaks from a sedentary position, is entirely right to say that I
986
was not in the Chamber—although I was in the House—and I am profoundly thankful for that since I did not have to listen to him wasting the time of the House.
On Pinochet, the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young) is not quite correct; the Government did not make an announcement to the press first. The Chilean embassy released information to the press and the Government then had to acknowledge whether it was correct. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary made it plain that he had every intention of making that announcement in the proper way in the House. He will come to the House when he has a further announcement to make on that matter.
Mr. David Winnick: Leaving aside Pinochet's defenders and apologists on the Conservative Benches, will my right hon. Friend tell the House whether the Home Secretary will make his statement before Pinochet leaves the country, if his decision is that he should leave?
While we are on the subject of those held responsible for crimes against humanity, I should like to ask my right hon. Friend about the person featured in today's newspapers, particularly The Guardian, who is said to have been a concentration camp murderer during the war. Is there to be a statement about him?
Mrs. Beckett: First, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will report to the House when he has had the opportunity to consider the representations that have been made to him. He will then make a full statement to Parliament. I shall draw my hon. Friend's comments to my right hon. Friend's attention.
On the issue that has been reported in today's press, my hon. Friend will know that it is a new report, which is being considered. It will be a matter for the police to investigate what offence, if any, has been committed. That will be the basis of any decision about prosecution that is made by the relevant authorities.
Mr. Paul Tyler: May I endorse the request for an early statement—I appreciate that it cannot be made in the next few hours, but it could be made in the next few days—on the Government's attitude to the Wakeham report and, particularly, to the timetable for any implementation of the proposals? Will the Leader of the House acknowledge that the Government recognise that an interim, transitory arrangement for the composition of the other place would not be satisfactory on a long-term basis? It would leave everyone with a considerable period of doubt and indecision, which is unsavoury in a settled constitution.
May I ask two questions about next week's business? First, I know that the Government are making arrangements for amendments to the Disqualifications Bill to be tabled in advance of its Second Reading on Monday. However, it is profoundly unsatisfactory to have Second Reading and then so little time before the Bill's remaining stages. We shall not even be able to take into account Ministers' statements on Second Reading to ensure that we have tabled the right amendments for the remaining stages on the very next day. Will the right hon. Lady please try to avoid that in future? It may not be such a controversial Bill, but some Members think that it is. We face a profoundly unsatisfactory way of dealing with the business of the House.

987
Secondly, on the Financial Services and Markets Bill which will come before us on Wednesday, will the right hon. Lady tell us what progress she has made with Conservative representatives in trying to reach agreement on a programme motion? It is surely the type of Bill that requires such a motion. Even in the light of the ridiculous shenanigans of last night, I hope that she still has some opportunity to talk to her opposite numbers on the Conservative Front Bench, so that we can agree on how to handle the business of the House more satisfactorily.
Mrs. Beckett: First, I am well aware that the hon. Gentleman was here last night, and I recognise his remarks about the Wakeham report. The whole House is grateful to Lord Wakeham and his colleagues for their hard work and for meeting what was described by others as too tight a deadline. The report has been published for only two hours or so, but its publication is noteworthy because, as I understand it, it is a unanimous report. I hope that that will mean that it will lay the foundations for a reasonable degree of common ground to emerge. The hon. Gentleman will know that I have always held and expressed the view that, following the publication of the royal commission report, there might be a broad acceptance of some of the principles that it has set out. That might make the way forward rather smoother, but it is too early to say whether that will be the case.
The hon. Gentleman asked me about the Disqualifications Bill. He is right—I am grateful to him for allowing me to put it on the record again—to say that the Government are making arrangements to ensure that amendments can be tabled and that Members do not lose that opportunity. We would not usually wish to make such arrangements, but he will be aware that we are bringing the position with regard to Ireland and Irish Members into line with that which exists for some other legislatures. In that sense, we are not making a major decision and it is not in any way without precedent. The precedent is that this different arrangement is in line with that for other legislatures. However, I accept the hon. Gentleman's point entirely.
Finally, the hon. Gentleman asked me about progress on a programme motion for the Financial Services and Markets Bill. He will know that programme motions are always on offer from the Government. We very much share the view that was expressed at the outset of this Parliament by the all-party Modernisation Committee, of which he is a member, on the worth of programme motions. They offer a way of ensuring that key parts of legislation are discussed and not overlooked because the House has got bogged down—sometimes for sound reasons and sometimes not—on more minor issues. Up to now, it has been suggested that a programme motion is not necessary because there is agreement on how we handle the Bill and deal with business expeditiously to ensure that the issues that are identified as being of major importance are fully dealt with. It may be that we shall need a few further discussions on the matter, and we are certainly prepared to undertake them.
Lorna Fitzsimons: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is about time that the Modernisation Committee considered urgently the use of, and the need for, more programme motions? Does she agree also that it is troubling that the shadow Leader of the House talks about more predictability, the problem of not knowing
988
when the February half week is and the importance of knowing the nature of other business? Yet he still condones not having a planned agenda for the House, which would allow everyone to know what business will be discussed and when. We are wasting not only our time, but the valuable time of civil servants and the employees of the House when we are discussing et cetera ad nauseam.
Madam Speaker: is the hon. Lady asking for a debate on the matter?
Lorna Fitzsimons: Yes, Madam Speaker.
Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend raises an important point. Like the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler), she is a member of the Modernisation Committee. She will know that the issue of whether we are making the use of programme motions, as anticipated by the Committee, has been raised on quite a few occasions on the Floor of the House, and increasingly so in recent times. However, she is entirely right to raise the matter. It may be that as we are keeping under review the Committee's recommendations, which were made before I was a member of it, perhaps the matter that she has raised should be put on the agenda to ascertain whether we are implementing even the spirit, or the letter, of any of the recommendations.
Sir Norman Fowler: Is it not surprising and regrettable that, given all the interviews and briefings that have already taken place, no statement is being made today about change in the House of Lords? I press on the Leader of the House the urgency of a debate on the future of the House of Lords. I hope that she recognises that there will be some in the House who do not want to see a new political establishment formed of appointers and appointees, and would much prefer to have a fully elected second Chamber.
Mrs. Beckett: I am surprised to hear someone of the right hon. Gentleman's experience and seriousness making such a point. I have seldom heard a more ludicrous suggestion that the Government should make a statement about a report that they have not drawn up and that was correctly not given to them in advance. The right hon. Gentleman talks about briefings as if they are being given by Ministers. Of course they are not. Ministers are not members of the royal commission. It is the royal commission that is briefing on its report to the Government. It is ridiculous to suggest that the Government should make a statement when there has not been time to assimilate it.
Secondly, the right hon. Gentleman talks about his opposition to what he calls a new political establishment. His zeal for reform has overtaken him only since the Conservative party lost the enormity of the majority that it previously enjoyed in the House of Lords. It still has a majority there, but no one would think so to hear the way that Conservative Members talk about it.
Dr. Phyllis Starkey: May I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to the fact that the person against whom war crimes have been alleged on the front page of The Guardian is resident in my constituency? I add to what was said earlier and urge

989
her to ask my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to make a statement on this matter, and particularly on whether the Crown Prosecution Service, in the light of the new evidence, will consider again whether a prosecution should be proceeded with under the War Crimes Act 1991.
Mrs. Beckett: I understand my hon. Friend's concern. She will appreciate that we are talking about early reports. I do not think that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will yet have had the opportunity to come to a decision on whether there is a matter on which he needs to make a statement. I will draw my hon. Friend's remarks to his attention, especially her observations about the Crown Prosecution Service. I hope that that is helpful.
Mr. Forth: Notwithstanding the Leader of the House's failure to explain the Government's lack of response, even at an early stage, to the Wakeham Committee's recommendations, will she give an undertaking that the Government will respond next week, if only to underline the urgency of the matter and to explain the Government's intentions for the next stage of the process? The people of this country should know the shape of their legislature before the next election. Otherwise, the impression will be given that the Government are prevaricating because the Prime Minister wants to perpetuate the position whereby he appoints Members of one of the Houses of Parliament.
Mrs. Beckett: I shall certainly not undertake to make a statement next week. As for the rubbish about one of the Houses being appointed by the Prime Minister, I point out that eight Prime Ministers have contributed to the life membership of the House of Lords, and that 90 or so hereditary peers remain there. The Conservative party retains a majority over the Labour party in the House of Lords. I do not believe that that represents the views of most people in this country.
Mr. Vernon Coaker: Will my right hon. Friend make time for a debate, or a statement, on the job losses that have been announced in the water industry throughout the country, including in Severn Trent, which is in my area? At the same time, the water companies are announcing record profits and record dividend payments to their shareholders.
Mrs. Beckett: I cannot promise an early statement on the matter, but I shall draw my hon. Friend's remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend who has responsibility for the water industry. The water regulator has said that his proposals do not require the industry to make such changes. Every time the water industry has been required to take steps about which it is unhappy, it has threatened job losses. The public will find its actions hard to understand.
Rev. Martin Smyth: I draw the attention of the Leader of the House to early-day motion 294.
[That this House is appalled by the Muslim-Christian conflict in the Moluccas, Indonesia; notes that over 1,500 people have died since the violence began in January 1999;
990
is deeply concerned by reports that the Indonesian military have often taken sides in the conflict instead of attempting to restore order; and calls on the British Government to press for urgent UN intervention in the Moluccas to end the bloodshed and to closely link the European Union arms embargo and suspension of IMF assistance to Indonesia to the Indonesian Government and military's conduct over the Moluccas.]
Had I followed the advice of the Leader of the House last week, I would have incurred your wrath, Madam Speaker, by trying to raise the matter in Foreign Office questions although it was not on the Order Paper. I plead again for an early statement on Indonesia. Not only are people dying unnecessarily there, but a democratic Government could be overthrown by conspiracy between elements of the army and some fanatic Islamic fundamentalists. It is a potential tragedy.
Mrs. Beckett: I shall draw the hon. Gentleman's remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary. Although the matter is under consideration, I cannot guarantee that a statement will be made about Indonesia, which is arousing considerable international anxiety. We are exploring ways of assisting reconciliation in that unhappy country. I hope that the events that the hon. Gentleman suggests may happen will not come about.
Mr. Syd Rapson: I want to return to the sad position at the end of business last night. I support the Opposition's right to deploy the tactics that are at their disposal, just as we used the guillotine. However, many hon. Members from the 1997 intake are less tolerant of such procedures. If my right hon. Friend is prepared to consider more timetabling, or tactics that will enhance the business of the House, a willing group of us will fully support her.
Mrs. Beckett: I thank my hon. Friend for his offer of support. Of course, it is the right of the Opposition and the Government to use the tools that are at their disposal. I have always believed that the public do not understand when we spend a great deal of time discussing matters that are of no importance and complain that we have no time to consider important issues. I have always deplored that tactic, and never practised it, even during the long years we spent in opposition. It brings this place into disrepute with the public. My hon. Friend is right to say that that, from time to time, successive Governments have had to take action to resolve a growing problem that causes difficulties.
Sir Peter Emery: Does the Leader of the House accept that motion 6 on the Order Paper today dealing with the Disqualifications Bill is a procedural disgrace? Not enough time has been arranged between Second Reading and Committee for amendments to be tabled in the proper way. That is not acceptable from the Leader of the House, who leads the Select Committee on Modernisation, which urges that there should be full and proper consideration of all legislation.
Will the right hon. Lady arrange for a statement next week by one of the Law Officers about the potential closure of smaller magistrates courts? In parts of Devon, people will have to travel 20, 30 or 40 miles to go to

991
court. It is not acceptable for working courts such as that at Axminster to be closed. There must be a statement about that from a Law Officer.
Mrs. Beckett: The issue of time has been raised. The Government recognise that the two stages are somewhat close together, but we have made arrangements to tackle that. From time to time, it is necessary to make such decisions, as the right hon. Gentleman is well aware.
The right hon. Gentleman also asks me about smaller magistrates courts. I draw his attention to the fact that there is an Adjournment debate on that matter in Westminster Hall next Tuesday. The debate has been raised by one of his hon. Friends, the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Spring), so the right hon. Gentleman will have to take the matter up with that hon. Member. Although I cannot promise to bring the Law Officers to the House, we will have questions to the Law Officers in the near future.
Maria Eagle: After the obnoxious tactics adopted yesterday by hard-line Conservative opponents of the Fur Farming (Prohibition) Bill, will my right hon. Friend assure the Bill's many supporters in the House and all those outside this place who abhor cruelty to animals that she will arrange for a Second Reading debate on that Bill as soon as possible?
Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend is right. It was plain—indeed, it was admitted by at least one offender last night—that the tactics deployed yesterday had nothing whatever to do with the importance of the Representation of the People Bill or the time required for it. My hon. Friend is also right to say that many people will deplore and fail to understand those tactics. I assure her that the Government will make sure that the Fur Farming (Prohibition) Bill reaches the statute book. It was yet another crass misjudgment on the part of the Opposition.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: As the Member for Macclesfield, which lies in the north-west, may I draw the right hon. Lady's attention to early-day motion 279, entitled "Location of the national athletics stadium".
[That this House notes the complete failure of the proposed National Athletics Stadium at Wembley; notes that the Commonwealth Stadium in Manchester could be altered at relatively little cost to meet the specifications for a national stadium; urges the Government to give full consideration to any bid by Manchester to host the National Stadium; and believes such consideration would demonstrate the Government's commitment to the regions outside London.]?
In the light of the failure of the project at Wembley, is the Leader of the House aware that there is a strong feeling across the party political spectrum, particularly in the north-west and in Greater Manchester, that the stadium could be located in the city of Manchester, and that it could be provided at very little cost to the British taxpayer? Will she assure the House that a Minister, preferably the Minister for Sport, will make a statement in the House within the next few days on the matter, giving an assurance that the Government will give serious consideration to the interests of Manchester and the construction of the stadium in that area? That would be
992
widely supported and would show that the Government were not entirely obsessed with London and the south-east.
Mrs. Beckett: Of course, I am well aware that the hon. Gentleman is the Member for Macclesfield, through which I passed on Thursday on my way to the north-west, including Manchester, where my ear was bent about Manchester's urgent desire to have the athletics stadium.
As a native of that part of the world, I recognise that Manchester is undoubtedly the capital of the universe and that that status is not properly represented. [Interruption] I am saying that not only because I am being heckled by the Deputy Chief Whip from a sedentary position. I am well aware of the pressure across the party political spectrum. I know that my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Department for Culture, Media and Sport are also aware of it. I cannot undertake to ensure the decision that the hon. Gentleman wants, but I shall draw his request for a statement on the matter to their attention.
Mr. John Cryer: My right hon. Friend will recall that shortly before Christmas Opposition Members complained loudly that business had collapsed early a number of times that week. That happens for only one reason—they are not doing their job properly, which did not happen when we were in opposition. Last night, the situation was almost the reverse as they engaged in tactics that brought no credit whatever to the House. I want a debate on modernisation and the procedures of the House so that they can explain their apparent inconsistencies.
Mrs. Beckett: As always, my hon. Friend makes an interesting point. He is certainly right about the inconsistency that is so frequently displayed by Conservative Members, but I fear that, if we were to try to find time to debate it every time it manifests itself, we would not have time to do anything else.
Mr. Douglas Hogg: The right hon. Lady may be aware of a letter that I have written to the Secretary of State for Social Security about winter fuel payments to males. She may also be aware that men in Lincolnshire aged between 60 and 65 who have applied for winter fuel payments appear to have been told that the infrastructure is not in place to make any payments, notwithstanding the ruling of the European Court. If that be true, it is unsatisfactory. Will she therefore arrange either an early debate or a statement on the matter? On another issue, is it not unsatisfactory that Monday's opposed private business is fixed for 7 o'clock and therefore likely to truncate debate on the very important Disqualifications Bill?
Mrs. Beckett: I am aware that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has raised the issue of winter fuel payments. He will be aware, too, that we shall comply with the decision of the European Court, but it is quite recent and I understand that it will take time to register all those who are newly eligible. We have every intention of making the backdated payments as soon as possible and obviously the infrastructure for that has to be dealt with. He also made a point about the Disqualifications

993
Bill. He will know that it is the norm for such opposed private business to be taken at 7 o'clock and that how business proceeds is a matter for the House.
Mr. Andrew Miller: In the hope that I am on a winning streak with my right hon. Friend, may I bring to her attention the positive remarks made by the assistant chief constable of Cheshire on Government policy on closed circuit television? Will she consider early-day motion 283—which was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, Central (Mr. Jones), other Welsh Members and myself—on the successful use of technology in solving crime.
[That this House congratulates Dyfed and Powys, Gwent and South Wales constabularies, which by collaboration made a number or arrests in the second week of January including an alleged persistent young offender, following the use of new technology currently under trial developed by 2B Research and BT; recognises that the arrests took place within a short period of time due in the main to the use of PNIP, retrieving information from neighbouring forces; and calls upon the Home Secretary to consider a national application of this system.]
Can we have an early debate on the Government's approach to improving technology to help the police in their difficult task?
Mrs. Beckett: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing to my attention the remarks of the assistant chief constable. He will know that the Government are investing about £153 million over the next three years on CCTV schemes. We believe that that method of crime prevention is very much what the public want, although I fear I cannot undertake to have an early debate on the matter. I acknowledge the remarks made by my hon. Friend, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, Central (Mr. Jones) and others about the use and value of new technology in this area and the Government will continue to pursue such steps to reduce the impact of crime.
Sir David Madel: The Government are always saying that they want more public support for what they are doing and their legislation to pass through the House smoothly. Given the amount of controversial legislation that we are dealing with, can we have an assurance that no more controversial Bills will be introduced this Session, apart from the Finance Bill?
Mrs. Beckett: It is becoming increasingly difficult to define what some Members—excepting the hon. Gentleman and, frequently, Conservative Front Benchers—think of as controversial. Indeed, that is not always possible to identify, and it seems to take hours to deal with matters that were non-controversial until they reached their final minutes in the House. I cannot give him quite the undertaking he seeks, but I can certainly tell him that the Government shall continue to introduce the programme that was outlined in the Queen's Speech, which we believe is the programme that the public want.
Mr. Paul Flynn: May we have a debate on early-day motion 2?
[That this House applauds the Government's intention to ensure that all pensioners entitled to income support receive it, making it a genuine minimum income
994
guarantee; notes that, although the minimum income guarantee was introduced in April 1999, the promised national programme of measures to maximise take-up is still awaited; and urges the Secretary of State for Social Security to announce that claims made by pensioners after the date of that announcement will be treated as having been made on that date and that arrears of benefit will be paid accordingly.]
The motion, which was signed by 63 Members, seeks a take-up campaign for the poorest pensioners.
The situation is urgent. According to the Government's figures, 700,000 of the poorest pensioners are losing, on average, £18.18 a week. Action was promised in July 1998 by the Secretary of State for Social Security, who said that data matching would begin in April 1999, but nothing has happened. I was told yesterday in a written answer that action would be taken in the future, but no date could be given.
Early-day motion 2 asks for all the backdated money lost by pensioners to be repaid when action is taken. The pensioners lost the money not through any fault of their own, but through the fault of Government, and it would be wrong for it to be pocketed by the Treasury.
Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend is right to identify the continuing problem involving claims at the lower levels, especially claims by pensioners. Like me, he has deplored it for a long time. The Government try to encourage take-up, and will continue to do so: indeed, the minimum income guarantee, which is earnings-linked, is intended to encourage pensioners to claim.
I cannot give my hon. Friend the assurance that he seeks. As he will know, the legislation provides for payment to be backdated to the point at which the claim was made. My hon. Friend will also know that the problem has been going on for decades, and was not solved or even tackled by the Conservatives. It would be difficult to set a precedent by backdating payment to the point at which a claim might have been made. Nevertheless, I endorse my hon. Friend's basic point, which is that many people—the oldest, the frailest and those in most need of financial support—remain reluctant to claim. It is the responsibility of all Members to do all that we can to encourage them to do so.
Dr. Jenny Tonge: In a week in which talks with Pakistan about the arms trade have resumed and the embargo on the arms trade with Indonesia—which is very unstable—has been lifted, and on a day on which we have heard that Hawk jets are to be sold to Zimbabwe, which is engaged in a severe civil war throughout sub-Saharan Africa, it is obvious that the Government have dropped the ethical dimension to their foreign policy. Can we please have an urgent debate on the effect of the arms trade on foreign policy?
Mrs. Beckett: The hon. Lady has drawn on a number of examples. She will know that the embargo on arms sales to Indonesia was for a fixed period, and has expired rather than being specifically lifted. Indeed, it was introduced largely on our initiative following the problems in East Timor.
I do not accept that the Government have abandoned an ethical dimension to their foreign policy. In comparison with those who accept that there is legitimacy

995
in some arms sales, those who oppose all arms sales are, in a sense, on an easy wicket. There will always be matters of difficulty and dispute.
I fear that I cannot promise the hon. Lady an urgent statement, but I will draw her remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary.
Dr. Stephen Ladyman: As my right hon. Friend knows, we should have been discussing the Electronic Communications Bill this afternoon. We shall now be doing that next week, thanks to the disgraceful behaviour of the lunatic fringe on the Conservative Benches. Can my right hon. Friend assure me that the Government still intend the legislation to be the first Act of the new millennium? If so, can she also assure me that she will deploy all the tools that the Government have at their disposal to ensure that the Bill makes progress next week?
Mrs. Beckett: The Government have every intention of ensuring that the Bill makes progress next week. Hon. Members on both sides of the House recognise that it is important legislation and not party politically controversial. Therefore, we are all entitled to hope that it will reach the statute book in the ordinary way. As to whether it will be the first Act of the millennium, I am afraid that I have not had the opportunity to check.
Mr. John Wilkinson: May I urge the Leader of the House to have a two-day debate on defence the week after next on the Tuesday and Wednesday, which in the current programme remain fallow? If she does not hold an early debate on defence, the view that is prevalent in the country that the Government are not interested in defence, with our troops living in tents in Kosovo and the Royal Air Force some 20 per cent. short of fighter pilots, will be heightened.
Mrs. Beckett: The hon. Gentleman's last point is particularly extraordinary as it takes more than a couple of years to train a fighter pilot, so, if there is a fighter pilot shortage, the blame cannot be laid at the door of the present Government. [Interruption.] It was not us. That is a simple fact.
996
The hon. Gentleman asks for a two-day debate next week. I cannot undertake to provide time for that next week, although I certainly take on board his remarks. The Government are conscious of the need to find time for the defence debates. It is untrue that there is no interest. Indeed, it is perhaps because rather too much interest was taken in, for example, the defence White Paper that it came in late.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. We must move on.

Business of the House
  BILLS PRESENTED
    UTILITIES
    Mr. Secretary Byers, supported by the Prime Minister, Mr. Secretary Prescott, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Secretary Straw, Mr. Secretary Reid, Mr. Secretary Murphy, Mr. Secretary Darling and Mrs. Helen Liddell, presented a Bill to provide for the establishment and functions of the Gas and Electricity Markets Authority, the Gas and Electricity Consumer Council, the Telecommunications Authority, the Telecommunications Consumer Council, the Water Advisory Panel and the Consumer Council for Water; to amend the legislation regulating the telecommunications, gas, electricity and water industries; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed. Explanatory Notes to be printed [Bill 49].
    ANALYSIS OF COSTS AND BENEFITS (EUROPEAN UNION MEMBERSHIP)
    Mr. Michael Fabricant presented a Bill to establish a Parliamentary Commission to investigate and report to Parliament on the costs and benefits of the United Kingdom's membership of the European Union: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 21 January, and to be printed [Bill 50].

  Points of Order
  1.42 pm
  Mr. John Bercow: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I seek your guidance. I wonder whether you, or Madam Speaker, have received any indication from the Prime Minister that he intends to come to the House to make a statement to clear up the confusion following his statement on the health service and its contradiction by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Is it not important that the House should learn whether there is even a semblance of coherence in Government health policy sooner rather than later?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): That is not a point of order. We have had no notification from the Prime Minister.
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. About five or six of us have waited 40 minutes to put a business question—in my case, to follow up on vibration white finger, which was raised last week. Why were questions on the business statement cut short?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman knows far better than me that, when we finish a statement and go on to the main business, is at the discretion of the Chair.
  Mr. Michael Fabricant: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Following the news in today's papers of £10 billion-worth of extra burdens on local businesses, I was wondering whether you had received a report that the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry was to make an emergency statement to the House.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have not received such a request.
  Mr. Christopher Chope: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I draw your attention to column 945 in the Official Report of 19 January, where your colleague, the Chairman of Ways and Means, ruled that there had been no filibustering during the proceedings and debate? May I also draw your attention to the fact that on "Yesterday in Parliament" this morning, it was asserted as a statement of fact by a BBC correspondent that there had been filibustering? Is that not an intolerable misrepresentation of what happened in the House?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is certainly not a matter for the Chair. The hon. Gentleman may wish to take it up with the BBC.

  Representation of the People Bill (Allocation of Time)
  1.44 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Mike O'Brien): I beg to move,
  That the following provisions shall apply to the remaining proceedings on the Representation of the People Bill—

  Representation of the People Bill (Allocation of Time)
    Timetable
    1. The remaining proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading of the Bill shall be completed at this day's sitting and shall be brought to a conclusion, if not previously concluded, four hours after the commencement of the proceedings on this Motion.

    Questions to be put
    2. — (1) For the purpose of bringing proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph 1 the Speaker shall put forthwith the following Questions (but no others) —

    (a) any Question already proposed from the Chair;

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

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

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

    (2) On a Motion made for a new Clause or a new Schedule, the Speaker shall put only the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill.
    (3) If two or more Questions would fall to be put under sub-paragraph (1)(c) on amendments moved or Motions made by a Minister of the Crown, the Speaker shall instead put a single Question in relation to those amendments or Motions.

    Miscellaneous
    3. Proceedings under paragraph 2 above shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to sittings of the House; and Standing Order No. 15(1) (Exempted business) shall apply to proceedings on the Bill.
    4. If at this day's sitting proceedings on a Motion for the Adjournment of the House would, by virtue of Standing Order No. 24 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration), commence at a time when proceedings on the Bill are in progress, the proceedings on the Motion shall be postponed to the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill.
    5. Standing Order No. 82 (Business Committee) shall not apply in relation to the Bill.
    6. No Motion shall be made, except by a Minister of the Crown, to alter the order in which any proceedings on the Bill are taken or to recommit the Bill; and if a Minister makes any such Motion, the Question on the Motion shall be put forthwith.
    7. No dilatory Motion shall be made in relation to the Bill except by a Minister of the Crown; and if a Minister makes any such Motion, the Question on the Motion shall be put forthwith.
    8. The proceedings on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion one hour after they have been commenced; and Standing Order No. 15(1) shall apply to those proceedings.
    9. If at the sitting this day the House is adjourned, or the sitting is suspended, before the conclusion of the proceedings on this Motion or on the Bill, no notice shall be required of a Motion made at the next sitting by a Minister of the Crown for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order.
    Yesterday, a handful of Conservative Members delayed parliamentary business on the Representation of the People Bill, not because they really objected to the Bill, but because they wanted to avoid debating the Fur

    999
    Farming (Prohibition) Bill. They were reluctant to argue their case on that Bill because their party was divided and the opinions of Conservative Back Benchers were out of touch with those of the country. The Representation of the People Bill was disrupted because of their moral cowardice on another Bill.
    Mr. Michael Fabricant: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): I hope that it is a point of order.
    Mr. Fabricant: It is a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker—you will know that I do not raise points of order that are out of order. However, is it in order for the Minister to imply that I—who was one of the four hon. Members interested in the issues debated last night—oppose the Fur Farming (Prohibition) Bill, when I do not? Is that not a gross slander?
    Mr. James Gray: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Perhaps I shall have a point of order one day, but, so far, I have not had one today. I tell the hon. Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant) that the Minister and other hon. Members will make their speeches in their own way, and that it will be for him to try to rebut the case that they make.
    Mr. Gray: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I wish that the hon. Gentleman would not speak while I am on my feet; it is very bad manners. Does he have a point of order? He cannot make a point further to the previous point, because it was not a point of order.
    Mr. Gray: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Last night, your colleague, the occupant of the Chair, ruled that no filibustering had occurred. Just now, the Minister said that there had been filibustering, contrary to the ruling of the occupant of the Chair.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: I did not hear the Minister say that.
    Mr. O'Brien: The intervention by the hon. Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant) demonstrated that he is contradicting some of the other Conservative Members who spoke last night. Conservative Members are going in every direction on the issue. That is the very point that I was making, and that is what they were seeking to disguise from the public.
    The truth is that the Representation of the People Bill was disrupted because of Conservative Members' moral cowardice on another Bill. Their behaviour yesterday was an abuse of the House. If we are properly to conduct business, we need a guillotine on the Representation of the People Bill.
    As Madam Speaker and you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, often make clear, members of the public watch proceedings in the House, and they want parliamentary
    1000
    business conducted with dignity. Yesterday, they saw a handful of Opposition Members making deliberately long-winded, discursive speeches. On no fewer than 19 occasions, the Deputy Speaker had to intervene, calling Opposition Members to order as they wandered through the highways and byways of the debate.
    Several hon. Members rose—
    Mr. Graham Brady: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. O'Brien: I shall give way shortly.
    The Bill has broad parliamentary support, and Conservative Front Benchers agree with most, if not all, of its provisions. I believe that the Government have the support of the House to ensure that the Bill's passage is concluded.
    I think that I am able now safely to make one prediction: in the speeches that follow this one, we shall hear much synthetic anger from Conservative Members. Last night, in response to the business statement, in an extraordinary display of hyperbole, the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) said that a guillotine would
    "damage the very fabric of our parliamentary democracy." — [Official Report, 19 January 2000; Vol. 342, c. 938.]
    Let us put aside the histrionics, not to say the hysterics, and consider the facts. The Bill is an agreed Bill, giving effect to the recommendations of a working party that itself was the product of a consensus. I know that the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) takes the view that the fact that a Conservative representative was on the working party is of no relevance to him, and it is perhaps a sign of the state of today's Conservative party that he disowns his party so easily.
    Mr. Brady: I deeply resent the Minister's implication. Earlier today, the Leader of the House mentioned the debate on the definition of "temporary" unemployment and the short, but very civilised discussions that I had with the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland on proposed change to the law. I did not make a speech on the issue, although I could have done, but chose to address it in brief interventions on the Minister. Conservative Members are trying to improve legislation, as it is our duty to do, and I strongly resent the Minister's implication that we were doing anything other than that.
    Mr. O'Brien: As we proceed, I shall show how few Opposition Members were prepared to make speeches in debate of what they now claim to be such an important Bill.
    The working party's recommendations were published in July, and there has been plenty of time for everyone to consider them. I therefore hope that we shall hear no canards about the Bill being rushed through with indecent haste. It has been the subject of wide consultation and full opportunity for debate.
    Mr. John Bercow: Will the Minister give way?
    Mr. O'Brien: This must be the last time.
    Mr. Bercow: The Minister is showing signs of not knowing his elbow from his posterior in parliamentary

    1001
    terms. Does he not recognise that, if more right hon. and hon. Members had made speeches, the debate would have been even longer, causing him to complain even more? Will he accept what should be clear beyond peradventure—that many hon. Members regarded features of the Bill as ill-considered, confused and, in some cases, downright stupid? Why does he not grow up and stop impugning the integrity of right hon. and hon. Members?
    Mr. O'Brien: The way in which the debate was conducted yesterday was clear for all to see, including members of the public who were watching. At times, very few could be bothered to come to listen to the long, discursive speeches conducted by some Conservative Members. They will know what was going on.
    We had a full and constructive Second Reading debate on 30 November last year. The Committee stage began on 15 December, after the regulation interval between stages. We agreed to the Conservatives' request to take the Bill on the Floor of the House because they said that it was a constitutional measure. Constitutional Bills have been guillotined before, regardless of whether this Bill falls into that category. Conservative Members no doubt recall with discomfort the European Communities (Amendment) Bill in 1986, when the Lord President of the Council, Mr. John Biffen, pointed out when moving the guillotine motion that six constitutional Bills had been timetabled since 1966. The Bill is not controversial in the sense of most constitutional Bills, and we have had very few Divisions on it. I also refer Conservative Members to other guillotines that their party imposed on 14 January 1985 and 25 February 1997.
    After three days of debate—
    Miss Ann Widdecombe (Maidstone and The Weald)rose—
    Mr. O'Brien: I had said that I would not give way again, but I shall give way to the right hon. Lady—how could I refuse her?
    Miss Widdecombe: Does the Minister agree that it is when there is agreement between the parties that Bills should be examined minutely? That is the time when Back Benchers in particular should have an opportunity to give a Bill a close examination. Is that not a good principle?
    Mr. O'Brien: The right hon. Lady is being disingenuous. She knows well from her long experience in the House the difference between a proper examination of a Bill and a deliberate attempt to disrupt the proceedings of the House. That is what was going on yesterday.
    The Bill is not controversial in the sense of most constitutional Bills. That should be made clear to the public who watch proceedings in the House. For much of the time, only a handful of Conservative Members have bothered to appear. At times, there have been only two Tories in the Chamber. On the second day of consideration in Committee, only two Back Benchers made full and proper speeches. On the third day of consideration in Committee, only four Back Benchers made full speeches. We had three days of debate in
    1002
    Committee to allow for the fullest possible discussion of the Bill. On the second day, the Government suspended the 10 o'clock rule and on the third day—a Thursday—the Government suspended the 7 o'clock rule. On the first two days of consideration in Committee, we did not hear any contributions from the right hon. Members for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) or for Bromley and Chislehurst. I do not believe that they were even in the Chamber on those two days. We shall bear that in mind if either of them decides to make protestations about their deep and abiding interest in the Bill.
    I accept that the Report stage came soon after the Committee stage, but the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway), from the Opposition Front Bench, said:
    "The Opposition do not object to scheduling Report stage for Monday".— [Official Report, 12 January 2000; Vol. 342, c. 306.]
    It was later put back two days to give an extra opportunity for amendments to be tabled. The Opposition clearly did not object to the timetable.
    My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House announced a week ago that all the remaining stages of the Bill were due to be taken yesterday. There was not a single objection or suggestion that that provided inadequate time.
    Mr. Simon Hughes: I am not disagreeing with what the Minister has said about the timetable, but will he confirm that the Government originally proposed the remaining stages for Monday but, as a result of representations that there should be a longer gap, the timetable was changed by two days, which at least gave us some time between consideration in Committee and the remaining stages? That was far preferable to the original Government plan, which would have been unacceptable to hon. Members on both sides.
    Mr. O'Brien: I accept that there was a discussion between the usual channels, and that agreement was reached on the way in which we should proceed—an agreement which was broken by at least some Conservative Back Benchers yesterday.
    What we witnessed yesterday was a disgrace. We can get into a semantic discussion about whether we should use the "F" word to describe it, but let us be quite clear. During yesterday's deliberations on this Bill, certain Opposition Members were deliberately wasting time.
    Doubtless, an Opposition Member will try to advance the argument that it could not have been a filibuster as the Deputy Speaker would have ruled anything of the kind out of order. The fact that the Deputy Speaker was obliged to intervene on Conservative Members straying out of order on no fewer than 19 occasions speaks for itself. Back Benchers, such as my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes), who had tabled important amendments and who had regularly attended the Committee, had to listen to a few Tory Members delay, dissemble and dissipate the parliamentary timetable.
    The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst is trying to gain a reputation in this Parliament as "the beast of Bromley", but he is a poor substitute for my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), without the wit. I was going to comment on his colleague, the

    1003
    right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border, who normally sits at the right hon. Gentleman's feet, but I will refrain as he is not in the Chamber.
    The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst has had his comeuppance today. The Conservatives have only themselves to blame for this guillotine—or, rather, the handful of Back Benchers who delayed the House's business yesterday. If Opposition Members had had to sit, as I did, and listen to the tedious repetitious rhetoric yesterday, they would have turned their ire in the direction that it belongs—on to their Back-Bench colleagues.
    This is an important Bill, and there are still important amendments relating to it to be discussed. It should be possible to deal with all of them in the time that remains. Whether that proves possible will, I suspect, depend on the attitude taken by Opposition Members.
    If, as they claim, the Opposition are really interested in this Bill, they will accept the allocation of time motion and let us get on with discussing the Bill. If, on the other hand, they decide to treat us to grandiloquent speeches on the motion before us, their professed interest in this Bill will be exposed as a sham. We shall see.
    The Bill will play an important part in modernising our democratic institutions, and it deserves both the support of the House and proper consideration. I invite the House now to ensure that that happens by supporting the motion.
    1.57 pm
    Mr. Nigel Evans: The Minister asked us to look at the facts, so let us do so. He says also that the Bill deserves proper consideration, and I believe that it does.
    On the first day of the Committee, 15 December 1999, we had a statement by the Leader of the House on millennium compliance and questions on the business statement. That lasted for one hour. On the second day, 12 January, we had a statement on Senator Pinochet and a statement on homosexuality in the armed forces. That meant that we did not start the Committee until 5.17 pm. On the third day, 13 January, we had business questions. Yesterday's Report stage was preceded by a statement on the Patten report and a ten-minute rule Bill, which meant that we did not start until 5.7 pm. That left us with under five hours to discuss Report and Third Reading.
    In Committee, important speeches were made by the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) on extending the franchise to other Commonwealth and Republic of Ireland citizens residing in the UK—some 850,000 people. The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) spoke on lowering the voting age from 18 to 16, and we had an impressive, but lengthy, contribution from the hon. Member for Watford (Ms Ward), which lasted almost half an hour. There were shorter contributions from the hon. Members for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) and for Gedling (Mr. Coaker). The whole debate took one and a half hours.
    We had a debate on multiple entry on an amendment tabled by the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire, and a similar measure was discussed by the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Linton). The right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) spoke on overseas voters—a speech that extended into the second day, even though those measures were being dealt with in another Bill. There was a contribution also from the hon. Member
    1004
    for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane). We had a debate on the proof of elector—particularly as the provisions are being extended to the homeless—because, under the Bill as it stands, no is proof necessary.
    Another, important, debate took place on whether to shorten the time during which postal votes would be made available, on an amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Battersea with which we had great sympathy. The hon. Gentleman also talked about the exclusion of names from the register and referred specifically to Jill Dando, and the problem of battered wives and their appearance on the register.
    The hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire tabled an amendment that would have given powers to the electoral registration officer to encourage those who are not on the register to put themselves forward for inclusion, and we had great sympathy with that amendment. We had a lengthy debate on clause 9, with contributions from the hon. Members for North-East Derbyshire and for Ealing, North (Mr. Pound). I suspect that other hon. Members have—as I have—received several letters from charities and commercial organisations that will be affected if clause 9 remained unamended.
    The Minister was reassuring on several of the amendments that were tabled in Committee. Indeed, only two votes took place, once when the Liberal Democrats pressed their amendment on lowering the voting age from 18 to 16 and the other on clause 9 and the tick box on the electoral form to signify a wish not to be included on a commercial register.
    Last night, the House—certainly at least the Conservatives—were prepared to sit past 10 o'clock to continue the Report stage and Third Reading. We were taken aback by the fact that yesterday's business also included two Second Readings. Several of my hon. Friends have great sympathy with the Fur Farming (Prohibition) Bill and would have wished for sufficient time to consider it properly.
    Mr. Desmond Swayne: I was a supporter of the private Member's Bill on fur farming in the previous Session and I was here last night ready to speak on the Fur Farming (Prohibition) Bill. I fully expected to be able to do so, albeit in the early hours of this morning. I had no objection to waiting until that time, but it is surprising that the Government are unable to keep their Back Benchers here after 10 o'clock and persistently fail to move the 10 o'clock motion.
    Mr. Evans: I can only concur with my hon. Friend's comments, because several of my colleagues wished to support that Bill. The Minister should talk to his business managers to ensure that the House is never again treated in such a contemptuous fashion, with two Second Readings following the continuation of the Report stage and Third Reading of an important constitutional measure.
    We know that the Government want the legislation quickly, but we want it right. This is an important constitutional Bill and many amendments have yet to be discussed. We are being asked to constrain our discussions to three hours and that will not be enough time to do justice to amendments tabled by both Conservative and Labour Members.
    Mr. Bercow: My hon. Friend will be privy to information to which others of us do not have access. Is

    1005
    he aware of any pressure from the Government Whips to ensure that the admirable speeches by the hon. Member for Watford (Ms Ward) and the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) were cut short? If no such attempt was made, is it not a little rich for the Government now to complain that we have made too leisurely progress?
    Mr. Evans: I am not aware that the Government Whips put any pressure on the right hon. and hon. Members mentioned by my hon. Friend. Indeed, I believe that the hon. Member for Watford was encouraged to speak at length. As for the right hon. Member for Gorton, it became apparent that the content of his amendment would be covered by another Bill, and he could therefore have concluded his remarks forthwith. I am afraid that a lot of time was wasted discussing that amendment.
    The Minister agrees that this is an important constitutional Bill and that it deserves time for proper scrutiny on the Floor of the House. Although there is much agreement among the parties about the thrust of the Bill, that does not mean that there is no need for proper scrutiny. The Bill establishing the Child Support Agency is an example of what can go wrong when there is a lot of consensus about legislation.
    The Minister scoffs at our protests that the very fabric of parliamentary democracy is being damaged. Last night's business statement confirmed that that is happening. The Government show total disregard for the House of Commons and for a very important Bill.
    2.5 pm
    Mr. Paul Tyler: I shall be brief, as it is hypocritical to argue at great length for the more expeditious use of our time in the House.
    I followed last night's debate as closely as I could without actually being in the Chamber throughout and I read Hansard very carefully this morning. I was interested to discover that such skilled debaters as the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) and the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) seemed to speak at much greater length than usual. They are normally rather succinct—the sign of a good debater—but it may be significant that their skills seemed to fail them.
    Why did we get into that difficulty last night? What were the effects? Discussion of the Fur Farming (Prohibition) Bill was postponed, as was discussion of the Sea Fishing Grants (Charges) Bill. The latter is an extremely important measure for those of us who represent fishing communities. It is concerned with various schemes of financial assistance. The explanatory notes state that it is designed to ensure that Ministers may
    "make various schemes of financial assistance 'for the purposes of reorganising, developing or promoting the sea fish industry or of contributing to the expenses of those engaged in it.'"
    That is extremely important.
    Mr. Eric Forth: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Tyler: I said that I would be brief, and no doubt the right hon. Gentleman will get his chance.
    1006
    The right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) is not present today. I know that there are not many fishermen in Bromley, but Conservative Members who represent fishing communities will have some answering to do. The Conservative party has caused to be postponed the approval of grants to fishing communities of something like £7 million. The availability of that sum could now be in doubt as a result of the delaying tactics last night.
    However, it is the Government's business to get their business through. They cannot be allowed to escape scot free of responsibility for last night's extraordinary events. I was amazed when I was told in advance how the Government intended to handle last night's business. I assumed that a new spirit of compromise and consensus had broken out over the new year, and that something had been done to deal with the right hon. Members for Penrith and The Border and for Bromley and Chislehurst. I thought that the millennium spirit must have overtaken them.
    I also assumed that the Conservative Chief Whip, the right hon. Member for North-East Hampshire (Mr. Arbuthnot), had somehow managed to discipline what has become an undisciplined rabble on the Conservative Benches, but the Government must now know that that is not the case. The Conservative party has its own millennium bug, and it was visible on its Back Benches last night.
    The Government must take very seriously the fact that Conservative Front-Bench Members are unable to control the party's maverick rebels. The evidence is clear in the Hansard report of last night's proceedings. The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst said:
    "I…feel in no way bound by a colleague who, unbeknown to me, conspires with the Government in a working party to give this measure a spurious urgency that I do not understand and that has not yet been explained to me." — [Official Report, 19 January 2000; Vol. 342, c. 876.]
    That is a declaration of war—not of war with the Government or with the Liberal Democrat party, but of civil war. The Government must take careful note.
    It was interesting that the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst and the hon. Member for Buckingham seemed to be vying for the honour of making the longest contribution to the debate. Can that have anything to do with the fact that they are both on the award shortlist for the Opposition Member of the year competition? I understand that voting is taking place as I speak. Their contributions last night were electoral statements, and should have been declared as such.
    I was interested that the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border, who seemed to be a late entrant into the stakes, even managed to speak about junk mail and wine from Bordeaux Direct. Surely that is not relevant to the Bill.
    The Conservative Chief Whip and the shadow Leader of the House were not even present when we were discussing the change in business last night. They have effectively disowned their Back Benchers.
    Miss Widdecombe: Where were you?
    Mr. Tyler: I was here.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I cannot have the right hon. Lady shouting across at the hon. Gentleman while he is speaking.
    Mr. Tyler: I am grateful for your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am glad that the right hon. Lady is so keen on law and order that at least she listens to you, if not to me.

    1007
    I believe that the Government should have foreseen the situation. They should recognise that the Conservative party is incapable of uniting behind its Front Bench. They should recognise that Conservative Back-Bench Members are in no way obliged to follow their Front-Bench leader, even when agreement has been reached. In those circumstances, it was, frankly, folly to table the business in an open-ended way and to cause so much trouble.
    Miss Widdecombe: Lib-Lab pact.
    Mr. Bercow: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Tyler: No, I am about to sit down.
    Miss Widdecombe: He is scared.
    Mr. Tyler: I have said on many occasions, both in the Chamber and in the Select Committee on Modernisation, that we believe that agreed programme motions are the way to proceed. I welcome the fact that that has become a regular practice. I do not understand why the Conservative Front Bench, having agreed to the necessity and importance of the Bill, did not then agree to a programme motion.
    Miss Widdecombe: We wanted a debate.
    Mr. Tyler: Could the Government, or a Conservative Member—or even the right hon. Lady, who seems incapable of keeping her mouth shut when in a sedentary position—explain?
    Miss Widdecombe: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Tyler: I shall now give way to the right hon. Lady.
    Miss Widdecombe: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. The explanation is very simple. We believe in debate, and we believe in the importance of the Bill. When there is consensus on a Bill, that is precisely when it is most important that it is subject to the scrutiny of the whole House. That is why we wanted it taken on the Floor of the House in the first place, and the Government did not.
    Mr. Tyler: It is evident that there is no longer consensus within the Conservative party. That is the problem. There is consensus on the importance of the legislation; there is consensus in the Modernisation Committee that a programme motion is appropriate for this sort of business, so that we can then have an orderly discussion of the issues. The hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) has important points to make; he should be able to make them, not be squeezed out by the irrelevance of the contributions of some Conservative Members.
    Earlier in the debate on the business of the House, reference was made to the shadow Leader of the Opposition. I think that it was a slip of the tongue; it was a reference not to my right hon. Friend the Member for Ross, Skye and Inverness, West (Mr. Kennedy), but to the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst. May I suggest that, in future, the Government seek agreed
    1008
    programme motions with those on the Conservative Front Bench? May I also suggest that they also need a third-party endorsement from the other party behind the Conservative Front Bench if they are to push it through?
    2.14 pm
    Mr. Harry Barnes: I wish to avoid being a casualty in other people's battles. The last three groups of amendments stand in my name. The timetable motion is liable to affect my amendments so that they will fall unless there is Conservative co-operation.
    If the Minister examines the record, he will see that last Thursday I moved two sets of amendments and I was brief in doing so because I was conscious of the time. We dealt with them rapidly. It would be my intention to deal similarly with these amendments. They refer to relatively minor but important matters in specific areas affecting electoral returning officers, such as their ability to correct clerical errors at the last minute before elections take place. We need an opportunity to debate those issues. I can only appeal to Opposition Members to move speedily through their amendments.
    Paragraph 6 of the timetable motion states:
    "No Motion shall be made, except by a Minister of the Crown, to alter the order in which any proceedings on the Bill are taken or to recommit the Bill; and if a Minister makes any such Motion, the Question on the Motion shall be put forthwith."
    If there is a lack of progress today, and we do not reach some of the serious amendments at the end, there may be an opportunity for Ministers to take action to see that I am given the chance to debate my amendments.
    2.16 pm
    Mr. Eric Forth: These are often revealing occasions when, in the heat of the moment, people give things away that they might not otherwise do. There have been a number of such examples in the past few minutes.
    First, I must take the Minister to task. He opened by saying that Opposition Members who were not against the Bill turned up to debate it. I have made it very clear, and it was referred to a number of times, that I am against the Bill. It is unnecessary, bad and dangerous but, most of all, it is badly drafted. The fact that it was badly drafted became increasingly apparent as the debate proceeded.
    It is worrying that both Ministers and Liberal Democrat Members appear to believe that debate is an unnecessary embarrassment in the House of Commons, and that these matters should be dealt with in some expedited way involving the minimum of embarrassing debate. That may be what is characterised as the modern view of this place, but it is not one that I share.
    I am of the old school; I confess that my view of the House has been shaped over many years. I had the privilege to come here in 1983, and I have seen it from the viewpoint of a Government Back Bencher, a Minister and now an Opposition Back Bencher. My view is that this is the place where matters should be dealt with, very often in a slow, deliberative—albeit, I understand, very frustrating—way. I am also still of the view that time is the best and most effective weapon that any Opposition party has. In that, I do not count the Liberal Democrat party, because it is an arm of government, to all intents and purposes. The speech of the hon. Member for North

    1009
    Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) illustrates that all too well. I cling to the view that it is incumbent on Members of Parliament, in their different capacities, to make the contribution that they must to scrutiny and, occasionally—yes—to delay the Government. That is partly what was happening yesterday.
    Last night, the Government tried to push through three separate pieces of legislation in one sitting. That gives us a clear idea of the Government's mindset. It would be bad enough if they were trying peremptorily to finish off a very important and badly drafted Bill in one sitting. Incidentally, it appears that, to them, a sitting must now finish at 10 o'clock—I shall come back to that in a moment. Had they attempted to do just that, it would have been bad enough—but they then had the effrontery to expect the House to lie down and be trampled on by two Second Readings. The Government know that the Fur Farming (Prohibition) Bill is controversial; it was opposed by me—and others—when it was a private Member's Bill, and I shall oppose it again when it comes before the House as a Government Bill.
    The hon. Member for North Cornwall should not be complaining to us that debate on the Sea Fishing Grants (Charges) Bill was delayed. He should be asking the Government why they tacked that Bill on at the end of the day's business, behind the remaining stages of one Bill and the Second Reading of another. He did not ask them because his party is an arm of government.
    Mr. Simon Hughes: The right hon. Gentleman should be fair to my hon. Friend. If he had listened carefully, he would have heard that the Liberal Democrats share his view on this issue. I believe that the other business should not have been down for debate last night after the Representation of the People Bill. If there had been no other business, would the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues have wanted to take so much time debating the Representation of the People Bill?
    Mr. Forth: The answer, almost certainly, is yes. It is clear from both yesterday's and today's Order Papers that the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues have tabled amendments to this bad Bill. We felt that we should do so too. The Bill may have started as a cosy, consensual proposal, and there may well have been a working party of which I knew nothing. No doubt, some agreement was reached, although I am uneasy about that. If it was, so be it. However, the hon. Gentleman, whose respect for the House is almost as great as my own, must agree that the Bill has turned out to have more and more loopholes, to be poorly drafted, and to need more and more corrections, even by the Government.
    The Government, although they have tabled amendments to the Bill, have accused us of doing what we should not have done—of having the gall to debate the Bill, the effrontery to table amendments and the impudence to take some time over discussing them. That says more about the Government's attitude to the House and to debate than it does about us.
    Mr. Hughes: I do not want the right hon. Gentleman to misrepresent the Liberal Democrats, although I do not think that he or the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) have done so, so I should
    1010
    make it clear that, where a Bill arrives in the Chamber with a degree of cross-party support, it must be scrutinised properly. No one would suggest otherwise. The drafting of such Bills also requires particular attention. I disagree on that point with neither the right hon. Gentleman nor the right hon. Lady.
    Mr. Forth: My right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) has made the same point two or three times, and it must be correct. We are all scarred by the memory of the Children Act 1989, which introduced the Child Support Agency and was hailed as a model of consensus and all-party agreement. We have all suffered for it ever since. Last night's events illustrate beyond peradventure that we should be doubly suspicious of a Bill that comes before the House after a process of cosy consensus. We should have learned the important lesson that such Bills might require even more scrutiny.
    I want to say a few words about the magic of 10 o'clock. The modernisers may take the view that the House should complete its proceedings at 10 o'clock and that it is unreasonable to keep more sensitive Members or Members of a particular gender here beyond that time. They are entitled to that view, but I do not see why the House should limit itself in that way. I freely confess that I was moulded by the experience of the Parliaments of 1983–87 and 1987–92, when business was routinely done late into the night.
    Mr. Tyler: I did not say, and my colleagues and I will never say, that it is necessary to end the business at 10 o'clock. I apologise if I gave the right hon. Gentleman the wrong impression about that. I served my apprenticeship in the House in the balanced Parliament of 1974, which often sat late into the night. I recall that some of those debates were very valuable. The Liberal Democrats did not say last night that we thought it necessary or desirable to end business at 10 o'clock. We were prepared to stay as long as was necessary.
    Mr. Forth: I am grateful for that point, and I exonerate the hon. Gentleman from what I am about to say. The Government want to put the House into a state of mind that suggests that anything that happens after 10 o'clock is unbearable, unnecessary and undeliverable. That is a problem for the Government and the Whips; they should not visit it on us. Yesterday, we were here to do serious business in scrutinising the Government and holding them to account. The fact that they could not bear scrutiny beyond 10 o'clock is their problem, not mine. The concomitant difficulties in their management of business are also their problem.
    Mr. Bercow: Is not the performance of Labour Members especially unfortunate? A large number of Labour Members were not outside the Palace of Westminster attending to other duties last night, but were having convivial evenings within the precincts. If it is good enough for them to be here for other—often highly enjoyable—purposes, why is it unreasonable of us to expect them to attend to their legislative duties in the Chamber?
    Mr. Forth: I shall hazard a guess that those Members were told by their Whips not to be in the Chamber.

    1011
    That is another aspect of new, modern government. It seems that Labour Members must not be here to participate in debate. We saw ample evidence of that last night, and similar evidence is before us today. That worries me.
    I want the business to proceed properly today. To the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes), I should say that I believe that, whether or not the Minister changes the order of business, we shall reach his important amendments. My right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) —who sends his apologies—and I have tried to withdraw some of our amendments so that today's progress may be better facilitated.
    Mr. Barnes: The right hon. Gentleman said yesterday that he would be keen to speak on Third Reading. I hope that he will assist us in reaching that stage as I am among several Members who would like to say a few words then.
    Mr. Forth: I shall facilitate that process by sitting down shortly. I rebut all that the Minister has said. I make no apology for playing my role in scrutinising the Bill and in engaging in debate. I hope to continue to do so. The Government's attitude towards the democratic process and accountability is alarming and dangerous.
    Mr. David Ruffley (Bury St. Edmunds): Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Government's refusal to go beyond 10 o'clock last night resulted in the remaining stages of the Electronic Communications Bill not being proceeded with today? Does he realise that many people in the e-commerce industry are incredibly concerned about the way in which that Bill has been bumped? A further delay has affected a Bill of great importance.
    Mr. Forth: That fact illustrates the Government's peculiar sense of priorities. That important Bill has been sacrificed, even if only for a few days, while we continue to discuss a dangerous and unnecessary Bill that will add nothing to the welfare of the nation or to the security of the electoral process.
    I am sorry that we have had to return today to debate the Bill, which we could and should have dealt with last night. This is yet another example of the Government's high-handed arrogance towards the House and the legislative process. I suspect that they are coming to like guillotines and the truncation of debate, because they are finding debates increasingly inconvenient. However, I see no reason why this Bill—no matter how unfortunate and unnecessary the circumstances surrounding it—should not be properly scrutinised, make progress and be dealt with in the way that Bills always should be.
    2.28 pm
    Mr. John Bercow: The Government's behaviour is frankly disgraceful. What has been announced today, and last night by the Leader of the House, amounts to an abrogation of the rights of Members of Parliament legitimately to highlight issues of remaining concern. Let it be placed on the record that, if members of the Liberal Democrat party are not prepared to denounce the Government's conduct, they sacrifice all claim to be a serious party of opposition. It is becoming increasingly clear that the Liberal Democrats are merely
    1012
    a limp-wristed appendage of the Government Front Bench. That may be good enough for them, but it would not be acceptable to Conservative Members.
    It is important to understand the rationale behind what happened last night. I am delighted to see the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) returning to the Chamber, because I intend to refer to him.
    Mr. Forth: He is another appendage.
    Mr. Bercow: My right hon. Friend makes that poignant observation from his sedentary position. The hon. Member for North Cornwall cavilled at the conduct of Conservative Members, asserting ludicrously that Front Benchers were in some way out of sync with, and lacking control over, Back-Bench Members. Although I was flattered to be listed in the distinguished company of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), the hon. Gentleman made a simple error in referring to me as a Back-Bench Member who was trying to upstage or contradict Conservative Front Benchers. I know that I am not a well-known figure, but let it be recorded that I am, in fact, a junior member of the Conservative Front-Bench team. I realise that that gives me about the status of the Foreign Minister of the Latvian Republic during the period of occupation, but one must be grateful for small mercies. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition for the responsibilities that he has given me. I am a member of an Opposition Front-Bench team and I want it to be understood that Front-Bench Members of a political party are, first and foremost, Members of Parliament, who have not only a right but arguably a duty—a bounden duty at that—critically to scrutinise the legislation that comes before the House.
    I hope that the hon. Member for North Cornwall does not suggest that, because I sit on the Front Bench and participate in Education and Employment questions once a month, that releases me from my responsibility, on behalf of my constituents, to consider the various elements of the Representation of the People Bill. If the hon. Gentleman had been in the Chamber yesterday afternoon, he would have heard me express vigorous support for the stance taken by my hon. Friends the Members for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) and for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans). I did not cavil at their stance; I did not contradict them; I did not dispute that their line was right. I said that particular aspects of the Bill—relating to residence, the definition of temporary in the context of periods of absence from residence, weekend voting, pilot schemes and lengths, types and forms of consultation—needed to be thoroughly scrutinised by the House.
    Mr. Simon Hughes: I am slightly confused. The hon. Gentleman has owned up to being a member of a Conservative Front-Bench team. Recently, one of his former colleagues, who held a similar position, found himself in some difficulties when he disagreed with the Front-Bench line. For a while, he was uncomfortable on the Conservative Benches; now, he is uncomfortable on the Labour Benches. Does the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) own up to supporting all the views of his party's Front-Bench spokesmen on the Bill,

    1013
    or did I detect a bit of support for the occasionally dissenting views expressed by his colleague, the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth)?
    Mr. Bercow: The hon. Gentleman is a legendary force for making mischief. He is trying hard, but he will not succeed with me. My vigorous support for my Front-Bench colleagues knows no bounds. I yield to none in my admiration for the parliamentary skills, and the continuing assiduity, of the Conservative shadow home affairs team. I am absolutely with my colleagues. However, I have a duty to look at the detail and to ask questions.
    In the context of the outrageous decision to introduce an allocation of time motion, the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. O'Brien) —who is not even bothering to listen to the substance of the debate—should distinguish between adverse comment about a Bill, or clauses in it, and questions about clauses in a Bill and potential amendments to it. In many cases, I asked a series of perfectly reasonable questions about clauses, although very often I received answers that were not perfectly reasonable or—sometimes—no answers at all. Many Members really want to contribute to debate.
    I shall unburden myself of an anxiety that I have long harboured, although by doing so in the Chamber I probably guarantee that it will remain a state secret. I find it quite extraordinary that Members of the House spend years and, in some cases, even decades, seeking election to it; but that, having secured election to the House, which is the greatest privilege that any English man or woman—or Welsh man or Northern Irish man or Scots man or, for that matter, Scots woman—can enjoy, they seem peculiarly reluctant to spend any time in the Chamber. Why do the attractions of other parts of the Palace of Westminster exceed the attractions of the House?
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We are debating a timetable motion, not the social habits of hon. Members. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would remember that.
    Mr. Bercow: I am most grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As always, I comply with your exhortation and guidance.
    Mr. Evans: Does my hon. Friend agree that the way in which the business has been changed at short notice means that my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) cannot be in the Chamber, because he is attending the Standing Committee on the Freedom of Information Bill? Furthermore, I cannot attend the Westminster Hall debate on small firms to make an important contribution. The change of business has had many repercussions.
    Mr. Bercow: My hon. Friend is right. His point shows that we would not have willed the situation. The idea that the matter was deliberately engineered by Conservative Members is nonsense. It results from the actions of a high-handed, imperious, arrogant Government, who are uninterested in, and largely oblivious to, any criticism that might reasonably be expressed of them.
    Mr. Norman Baker: May I refer the hon. Gentleman back to the remarks he made earlier? I assure
    1014
    him that I am neither limp-wristed nor an appendage to anybody. Will he clarify the motivation of Conservative Members yesterday? I am as much in favour as anybody else of scrutiny by the House. It is part of the role of every Member of Parliament to keep an eye on the Government. Yesterday, Conservative Members gave the Representation of the People Bill an extremely long and slow scrutiny. Was their motivation genuinely to consider the detail of the Bill, or was it to ensure that the Government were forced, because of the timetable that the Government themselves had set, to cancel debate on legislation that appeared on the Order Paper after the Bill?
    Mr. Bercow: No. The reason the hon. Gentleman should not contribute on that point is that he was not in the Chamber. The reason why the substance of his argument is wrong is that, during the debate yesterday, I lost count of the number of occasions on which my right hon. Friends the Members for Bromley and Chislehurst and for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) reluctantly gave way, but made it clear that they were anxious to bring their remarks to a conclusion. They made pithy, succinct and eloquent contributions on matters of considerable complexity. It is quite wrong of the hon. Gentleman to cavil at their doing so.
    What audacity we have seen from the Government today. How dare Ministers complain about the way in which we delayed debate when it was the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, who introduced the subject of the Austrian philosopher, Karl Popper? As he had decided to favour the House with the views of Karl Popper, I had to respond—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Hon. Members should not go into the detail of what happened yesterday. [Interruption.] Order. In this House, we take one day at a time. Yesterday has gone; we are discussing a timetable motion.
    Mr. Bercow: I am most grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am sure that the Minister will take note. If he had not made his intervention, it would not have been necessary for me to refer to "The Open Society and its Enemies", "Conjectures and Refutations" and the "The Poverty of Historicism" and so on. However, those were legitimate matters in the light of the Minister's remarks yesterday.
    We were holding a serious debate. The final proof of my earnestness in debate is that, yesterday, I was celebrating my birthday. The Minister might say, "What a sad anorak; he wants to spend his birthday debating the Report stage of the Representation of the People Bill."
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. George Howarth)indicated assent.
    Mr. Bercow: It is true that, later, I was due to meet a friend for a celebration of my birthday. However, I took immensely seriously the important amendments that we had to consider. If Labour Members think that I took part in the debate simply in order to prolong it or to cause the Government inconvenience, when I could have had a thoroughly stimulating evening elsewhere, they are absolutely wrong. There were weaknesses in the Bill.

    1015
    They needed debate; they required scrutiny and they deserved criticism. That is what Conservative Members offered.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Resolved,
    That the following provisions shall apply to the remaining proceedings on the Representation of the People Bill—

    Timetable
    1. The remaining proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading of the Bill shall be completed at this day's sitting and shall be brought to a conclusion, if not previously concluded, four hours after the commencement of the proceedings on this Motion.

    Questions to be put
    2. — (1) For the purpose of bringing proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph 1 the Speaker shall put forthwith the following Questions (but no others) —

    (a) any Question already proposed from the Chair;

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

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

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

    (2) On a Motion made for a new Clause or a new Schedule, the Speaker shall put only the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill.
    (3) If two or more Questions would fall to be put under sub-paragraph (1)(c) on amendments moved or Motions made by a Minister of the Crown, the Speaker shall instead put a single Question in relation to those amendments or Motions.

    Miscellaneous
    3. Proceedings under paragraph 2 above shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to sittings of the House; and Standing Order No. 15(1) (Exempted business) shall apply to proceedings on the Bill.
    4. If at this day's sitting proceedings on a Motion for the Adjournment of the House would, by virtue of Standing Order No. 24 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration), commence at a time when proceedings on the Bill are in progress, the proceedings on the Motion shall be postponed to the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill.
    5. Standing Order No. 82 (Business Committee) shall not apply in relation to the Bill.
    6. No Motion shall be made, except by a Minister of the Crown, to alter the order in which any proceedings on the Bill are taken or to recommit the Bill: and if a Minister makes any such Motion, the Question on the Motion shall be put forthwith.
    7. No dilatory Motion shall be made in relation to the Bill except by a Minister of the Crown; and if a Minister makes any such Motion, the Question on the Motion shall be put forthwith.
    8. The proceedings on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion one hour after they have been commenced; and Standing Order No. 15(1) shall apply to those proceedings.
    9. If at the sitting this day the House is adjourned, or the sitting is suspended, before the conclusion of the proceedings on this Motion or on the Bill, no notice shall be required of a Motion made at the next sitting by a Minister of the Crown for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order.

Orders of the Day
  Representation of the People Bill
  As amended in the Committee, further considered.
  Representation of the People Bill
    Clause 6

      NOTIONAL RESIDENCE: DECLARATIONS OF LOCAL CONNECTION
      Amendment proposed [19 January]: No. 30, in page 8, line 43, at end insert—
      "(5A) Where the declarant falls into the category of person mentioned in subsection 2(c) above, the declaration of local connection must state that the declarant has spent a substantial part of his time (whether during the day or at night) in the parliamentary constituency (or, if the declaration is made for the purpose of local government elections only under the provisions of subsection (6) below, the local government electoral area) during the whole of the period of three months ending on the date of the declaration." — [Mr. Evans.]
      2.39 pm
      Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): I remind the House that with this we are discussing the following amendments: No. 9, in page 9, line 20, at end insert—
      "(10) When an address given in a declaration of local connection is owned or occupied by a person, persons, business or organisation, permission must be obtained from such person, persons, business or organisation for that address to be used in the declaration.".
      No. 31, in page 9, line 20, at end insert—
      '(10) When a declaration of local connection is received by the registration officer, he shall make enquiries in order to satisfy himself that the declarant falls within the categories of person listed in subsection (2) above, and no declarant shall be entered on the register until the registration officer is so satisfied.".
      No. 27, in schedule 1, page 20, line 35, at end insert—
      "(5A) It shall be the responsibility of the registration officer to take whatever measures he deems necessary and reasonable to verify a declaration of local connection made under section 7B of this Act.".
      The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Mike O'Brien): Yesterday, I was concluding my remarks on the amendments. My objection to amendment No. 9 was that it would require homeless persons, who, for example, wanted to use the address of the shop in whose doorway they normally spent the night, to obtain the shopkeeper's permission before doing so. If the shopkeeper refused permission, the homeless person would be disfranchised. I could see no justification for that. The shopkeeper is not affected by the measure; it is not a claim to a right to use the doorway. Indeed, arguably, the shopkeeper would be consenting to the use of the doorway by permitting the homeless person to sleep there, although I think it would take a good lawyer to argue that. The shopkeeper might be in a worse position if he consented than if he did not.
      Amendment No. 31 would impose an unnecessary additional responsibility on electoral registration officers. They would be required to check whether people making a declaration of local connection fell into one of three

      1017
      categories eligible to register in that way. That should not be too difficult in the case of mental patients and remand prisoners, but it is not clear what the registration officer would be expected to do to satisfy himself that a declarant was homeless.
      Moreover, the amendment would move away from the general principle that the registration officer would normally accept registration applications at face value unless and until objections were raised to the inclusion of a particular name on the register or the omission of another name from it. We do not want to make that move.
      The same objection applies equally to amendment No. 27. Why should the registration officer be required to take special steps for people registering by a declaration of local connection which he does not have to take for any other electors? Again, he should be expected to accept the information that he is given unless objections are raised.
      I invite the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) to withdraw his amendment.
      Mr. Nigel Evans: I offer apologies on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway), who is in the Standing Committee on the Freedom of Information Bill. I appreciate that the Minister is torn between two places. I hope that he recognises that we did not divide the House on the allocation of time motion so that we could move on to this debate. Indeed, as I have said before, we had only two Divisions during the entire Committee stage of the Bill.
      Last night, the Minister gave a rather petulant response on amendments Nos. 30 and 31, and I suspect that it may have been because of the changed circumstances and the fact that he had suddenly acquired an audience. The Minister missed the point completely, and I hope that he did so deliberately.
      Mr. O'Brien: The hon. Gentleman should be aware that, whatever the size of the audience in the Chamber, there are many people who watch the parliamentary channel and ensure that they keep an eye on what hon. Members in the Chamber are doing, and so they should.
      Mr. Evans: I am grateful for that contribution. Those people would have watched aghast at the Government's antics last night in curtailing discussion of this Bill.
      Our amendments are not too onerous. We said last night that we were asking only that people making a declaration of local connection should say that they have had a connection for at least three months. That is not onerous, and it would help to plug some of the holes that unfortunately are appearing in the Bill.
      The Minister scoffed at my remarks last night and made a joke about homeless people getting access to the internet so that they could scour the country and make a declaration of local connection in parliamentary constituencies where there was a small majority. The Bill is open to abuse, and although I do not believe that homeless people would do as the Minister suggested, others may make declarations of local connection.
      I mentioned the internet because, as the Minister knows, the internet is widely used by groups who want to protest about many things, including the World Trade
      1018
      Organisation meeting in the USA last year. On that occasion, many demonstrators turned up at Euston station, not because they were responding to an advertisement in The Guardian or another newspaper, but because they had talked to one another in chat groups and passed information via the internet.
      If protest groups want to abuse the Bill, they can use the internet, and groups from all over the country will turn up not just in Euston to protest, as they did last year, but in the seats of certain Members of Parliament. Those protesters will be able to make a declaration of local connection, and there will be no check and no onus of proof on them.
      2.45 pm
      Mr. James Gray: Is not my hon. Friend concerned also about the activities of new age travellers? Last week, I visited the gypsy encampment at Middlezoy in Somerset, where over 1,000 people are camped. They could well abuse the provisions of the Bill if they wished to change the outcome of an election in a marginal seat.
      Mr. Evans: Indeed, one can envisage people making a protest in just one seat—I believe that a number of new age travellers turned up in Brighton—and, if a general election were called, they could easily decide to move into a particular seat and make a declaration of local connection. They could choose a Minister's seat; for example, in my region they could choose the Home Secretary's constituency of Blackburn.
      We are asking not only for a three-month test to demonstrate that someone has a genuine local connection, past and possibly future, but for the electoral registration officer to be obliged to check that connection. I repeat that it is not an onerous duty. The Minister wondered how the ERO would be able to check that. He or a member of his staff would simply have to go to the area where the person has said that he spends most of the night or most of the day—Victoria street has been used as an example when we are discussing homeless people—and check whether the person is staying there.
      If the ERO takes those precautions, that will help to prevent the Bill being open to abuse by people who will have in their minds not the extension of democratic rights and the enfranchisement of homeless people but the perversion of democracy by an attempt to unseat Members of Parliament—perhaps even Ministers.
      I hope that Ministers will reconsider the amendment when the Bill goes to another place and that the Government will perhaps table their own amendment, which we would consider carefully when the Bill returns here. Meanwhile, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

    Clause 10

      PILOT SCHEMES
      Mr. Evans: I beg to move amendment No. 28, page 12, line 4, at end insert—
      '(2A) Where a scheme makes provision for voting to take place on more than one day, any order under subsection (1) above shall include provisions that prohibit the publication of such material as

      1019
      may be specified that indicates or purports to indicate the way in which two or more persons voting prior to the day of the poll (or, if more than one day is designated as a day of the poll, to the last day so designated) have cast their votes.'.
      We return now to the problem of polling. As the Minister has already accepted that the problem exists, I do not intend to dwell on it.
      If polling is extended over more than one day, a problem arises with exit polling. Under pilot schemes, a constituency may want to trial the opening of an early box in the town hall. Opening all polling stations would involve prohibitive costs—possibly thousands of pounds—for a constituency. I suspect that there may be an official polling day, but that a box will be opened early in the town hall in one or two places in a constituency, so that people will be able to cast their votes early.
      If the early polling were concentrated in just one or two stations, it would be easier for polling organisations to man those areas. I am referring not to polling people as to how they may vote—the predictive element—but as to how they have voted. That means that the poll is more realistic, although we know that that is not always the case. I am happy to say that in the 1992 general election the exit polling was completely wrong.
      Exit polls may sway people in their vote. Some will go along with the trend, but if the exit poll shows that one party might gain a large majority, some may be dissuaded from even taking part in the poll. Although such trends and behaviour may disadvantage one party at the moment, that situation will alter in future.
      This is not rocket science. Such provisions already exist in other countries. To save time in Committee. I decided not to read out the full list of those countries and I shall not do so now. However, I know that the Minister is aware that the legislation in some countries bans exit polling once voting has already started. In some countries, such polls are banned even in the few days before the election takes place. We are not asking for that. We are merely suggesting that, if voting has begun in the pilot area, polling must not be allowed to take place.
      In France, voting takes place over two Sundays. That means that there is no polling for two weeks during general election campaigns. Although such provisions are not part of the legislation in the United States, because of the time-zone problem, appeals are made to people on the east coast not to declare their results before people on the west coast have voted.
      The Minister gave us an assurance in Committee. I hope that he will he able to reassure us once again that the matter will be considered carefully when the Bill goes to another place. Perhaps a Government amendment will be tabled. Such an amendment is necessary because local authorities in a pilot would not have the power individually to ban exit polling. The matter needs to be considered here and a provision must appear in the Bill.
      Mr. Mike Hancock: On this occasion, Liberal Democrats will support the official Opposition. The hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) made it clear that there are several good reasons for the amendment.
      I have some experience of what can happen when an exit poll is conducted in a city such as Portsmouth. The newspaper there publishes a lunchtime edition followed by several later editions. An exit poll of early polling between
      1020
      6 and 8 am could easily be in the public domain by lunchtime. I know for a fact that a newspaper can have a marked impact on elections and it is to the credit of a newspaper that it can engage its readers with such well-informed comment. I, for one, was probably a beneficiary of that when I won a by-election to this place in 1984. Against the official poll odds, I was elected. It was interesting that the lunchtime edition of the newspaper on polling day suggested that I was in a very good position.
      I am therefore, conscious that exit polls are a dangerous tool, in the sense that they can influence people during the election process. We shall support the amendment, and I hope that the Minister sees the sense of it and recognises the need for such a provision to appear in this clause and not as part of a schedule.
      The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. George Howarth): I hope that I can deal with the amendment briefly. As the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) suggested, the Government are sympathetic to it.
      As the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock) argued, it would be unfortunate if an exit poll were published before the polls had finally closed and, as a result, influenced people's votes. In fact, in some cases, it might encourage people not to vote. If it appeared that a landslide were likely to happen in a constituency or council ward because the exit poll suggested that one candidate was home and dry, people might not bother to vote.
      I responded to a similar amendment in Committee and suggested that I was sympathetic to it and would look for an opportunity to address the issues raised then and in this amendment. I am happy to repeat the undertaking: the Home Office is considering how best to address the problem and it will be very tempting to table amendments in another place.
      Mr. Gray: I wholeheartedly endorse the points that have been made by hon. Members of all parties. However, I am concerned that such an amendment might affect the legitimate telling operations carried out by all political parties during elections to determine whether their vote has turned out.
      Mr. Howarth: I have not as yet seen the Home Office's precise draft of an amendment to be tabled in the other place. However, I think that it would be illegitimate for it to interfere with the workings of political parties. It is legitimate for a political party to gather information for different purposes from voters leaving polling stations if they are willing to provide it. However, in terms of the principle that we are discussing, we would have to distinguish between a political party's making use of exit polls—for want of a better term—to enable it to identify those who have already voted so as not to disturb them further, and its using the information to publish a poll on its behalf. That would be illegitimate.
      Complex issues are involved. However, it has suddenly come to me out of the blue that the arrangements that the Home Office intends to make would not affect telling.
      Mr. John Bercow: Will the Minister give way?
      Mr. Howarth: I will, but I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that this is the last time that I shall do so. I am about to say something with which he might be rather pleased.
      Mr. Bercow: I await with eager anticipation, bated breath and veritable beads of sweat on my brow to hear what the Minister has to say.
      Will the Minister confirm that he is not aware of instances—I confess from my experience in Buckingham that I am not aware of them—in which tellers' activities have been used for a partisan advantage by political party? It would be a matter of grave concern if they had. Is it not true that, on the whole, such activities are internalised activities that are conducted for the benefit of the organisation locally, and that there is no evidence of their being used for partisan purposes?
      Mr. Howarth: I accept the hon. Gentleman's view entirely. From my experience in the Labour party, I know that the information that is gathered as people exit the polling station is used solely for internal purposes. I am bound to say that such information is not always entirely accurate. On more than one occasion, I have been chased down the path by an irate voter assuring me with such vigour that they have already voted that I am inclined to believe them.
      Our intention is to table suitable amendments in the other place to cover precisely the points raised. As I said earlier, we are grateful to the Opposition for raising this important issue. On the basis of the further undertakings that I have given, I hope that the hon. Member for Ribble Valley will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
      Mr. Evans: The Minister's response—not only now, but in Committee—shows the usefulness of the Committee stage and the scrutiny that the Bill is receiving.
      A polling organisation might publish a poll in a newspaper, on the internet or on television or radio purporting to represent an actual trend because it is based on the response of people who have taken the time and trouble to turn up at polling stations and cast their votes early. That poll may or may not be accurate. We are all aware from our own electoral histories of instances where the polling has been totally accurate and others where it has been totally wrong. Many different polling methods are used, but I am not sure that they are becoming any more accurate.
      If a polling organisation gets it wrong, people may decide how to cast their vote on the basis of the information given. That may be false information and it may distort the vote in one way or another. There are therefore powerful reasons to prevent the publication of polling.
      My hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson) legitimately asked whether, since we do not know how the Bill will be amended in another place, there will be an effect on the traditional telling in which political parties become involved. I have been reassured on that point. Perhaps the Minister will take on board the fact that political parties may decide in their telling also
      1022
      to conduct their own polling. We all know that that goes on. In the case of the Liberal Democrats, it is normally done by releasing spurious canvassing returns. They greatly inflate the support that they receive and are shocked when they come third or fourth when the result of the election is announced—when they find that support on the doorstep was not reflected in the votes in the ballot box.
      3 pm
      Telling would be allowed to continue, but we should also consider circumstances where early polling takes place and political parties publish leaflets and other literature—or information is made available on radio, television or the internet. It would also be wrong if a political party said, "We have done some early polling of those who voted early and we find that we are now first and everybody else is way behind," or even that the result would be very close when in fact it was not.
      Telling must be allowed to continue. When the Home Secretary examines pilot projects, I hope that he will ensure that, in any early voting that takes place, the facility of political parties to tell and to look for personation, for example, will be allowed to continue. It should not be made so difficult that we are not allowed fully to fulfil our functions when the poll is taking place.
      With the assurances that the Minister has given us, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Mr. Simon Hughes: On a point of order that is relevant to the debate, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I apologise that I did not make it before the previous debate. I have discussed it with the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth).
      On the amendment paper yesterday, there were three selections by Madam Speaker that included amendments that had the support of Conservative Members and Liberal Democrat Members. The names of those who had tabled them appeared above them. In each case, the lead name was either the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst or that of the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean). There were other amendments above which only those two names appeared.
      When we read the selection paper today, we found that two of the three groups that were withdrawn had the support of both Conservative Members and Liberal Democrat Members. I am not pressing you to make a ruling now, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I ask for an indication from you or from Madam Speaker of whether it is in order, as the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst tells me that he was led to believe—I accept that—that shared amendments can be withdrawn without the permission of others who were signatories to them? My hon. Friends and I did not know that the amendments would be withdrawn. We had not been asked and we had not agreed that it should happen. We found that amendments with which we would have persisted were not on the amendment paper.
      I am not criticising the right hon. Members for Bromley and Chislehurst or for Penrith and The Border. Clearly, something has gone wrong. One of the amendments was in the group that we have just debated.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: The rules make it clear that the Member who has the lead name—in this instance,

      1023
      the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) —is entitled to withdraw the amendment at any time before it is before the House. Therefore, it is not a matter for the Chair. It is perhaps a matter of courtesy to get in touch with those who added their signatures to the amendment.
      Mr. Evans: I beg to move amendment No. 29, in page 12, line 4, at end insert—
      '(2B) No scheme which makes provision for voting to take place on more than one day and which makes provision for voting to take place on either Saturday or Sunday shall be submitted to or approved by the Secretary of State unless it makes provision for voting to take place on both days.'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss amendment No.21, in page 12, line 37, at end insert—
      '(e) the choice of polling day or days was seen as offensive by religious or other groups; and
      (f) the choice of polling day or days led to any prejudice of the votes cast by certain groups.'.
      Mr. Evans: I hope that the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) will accept that most of the amendments to which he referred were covered by my amendment. However, I understand his point.
      The amendment is the result of discussions that have taken place during the passage of the Bill. We believe that polling taking place on a Sunday would be entirely unacceptable to a large group of people if that was the only day on which polling took place. It would be ironic if, in introducing a Bill designed to enfranchise more people and to encourage more people to vote, even a pilot allowing voting on a Sunday led to a number of people feeling unable to vote. That would be completely against the spirit of the proposed legislation. If polling is to be on only one day, let us put it into the Bill, if it is the position, that polling will not take place on a Saturday or a Sunday.
      We all know that there will be problems in any event. If we tried two-day polling on a Saturday and a Sunday, it would allow people who for religious reasons have problems about voting on a day when they are involved in religious observance to vote on the other day.
      There are other problems with weekends, which the working party discussed. Life styles are changing for many people, who tend to go away, particularly if they have country homes or caravans, as mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson). They may decide to go away for the entire weekend. People may be deprived of the opportunity to vote, especially if the amendment that we discussed earlier in the name of the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Linton) about earlier postal votes is not accepted.
      In addition, the vote might be distorted. I am not too sure that people with caravans would ever take the opportunity of local declarations of interest if they were away from home with their caravans. With weekend voting, people with second homes could distort the vote. I suspect that similar considerations may apply to students, who are on the register in the area of their university and at home. Some students go on short weekend breaks or go back to see their families. Weekend voting needs to be examined carefully.
      1024
      The amendment relates specifically to the religious consideration. We ask the Minister to let it be known to local authorities that are thinking of having pilot studies in their areas that it would be entirely unacceptable for that to be on a Saturday or a Sunday. It will be for the Home Office to consider various other days if the pilot study submissions show that people want polls on other days. If there is to be voting on a Saturday and a Sunday, only a true pilot study in various areas will properly tell us what the impact will be and whether there will be an increase in voting. I would be entirely opposed to the change of poll from a Thursday to just a Saturday or just a Sunday. Perhaps the Minister can tell us today whether he has received representations from organisations objecting to the piloting of polling on days other than the two that I have mentioned.
      Mr. Hancock: Once again, Liberal Democrats have more than a degree of sympathy for the argument advanced by the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans). I would support wholeheartedly the idea of moving the poll from a Thursday to a weekend, but I take his point seriously. Many of us represent multi-ethnic communities in which there are people with strong religious convictions who would find it extremely offensive to have voting only on a Sunday. The provision for weekend voting should allow that voting to be on both days. For some religious groups, voting on a Saturday can be as offensive as can voting on Sunday for other groups. There must be a balance. If weekend voting is to take place, it should be tried in a large enough pool of local authorities to allow its effects to be judged properly. It is simply not good enough for one or two authorities to decide that they will try it out. There is a lot to be said for weekend voting.
      It was unfortunate—or perhaps fortunate—that I was not here last night. I was attending a meeting of Portsmouth city council—
      Mr. Evans: Job sharing.
      Mr. Hancock: Yes, job sharing. The democratic process constituted an interesting part of the meeting's deliberations. We were considering whether to have an elected mayor or Cabinet-style government. A frequent question was, "How can we encourage more people to vote?" I do not believe that having an elected mayor or Cabinet-style local government will achieve that. However, spreading the times and days when people can vote would be advantageous to the democratic process.
      Many of us are from local government backgrounds, and have witnessed pitiful turnouts at elections. It is obscene that 10 per cent. is not unusual nowadays and that we no longer find an average turnout of 25 per cent. unacceptable in some big cities. We must do something, and the Bill is a major step towards showing that democracy has to be flexible enough to change with the times.
      I want to encourage weekend voting, but we must ensure that we do not disadvantage people who feel that those days are significant for their religious beliefs or social activities. Voting must be held on both days of the weekend.
      Mr. George Howarth: I want to tackle briefly two of the points that have been made. First, the hon. Member

      1025
      for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) asked whether we had received any representations about weekend voting. The Home Office has received only one letter, from the Board of Deputies of British Jews, expressing anxiety about voting only on Saturday. That is an unreasonable prospect, especially in areas where there is a concentration of Orthodox Jews, who would find it impossible to vote on a Saturday. The letter also expressed concern about holding an election on the day of a Jewish festival. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will take those matters into account when he considers the applications for pilot schemes, for which the closing date was last Monday. Although my right hon. Friend has not had an opportunity to scrutinise the applications, they will all have been received by now.
      The hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock) made an equally valid point. He said that as wide a range of areas as possible should be selected for the pilot schemes so that the results would not be skewed by geographical considerations. The Home Secretary and officials aim for a spread of suitable applications so that they can gain a good picture.
      I hope that I can be reasonably brief in dealing with the amendments because, as the hon. Member for Ribble Valley pointed out, we have discussed the issues that they raise on Second Reading and in Committee.
      We must ensure that we do not harm the interests of those with strong religious views, which would make it difficult for them to vote on a particular day of the week. At the risk of making the eyes of the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) glaze over—although I am not sure of the difference between that and his normal expression—I shall mention again the working party that I chaired. I assure hon. Members that the subject that we are considering has been central to our deliberations for a long time, and we do not wish to do anything to the detriment of voters with strong religious views.
      3.15 pm
      In Committee, I did my best to provide reassurance on the matter. I quoted a Home Office circular, which pointed out that one of the conditions that local authorities will have to fulfil when applying to run a pilot scheme is making a statement that
      "'no voter will be put at a disadvantage by the proposed innovation'" —[0fficial Report, 13 January 2000; Vol. 342, c. 489.]
      That is unambiguous and would cover those with strong religious views.
      On Second Reading, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said:
      "If weekend voting ever became part of the national arrangements, we would have to ensure that it took place on both days." — [Official Report, 30 November 1999; Vol. 340, c. 172.]
      I also quoted that in Committee on 13 January, at column 501. I know that my right hon. Friend's efforts to provide the House with some reassurance did not fall on deaf ears because the hon. Member for Ribble Valley said on behalf of the Opposition:
      "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." —[Official Report, 13 January 2000; Vol. 342, c. 502.]
      1026
      Nothing has changed in the few days since then and I hope that, in the light of those reassurances, the hon. Gentleman will understand that the amendment is unnecessary and withdraw it.
      Let us consider amendment No. 21. It is a clear requirement of any pilot scheme that it must be properly evaluated. That includes not only considering its cost or effect on turnout, but its impact on voters. Clause 10(7)(b) is designed for precisely that purpose. We would expect a local authority to consider the effect of any innovation not just on the electorate overall but on groups of electors that were likely to be particularly affected by the innovation.
      Home Office guidance on evaluation, which has been made available to local authorities, suggested that it should specifically cover the
      "acceptability of voting days and times to all faith groups".
      I assure hon. Members that my right hon. Friend will not approve any applications that involve a change of voting day when that is not part of the evaluation process.
      On the basis of what I have said, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will realise that the amendment is unnecessary. However, it was important to debate it.
      Mr. Evans: I am grateful for the Minister's assurances and his final comment. It is important to scrutinise the Bill properly and give reasonable time to considering amendments such as Nos. 29 and 21.
      I am grateful for the support of Liberal Democrat Members for the amendment. The hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock) talked about the need for a wide enough pool. If the pilot schemes are to be properly evaluated, there must be a range of them, not simply one in the south-east or in the north-west. They must be tested in many regions to enable a proper evaluation.
      I also accept the hon. Gentleman's comments about the crisis of democracy, especially in by-elections, where there have been turnouts of 16 per cent. The turnout for one European election was under 10 per cent. That is appalling and I hope that the measure will help to redress that, although I have grave reservations. It will take more than the Bill to achieve that.
      The Minister gave reassurances about the regulations that will be established, and said that it would be acceptable for a specific local authority to undertake a pilot on both days of a weekend, but unacceptable for it to move polling from Thursday to Saturday or Sunday. I am grateful for that.
      I was interested to learn that the deadline for applications to carry out pilot schemes this year has already passed. I should be grateful for an early indication of the number of applications.
      Mr. Howarth: I shall ensure that the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. O'Brien) provides that information as soon as possible.
      Mr. Evans: I am grateful for that. Perhaps an analysis of the sort of schemes that people are suggesting can be provided early so that other local authorities that have not had an opportunity to submit a pilot scheme for this year will have some food for thought. I understand that the pilot schemes can be submitted next year, too.

      1027
      I seek clarification from the Minister of one further matter. It will be expensive for voting to take place on more than one day, and I know that the Home Secretary will consider carefully the cost of the pilot studies. If a local authority decided to hold two whole days of polling, I assume that that would be extremely expensive.
      Mr. Gerald Bermingham: My local authority, St. Helens, made an application for a two-day polling pilot and the estimated cost is £5,000, which is not very great.
      Mr. Evans: Five thousand pounds—[Interruption.] I hear the hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham), from a sedentary position, referring to six wards. When local elections are held in parts of local authority areas, they can perhaps be carried out at reasonable cost, but when they involve more than six wards, twice as many personnel are likely to be needed, and at weekends they would have to be paid time and a half or double time. The implications of that must be taken into account.
      If a local authority wants to move from polling on a Thursday to polling over two days, as the Home Secretary will not permit voting on only a Saturday or only a Sunday, it can decide to conduct only partial polling on the Saturday and whole polling on the Sunday, or the other way round. In other words, all the polling stations in an area would be open on one day, and fewer would be open on the other day.
      We know that, in certain parts of constituencies, there are concentrations of people of certain religious persuasions who would be affected by that. They would not receive the same service as was delivered to others in the constituency. If such people decided that, for religious reasons, they could not vote on the Saturday, they could be disadvantaged by having to vote on the Sunday. They might have to travel greater distances because their local polling station might not be open. They would be told that polling stations were open in certain other areas, or perhaps only one polling station would be open in the town hall.
      Mr. Hancock: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. If the Minister responds to that point, I hope that he does so with caution. I understand the need to keep costs down, but the possibility that, over a two-day period, ballot boxes would not be available universally in a ward or constituency on one day would be a big mistake, and would leave the local authority or any other body conducting the election open to serious challenge.
      Mr. Evans: I am seeking an assurance from the Minister that, if voting is held over two days, it will be universal, and that people will not be offered a second-class service because of their religious convictions. If they had to travel considerable distances to vote, it might put them off voting.
      Mr. William Ross: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. There is a point which, as far as I am aware, has not been raised in the debate—the integrity of the ballot box which, I assume, will have to be sealed and collected at the end of the first day of voting. Where will the ballot boxes be stored? Who will look after them and ensure that they are not tampered
      1028
      with? Who will make sure that the following morning they are taken back to the same polling station and the same booth? That is a serious issue.
      Mr. Evans: I am grateful for that intervention from the hon. Gentleman. I have observed elections in the United Kingdom, Sri Lanka and the United States, and I have not come across polling taking place on more than one day. In the pilot study, local authorities that want to move from polling on a Thursday will have to hold voting over two days. From what the Minister said, they will not have a choice. The Home Secretary has made it clear that, if voting is to be held over a weekend, it must be held on both Saturday and Sunday. Conservatives and Liberal Democrats are asking that voting should be conducted universally over the two days, if the pilot studies are allowed over a weekend.
      I hope that the Minister will take on board the point made by the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross). Perhaps he will write to us. If the Home Secretary decides on voting over a Saturday and a Sunday, what will happen to the ballot boxes in the intervening period, so that everyone can be assured that the integrity of the poll will be maintained? It will be difficult for political parties to provide sufficient people to scrutinise the way in which ballot boxes are stored.
      Hon. Members in all parts of the House will want to be assured that, if polling takes place over more than one day, full information will be provided to the political parties about where the polling stations will be, the duration of the poll, and the details mentioned by the hon. Member for East Londonderry concerning the integrity of the poll and the personnel involved.
      Mr. David Ruffley (Bury St. Edmunds): I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Is it his understanding that, under the Bill as drafted, the Government could contemplate polling over a Saturday and a Sunday, but that, on either of those days, ballot boxes could be only partially available to part of the population?
      Mr. Evans: Yes. There is nothing to stop a local authority putting in for a pilot in its area that would involve polling all day on a Saturday but only partially in certain areas on a Sunday, or all day on a Sunday and only partially on a Saturday. There is nothing in the Bill to prevent that, or indeed to prevent a local authority from holding a poll over more than two days, but the cost would be prohibitive, and I know that the Home Secretary will take cost into account.
      Mr. David Ruffley (Bury St. Edmonds): I thank my hon. Friend for giving way once again. Will he bear in mind the concerns of those of us who represent rural constituencies? Especially in rural areas where there are predominantly urban borough councils, urban members often dictate policy without regard to the interests of rural constituents. I know that Ministers are in listening mode and I hope that they will have particular regard to the interests of rural constituents, who will be singularly disadvantaged if there is partial voting on a Saturday or Sunday, as my hon. Friend described.
      Mr. Evans: I am sure that the Minister will have heard the concerns of my hon. Friend. I share those concerns. I, too, represent a rural constituency, although in some parts

      1029
      it is more urban than in others. Problems may arise if a partial poll were conducted on one of the two days. I hope that the Minister will take that on board, and I look forward to his reassurances in writing or written into the Bill when it goes to another place.
      Mr. George Howarth rose—
      Mr. Evans: Does the Minister seek to intervene?
      Mr. Howarth: What I am about to say may be longer than an intervention.
      Mr. Evans: I seek guidance from the Chair. Must I seek permission to withdraw the amendment after the Minister has spoken?
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: After the Minister has spoken, the hon. Gentleman may seek leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Mr. Howarth: Must I seek leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker?
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not necessary. It is the Minister's business.
      Mr. Howarth: I am grateful for that guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I shall deal briefly with the points that have been raised, starting with the point made by the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross), through the Opposition Front Bench. The security arrangements for ballot boxes used in early voting will be exactly the same as for those used for postal votes, which are of course received before election day. Electoral administrators are entirely familiar with the procedures for keeping ballot boxes secure and I have every confidence that they can do that in those particular circumstances. When my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary considers a particular application, however, he will have proper regard for not only the cost, as the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) said, but the integrity of the ballot. If there were any doubt about whether a particular application could ensure a ballot's integrity, he would not approve the pilot scheme.
      3.30 pm
      It may be of assistance if I tell hon. Members that, at close of play on Monday, 44 local authorities had made applications, including those of St. Helens, to which my hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham) referred, and Knowsley—surprise, surprise. Some involve more than one innovation and, if I understood him correctly, that is the case for St. Helens.
      Relevant points about voting being spread over two days were made by the hon. Members for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans), who referred to religious interests, and for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Ruffley), who was concerned about people in rural areas. When my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary considers a scheme, he has to decide whether any voter would be disadvantaged and in doing so obviously needs to be mindful of religious interests, the interests of rural and urban areas and so on. In such
      1030
      circumstances, he would find it difficult not to take the interests of rural voters into account, and would not want to disregard them anyway. Hon. Members might not be aware that my constituency has contained a large rural area since the Boundary Commission changes were made for the last general election, so I also have an interest in the matter. I hope that those assurances are helpful.
      Mr. Evans: With the leave of the House. I stress once again that, although piloting may take place on one day of a weekend, there should be equality on both days, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Ruffley) said. With those assurances, I beg to seek leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

    Clause 11

      REVISION OF PROCEDURES IN THE LIGHT OF PILOT SCHEMES
      Mr. Eric Forth (Bromley and Chislehurst): I beg to move amendment No. 26, in page 13, line 10 leave out clause 11.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 48, in page 13, line 13, leave out
      "and on a permanent basis".
      No 49, in page 13, leave out line 19.
      No. 50, in page 13, leave out lines 20 and 21.
      No. 51, in page 13, line 27, leave out
      ", or (as the case may be) district electoral area,".
      No. 53, in page 13, leave out line 44.
      No. 54, in page 14, leave out line 1.
      No. 55, in page 14, leave out line 4.
      No. 56, in page 14, leave out line 6.
      No. 34, in page 17, line 4, leave out "11".
      No. 35, in page 17, line 7, after "purposes," insert
      "; except that section 11 shall not come into force before 1 January 2003.".
      Mr. Forth: In what I have repeatedly called an unnecessary and bad Bill, the clause is one of the most worrying provisions. Sub-section (1) says:
      "If it appears to the Secretary of State, in the light of any report made under section 10"—
      such a report would be from a local authority that had conducted one of the pilots we have been discussing—
      "on a scheme under that section, that it would be desirable for provision similar to that made by the scheme to apply generally, and on a permanent basis, in relation to relevant elections of any description, he may by order make such provision for and in connection with achieving that result as he considers appropriate".
      That bothers me considerably. I am worried in any case, as I have said a number of times, about the way in which we are tampering with long-established electoral law. I am not happy with that approach and shall expand my comments, although not at great length, on Third Reading.
      All that would be bad enough, because I do not believe that the case has been made for the provision and sufficient weaknesses and loopholes have emerged in Committee and on Report for us to be even more worried

      1031
      about the Bill, but the clause allows the Secretary of State, on the basis of the pilot schemes and the reports on them, simply to apply the results
      "generally, and on a permanent basis, in relation to relevant elections of any description".
      We are going way beyond what is prudent, sensible or wise, dealing as we are with something as sensitive and basic as electoral law.
      My amendment would delete the clause altogether and I am advised that the effect would be that the Secretary of State would be obliged to resort to primary legislation widely to apply the results of a pilot. That is what I am after. I am not satisfied that it is sufficient to have an order made, even with the approval of each House of Parliament, which is provided for in subsection (4). As we all know, one of the many problems with that approach is that statutory instruments are not amendable, so we face the prospect of the Secretary of State being enthused by one of these experiments and implementing such a change to the electoral process right across the country, by order. To my mind, that weakness and danger is inherent in such an approach.
      It would be one thing if all those matters had been carefully researched, and perhaps the Minister will tell me again about his working party, for which I still have no enthusiasm. He might, however, tell me of the thoroughness with which the working party operated and how it foresaw all those difficulties, saying that it cannot be blamed for all the flaws in the Bill that have emerged. They would be down to the parliamentary draftsman, not the working party.
      Did the working party ever envisage that, as a result of the measures that will be put in place by this ill-begotten Bill, a relatively small pilot—implemented, for example, in St. Helens—could attract the attention of the Secretary of State, who might decide that it could be equally implemented in Caithness and Sutherland on the one hand and Cornwall on the other? According to the clause, the Secretary of State could come to the House and say, "By order, I have decided that this scheme is a jolly good idea and the whole country will now have it." Given the rather slender accountability that statutory instruments regrettably provide for us, that could be done. We were criticised for having the gall to scrutinise the Bill, but how much less scrutiny would a statutory instrument provide before the electoral law of the entire country might be changed?
      I make a plea. My amendment would have the simple effect of removing the clause from the Bill so that we could all have the reassurance—the guarantee—that, were we ever to face the prospect of changes being made to our electoral law based on the slender evidence of perhaps only one pilot scheme, even if it were to take place in St. Helens, the Secretary of State would have to produce primary legislation, with all that that implies. It would have to go through the full process of scrutiny, unless it were truncated by the Government of the day, and then, and only then, would there be a general change in electoral law.
      This is an important part of the Bill and the brevity of my remarks should not be taken as in any way diminishing the importance that I attach to the measure. My point, which I believe is very important, almost makes itself and I hope that the Minister, if he is unable to accept the deletion of the clause, will give us a jolly good story
      1032
      indeed as to what reassurances we shall have that changes will not be made—to our electoral law, no less—on the basis of some slender and rather obscure pilot scheme.
      Mr. Hancock: Once again, I find myself agreeing with the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth). The amendment makes a lot of sense, and I wonder whether the clause is necessary and what was the motive for including it. Like many Members, I welcome the idea of change and I am sure that we are all delighted that, as we heard from the Minister, 44 local authorities have applied for changes to be made. I hope that there will be a good, countrywide expression of the benefits that can be derived from such changes and that many are agreed to by the Home Office so that they can be implemented fairly quickly.
      I must, however, ask Ministers to be cautious. They must not rush to accept the results of one or two pilot schemes. As I am sure most Members on both sides of the House agree, we must see what develops over a period—a minimum of two or three elections—before the Government are able to reflect the success or otherwise of the schemes, and direct the House to decide whether it wishes the nation to be covered by the arrangement involved. Any Secretary of State who rushed into implementation of a scheme—laudable though it might be, and successful in a specific area—and suggested that it would be acceptable in other areas would be making a serious error.
      The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst is right to put caution to the fore. I see no possibility other than the deletion of clause 11. It is not possible to tinker with the clause; it is all or nothing. I should be sorry if the matter were not forced to a Division, because this is a critical part of the Bill, and one that I oppose vehemently.
      Ultimately, primary legislation must be the only way of introducing effective change nationwide. I hope that the Minister will see the sense of what is being proposed, and will accept that deleting clause 11 would be a help rather than a hindrance. It would enable other local authorities to chance their arm with a pilot scheme, or an adaption of one of the 44 that are proposed.
      I also hope that the Minister will consult his colleagues with the aim of ensuring that the House is given a full report of the reasons for and against acceptance of the pilot schemes that have been submitted. It is interesting to learn that 44 have been submitted, but I should like to know why only 30 have been accepted, and why the others have been refused. Following a debate on legislation such as this, hon. Members are entitled to know the thinking behind decisions to accept or reject pilot schemes.
      Mr. William Ross: I entirely agree with what was said by the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth). We are discussing an important part of the Bill, which I think should have been dealt with by means of primary legislation. I have been in the House long enough to know what "made by statutory instrument"—words that appear in clause 11(4) —means. Many statutory instruments appear on Order Papers. As a member of the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments, I know that hundreds, if not thousands, go through on the nod every year, and that, in some instances, no parliamentary procedure is involved. We should think carefully.

      1033
      I can envisage instances in which the only way in which to secure a debate on a statutory instrument in either House would be by means of a Prayer, involving a discussion lasting perhaps an hour and a half. If I am wrong and we would be allowed a day or more, well and good; but statutory instruments are not amendable, and statutory instrument procedure falls very far short of what I consider to be vital, given the sweeping powers possessed by the Home Secretary, whatever the Government involved.
      3.45 pm
      I am a signatory to amendment No. 26. I added my name to those of Conservative Members independently of them, as is normal procedure. The amendments that I myself tabled are all intended to discover what the consequences would be in some instances, and also to draw attention to the dangers of permanence—especially in the case of amendment No. 48, which asks for the removal of the words
      "and on a permanent basis".
      Those words would mean that a change made by the Home Secretary would not apply merely to one or two, or even three or four, elections; it would be a permanent change, which could be reversed only by another statutory instrument—and I am not certain that even that would be possible. I suspect that such changes could be reversed only by primary legislation.
      I object to the sweeping powers given to a Minister who has been enabled to change the system applying to any election, or to all elections, and to change any existing legislation in order to do that. I do not accept what I consider to be a lame excuse about consultation. I know what "consultation" means: it means that the Government will eventually tell the House what they are going to do and, if they have a large enough majority, force it through. That is not acceptable to me at any time, but it is particularly unacceptable to me in the context of electoral law, which is the basis for the presence of each and every one of us in this place. We depend on an electoral system that the people trust—a system that is above reproach—and we should not be giving such sweeping powers to anyone. The matter should be dealt with in the House, where it should be considered in detail and at length.
      The Home Secretary put it very well when he said:
      "Electoral law is so fundamental to democracy that changes to it should, wherever possible, proceed by consensus." —[Official Report, 30 November 1999; Vol. 340, c. 160.]
      The qualification "wherever possible" negates the rest of the sentence. I am familiar with the concept of making what appears to be a very good statement, and then qualifying it out of existence. It is a favourite tactic of Ministers, and we have suffered much from it in Northern Ireland.
      I do not think that we should proceed by consensus "wherever possible"; I think that we should always proceed by consensus. I do not think that any party, or any Member, would object to genuine improvements in the electoral system, and I believe that our proceedings last night and earlier today were not the right way in which to deal with electoral law. Consensus should be demonstrated by an overwhelming majority in Parliament, after long and careful consideration of the consequences.
      1034
      As we know, it is amazing what comes out of the woodwork during the Committee and Report stages of Bills. Often, consequences and dangers are not apparent at first sight. The Bill introduces sweeping changes by the back door.
      Amendment No. 49 also expresses my concern about the powers of the Home Secretary, but it proposes the removal of the words
      "with respect to the whole of the United Kingdom".
      The proposal is universal, proving what I said earlier about the Home Secretary's powers covering each and every election. Amendment No. 50 proposes the removal of the next paragraph—
      "if such elections are held only in a particular part of the United Kingdom, with respect to the whole of that part."
      No one has yet explained why Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales, England, a region thereof or a particular council area can have a system that is different from the rest. I believe that what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. We should try to have a universal system, applied across the board.
      On amendment No. 51, it is not immediately apparent, but I believe that the words "district electoral area" can apply only to Northern Ireland; the single transferable vote system of proportional representation is used there. As written in the Bill, a district electoral area is not a whole council area. It is a part of a council area. It is a number of wards. It could be three, four, five, six, seven or eight wards, but it is not the whole council area.
      Therefore, a peculiar and sweeping power will be given to the Secretary of State—I assume that it could be the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland—to ensure that one particular area of a council can elect people by one system and that another area in the same council can elect people by a different system. That cannot be acceptable.
      I know that the Minister will stand up in a few minutes and say that that will not happen, but, under the legislation, it could. My experience is that, if something nasty can be done in Northern Ireland, it generally will be. Therefore, I am concerned about the measure.
      We need to look at the clause's direct consequences in relation to the STV system. By-elections occasionally take place. Under STV, three, four or five council members could be elected, with votes tumbling from one to the other in order of preference, or allegedly so. It is a fairly mathematical job to work it out. Calculators must be used to get it done.
      I remember losing a very good councillor because, at one point, he was two fifths of a vote short of getting to the next stage. It is remarkable. People do not lose by one vote in Northern Ireland; they lose by a fraction of a vote. It was interesting that he lost. Eventually, we got someone whom we did not like because many of the votes did not transfer the next time round. The consequences are unforeseen. We can never know what will happen as the votes tumble down the chute.
      Whenever we come to a by-election, that is not what happens. We transfer the votes only until someone has one over the half; it is not even 51 per cent. It is a modified system of first past the post, or first past the 50 per cent. barrier. Therefore, we need to be careful about what will happen if some fancy scheme is introduced for by-elections in Northern Ireland, rather than for PR elections for a council area, for councils in

      1035
      the whole of Northern Ireland, for the Assembly, or even for Europe. That part of the Bill raises a number of interesting and important questions for Northern Ireland.
      Amendment No. 53 aims to leave out parliamentary elections—those to this place—from the list of relevant elections. Again, the measure raises questions. The other elections that I aim to leave out are in whole or in part to do with Northern Ireland. They include elections to the European Parliament, where, again, the STV system is used in Northern Ireland, and elections to the Northern Ireland Assembly.
      We are being told once more that changes can be made to the system of electing European Members in Northern Ireland by passing a simple Order in Council through the House. We can go back to first past the post. We can have some sort of list system. God knows what we might have.
      At present, we have the STV system, which I object to anyway because it is different in every respect from the system that is used on this side of the Irish sea. Again, for elections to the Northern Ireland Assembly, we have STV, with six Members per parliamentary constituency in Northern Ireland. Again, one system could be used in one part of Northern Ireland and another in another. Anything could be introduced that we would not wish to be foisted on us. My amendment would also leave out local elections in Northern Ireland, which I have already discussed.
      I say it yet again: I firmly believe that such changes, either for the whole of the UK or any part thereof, should not be made by order. They should made in Northern Ireland only where a clear majority of the Members representing the Province in this place are in favour of them, and only by primary legislation. It is fundamental to our democracy that we have an honest system of election. I do not want it to be undermined by fancy footwork and misrepresentation of the will of the people.
      Mr. Evans: Much has been said about consensus on the general thrust of the Bill. Yes, there is much consensus, but there is much concern as well over clause 11 and the sweeping powers that will be transferred to the Home Secretary.
      My right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) ably moved amendment No. 26, for which I have enormous sympathy.
      Mr. Ross: Is the hon. Gentleman certain that it is only the Home Secretary? Surely it is only the Home Secretary with regard to Great Britain, although powers may be devolved powers to the Secretary of State for Scotland and to the Secretary of State for Wales. However, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has power over electoral matters there.
      Mr. Evans: The Bill certainly transfers powers to the Home Secretary to take wide-ranging powers once pilots have taken place. The Home Secretary can then extend schemes to a number of other elections. I hear what the hon. Gentleman says about other Ministers being able to utilise power. The Minister may say something about that in his winding-up speech.
      I have enormous sympathy for the comments of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst. We know what happens in relation to statutory instruments in the House. We have talked a lot about scrutiny of the Bill on the Floor of the House but, when a power is transferred
      1036
      to the Home Secretary and a statutory instrument is introduced, the scrutiny and amount of publicity that are given to the statutory instrument are not the same.
      Mr. Bermingham: Does the hon. Gentleman mean that, if, for example, we have a maverick Home Secretary in 2015 who suddenly decides that he or she wants a particular voting system following an experiment in East Kilbride or somewhere else, the publicity generated against such a maverick scheme will not be mighty enough to ensure that there will be no chance of that silly statutory instrument getting through?
      Mr. Evans: No doubt even in St. Helens there will be publicity along those lines if there is a maverick scheme from a maverick Home Secretary, but who is to say that it will not, on the face of it, be a maverick scheme, but a well-thought-out and calculated scheme? It may come from a Home Secretary not from the hon. Gentleman's party, but from some other party, which the House would reject if it were given the opportunity of a full debate.
      We are talking about scrutiny of an important constitutional area. That is why I believe that we need to get it absolutely right and why we have tabled amendments Nos. 34 and 35. The hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock) spoke about the need for proper evaluation of any of the pilot schemes. That is what Conservative Members will be carefully looking for.
      4 pm
      The Opposition are still uncertain about when the pilots will be fully evaluated. The Minister said today that 44 pilot schemes have been submitted to the Home Secretary. The Home Secretary, his officials—perhaps even the Minister, particularly after the good work that he did on his own working party—will have to examine those schemes before deciding which ones to allow. After the announcement on the successful schemes, we should like to hear the Home Secretary's reasons for refusing the other schemes, so that the Opposition and local authorities may see the reasoning behind the Home Secretary's decisions.
      We tabled amendment No. 35 to extend the time available for reflection on the pilots at least beyond the next general election, and specified the date of January 2003. We believe that, if the amendment is accepted, the pilots conducted this year and in 2001 could be properly considered. To date—while the Bill is still being considered by Parliament—44 schemes have been proposed. After the Bill is passed, there will be even more publicity about pilots. Once the pilots are up and running—the hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham) said that one will be conducted in his area, covering six of his wards—
      Mr. Bermingham: Four.
      Mr. Evans: Nevertheless, six wards will be covered, at a cost of £5,000.
      Once we start deviating from traditional Thursday voting, there will he much publicity and interest in how those polls fare. Consequently, I believe that, next year, the Home Secretary will be confronted with proposals on far more than 44 schemes. If people believe that the May 2000 pilot schemes are successful, and that they may be

      1037
      implemented at reasonable cost without imposing prohibitive costs on local ratepayers, other local authorities will want to participate, following in the footsteps of local authorities that have already conducted trials.
      As the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock) said, the pilots should be nationwide. The Home Secretary may approve some schemes for trial in only one part the United Kingdom, and—for a variety of reasons, such as the nature and stability of the constituency, and regardless of the new rolling registers—those schemes may be a total success. However, it does not follow that, simply because a scheme is successful in one part of the country, it will be adopted, fully embraced and enjoy equal success in another part of the country.
      Many commercial firms conduct trials of products in one part of the country before launching them nationwide, as they want to know how the product might do nationally before incurring the expense of a nationwide launch. Similarly, before the Home Secretary issues his evaluation of the schemes, the Government will be conducting trials. In some parliamentary and European elections, the Home Secretary may wish to adopt schemes for use across the country. Once a statutory instrument to that effect has been passed, it will be the first time that some areas have deviated from traditional Thursday voting in that type of election. We shall have to examine the results of those elections very carefully.
      The most recent nationwide trial in the United Kingdom was conducted in the previous European elections—when we adopted d'Hondt and regional lists, and when voter turnout, at just over 23 per cent., was derisory. I assume that the Home Secretary, upon examining those results, will have reached the same conclusion that I have—that the public did not embrace the regional list system, and that they perhaps did not like even the regions themselves. In the north-west, millions of people have 10 Members of the European Parliament, from various political parties, and do not know which one to go to. The constituency link has been broken, and many people may not even know the name of their MEP. People have conducted their own trial of the new voting system, and—as the turnout figures show—they do not like it.
      We propose that, for the schemes that the Home Secretary is being asked to approve, before he uses the powers conferred on him by the Bill, in some cases there should be one full year of consideration, and in others there should be at least two years. We are asking for extensive consideration, and not only because of the costs involved. The figure of £5,000 was mentioned to implement a scheme in six wards, but that is only one small example. The costs of weekend voting will be even greater. If voting were done on only one weekend day—the Minister has assured us that that will not happen—people will have to be paid at time and a half. If there is voting on Sundays, people may have to be paid at double time, imposing enormous cost.
      If the Home Secretary, after considering the results of a local pilot scheme, decides that general elections should be held on weekends, and if he makes it obligatory in a statutory instrument, enormous costs will be imposed on local authorities across the country. I am not aware of any assistance to local authorities to meet that extra cost. Currently, local authorities volunteer to spend ratepayers' money to conduct trials of new schemes. They will not be
      1038
      able to volunteer to comply with a statutory instrument, but will have to find the money to do so from within their own budgets. Subsequently, other spending will have to be cut, or council tax will have to rise.
      We still do not know how many of the 44 schemes will be accepted, and it will be interesting to see how many are. There may not be many pilots in 2000. Regardless of the number, we shall at least be putting a toe in the water.
      It will require at least a full year before we are able to determine whether a pilot has caused the vote in local elections to increase or decrease. Although we know from published figures that there has been a decline in polling numbers, particularly at local elections, we do not know what turnout criteria the Home Secretary will use to judge the success of the pilots conducted this year and next year.
      How will the Home Secretary judge whether the decline in turnout has been arrested? Even if the numbers decline is stopped, how will he determine whether it has been stopped by the pilot, or whether the pilot has prevented the decline from being more severe? We do not know how he will make those determinations.
      Mr. Bermingham: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that another problem is that, next May, only a third of metropolitan areas will be polling, and that shire counties, London and district councils will not be polling? The experiment will be conducted only in certain areas.
      Mr. Hancock: Some districts are polling.
      Mr. Bermingham: Yes; I am grateful for that intervention. The results of the experiment will not be nationwide, and we should perhaps be cautious in considering them.
      Mr. Evans: I agree completely. There are 44 pilots, but we do not know how many of them will be accepted. This year and next year, there will be only limited pilots in the United Kingdom. Local elections will not be held simultaneously across the United Kingdom for three years. The Home Secretary, using the powers that we confer on him in clause 11, may decide to use those elections to conduct a trial of a new voting scheme for the entire United Kingdom, prior to changing the system used for Westminster parliamentary elections.
      Mr. Bermingham: The hon. Gentleman's fears may be unfounded, because the votes will be counted under a first-past-the-post system, so the trials will not necessarily change the overall strategy of voting. Clause 11 does not give the Home Secretary the power to introduce proportional representation.
      Mr. Evans: I agree. Proportional representation was not considered by the working group. If any local authority proposed a pilot scheme that included the use of proportional representation, the Home Secretary's bin would not be far away. The Bill does not give him the power to agree to such a pilot anyway, but it gives him power in other areas. That is why I am anxious that we should get the trials right this year and next. As we suggest in amendment No. 35, there should be a longer period of evaluation before the Home Secretary is able to introduce a new system nationwide for local or Westminster parliamentary elections.

      1039
      The hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross) mentioned the integrity of the vote. If polling takes place on more than one day, people will need to ensure that there is great security. If there are any errors, future pilots could be jeopardised. One local authority failing to take proper precautions could result in a good idea not being developed in other areas. We have also asked whether the ability of the political parties to cope with voting taking place on a different day or on a number of days could be taken into account in the evaluation. We are all part of the system. Candidates, canvassers and tellers all have a role to play in the election procedure. Not everybody is entirely happy with the telling arrangements.
      I am sure that we have all encountered voters at polling stations who refuse to give us their number, because they feel that that would give us more information than just the fact that they had gone to vote. They do not fully appreciate the fact that we take numbers to ensure that we do not waste their time—never mind ours—later in the day when we knock on doors or phone people to encourage them to vote. I hope that giving extra time for the evaluation procedure will enable us to consider the ability of the political parties to participate in the changed voting arrangements.
      The Home Secretary will also be given powers to introduce voting a lot earlier than polling day. Early voting may be permitted on a number of days, with the polling booths open for more than just two days. I read one suggestion about mobile polling, with ballot boxes being taken to a place of work, a residential home, a nursing home or even a small village with only two or three houses where the people are disadvantaged by having to travel a long way to vote. For example, there is the case of Paralchina in Australia, which is miles from anywhere. The ballot box is taken to the villagers. The authorities ensure that everybody votes by going to them. The villagers all know when the ballot box is coming, because it is one of the most exciting things that happens in Paralchina, apart from the train going in and out.
      Some villages in this country might benefit from mobile polling, but we need to see how the idea will work. We shall want to be privy to such an experiment and to ensure the integrity of polling boxes that move around the country. The hon. Member for East Londonderry said that, in Northern Ireland, if bad things can happen, they will. Mobile polling boxes travelling round the country could present an opportunity for fraudulent voting if we are not careful.
      4.15 pm
      The possibility of voting in supermarkets has also been mentioned. The Home Secretary may well find from pilots that it works. Some hon. Members said in Committee that the last thing that people out shopping wanted to do was go and vote, but shopping centres and big supermarkets attract many people. It is worth giving local authorities the opportunity to set up a mobile polling station in a supermarket car park to see what the response is. Some families like to vote together and wait until the entire family is home before going to the polling station, but for others that is not possible and they might want to vote while they are out at the supermarket.
      Not everybody voting at a supermarket would necessarily live in the local polling area. They might come from another part of the town or city to go shopping and
      1040
      then pop into the polling station. We have to evaluate the idea properly because, without proper proof of identity—we appear to have decided against requiring that—people can assume a false identity and be crossed off the list at the supermarket but not off the other list at the polling station, perhaps a few miles away, where the real voter could then vote as well. If all the polling stations were linked by computer, there would be less of a problem, but having polling in a supermarket as well as at the local polling station gives greater opportunity for personation.
      We need proper safeguards and better evaluation of the dangers of personation. We have already agreed that scant research is being done on that. I have heard of people at polling stations being told that they have already voted and other hon. Members may know similar examples. Without more research on personation, how can we properly evaluate whether a pilot is successful on that count if we do not know the base line?
      Mr. William Ross: There is another aspect of that issue. At a parliamentary election, people voting at the supermarket may not even know who their local candidates are. How can we determine which constituency they live in and how will the information be conveyed from one constituency to another? In most of the elections that I have fought, a few ballot papers have turned up from other constituencies. God knows how they got there. I assume that they were postal votes that went astray in some way.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We are in danger of going into too much detail about individual schemes rather than talking about the amendments.
      Mr. Evans: I am coming towards the end of my contribution. I want to ensure that the Home Secretary has enough time to evaluate the great number of pilot schemes. We all know about the problem with supermarket voting that the hon. Member for East Londonderry referred to. I hold a surgery at a supermarket when shoppers can come and chat with me about whatever their problems are. I know that other Members of Parliament do the same. When I ask where they live, I sometimes find that they are from outside my constituency. I then advise them to see their Member of Parliament. The catchment area of a supermarket may cover more than one constituency. It would be more expensive and time consuming, but polling stations at supermarkets that cover more than one constituency might need to make provision for voters from neighbouring constituencies. I should be interested to hear from the Minister whether that can be done.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I repeat that the hon. Gentleman is going into too much detail about individual schemes. The debate is time limited and we want to make best use of the valuable time available.
      Mr. Evans: I hope that the Minister will take on board the date that we have suggested. We want the pilots to take place, but they need to be properly evaluated. The pilots will be limited this year and next. It would be dangerous for the Home Secretary to be confident of his conclusions after a few brief experiments. We would need further evaluation before extending the experiment countrywide, perhaps against the wishes of some local authorities. I hope that the Minister will reassure us.
      Mr. Bermingham: As to the security of the boxes on a two-day vote, the answer is simple. At present, when a count takes place not immediately, but the next day—as happens in a number of constituencies at a general election—the boxes containing the voting lists are sealed. Verification takes place the next day, and there is never a problem. At the end of the first day's polling in a two-day vote, one would seal the lids of the boxes for that day and verify them. The next day would be verified also, with a separate box. There does not seem to be a problem in that respect.
      I am keen that these experiments be looked at carefully, and I am equally keen that the bid made by my local authority—which covers my constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens, North (Mr. Watts) —be accepted. However, that is a matter for the Home Secretary in due course.
      In St. Helens, voting in some central areas has decreased. In local authority elections, we get a turnout of 20 per cent., and in the European elections we were down to 14 per cent. That is never satisfactory for whoever wins. We must hope that we can stimulate interest again, so that turnouts for local and national elections are about 70 per cent. At the last election, the turnout in my seat was about 65 per cent. The reason for the drop is the nature of the area, and the nature of the problems that we have. The experiments are therefore a good idea.
      I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to think about clause 11 as it is drafted and the conclusions that are to be drawn. I would like to see experiments and evaluation in different areas, as different factors affect different areas and the voting intentions there.
      The experiments should be carried out over, perhaps, three or four local government elections—the best place to test these matters. Then we can look at whether double-day voting, single-day voting on a different day or no change is the answer. I understand the purpose of the amendment, but it would be short-sighted.
      It would be better for the Minister to leave clause 11 as, in the long term, it is probably the answer. As Governments come and go, legislation can change. Just as with statutory instruments, everything on the electoral system is scrutinised. My experience here over more than a decade and a half has taught me that certain statutory instruments are never overlooked and are debated at some length.
      The experiments should be over a number of years and different local government elections—including county, district and metropolitan. Elections in the City of London could be used. There are one or two experiments that I would like there, so that we could get some democracy. Before you call me to order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I will go no further down that line, and I will make my points in respect of the City at the appropriate time.
      I urge the Minister to show breadth of vision and experimentation, and then draw his conclusions.
      Mr. George Howarth: My hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham) must be thinking of some other Ministers when he calls on me to show breadth of vision. I am more of a nuts-and-bolts man. Nevertheless, I will bear his strictures in mind.
      The hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross) talked about different electoral arrangements applying in different parts of the same local authority. However, under
      1042
      clause 11, whole local authority areas could be excluded, but not particular parts of a local authority. I hope that that provides the hon. Gentleman with some reassurance.
      The hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) referred to supermarkets, a matter we discussed in Committee. No pilot would be approved unless it included arrangements to make sure that the register was networked. If someone votes in a supermarket, that vote will be registered immediately by the electronic equipment and deleted from the register. Hopefully, that would prevent the kind of abuse that the hon. Gentleman fears.
      Mr. Hancock: Would that be an essential condition of any pilot scheme incorporating voting in a supermarket?
      Mr. Howarth: Unless the application for a pilot scheme could demonstrate that it was capable of that—I do not want to be prescriptive as to how—the Home Secretary would have no choice but to turn it down, simply because it would not meet any practical test in terms of someone voting more than once. It is a fair point, but it is covered.
      The hon. Member for Ribble Valley referred to the cost of the roll-out of any pilot schemes. That cost will fall on the local authorities themselves. My hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens, South indicated what he takes to be the cost in St. Helens. At this stage, I do not have enough information to say what the typical cost would be. I suspect that the costs will not be unduly prohibitive—indeed, no local authority would submit a pilot application if it felt that the costs involved were prohibitive.
      The costs of general and European parliamentary elections are met out of the Consolidated Fund. If there were to be further developments, they would be costed in that way.
      I intend to say a word in a moment about publishing the evaluations, but it would be unnecessary and heavy-handed if either the Home Office or the House tried to impose some particular methodology on them. The expectation is that local authorities will carry the evaluations out in as vigorous, objective and professional a manner as we would all expect. I have no reason to believe that that will not be the case.
      Amendment No. 26, moved by the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), would have the effect of removing clause 11 from the Bill. However, the clause is crucial to the Bill, as it will enable successful innovations to be rolled out. I appreciate that the right hon. Gentleman has concerns about this measure, and I suspect that those concerns have increased, rather than decreased. There is not a great deal that I can do about that—it is in the nature of debate that some people will remain to be convinced. However, I share his concerns in this respect—the desire to see that the rights of this House and Parliament are upheld. However, his fears are misplaced and I shall explain why. Clause 10 will allow local authorities to apply to run pilot schemes at particular local elections. All those pilot schemes will have to be fully evaluated and a copy of the evaluation report must be sent to the Secretary of State within three months of the election concerned. That is a reasonable length of time for the sort of evaluation that we would all expect to see carried out.

      1043
      4.30 pm
      I am happy to assure the House that all such evaluation reports will be published and that copies of the reports will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses, so that the process will be open and transparent. It will be open to any Member to read the evaluation of any pilot, and I am sure that the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst will pore over them with great thoroughness.
      Let us consider what would happen if a particular innovation were to prove a great success. Perhaps it had been tried in several local authorities with varying demographic complexions. Turnouts had increased and the evaluations had shown that the electorate welcomed the innovation. In such cases, why would we not wish to apply the innovation more widely and as quickly as possible? If the amendments were to be accepted, the innovation could not be applied until well into the next Parliament, no matter how successful the pilot scheme or how successful the innovation.
      I suspect that the electorate would find it hard to understand why some successfully piloted procedures could not apply to them the next time they went to the polling station. Indeed, as a Member of Parliament, let alone as a Minister, I would not like to have to explain to the electorate that, although better procedures had been proved successful in pilots, they had to wait for Parliament to re-examine the issue and to decide whether the innovations should be applied more widely through primary legislation.
      Mr. Hancock: Is the Minister saying that pilots can be tried for one election only? Is there any reason why a scheme successfully piloted by a local authority in May this year could not be repeated in May next year?
      Mr. Howarth: No, but a separate application would have to be made for a separate pilot. If pilots are successful, they may spread. For example, let us suppose a pilot in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens, South proved to be successful—knowing the local authority, I am sure that it would. If that happened, and given the symbiotic relationship that I know exists between Knowsley and St. Helens—I live close to the border of my hon. Friend's constituency—the people of Knowsley would ask why they could not have the system, too. My hon. Friend is well aware that political events in St. Helens tend to find echoes in Knowsley, and vice versa.
      If amendment No. 26 were accepted, we could not roll out any change except by introducing further primary legislation. As the House knows, the demands for legislative slots always exceed the amount of parliamentary time available. Who knows when my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary might be able to secure a slot for the necessary legislation?
      Mr. Forth: Good.
      Mr. Howarth: Somehow I knew the right hon. Gentleman would find that an attractive proposition, but the rest of us—including, possibly, the right hon. Gentleman's Front-Bench colleagues—might not. It is our hope that we will have a steady stream of pilots over the next few years and it is quite possible that each year one or more innovations will emerge that are successful.
      1044
      As the House knows, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House is a good-natured and patient person, but I imagine if the Home Secretary were to say to her, "It is possible that I will need slots for one or more electoral procedures Bills for each of the next few Sessions," she might respond with a few choice words.
      Mr. William Ross: The Minister mentioned the need for a slot for primary legislation, but the Bill provides that, if a prayer is signed by the Leader of the Opposition and a considerable proportion of his right hon. and hon. Friends, the Leader of the House would have to find a one and a half hour slot—and there could be a lot of those.
      Mr. Howarth: The hon. Gentleman, as ever, has anticipated me. As I was saying, it would be difficult to justify to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House the need for regular electoral process Bills.
      The notion of pilot schemes came from the working party on electoral procedures and, at the risk of incurring the ire of the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst, I shall quote its final report:
      "Any legislation should in our view be framed to allow successful pilots to be rolled out widely without the need for further primary legislation."
      Although that places no obligation on the right hon. Gentleman, even he will appreciate that it places an obligation on me to ensure that the legislation envisaged by the working party—which included representatives of the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives—reaches the statute book. We have followed that recommendation closely in framing the Bill. No member of the working party dissented from it, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will find himself able, in his generous way, to withdraw his amendment.
      I also hope that the hon. Member for East Londonderry has taken some comfort from my remarks. His amendments were designed to prevent any roll-out of successful innovations from applying to Northern Ireland. I understand the source of his concerns, because we have discussed it many times before, and I know that they are based on experience of the possible difficulties of ensuring the integrity of the ballot. However, even allowing for the difficulties that we know exist in Northern Ireland, that approach is perhaps excessively negative. There may be innovations that we have not even thought of that prove to be a great success and from which the people of Northern Ireland would wish to benefit. I cannot rule out that possibility. I know that the problems of turnout mentioned by the hon. Member for Ribble Valley and others are not of the same magnitude in Northern Ireland, but anything that makes voting easier and more convenient should not be ruled out, even though we do not yet know the precise form that it will take.
      I have already explained that all the information on which to decide whether an innovation should be rolled out will be made freely available to the House, and that Parliament will have every opportunity to discuss the merits of any proposed roll-out. That seems a much more sensible way to proceed than simply to seek a blanket exclusion from the process for Northern Ireland.
      On the basis that something may turn up, as Mr. Micawber put it, for Northern Ireland, I hope that the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
      Mr. Forth: The temptation in circumstances such as these is to respond to an argument on the basis that one

      1045
      likes and trusts the people who have made it. Because they have been charming, one is inclined to feel that a measure is safe in their hands. I am tempted in that way today because of the way in which the Minister has put the argument.
      The problem is that neither the Minister nor the Home Secretary, whom we all admire so much, will not be in their posts for the rest of time. It is possible that people will be appointed who, under clause 11, will be empowered to take a different view and act in a less trustworthy way. I accept what the Minister has said on behalf of the Government and, on balance, it would be appropriate for me to withdraw the amendment. However, I hope that the House of Lords will look again at this and other matters.
      The irony is that, as long as the House of Lords remains unelected—a fact that I consider unfortunate—we will be asking unelected people to consider a Bill that bears directly on our electoral process. However, I hope that their Lordships will take a view closer to mine than to the Minister's.
      I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

    Schedule 1

      REGISTRATION: AMENDMENTS OF THE 1983 ACT
      Mr. Evans: I beg to move amendment No. 33, in page 19, leave out lines 45 to 50 and insert—
      "(7) Each registration officer may, as he thinks fit, conduct an enquiry or canvass in relation to part or all of an electoral register at any time, notwithstanding sub-section (1) of this section.".
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 32, in page 19, line 50, at end insert—
      "(8) Each registration officer shall each month, or seven days before any poll, contact all registrars of births, deaths and marriages covering the area for which he is responsible, in order to ascertain the names and addresses of those persons deceased within the previous month, and shall remove such deceased persons from the register within three working days of ascertaining this information.".
      Mr. Evans: I shall be brief, as the amendments are self-explanatory and I want the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes), who attended every day of our deliberations in Committee, to be able to move his amendments. Time will also be needed for Third Reading.
      The amendments would ensure that the electoral registration officer is encouraged to keep the rolling register as up to date as possible. It would empower him to make regular canvasses of inquiries for all or part of the register, as he saw fit. It would also encourage him to collaborate with all registrars of births, marriages and deaths in the area to ensure that the register is kept up to date.
      Some hon. Members will know of a film called "Dead Man Walking", but the amendment is designed to avoid a sequel that might be called "Dead Man Voting". That happens at general and local elections, but the amendment
      1046
      would mean that the names of people who die are taken off the register, so that other people cannot use those names to vote.
      Mr. Barnes: I do not want to filibuster my own time, but I shall speak very briefly to these amendments.
      Canvassing activity is very important. In Northern Ireland, complete canvasses are conducted when electoral registers are compiled. That does not happen elsewhere in the United Kingdom, and the Northern Ireland lesson is one from which we could all learn.
      Amendment No. 32 proposes collaborating with the registrars of births, deaths and marriages to remove the names of dead people from electoral registers. That is an important matter. Widows and widowers should not be bothered by polling cards and election addresses for their dead spouses, or by people knocking on their doors to find out why those dead people have not voted.
      Many returning officers may already have access to such information, but they cannot use it to delete names from the register. That is what Mr. Bradley, the returning officer for Northern Ireland, told the Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs. The anomaly causes great difficulty when it comes to handling personation.
      Personation is less likely to be of dead people than of people who do not normally vote, but I feel remiss that I did not table an amendment along the same lines. My previous proposals for rolling registers are based on the principle that accurate registers of local voters depend on the ability of the registration officer to remove the names of those who have left an area, or died. This is an important amendment.
      Mr. Hancock: I support the amendment, as I am sure do my Liberal Democrat colleagues. To implement it, electoral registration officers must have the necessary resources. At present, the resources are devoted to the accurate maintenance of electoral registration are inadequate.
      What is proposed is only common sense. The Home Office and Ministers with responsibility for local government must give real credibility to statements about the need for accuracy, maintenance and regular updating of electoral registration facilities. At present, those facilities are pitiful and are a real deterrent to voting. People are often offended at receiving poll cards for relatives who have died, and I have known them turn up at the polling station and refuse to vote as a protest against such inefficiency. I am aware of instances in which polling cards have been sent to people who have been dead for many years.
      The amendment is long overdue.
      4.45 pm
      Mr. William Ross: Would it not be possible for registrars of births, deaths and marriages to send a list of the names of those who have died to the people responsible for electoral registration? That could be done once a week, or once a month, as required.
      Mr. Hancock: That is an excellent suggestion, but the question is one of resources. The funding for the registrars of births, deaths and marriages is inadequate and needs to be revised.

      1047
      I want the amendment to be adopted, and the suggestion from the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross) is worth pursuing. However, extra resources must be devoted to the task.
      Mr. Mike O'Brien: Amendment No. 33 is a deceptive little amendment, since the words that it seeks to delete from the Bill are more important than the words that it seeks to add.
      It is an unfortunate fact that, every year, a large number of households fail to return their electoral registration form. Electoral registration officers are assiduous in chasing missing forms, often paying several visits to the properties concerned. Even then, there are some properties from which no information is forthcoming. In such circumstances, a practice has evolved of keeping names on the register for a year in the absence of any evidence that the person concerned has moved out. We believe that this is right. In cases of uncertainty, the decision should always be to keep people on the register rather than disfranchising them.
      New section 10(7) of the Representation of the People Act 1983, which schedule 1 to the Bill inserts, will simply put the existing practice on a statutory footing. I am sorry that the Opposition seek to remove the provision, since to do so would ultimately deny people the right to vote. I am sure that the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock) was not aware of the result of such a deletion. Although I have some sympathy with the point that he made, the Conservative attempt to slip this through is far more worrying.
      The Conservative Opposition want to insert a provision allowing registration officers to carry out an inquiry or canvass at any time of the year. In principle, that is entirely unobjectionable. But I wonder, as the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South suggested, how realistic it would be in practice. Registration officers find it difficult, costly and labour-intensive carrying out one canvass each year. I doubt whether they have the resources or the inclination to carry out a second. Do the Opposition want the Government to increase the grants to local authorities to pay for their amendment? If so, we will note such an expenditure commitment. Or do they merely want to impose the burden but not will the means?
      Mr. Ross: If the hon. Gentleman checks Hansard, he will see that I recently tabled a number of questions inquiring about the cost of registering an elector in the various sub-divisions of the United Kingdom. He will find it of interest.
      Mr. O'Brien: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I shall certainly look with interest at the answers, which I presume came from me.
      The key to the amendment is canvassing all the areas, which is what the Conservative Opposition appear to want. Amendment No. 32 would require electoral registration officers to consult the local registrars of births, marriages and deaths with a view to removing the names of the deceased from the register. Apart from the fact that people do not always conveniently die in the area where they are registered, the amendment is unnecessary.
      1048
      In line 22 of page 26 of the Bill, paragraph 23(3) of schedule 1 provides that registration officers will be able to inspect records kept by
      "any local or public authority".
      That encompasses not just records that are publicly available, such as the local register of births, deaths and marriages, but those to which he would not otherwise have access.
      Perhaps I should say in passing, with regret, that, in this group of amendments and in others that we have discussed today, the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe), in whose name the amendment appears, seems much keener on keeping people off the electoral register than in ensuring that as many people as possible are on it. I hope that, in the light of my comments, the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) will decide to withdraw the amendment.
      Mr. Evans: Nothing malicious was intended by the amendments. Indeed, I am wounded by the allegation that that was our intent. It certainly was not. We want to ensure that the rolling register is kept as up to date as possible and that we empower the electoral registration officer—no, there is no spending commitment here—to ensure that the register is up to date.
      The Minister says that he regrets that people do not conveniently die. I do not think that anybody conveniently dies—I suspect that in most cases they do not have a say in the matter. However, I understand that, after the 1997 election, the registration officers in one London borough that covered two constituencies did a trawl of their registers and removed more than 11,000 names because so many had been left on for so long. That can be a problem.
      Mr. Simon Hughes: One merit of such a system is that it avoids any political controversy resulting from politicians trying to sort out the register themselves. I once submitted a list and made a mistake about a couple of names; people were clearly alive and well when I had passed them off as having disappeared, on the basis of good advice. I paid about a year's political price for having been so bold as to suggest that they would not be voting, given that they were very much alive and wanted to do so. So I would far rather someone else did the job.
      Mr. Evans: I am sure that a number of electors disappear when they see the hon. Gentleman coming towards their door.
      We are simply keen to ensure that the register is kept up to date. In addition, if the register is inaccurate and, as happened in one case, it includes thousands of names of people who are not there to vote, the percentage of the turnout at elections will be that much lower. The more accurate the register, the higher the turnout will be. Having said that, I am sure that the other place will consider carefully what has been said today, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Mr. Barnes: I beg to move amendment No. 39, in page 22, line 22, at end insert
      ', unless it is made as a result of a notice issued pursuant to subsection (1)(e) above'.
      Schedule 1 deals with registration and amends the 1983 Act. Paragraph 6 relates to the publication of registers, and provides for the alteration of registers and the

      1049
      circumstances in which that may occur. It allows for alterations when electoral returning officers have made clerical errors. That will not be allowed after the issuing of nominations.
      In the winter edition of its publication Arena, the Association of Electoral Administrators supported the Bill but pointed out a problem:
      "Whilst most of the proposals contained in the Bill will meet with the approval of the Association members, to many it will be felt that new Section 13A(4) does not go far enough. It does not enable the Electoral Registration Officer to correct his/her own clerical error brought to their attention in the period between the last day for submissions for nominations for an election and polling day. It is during this period that most of the omissions and clerical errors are detected."
      That happens because that is the period in which most people pay attention to the electoral register. That is when the political parties canvass the electorate. When details are brought to the attention of the public, they may find that the details that they have submitted are not on the register, or not on it correctly. People should have some opportunity to correct errors made by electoral returning officers. I appreciate that that may require some facility for double checking before an election so that everyone is happy with the published details.
      My amendment is intended to probe the Minister's thinking on this matter. Electoral returning officers themselves have identified a serious problem in the article to which I have referred.
      Mr. Mike O'Brien: I always pay close attention to amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) because I regard him as the father of the rolling register. His persistence has ensured that the Bill will introduce a system of rolling electoral registration.
      I appreciate that that system does not go as far as my hon. Friend would wish. However, I hope that he will regard it as a first step on which we can build in due course. His amendment would mean that changes to the register which would be used at an election could be made after the closing date for nominations for that election where the alteration would merely correct a clerical error. I have considerable sympathy with the purpose behind the amendment, but there are problems with the way in which it would achieve that purpose.
      In addition, there is a problem of principle. Changes should not be made to the register once the period of an election has begun. That is the current position as regards additions to the register, and the Bill replicates it under the system of rolling registration. Political parties and candidates need certainty about which, and how many, electors they will deal with at any election. The number of electors determines how much can be spent, and canvassing and leafleting will be targeted at known electors. We are reluctant to start to make exceptions to that basic principle.
      However, my hon. Friend points out that his concern, and that of those to whom he has referred, is to correct a clerical error. It is difficult to object to allowing the correction of something that has been agreed to be a clerical error. However, it is possible to imagine some difference of view between individuals as to whether an error was merely clerical, or whether it had been made by
      1050
      the person who was registering or by the officer, and would thus have an effect to which one of the parties in the election would not be able to subscribe.
      There is potential for some conflict. However, my hon. Friend suggests that the measure would apply to only a relatively small number of cases and that it would be unlikely to affect the outcome of the vast majority of election campaigns. I shall look at the issue. I am reluctant to move along the lines that he suggests, for the reasons that I have outlined—candidates need certainty. I am, however, prepared to consider whether there might be some way of considering the matter; we might talk to electoral registration officers to find out whether they have concerns as to their inability to deal with a merely clerical error. In the light of those remarks, I invite my hon. Friend to withdraw the amendment.
      Mr. Simon Hughes: We support the proposition and, as the Minister appears to have given a reasonable reply, I hope that, before the Bill finishes its passage through Parliament, there will be a chance to accommodate the concerns that have been expressed. I understand the reservations, but the proposition is a good one if it can be correctly drafted.
      Mr. Barnes: I am pleased that the Minister has offered to examine the matter, especially by discussing it with electoral returning officers. I understand the concerns as to the technical difficulties that may arise in getting the measure right. However, the matter of principle—that the register cannot be altered after nomination day—is not one to which I would generally adhere. Previously, I have tabled amendments to provide for altering the register after that period. The principle should be that the names of those entitled to be on the register at nomination day are the only ones that should be included. I hope that some thought will be given to the principle as well as to the practicalities and technicalities.
      However, given the Minister's comments, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

    Schedule 4

      ABSENT VOTING IN GREAT BRITAIN
      5 pm
      Mr. Barnes: I beg to move amendment No. 40, in page 34, line 48, after first "of", insert—
      "his attendance at an educational establishment, or"
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 41, in page 34, line 51, at end insert—
      'or
      (ii) "a journey over land of three miles or more".
      Mr. Barnes: Schedule 4 already contains a provision to enable people in various positions, occupations or services to obtain proxies. However, there is a difficulty for another group of people—students—whom I want to add to the provision. Currently, if students are away, for an indefinite period, from the area in which they are

      1051
      registered, they are barred from inclusion on registers—especially for local elections. They should be added to the schedule.
      Mr. Mike O'Brien: It may save my hon. Friend from trying to persuade me about amendment No. 40, if I point out that I am convinced by his argument, albeit not by the precise wording of the amendment. In due course, I shall seek to include the provision that he and I want—although not in precisely the form of his amendment.
      Mr. Barnes: I am pleased to hear the Minister's response. I shall see how far I can get with amendment No. 41—although I tabled it more as a probing amendment.
      There are provisions to cover proxy voting for those who have to make a journey by air or sea in order to vote. I am trying to deal with the problem of people who live in rural areas distant from polling stations. There is generally an agreement that people who live more than three miles from a school are entitled to free travel to the school, so three miles is the distance stated in the amendment. If people have to travel that far, they may experience considerably difficulty in getting to a polling station, and indeed some people may have even longer journeys.
      I am not a great advocate of extending proxy voting; I tend to prefer the postal vote. It may be that the amendment should have been tabled to another part of the Bill. I am asking whether there is any means by which we can tackle the problem of people who live in isolated areas far from polling stations. This is not simply an extreme problem affecting people who live in the Western Isles; there are many parts of the country where people have difficulty getting to a polling station.
      Mr. Simon Hughes: My colleagues and I have unintentionally crowded out the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) in putting our names to the amendments—we outnumber him three to one. We are very happy to have supported an amendment, No. 40, which has found favour with the Minister. I am glad that he will table an amendment at a later stage to deal with that matter.
      I want to say a few words of support for amendment No. 41. My first vote was cast in a little village in north Wales called Tan-y-grisiau, which was about three or four miles from the polling station. There was no public transport, and people who did not have their own transport, such as the elderly and infirm, could not get to the polling station unless they were offered a lift.
      We support the hon. Gentleman's case, which is not simply about people who live in the Outer Hebrides and have to cross water to get to the polling station. People who are prevented from voting because they cannot get from A to B should be entitled to vote by proxy, as should be those who are prevented by illness, work or study. I hope that the Minister will be sympathetic.
      Mr. O'Brien: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) on the way in which he moved his amendment. As the House knows, the Bill makes a number of important changes but, on our reading of the law, the point about students and absent votes was not entirely clear, and my hon. Friend has indicated that the drafting of the Bill is deficient.
      1052
      Although the wording of my hon. Friend's amendment is not correct, I give him a clear commitment that the Government will table an amendment to achieve exactly the same result. Such an amendment would simply put on a statutory footing the practice that already occurs.
      I am afraid that my hon. Friend will not be as lucky with amendment No. 41, which would widen the existing grounds for proxy votes. I understand the arguments for doing so, but the Bill aims essentially to put in place the agreement that was hammered out by the working party on electoral procedures, which made it clear in its report that, although there were strong arguments for making it easier to obtain and cast postal votes, the same was not true of proxy votes.
      There are number of on-going investigations into alleged proxy vote fraud—the House will understand that I do not wish to comment on those—which led the working party to conclude that this is not the right time to ease the rules governing proxy votes. I cannot therefore invite the House to accept the amendment, even though we all understand the arguments for it.
      I hope that, having listened to what I have said, particularly my clear commitment on amendment No. 40, my hon. Friend will withdraw the amendment.
      Mr. Barnes: In speaking to amendment No. 41, I expressed concern about its use in connection with proxy votes. It might be preferable to ease the provisions for voting in areas where it is awkward at present and, perhaps, to allow the use of postal votes. However, because the Minister said that he was willing to accept amendment No. 40 by some other method, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Mr. Barnes: I beg to move amendment No. 42, in page 36, line 1, at end insert—
      "(2A) Where an application is granted under sub-paragraph (1) or (2), it shall be deemed to be an application to vote at all elections held on that day".
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 43, in page 36, line 2, leave out "or (2)" and insert ", (2) or (2A)".
      Mr. Barnes: At the last general election, which was combined with local government elections, returning officers had great difficulty in dealing with applications for temporary absent votes which specified the local election. The Home Office's advice was that applications must be made for both elections and that an application for the local election was not valid for the parliamentary elections. Most returning officers tended to ignore that advice as it was in the interests of the elector to be able to apply for an absent vote in both elections.
      The Bill seems to perpetuate the current position in that people will have to apply separately to vote in both elections even though they may be held on the same day. The amendment would put into law what might be the standard shorthand practice that is used already by electoral returning officers. When elections are held together, one application should be sufficient.
      Mr. Hancock: We support the amendment and congratulate the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire

      1053
      (Mr. Barnes) on tabling it. I hope that the Minister will be generous enough to accept that this is a common-sense measure. Many of the 25 or so elections that I have fought have corresponded with other elections. For various reasons, European and parliamentary or county and district elections have all occurred at the same time. It is ludicrous that people should have to fill in two forms. There is no sense to that. One application for elections held on one day should be sufficient. It should be easy and simple enough for the Government to accept the amendment.
      Mr. Mike O'Brien: We take the view that that practice is already the law. It is a matter of common sense that a person who applies for an absent vote for a particular election should not be required to make a separate application for any other election held on the same day. We believe that that is already the position and we are not aware—or, at least, have not been made aware—of any cases where returning officers have required the submission of separate applications.
      We are more than happy to discuss with electoral administrators how the guidance can make it clear to them that the law requires them to have only one application form in the circumstances described. The amendments of my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) would require an application for an absent vote for a particular election to be treated in every case as an application for an absent vote at all elections on that day. However, as he well knows, some people—European Union citizens and peers, for example—are able to vote in some elections, but not in others. Such people may be entitled to vote in only one of the elections being held on a particular day and may make an absent vote application accordingly.
      I hope that, in the light of what I have said and, in particular, the fact that we believe that a returning officer should already treat a single application as an application for all elections to which a person is entitled to vote to be held on the day, my hon. Friend will withdraw the amendment. However, if hon. Members have examples of returning officers requiring people to submit double applications, we shall be happy to take the matter up with them and to provide the clarification in guidance to ensure that they interpret the law properly.
      Mr. Barnes: In view of my hon. Friend the Minister's comments, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Bill, as amended, to be reported.
      Order for Third Reading read.
      5.14 pm
      Mr. Mike O'Brien: I beg to move, that the Bill be now read the Third time.
      With the possible exceptions of the right hon. Members for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) and for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean), I suspect that most right hon. and hon. Members welcome the Bill and recognise that it represents in many ways a useful step forward.
      I take this opportunity to pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. He gave me considerable assistance in Committee on, as he
      1054
      helpfully informed us, a no-fee basis. He also chaired the working party whose report forms the basis of the Bill. It is a good Bill, and it is a tribute to my hon. Friend's hard work and that of those who were on the working party with him that it has been brought forward. At least with most of its provisions, there has been much support from both sides of the House, and for the principles within it.
      The new provisions relating to electoral registration are a good step forward, making it easier for remand prisoners, the homeless and those in mental hospitals to register to vote. These changes are long overdue.
      The introduction of the rolling electoral registration will end the absurd situation in which, at present, people can wait for up to 16 months after moving house before appearing on the electoral register in respect of their new address. In future, the maximum period that most people will have to wait before getting on to the register will be six weeks, and in many instances it will be less than that.
      I appreciate that the scheme may not be as elaborate as my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) might like. Nevertheless, I hope that he will take both comfort and pleasure from the fact that something for which he has campaigned for a long time is coming to fruition, and that he will regard the system that the Bill will create as a stepping stone for the future.
      There will be new information technology opportunities and new abilities to go further than at present in future years. However, it will be remembered of the Bill that the working party, which was chaired by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, considered the ideas put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire and ensured that, where his ideas were able to be introduced at this stage, they were. Some of his other ideas will provide the basis for future legislation.
      Having compiled an electoral register, questions arise as to what to do with it and to whom it should be made available. We had a good discussion about the sale of the register in Committee. I do not want to repeat all that I said on that occasion, but I shall emphasise that the Government believe that electors should be given the ability to have their name excluded from the register that is made available for sale. That is for privacy and data protection reasons. However, it is also a matter of principle. It is wrong that information that people are under a statutory obligation to provide—they could be fined if they do not do that—for one purpose should then be used for another without their consent.
      We think that people must be given a choice, but it must be an informed choice. We want the electorate to be told what the consequences of opting out would be, and we are happy to work with the industries concerned to settle the content of the explanatory material. We are in discussion with the credit industry—my officials held a useful meeting with representatives of it only three days ago—to ascertain how we can ensure that its interests are best preserved within the scope of the system.
      One of the most important parts of the Bill is clause 10, which allows for pilot schemes for innovative electoral procedures. Like the rest of the Bill, this derives directly from a recommendation of the working party. The working party recognised that the only reliable way to establish which of the many changes to our electoral procedures which have been touted are likely to be effective is to test them. That is to put them into practice

      1055
      and see how they work, find out what the problems are and sort out any glitches. Subject to the Bill receiving Royal Assent in time, we hope to be able to run the first pilot schemes in this coming May's local elections. I am pleased to be able to tell the House that many local authorities have already expressed an interest in running pilot schemes in May.
      The Bill also makes it easier for those with disabilities to cast votes and simplifies our absent vote arrangements. I believe that these provisions are supported by most right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House.
      I am conscious that, in Committee, I made a number of other commitments to consider matters or to write to right hon. and hon. Members. I hope that the House will understand why it has not been possible for me to act on all of them in the short period since the end of consideration in Committee. I assure those hon. Members that I have not forgotten, and that I shall deal with those matters as quickly as possible. An advantage of a bicameral system is that amendments can be made in a second House.
      The Bill is important and worth while. We have had our little difficulties with it: for example, a guillotine motion was tabled today. The hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) denied that it was hyperbole to describe a guillotine as damaging the fabric of our parliamentary democracy. However, he decided not to vote against the guillotine and asked me to note that he did not.
      Mr. Evans: To save time.
      Mr. O'Brien: I note that view, but I am bemused by the juxtaposition of the hon. Gentleman's claim and the action that he took. I also note that, at 5 pm, no Tory Back-Bench Members were in the Chamber and the hon. Gentleman held the fort for the Opposition by himself. He did it ably, but by himself. That says much about our earlier debate.
      The Bill is worth while and some of the discussions in Committee have the shown the House at its best. Our electoral procedures have served us well in many ways but it is right to update procedures that were devised in the 19th century and ensure that they are suitable for the 21st century, while being careful not to lose the fairness and the integrity that characterises them. That spirit underpinned the working party's work on electoral procedures and our deliberations so far on the Bill. I hope that all hon. Members will support it and that it will receive a fair wind as it completes its passage and, in due course, becomes law.
      5.22 pm
      Mr. Evans: I shall be brief to allow other hon. Members an opportunity to speak. The Bill is an important, extensive constitutional measure, which transfers sweeping powers to the Home Secretary, not only to trial pilots, but, through clause 11, to change by statutory instrument the way in which we vote in several elections. We are therefore keen for the Bill to be properly scrutinised.
      Last night was regrettable; yesterday was a bad day for representative democracy for two reasons. First, an important constitutional Bill was guillotined. Secondly, scheduling two important Bills for consideration after
      1056
      Report and Third Reading was a grave error. Consensus is not an excuse for sloppy scrutiny, but a reason for hon. Members to examine a measure's minutiae more closely. We know that the Government want the Bill to be passed quickly, but let us get it right.
      As the Minister said, the Government have accepted the thrust of some of our amendments. That is why we divided the Committee only twice. There is a great deal of consensus on the Bill, which aims to increase turnout at elections, increase registration and make voting easier. We support those aims, but we urge caution. In their hurry, the Government should not allow on to the statute book a Bill that has more holes than an Emmental cheese.
      I trust that, when the Bill returns from another place, many of our amendments will have been accepted. Clause 9 could have important repercussions. The Government state that they do not want charities or businesses to be hit, but that will happen if the clauses remains unamended.
      The credit implications for consumers may be wide. If that is so, the less-well-off will be hit. There is a problem that the head of the household could tick the relevant box on behalf of everyone on the electoral register in the household. If such people are excluded from the commercial register, their credit status may be affected.
      Charities will also be adversely affected. The provision will not stop junk mail, but increase it, and charities will have to spend more money on mail than on good causes.
      We are worried about the integrity of the vote when more people are eligible to register. We want more people to be able to vote and a relaxation of the rules on postal votes will help to ensure that. The days of the coach and horses have passed. We are in the 21st century and that should be reflected in the availability of postal votes.
      The rolling register will be useful in easing registration, and I say again that it is a great shame that the by-election to be held in Ceredigion on 3 February will take place two weeks before the new register comes into effect. As many as 10,000 people in that constituency may be excluded from taking part in the by-election. I am sad that that has been done by the nationalists, and it is a matter of regret that many first-time voter students will be prevented from voting in that by-election.
      We shall examine the Bill carefully when it comes back from the other place. The European elections, in which a 23 per cent. turnout was recorded, were the last real trial before a dramatic change in the voting system.
      We cannot treat the electorate as an inconvenient and troublesome entity, a legal necessity to be dealt with before the Government can get on with their work. We must listen to the public. Their concerns go beyond the ease of voting. They are questioning the worth of voting. The Government must learn that making promises that cannot be kept, being arrogant once the election is over, and using spin instead of substance is not good enough.
      5.26 pm
      Mr. Barnes: In legislation that failed at earlier stages, I have brought three provisions in the Bill to the attention of the House.
      One important development is the registration of homeless people. Up to now, although technically homeless people could get on registers, the fact that they did not have a place of residence made that extremely difficult. Now that has been enshrined in legislation,

      1057
      although there has been much debate about whether the Bill provides sufficient protection. Nevertheless, the provision is very much in line with a measure that I introduced in the Representation of the People (Amendment) Bill 1997, and I am pleased that it has been adopted.
      Another measure that I have pursued on numerous occasions concerns access for disabled people to polling stations. Although some progress has been made, much still needs to be done. I was disappointed by the Minister's response when we debated the matter. It is possible that, in future, access to polling stations for disabled people will be developed further. Perhaps there will be legislation ensuring the civil rights of disabled people, which the disability movement has called for. A great deal of work has been done by Scope and others. The amendment that I tabled was taken from my Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill 1994.
      The Bill will be known chiefly for the establishment of the rolling register. That is important because it establishes a principle, even if there is some argument about the detail. Once the principle has been established that the register should take account of where people are at a particular time, further detail and improvements that new technology may make possible can be added later.
      The first mention of a rolling register may have been in the context of the Representation of the People (Amendment) Bill, which I introduced in 1993. The Bill failed to get through on a Friday because I could not carry the closure motion. It was won by 78 votes to nil because the then Government merely put in tellers.
      Among the 78 hon. Members who supported the concept of rolling registers were four who, by that time or later, were leaders of the parliamentary Labour party—Neil Kinnock, the late John Smith, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, and the present Prime Minister—and 12 members of the present Government, including my hon. Friend on the Front Bench tonight. Furthermore, the three Labour hopefuls for candidate for mayor of London were among the 78. There was support from other parties and the tellers were a member of the Scottish National party and the Liberal Democrat spokesman on constitutional issues. The matter has a long history, and I am pleased that we have established those measures.
      In Committee, I went through the detail of what needs to be done. We have just started out on achieving a modern rolling register—sometimes it stands still and sometimes it moves forward a bit—but the key point is that it needs to be established and we have got ourselves on that road. I have been involved in these matters in the House for 12 years. In February 1988, when the timetable motion for the Bill that introduced the poll tax was tabled, I said that there was a problem—I later realised that there were many other difficulties—because millions of people would be missing from the electoral register. About 1 million people were cleared off the register by the operation of the poll tax, but we have put some of the damage right and started to set in place the processes that will overcome it.
      It is argued that constitutional matters should be debated on the Floor of the House and there is a retrospective argument that the poll tax, which was linked
      1058
      with electoral registers, should have been dealt with in that way. The constitutional implications should have been dealt with at that time.
      5.32 pm
      Mr. Simon Hughes: I shall be brief, as one or two other colleagues want to speak. As we said at the beginning of our proceedings, we support the Bill—at least where the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) proposed and the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland considered. The House is now disposing, which shows the benefit of sticking with a measure over a long period to win the argument and win the day. I pay tribute to those who made submissions to the working party, colleagues from all parties who took part and the Under-Secretary, who chaired it.
      The Bill was intended to be the part of the electoral reform process on which there could be agreement. To that extent, it is worth while and has been supported from those on the Liberal Democrat Benches, as from elsewhere. We do not agree on certain issues, however, and want to introduce certain measures, the most obvious of which is electoral reform—certainly in local government and perhaps later in national government—but we have accepted that the Bill is not the correct vehicle for that. We shall return to that argument.
      On clause 9, I understand and share the Minister's point of view that people should have the right to prevent their name from going out for commercial purposes. That is the right principle. He made a helpful concession to the concerns of the charitable organisations and others, and I hope that the arguments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan) will be reflected in the Bill's further progress in the other place. Although we regret that a guillotine motion was tabled, we accept that it is important to balance debates that go on for ever against the chance to test a measure. There was consensus, but we have to get the drafting right in case a constitutional Bill goes through on the nod because it is uncontroversial. I hope that the Minister's undertakings mean that such issues can be reconsidered after proper examination. My colleagues and I will be happy to look at them in advance to try to achieve maximum agreement in the other place and in the House.
      The Bill's purposes are to make it easier for people to exercise their democratic rights and to do so in a more modern context. It achieves both. Pilot schemes for testing a proposition are a good idea and, if they work, should be carried out more widely. Achieving a more up-to-date register and providing access to it for the homeless, the mentally ill who have not been convicted and those in prison who have not been convicted are socially progressive changes. They should have happened before, but they are happening now. We welcome the Bill and hope that it is further improved in the other place and when it returns to the House.
      5.35 pm
      Mr. William Ross: The Home Secretary said earlier that he was pleased that the working party had been able to proceed on a basis of consensus, and that, with a single exception, all its recommendations had been accepted by all representatives, including those of the three political parties. However, none of those three parties included a member from Northern Ireland, the one part of the United

      1059
      Kingdom where there is a clear understanding of the capacity for fraud in the electoral system. An opportunity was missed, and I hope that the Minister will bear that in mind in the event of any such exercise in the future.
      Mr. Mike O'Brien: The electoral registration officer for Northern Ireland was, of course, a member of the working party.
      Mr. Ross: He is an official, not a politician. I am talking about political parties.
      I am deeply concerned about the possibility that postal voting will be made easy. When it was tried in Northern Ireland in the 1970s, or possibly the 1980s, it was a massive disaster: it led to an immense increase in the amount of fraud and, over the years, further measures had to be introduced successively in an attempt to combat the problem.
      The question of identification has been mentioned. We in Northern Ireland have been driven, relentlessly, to a point at which we believe that the only possible means of identification is a common identity card tied to a unique number of members of each electorate, and featuring a photograph. Nothing else will do if we come up against carefully organised fraud in the electoral system.
      On Second Reading, the Home Secretary said:
      "By modernising electoral procedures, we shall make it easier and more convenient for people to vote to exercise their rights in a democracy."—[Official Report, 30 November 1999; Vol. 340, c. 248.]
      That is all well and good, but the right hon. Gentleman had already said:
      "I do not believe, and I am sure that no Member of the House believes, that the Bill will arrest and reverse the decline in turnout at all levels of election. Whatever the electoral procedures are, people will vote only if they are interested in the body being elected and feel that it is worth while to vote."—[Official Report, 30 November 1999; Vol. 340, c. 173.]
      There seems to be a certain amount of muddled thinking. It appears that the Government do not believe that making the process easier will make it more likely that people will vote.
      The Minister will recall a point that I made earlier about the qualifying date, as it is still called. He said that people would be able to register at any time, but that there would be an annual canvass—which constitutes a qualifying date, in a new guise. He told me that my proposed date of 15 September would mean that the canvass would have to take place during a holiday period.
      The date of the canvass is a legal date. It is not possible to consider who is entitled to be on the register until that date, or beyond. People may die or move away right up to the date, whatever it may be. It would be possible to move the first register from 1 November rather than 1 December. That would involve a good deal of canvassing in the second half of September and the first half of October, when the weather would be better.
      The intention is clearly to make the register as accurate as possible. That surely demands a common computer system, enabling us to marry all the different United Kingdom registers and check whether people are engaged in multiple voting.
      I am not in favour of rolling registration, which I consider to be misconceived. There used to be a better system, enabling names to be added and registers to be
      1060
      corrected. I mentioned earlier that a cost was involved. On 20 December, the Minister told me that it cost £40 million to register electors in England and Wales at approximately £1 per elector. The Secretary of State for Scotland told me that, in Scotland, the cost was about £4 million a year, just under £1 per elector. The cost of registering an elector in Northern Ireland was 44p.
      This is the most comprehensive system in the United Kingdom. All premises are visited at least once a year. Perhaps the Minister will examine the position, and see why the cost is nearly two and a half times as much in the rest of the United Kingdom. The interesting thing is that it costs only 20p to correct a clerical error, but £1.27 for a postal vote.
      I do not want to take up the House's time because we do not have long, but I should like to raise two other matters. If we go to computer voting, we must remember that hackers have always been able to break into any system. Will the Minister also remember that electoral law is now complex? It is scattered over quite a large number of pieces of legislation. A comprehensive consolidation is overdue. Will he please set that in train?
      5.40 pm
      Mr. Forth: I do not agree with the Bill. It is not necessary. The analysis, such as it is, has not demonstrated the need for it. I fail to see how, given that there are different turnouts at different elections, the Bill will make much difference.
      Nor do I agree that the magical new process of a working party is an acceptable, or desirable, part of our processes here. The simple, repeated use of the word "consensus" does not validate a measure and should not eliminate proper legislative scrutiny.
      For what it is worth, the only acceptable provision in the Bill is that on the rolling register. It is valid. If the Bill had consisted just of that, it would probably have taken us forward. The rest of it is partly unnecessary and partly extremely dangerous.
      During scrutiny of the Bill, we have exposed its loopholes and weaknesses, which still exist. Despite Ministers' undertakings, I am not convinced that, when the pilot schemes are launched, they will take place in a secure environment that will make us happy with the way in which our elections are proceeded with. That is particularly the case with the ludicrous local connection provision, which strikes me—it has been mentioned many times—as an open door to fraud, manipulation and misuse of our electoral system.
      All in all, this is an unhappy Bill. I hope that it has not set any precedents. I should like to think that it will not see the light of day, but, if it does, I hope that, at the very least, Ministers' undertakings will be put into place, probably in another place.
      5.42 pm
      Mr. Hancock: I am grateful for the 90 seconds that I have to praise part of the Bill.
      Most people would welcome the opportunity for an improved register. Still, much needs to be done. We need to ensure that local authorities fund the improved register properly and that there are not the wide variations in accuracy from local authority to local authority that occur at the moment. The opportunity to have elections on

      1061
      another day and allowing elections over the two days in a weekend will be a major breakthrough and might, in itself, be significant in increasing the number of people who take part in elections.
      I agree with the points that were made by the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) on access for disabled people. More needs to be done. There are still polling stations that are very difficult for people to get in and out of. I have been in some where the ballot box has been brought to the door because people could not get in. That cannot be right. The problem continues, so we still have much to do.
      As we have stated, clause 11 is dangerous. I would have liked primary legislation to be used for a nationwide change, but I accept what the Minister said.
      All in all, the Bill is a step in the right direction. We should support anything that encourages and allows more people to get the opportunity to vote, but the one thing that we should not forget is that any change in democracy is expensive. There will be a price. I hope that people do not back away from initiatives that are contained in the Bill because of the price that accompanies them. The point that was made by Northern Ireland colleagues is valid. For the life of me, I cannot understand why there should be such a wide disparity in what it costs to register someone. Perhaps we have to look at that matter.
      It being four hours after the start of proceedings on the Allocation of Time motion, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question already proposed from the Chair, pursuant to Order [this day].
      Question put and agreed to.
      Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

  Braithwaite Report
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Kirkwood.]
  5.44 pm
  Mr. Archy Kirkwood (on behalf of the House of Commons Commission): It falls to me as the member of the House of Commons Commission who speaks for the Commission on the Floor of the House to introduce what is an important debate, where we will seek to review the management and service processes that are applicable to the House of Commons.
  I am grateful to the Leader of the House for finding time for the debate. I know how difficult it is to find precious Floor time to discuss such matters. I am also grateful that we are able to have this debate on the Adjournment, allowing the broadest possible debate, so that the Commission may have the advantage of the broadest possible canvass of hon. Members' views.
  I realise that we are subject to time constraints, and I hope that hon. Members who have taken the trouble to attend the debate will be prepared to wait and see it through to its logical conclusion.
  Whatever else may be in doubt, it is difficult to take the view that this debate is premature. It is now 10 years since the House last examined these important matters, and, in this day and age of perpetual modernisation and exponential change, surely it is right for us to take stock of how we run the House of Commons for ourselves, for our constituents and for the wider British public.
  It is also true that few hon. Members come to Parliament intent on making any great career out of stock control systems for the Refreshment Department. However, many hon. Members freely give their time to assist in the efficient management of the House, and we are very grateful to them for all the work that they do.
  The House of Commons is a unique institution in more ways than one, and it has its own very real structural difficulties and environmental constraints. The fact that it works as well as it does is testimony to the dedication and commitment of the staff who serve us at all levels within the precincts of the Palace and the House of Commons.
  I do not wish to detain the House, but should like to make one or two introductory remarks that set the context of the debate.
  On 26 October 1998, on a recommendation from the Clerk of the House, the House of Commons Commission appointed Mr. Michael Braithwaite, formally a partner in Deloitte and Touche, to undertake the study. He was assisted, crucially, by Mr. Tony Newton—Lord Newton of Braintree, Leader of the House from 1992 to 1997—and, additionally, by three officers from different Departments of the House.
  The study took eight months and cost about £77,000. The team reported to the Commission on 22 June 1999. The Commission immediately considered the report at no fewer than three meetings in the summer, and the report that we are now considering was published in full immediately thereafter.
  The inquiry that the Braithwaite team undertook was much longer and much more detailed, ironically, than the Ibbs inquiry which it follows up. The team took a great deal of written evidence and interviewed no fewer than

  1063
  105 people, some on two or more occasions, including current and former Ministers, Chairmen, heads of department, senior officials, and, importantly, 40 hon. Members, selected carefully to match the current composition of the House in age and length of service. The list of the interviewees is shown at annexes A and B in the report.
  The team was also helpfully able to include questions of its own in the enormously detailed quality of service survey, which was conducted among all hon. Members, early last year, by Janet Levin Associates. All the results of that survey were made available to the inquiry team. In making international comparisons—which the team did—of parliamentary administration in other parts of the world, it had the help of no fewer than 14 overseas Parliaments.
  It was an extremely thorough exercise, and hon. Members are most grateful to Michael Braithwaite and his team for their work, which was discharged timeously and with enthusiasm, great sensitivity and great skill. As I said, certainly the Commission is extremely grateful for the work that Mr. Braithwaite has done.
  The Commission regard the report as a very professional piece of work: it is constructive and a sound basis on which we can take the debate forward. We have not, however, taken a formal view of the report's recommendations in advance of today's debate. However, after the report's publication, in the summer, we invited all hon. Members—and everyone else—to give us their views.
  We received a very useful paper from the Finance and Services Committee, and one letter from a member of the public—good for him!—but nothing else from which to believe that the report has stirred up a great storm of controversy. Nevertheless, I stand to be corrected on that later in the debate.
  As to the next steps, the Commission will meet again after today's debate to decide how to take matters forward. The Braithwaite team described the recommendations as a package rather than a menu, but I should like to reinforce very firmly that that does not mean that the report is a take it or leave it option. It simply means that any changes to the recommendations would need to be balanced elsewhere to ensure a consistent approach.
  I shall not take the House through the report, because we do not have time, but it has a clear summary on pages 9 to 14, as well as a list of recommendations. However, I should like to set the report in context.
  The Ibbs report 10 years ago considered the management of the House's services and the direction that was available from Members. It found profoundly unsatisfactory elements in the responsibilities and structures then in force and in the way operations were discharged. The so-called Ibbs settlement provided a clear way forward that separated the formulation of policy from the delivery of services and, crucially, gave the House responsibility for its accommodation and works. We tend to forget what a huge cultural change that was. The House had quickly to take responsibility for all its finances. That was a major challenge for the administration.
  The Braithwaite team concluded that the Ibbs settlement sent the House in the right direction, but found that its implementation was patchy for a long time after the agreement. That is covered in parts 4 to 7 of the report.
  1064
  More encouragingly, there has been faster progress recently. The report goes out of its way to pay tribute to the present Clerk of the House, his predecessor Sir Donald Limon and the Director of Finance and Administration for the major improvements over the past two or three years, which the team helpfully analysed at some length. The report also acknowledges the substantial contribution made by Members of Parliament as individuals and as Chairmen and members of Committees.
  Mr. Robert Sheldon (Ashton-under-Lyne): The Ibbs report was valuable and changed the way in which many matters were dealt with. One of its aspects was the communications problem. That is a serious problem, because many Members of Parliament know little, if anything, about the work of the Commission. That gap remains. The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) answered only 14 questions throughout the previous Session, all of which were written questions. Is there a way of dealing with that criticism, which Ibbs made so many years ago?
  Mr. Kirkwood: I am grateful for that helpful intervention. The right hon. Gentleman has identified one of the Commission's areas of concern. The Braithwaite report makes some serious suggestions to address it. It is a long while since Members of Parliament had time to go through the written answers in Hansard to stay in touch with what is happening. There are some important suggestions about putting information on the intranet or, by agreement, carrying the basic recommendations and outcomes of some of the Committees, including the Commission, in the weekly Whip. We understand that there is a lack of communication. The Braithwaite report identifies the need for improvement and makes some positive suggestions, which I hope will be put into effect. I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, who is a distinguished and experienced parliamentarian, for drawing that point to the attention of the House.
  The Braithwaite report updates Ibbs 10 years on, clarifying many changes that have been made since then. It highlights the important new role of information technology and the introduction of resource accounting and budgeting that we are all facing. Above all, it points out that expectations of accountability and transparency in the governance of public bodies are far greater than ever. We parliamentarians must ensure that we are beyond criticism in that respect. The report aims to give us the means to do that.
  The report has several key elements. First, it stresses the importance of strategic planning, with suggestions on how to put the House of Commons Commission in a better position to discharge that function and with a framework within which the rest of House policy can be conducted.
  Secondly, a much closer relationship is felt to be necessary between the Commission and a slightly smaller Finance and Services Committee, and better support for both these bodies is a key recommendation of the report. Thirdly, a clearer role for domestic Committees is recommended. It is recommended that we go back to the Ibbs scheme, giving the Committees a clearer role in policy formulation but not encouraging them to get involved in Executive and operational areas.
  Fourthly, better information for Members—the point that the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) mentioned—on the planning and delivery

  1065
  of all services across the gamut of the House's work is referred to. Fifthly, reference is made to the improved operation of the Board of Management, and proper support for the Board of Management and for the Clerk of the House in trying to develop the corporate thinking and approach to the management of services in the House of Commons.
  Sixthly, formal recognition of the Clerk's role is an essential element of the report, in terms of directing the House and reflecting the Clerk's actual role and the way in which he has done his work over the past three years, consolidating the primus inter pares role that he has discharged in the past. Finally, reference is made to the improvements in value for money and audit, including the crucial recommendation that we appoint some kind of audit committee to bring accountability up to date.
  All these elements are crucial planks of the Braithwaite team's report. It is an incremental, not a radical approach. Braithwaite builds on the Ibbs settlement. It is not as radical as Ibbs but, as the report itself makes clear, it does not need to he because, over the past few years, the culture and approach to the management and delivery of services has changed out of all recognition.
  In many cases, Braithwaite's recommendations are merely designed to buttress achievements already made or progress already under way. It is important to note that Braithwaite warns that the House's service will have, and is having, to cope with major challenges in its ordinary work—never mind management changes—through the introduction of resource accounting and budgeting, devolution, modernisation, Committee changes, the implications of House of Lords reform, the impact of human rights legislation, accommodation moves, information technology developments, data protection and freedom of information.
  Mr. David Lepper: I apologise to the hon. Gentleman and to you, Madam Speaker, for not being here at the start of the debate.
  The hon. Gentleman mentioned IT. The Braithwaite report recommends that the responsibilities of the Broadcasting Committee should be transferred to the Administration Committee. In view of the comments on the advances in IT, does the Commission consider that if the Broadcasting Committee should cease to exist, it would be more appropriate if its functions were transferred to the Information Committee, rather than the Administration Committee?
  Mr. Kirkwood: I am well aware of that argument. If this is phase 1, that question is for phase 2. I give the hon. Gentleman an undertaking that, when the appropriate moment comes to decide important issues such as that, proper consultation will be carried out. The arguments are compelling.
  Lorna Fitzsimons: Does the hon. Gentleman share my frustration about the recommended existence, post-Braithwaite, of the domestic Committees, given that, identified within the Ibbs and Braithwaite reports, there is still a problem in terms of confusion in line management, accountability and the transparency of the role of domestic Committees? Would the hon. Gentleman
  1066
  and the Commission consider a more streamlined approach, with none of the domestic Committees, so that the responsibility would clearly lie with the newly outlined Central Management Committee?
  Mr. Kirkwood: I understand what the hon. Lady says, and the report says that we should try to redefine and crystallise the role of domestic Committees to try to get them to be policy advisers, rather than interfering—if that is not a pejorative word—with operational functions and executive work, which should be the task of the professionals. The main thrust of the recommendations in the report is that we should try to refocus that work, as the Committees still have a valuable role to play.
  The work of the domestic Committees, however, will have to be considered carefully during the rest of this Parliament. The view was expressed in the consultation process that we would be better off taking a radical approach to domestic Committees. I agree with the hon. Lady that the membership of the Committees has shown a worrying tendency to churn. There is no consistency, people have other priorities and corporate knowledge is not built up. That is worrying. The short-term proposal in the report is clear—we should keep the Committees but try to redefine their role. If the situation does not improve, we may need to reconsider in the not-too-distant future.
  Progress has been made recently, and that view was strongly supported by the views of Members in a survey conducted by Janet Levin. Ten years ago, only 31 per cent. thought the House was a very or fairly good place to work, in terms of its accommodation. That has now risen to 70 per cent. Of those Members who said in the survey that they understood how the House services are managed, 79 per cent. said that they thought that they were well managed. We are a demanding group of customers and those figures represent a considerable achievement by the Clerk, the heads of Departments and the staff of the House.
  We must not be complacent. The report also makes it clear that improved structures and methods are needed to ensure that progress does not falter, and that more is now expected of a public body, in terms of value for money and clear aims and accountability, than 10 years ago. It also makes it clear that the working environment will continue to change—for example, because of the impact of technology on information, communications and knowledge systems. As I said earlier, our expectations will also continue to increase, alongside those of our constituents.
  The report seeks to equip the House with the means to meet some of those new challenges. After this debate, the Commission will be better placed to decide how to take matters forward. Should the report be implemented, in whole or in part, the process of implementation—which is contained in part 16 of the report—will be transparent, and Members and staff will be fully informed about it and will be able to comment on, and contribute to, it as it proceeds.
  Doing nothing is not an option. The report's recommendations amount to a touch on the tiller, not a fundamental change of course, and I look forward to responding to the points raised in this debate. I commend the report to the House.

  1067
  6.2 pm
  Mr. Clive Soley: I welcome the report. We should all be grateful to the staff of the House in every Department, because they go out of their way to please Members of Parliament in every way that they can—and I can say with confidence as chair of the parliamentary Labour party that it is not always easy to please Members of Parliament. The staff of the House work hard and try hard, and nothing that I am about to say should be taken as a criticism of them. Nor should it be taken too much as a criticism of the House of Commons Commission, because it has a difficult task, for two reasons. First, it is hard to achieve a structure of management that works for a place such as this and protects the rights and interests of Members. Secondly, and particularly important, it is difficult to engage the interest of Members in this issue until they complain about the structure.
  Members do complain about the structure, and the most frequent complaint is that nobody understands how the management system of the House works. That complaint comes from old and new Members alike. It would be easy to claim that it was Members' fault for not making the effort to find out, for not speaking to members of the Commission or for not answering the surveys and questionnaires that are sent out from time to time. However, the more fundamental problem is that the system that we have adopted is not the right system. I do not agree with the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) that we need only a touch on the tiller. We need a more radical approach. I do not suggest that we sweep aside everything we have, because it has many good aspects, but it is not working and I shall give evidence for that statement later.
  The problem is—the hon. Gentleman touched on it—there is no clear perception of who is in charge of what in the House. That is the key problem. The report wrestles with that problem. A number of the answers in annexe C show the difficulties encountered by the House and the Commission. That annexe continually emphasises the difficulty of communicating with hon. Members, and how hard it is to get an impression of how well the House is run.
  The report compares the task of managing the House to trying to manage accommodation for 659 small companies. I understand that analogy, but consider it mistaken, as it leads one in the wrong direction. It gives the impression that Members of Parliament might be considered as 659 market stalls under a dome, and that the task of the management of the House is to ensure that the roof does not leak.
  I prefer to think of the House as accommodating 659 individuals—or several thousand individuals, given our capacity to have a split-personality mode—with different needs at different times. The management of the House provides a common structure through which all our needs—whether they involve catering, cleaning, repair works, or security, for example—can be met.
  The problem is that the House retains a system of management that resembles an old-style local authority before the introduction of chief executives. There are a number of Domestic Committees that want to, and try to, do their jobs well, without getting too involved, as the
  1068
  hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire noted. However, given their structure, it is almost inevitable that they do get too involved.
  Lorna Fitzsimons: Does my hon. Friend agree that a prime example of the policy and management confusion that he has described is the decision by the Select Committee on Administration that 259 requests for on-site child care facilities amounted to insufficient demand?
  Mr. Soley: I was not aware of that decision. As an aside, I can say to my hon. Friend that I do not think that it is a good idea to give responsibility for the media to the Administration Committee, as the report states that there should be a media department in the chief Clerk's office—the office of the Clerk of the House. That would be another example of duplication of effort.
  The old local authorities worked quite well in their day, but the more complex decisions get, and the more intense the demands on management become, the more likely it is that that model will break down. Above all, the need for a central, focal point where people can complain becomes increasingly necessary. That is vital: hon. Members from all parties feel that there exists no such central point to which they can resort for help.
  Ms Joan Walley: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is extremely important to have one person who has complete and utter responsibility for all the arrangements in the House? Does he also agree that the difficulty is compounded by the fact that hon. Members also have constituencies elsewhere in the country? Many of us have to run two offices simultaneously, yet in the past the administrative arrangements in the House have not acknowledged how important that is for our work.
  Mr. Soley: I am sure that hon. Members must retain overall political control of the management of the House. We must not lose that power, and I shall suggest how that might be achieved in due course.
  I felt that it could not be accidental that so many hon. Members should ask me—especially since I have been chairman of the parliamentary Labour party—about whom to contact about problems in the House. Over the past day or two, I have asked more than 40 hon. Members from all parties to tell me whom they would turn to if they had a problem with the management of the House.
  Of the hon. Members that I approached, 25 replied that they would contact the Serjeant at Arms. Another 15 came into the "don't know" category. They were the closest runners up, but the trend was all in their favour and I suspect that they would have ended up leading the field if I had asked the same question of more Members. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will be pleased to know that she led the field among the also-rans. She had four nominations. You, Madam Speaker, had two. I, as chair of the parliamentary Labour party, had three. The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire had one—that was because I asked a Liberal Democrat Member who knew that the hon. Gentleman was on the Commission. The regional Whip and the Chief Whip were also mentioned.
  The most important thing about the question was that, with one exception, nobody gave the right answer, given what the report recommends and says is happening

  1069
  already. More important, with the exception of the person who mentioned the regional Whip, everybody hesitated, paused and struggled to work out the answer. They did not say "The Serjeant at Arms" or even "I don't know" immediately; they would pause first.
  I was reminded by the report that the chief Clerk has been the chief executive for the past two or three years. I said to some people—I did not ask everyone—"If you were in any other organisation, whether it was public, private, a local authority or a hospital, whom would you contact?" Without hesitation, they answered, "the chief executive." But when I asked just a few whether they knew that there had been a chief executive here for two or three years, I received replies like, "You must be joking," and "I don't believe you." Rather more worryingly—perhaps because I misphrased the question and asked someone in a slightly conspiratorial manner, "Did you know the chief Clerk is really the chief executive?"—the reply was, "You look tired. Why don't you take a break?" I am all for taking a break; I think that I need one at times in this game.
  The essence is that no one knew whom to write to. Yet the report clearly shows that the person to write to is the chief Clerk. Paragraph 9 of the summary states:
  "The Clerk of the House was seen by Ibbs as the chief executive; has assumed this role to a much greater extent over the last two to three years".
  The report then compliments him on improving the service. I agree—I think that he does a very good job. The report continues:
  "The Clerk needs better support; there should be a small but high-powered Office of the Clerk, which should also co-ordinate the decision-making process and provide support for the Commission, the Finance and Services Committee and the Board of Management."
  In all other structures, such a person is treated as the chief executive. Someone who knows to write to the head of the catering department will obviously do so. A matter about the service in a dining room, for example, might be addressed to the manager of the catering department or even to the Catering Committee, but many questions are not so clear cut.
  A hospital is in many ways similar to this place—because we have to respect the sensitivities of the staff, both doctors and management, but when we have doubts, we do not ask who is head of the oncology department, or who is in charge of the midwives—we write to the chief executive, who then takes the matter up.
  Mr. A. J. Beith: I am having difficulty with the hon. Gentleman's analogy, because he is in danger of loading the wrong kind of function on to the person with the senior position on the management board. We often write to chief executives of organisations, but we know very well that consumer relations departments draft their replies for them. We hope that chief executives of organisations are looking to the management priority questions in the longer term, not dealing with every complaint about every department.
  Mr. Soley: The right hon. Gentleman is right, but he is not disagreeing with me. I do not expect the chief executive to deal with such matters. I am saying that,
  1070
  when people are unsure who to contact, they contact the chief executive who makes sure that the matter is dealt with by the relevant person in the managerial hierarchy. It is not a question of customer relations. In hospitals, local authorities and big companies, customer relations departments deal only with a certain type of question. If we ask, as we often do, about problems that our constituents have, such as leaky roofs, we write to the director of housing if we know who that is. If not, we write to the chief executive, who then passes the letter on to the relevant manager.
  Lorna Fitzsimons: Does my hon. Friend agree that this is a matter of accountability, and not just of responsiveness and the ease with which Members may correspond with a single figure who can field any inquiry? We need to know who is accountable for running this place.
  Mr. Soley: I agree, and I am troubled to feel that we may take a wrong turning. There is a lot of repressed demand among Members for knowing how the place works. At present, they—particularly new Members—ask someone such as myself, as chairman of the PLP, or the Leader of the House or their Whip. However, many of the people of whom I asked questions had 15 years or more of service, and they were among the "don't-knows". We are not getting the message across about the management structure. We need a system that people can see and understand so that they may refer to a central point if they are not sure of where in the management structure they should go with a query.
  The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Margaret Beckett): I hope not to make a speech because, as a member of the Commission, I am here to listen to Members. My hon. Friend and I have previously discussed my reservations about his approach, but I entirely agree, as does the Braithwaite report, that our arrangements are not sufficiently well known. That problem needs to be addressed, and one reason for proposing a proper office for the Clerk is the attempt to find a means of doing so.
  I share the view of the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) that we may be in danger of taking the wrong route. This is a special, if rather peculiar, place. My hon. Friend will observe that annexe G of the Braithwaite report draws attention to the fact that the Canadian Parliament tried a divided system but has brought it all back together. In addition, the Swedes experimented with a divided system, but have brought it back together. My anxiety is that only one person will be in charge. With the utmost respect to the Clerk's Department, there are occasions on which Members are not entirely sure that the Clerks appreciate our problems as much as we would wish. If we bring in an outside professional, we shall see the same problem in spades.
  Mr. Soley: I understand my right hon. Friend's view, which we have discussed. I suspect that our differences are not too great because I certainly do not believe that all that we do now is wrong or that the direction in which we are going is entirely wrong. However, the evidence of my questions to Members has demonstrated that we are failing almost entirely to get across the message about how the place is managed. If my right hon. Friend or the

  1071
  hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire conduct the same exercise, they will be astonished by the comments that they hear and will quickly identify deep frustration about how the place is managed and lack of awareness of how to intervene.
  I am aware that the report considered experience overseas, and it would be rash to ignore that experience by going our own way. I am cautious about the approach that we should take. It is important that someone at Member of Parliament level—an individual or a Committee—should have overall charge, which is why the Commission is vital. However, as I said in my evidence to the review—I cannot say that my views are shared by the whole parliamentary Labour party, but can say categorically that there is strong dissatisfaction with the management structure—although I should prefer a system that recognises the special nature of this place, the same arguments were used in hospitals before chief executives were brought in. It was said that hospitals should not have chief executives because doctors should make clinical judgments. In this place, people say, "You can't have a chief executive because we are politicians and we have to relate to our constituents."
  However, the two are not incompatible. There could be a chief executive who deals with straightforward general control of management and who is accountable—whether for leaky roof, the overall running of the catering department and so on. On the other side, there would be the Clerks doing the things that they do so well: the servicing of Members' work—the all-important core work of the House, in the Chamber, in Committees and so on. We should still need some domestic Committees, although we are all agreed—including the Braithwaite team—that there are too many of them. They are too varied and sometimes it is unclear whether they are making policy or solving day-to-day problems.
  If we set up the system that I described, we would have a senior parliamentarian—who is, at present, rightly you, Madam Speaker—as Chair of the Commission. The members of the Commission would be crucial to the system. I do not propose that as a perfect model, but it would be a way of bringing together the roles of a chief executive and the Clerks.
  We are in danger of taking a wrong turning in this matter. Paragraph 9 would inevitably drive us towards—as it indeed confirms—a much more powerful Clerk's Department, which would be responsible for the management. However we dress it up, that would be true. The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire and other members of the Commission should think about that. If people ask me whom they should contact and it is not immediately obvious, I tell them to write to the chief Clerk. If that becomes the thing to do—especially if there is, as I suspect, some repressed demand—the chief Clerk will have to do much more such chief executive work.
  Paragraph 9 points out that the Clerk's Department will have to be expanded—so it will. If we all took the approach that I described, the chief Clerk would quickly demand those extra resources that the report states are necessary. In a year or two, the chief Clerk would have so much to do to ensure the proper management of the House and to check—as required under paragraph 9—that other Departments are doing their job properly that he would have too little time to give to the all-important work of the Clerk's Department, not the least of which is reading up, and constantly keeping
  1072
  on top of, parliamentary procedure. That work is incredibly demanding. We should not be asking the chief Clerk to undertake both forms of work.
  In a few years' time, we shall have come full circle. The chief Clerk will ask for a deputy to deal with the managerial side. We might as well call that person a chief executive. That is why I say that there is a danger. It is as though the report has set up, almost by accident, the model that I described; matters will drift in that direction, if the chief Clerk is treated as a chief executive as the report recommends.
  The debate is extremely important. I should like to think that Members will read it avidly in Hansard tomorrow and, at last, get involved in understanding the management system. I do not think that that will happen, but the consequences of recommendation 9 are that, over time, the chief Clerk will increasingly become the chief executive of the House. He will end up with a double role—trying to do his job as chief Clerk and as manager of the managers.
  Sooner or later, we shall have to separate those tasks—just as all other modern organisations, private or public, have had to do. The Commission seems to be taking that route without quite realising it. That is how we shall end up. I would rather that we structured the matter so that we knew that we were taking that course and did not drift into it. The last thing I want to do is to produce such a work load for the Clerk's Department that the Clerks are unable to give time, attention and detail to their Committee and Floor of the House work. If they cannot do that work well, it will do enormous damage to this place.
  6.25 pm
  Mr. Roger Gale: I have an interest as one of the three parliamentary non-remunerated directors of Parliamentary Broadcasting Unit Ltd. I have also had the privilege, during the enforced absence of the Chairman of the Broadcasting Committee, to act as Chairman of that Committee.
  I shall move straight into part of the phase 2 debate that was referred to earlier. I shall comment briefly on Braithwaite's recommendation for the Broadcasting Committee and I shall seek to emphasise the need for a form of scrutiny of parliamentary broadcasting by a Committee. In paragraphs 15.36 and 15.37, Braithwaite picks up the Ibbs report's recommendation that "within a few years" the Broadcasting Committee should be abolished and its remit given to the Administration Committee.
  Since the original recommendation was made in 1990, the broadcasting of the House has become infinitely more complex, as have all the communications systems of the House. The Broadcasting Committee is at present engaged in producing a report on the future of parliamentary broadcasting in all its forms. Inevitably—this will not surprise the House—much of that future is likely to be online if we are to give the public access to the information, visually and in sound form, from this place, which we want to reach far more people than it does at present.
  I do not have a particular brief to defend the Broadcasting Committee, and I concur with the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Lepper) to the extent that there is a case for placing its remit with the Information Committee,

  1073
  if that Committee's remit is to be broadened to embrace all parliamentary information. I cannot see any logic now in accepting the Ibbs recommendation to hand over the remit to the Administration Committee because the matters are too complex to be brought under that umbrella.
  The point—is the only point that I want to make—is that in the course of the Broadcasting Committee's scrutiny of parliamentary broadcasting, we have all become aware of the complexities of televising the Houses of Parliament and then seeking to ensure that the information that is available is produced in a form that can be accessed by many people. At the moment, the House is failing in that because very few people actually have access, although, in theory, everybody does.
  We have become aware also of the complexities of producing the signals, producing and editing the material, the nature of the restrictions on shots that are used in the House and a wealth of other considerations and arguments that do not at the moment fit neatly into the remit of any other Committee.
  When the Commission considers that matter, I hope that it will take further advice from all members of the Broadcasting Committee, but that, whatever else it does, it ensures that the House of Commons retains full and proper scrutiny of the production and broadcasting of the work of the House, not just in the Chamber, but in Standing Committees, Select Committees and now in Westminster Hall.
  6.28 pm
  Ms Oona King: I wanted to speak in this debate mainly because I come into the "don't know" category that was mentioned earlier. As a new Member of Parliament, I have found it difficult to understand how the House works. Our greatest challenge is to maintain the unique features of the House while resourcing a modern democracy. I shall seek to constrain my remarks, so I shall miss out huge chunks of my prepared speech because I know that many hon. Members want to contribute.
  The essential problem is highlighted in the Braithwaite report, which says:
  "The House has no mission statement; Members of Parliament have no job description."
  Despite that, the House is a workplace and, contrary to common opinion, MPs have an immense amount of work, so those contradictory statements shed some light on the complexity of the task.
  As well as being complex, the resourcing of a Parliament impacts on the quality of democracy that emerges. That is why I wish to speak. I do not want to moan just about the fact that it is the year 2000 and I still cannot get a cappuccino in the canteen.
  Mr. Brian White: That is shocking.
  Ms King: It is shocking sometimes.
  I want to consider what it is reasonable for MPs to expect and how the failure to meet those expectations can lessen our ability to serve our constituents. I apologise for not being an expert on the running of the House; I do not
  1074
  know who is responsible for what. All I know is that I believe that the system must change. I am an expert on that. As the Braithwaite report says:
  "Each Member of Parliament is an expert on what he or she wants from the system, and what the system should provide."
  I readily admit that, from a managerial point of view, having a client group of 659 stroppy politicians who earn a living from shooting their mouths off must be an unsavoury nightmare. Nevertheless, as a new MP. I wish to take this opportunity to say what I want from the system.
  In general terms, I want an environment in which both parliamentary scrutiny and individual constituency inquiries—the two halves of our job—can be pursued, and I want an environment that saves me time. The environment in the House is not conducive to time saving. MPs are very rich in many respects, but we are paupers in terms of time. We do not have any.
  In specific terms, I want to make the best use of technology. That has been an absolute and diabolical failure in the House. I have an office that is still not cabled and I find that ludicrous. If I worked in any other environment or for a company that thought of itself at the leading edge, I would have that facility. I understand that there may be good reasons for having offices that are not cabled, but surely, in the 21st century, the problems need to be overcome. Our constituents suffer as a result.
  Secondly, I want to have the moderate conveniences that most of the working population take for granted. Again, a decent cup of coffee comes to mind. Although that is a trivial and irrelevant point at 3 o'clock in the afternoon, it can become a pressing problem at 3 o'clock in the morning when it is our job to scrutinise important Government Bills in a Standing Committee. Although it is always useful for MPs to be awake while they scrutinise Government legislation, I freely admit that the point that I have just made is not the most important one.
  Therefore, I shall turn to the most important point. The most important thing that I want from the system is that it does not drive me out of my job as a Member of Parliament because I wish to balance my work and family life. In the past, women often found that increasingly difficult. Women do not often have a wife—a prerequisite for these jobs.
  Men have similar problems, too. Any decent man, I am sure, wishes to spend time with his family. However, the work-life balance is one that every workplace and every employer must tackle. The Braithwaite report says:
  "the House has to square the circle: there must be strategic planning, effective management and financial control, but in an environment which is sensitive to the needs of Members and of the House as a whole."
  Until recently the "needs of Members" meant the needs of men. It is astonishing that we still do not have a creche. I have not investigated the matter recently, but do we still have a shooting gallery? That was the position when I arrived in the House, but I do not know whether it still is.
  The management of the House has a responsibility to make itself receptive to elected representatives that have either family responsibilities or simply the desire to have a life. [Interruption.] Radical, is it not? Such a conducive environment relates to a myriad of different facilities—everything from child care to toilet and sleeping facilities. I was at the French Parliament recently. It has rooms that French Deputies can book at the beginning of an all-night

  1075
  session. [Interruption.] I shall not comment on Conservative Members' remarks on the sleeping habits of foreign Members of Parliament.
  Working hours, working days, holidays and information technology facilities are all part of a conducive environment. Some are considered by Braithwaite, but others are not. The report considers them with its managerial scope, but they are affected by a political scope, too
  I shall omit everything else that I wanted to say about information technology. I acknowledge the work of the Parliamentary Communications Directorate and that great strides have been made. However, until we deal with the office cost allowance, we shall never have an effective IT department that can meet our needs.
  As for the future, it is obvious that the trend is greater research work and more members of staff needing more support. Politicians must accept that they will have to give up their territorial claim over the office cost allowance if they want the House, in managerial terms, to be able to deliver the quality of IT support that we need.
  We must embrace the corporate strategy and promote a corporate identity. There are many factors that militate against that, not least 659 Members of Parliament. As I have said, I am not an expert on who controls these matters; I do not have time to be. I represent 120,000 people, some of whom are among the poorest in the country. All of them live in a borough that has been recently ranked No. 1 in the deprivation index. It is my responsibility to be an expert on the solutions that make their lives easier. It is someone else's responsibility to be an expert on the solutions that make my life easier.
  I do not know who these magical people are. But wherever they are in their different Committees and Departments, and whatever their different roles, most of them who have influence will hear the debate or read these words. Those of them with a determination to find solutions to service a modern democracy will overcome the disparate nature of the House of Commons decision-making procedure. They will overcome the temptation to say that it is somebody else's responsibility—it usually is—and they will also overcome the temptation to shore up the status quo. They will do all of these things so that the House can serve all its parliamentarians, even those—dare I say it—who have a life outside Parliament. Do not underestimate the importance of the task. It represents the difference between representative democracy being a slogan or a reality.
  6.37 pm
  Mr. A. J. Beith: I agree with much that the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Ms King) said, but if she leaves it to unknown people on Committees to achieve the things that she wants, they will never happen. I bear the scars from the Administration Committee and the Accommodation and Works Committee during my 19 years as a member of the House of Commons Commission, I can tell the hon. Lady privately why we do not have a creche and precisely who was responsible for ensuring that we did not have one. We are talking of responsibilities that should not be left to those who lack radical passion.
  My having served on the Commission for so long is probably a disqualification from taking part in the debate. I shall exculpate myself by saying that my years of service
  1076
  did not make me feel that we should leave everything as it is. Indeed, they were years that were marked by a constant battle to do what was said to be impossible.
  It was said that it was impossible for the House to take control of the buildings in which we meet and that that was a responsibility that the Government would never relinquish. When Geoffrey Howe was Leader of the House, he decided that he wanted to appoint Sir Robin Ibbs, and it was a good idea to do so. He asked whether we would support the appointment and I said, "Only on condition that we can have the future of the buildings addressed in the Ibbs report." At that stage, the House took control of its own buildings, taking a step that it had been told it could not make.
  We were told that it would be impossible for the House to introduce its own vote covering its own expenses. None the less, we do so. We have done it ever since the Ibbs report. Everything that we suggest in this area tends to be impossible until it is demonstrated that it can be done.
  The Braithwaite report refers to the fact that it took six months to set up the Finance and Services Committee. Why was that? The report does not reveal the reason. In fact, it was because the Government of the day insisted that the then Leader of the House had to chair the Committee. Chairmanship could not be released into the hands of Back-Bench Members. We put up a fight and said, "No, we are not going ahead unless it is done as Ibbs said, with a Back-Bench Member doing that job." That battle was eventually won.
  It is now suggested that the Member who chairs the Finance and Services Committee should be paid a salary. I remember saying at the time, "You have either to pay this person a salary or give him the best room in the building, otherwise you will never get anyone to take on the job." To be done properly, it requires a great deal of time and attention. It needs to be a priority activity. I see the post as a more important one than it has been up to now. It has not developed to the extent that Ibbs said that it should.
  I see also the holder of the post can be of considerable assistance to you, Madam Speaker. Members do not always realise what a submerged iceberg of work surrounds the Speaker's role in the management of the House and in the House of Commons Commission. The Chairman of the Finance and Services Committee can be of invaluable assistance.
  It is extraordinary that the minutes of domestic Committees were denied to the Braithwaite inquiry. It revealed some of the problems that we experience in relating the Commission's work to the domestic Committees. I am not surprised that the domestic Committees found it difficult to adjust to the advisory role that Ibbs recommended, and the massive turnover of Members cannot have helped. However, those involved in selecting people for ministerial posts must have regard to the need for a corpus of experienced Members on a Committee. The Commission has such a corpus, but the domestic Committees, like the Select Committee on Social Security, which my hon. Friend the Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) chairs, do not. There has almost been a total turnover of members of that Select Committee since the general election. It is impossible to run an efficient system in that way.

  1077
  The hon. Member for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush (Mr. Soley) pressed the case for a separate chief executive. The hon. Gentleman was the reincarnation of our former colleague John Garrett, who pressed that case for many years. I have much sympathy with him. Until recently, those who reached the post of chief executive by becoming Clerk of the House had been recruited and trained for a different role. In recent years, it has been acknowledged that those who become Clerk of the House will become chief executive. That has been reflected in the work of recent Clerks of the House.
  It is not the most logical arrangement, but the alternatives do not convince me. To put it in basic terms, which the report expresses in more flowery language, why appoint two people to grade 1 jobs when one person can do both jobs? The Clerk of the House has to be of senior status because he has to defend the rights of the House against the Executive. That job cannot be downgraded. The chief executive needs to have senior status, too. I am inclined to keep the current system as long as we can make it work.
  When we examine political responsibility, perhaps we should consider the bureau and quaestor systems to which the report refers. Earlier this week, I was in the Scottish Parliament in Edinburgh, and I noted that it had moved towards such a system—it has a formalised bureau system. Some hon. Members claim that the Speaker should not play such a demanding role in the executive management of the House, but the Scottish Parliament has established such an arrangement. My colleague, Lord Steel, who is the Presiding Officer, retains the role of Chairman of the Bureau and is recognised by all Members of the Scottish Parliament as the apex of the structure that manages the Parliament's functions. That seems to work.
  Hon. Members would probably find the allocation of more individual responsibility for different activities, such as that of the Chairman of the Finance and Services Committee, easier to tackle. We could make changes to ensure that the system provides the services that hon. Members need. The hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Ms King) made wider suggestions, which were outside the remit of the report, for changes to the way in which we manage time. However, if we are to make some of the fundamental changes that the House needs, we would have to persuade the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) and his one or two colleagues who occupied the House's time for most of the earlier part of this afternoon that there are more important things in life than taking up time.
  The call upon the House's services will remain excessive until we manage time more effectively. That was outside the remit of the report, the purpose of which was to try to develop a sensible, properly accountable management structure for those who serve the House. The report is on the right lines.
  6.44 pm
  Mr. Brian White: Before I became a Member of Parliament, I was a systems analyst. Reading the Braithwaite report was therefore interesting. My hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Ms King) made most of the points that I intended to make, so I shall be brief. I endorse all her
  1078
  comments, especially those on the creche and the office allowance, which needs reform. The current allowance leads to poor research support for Members, because of the turnover and constraints.
  It is crucial that our constituency offices are recognised. The Commission must take that on board, especially in relation to the IT recommendations in the report. They need to do that.
  The suggestions for dealing with information technology do not take into account the speed of change. I hope that the Commission will take that on board, particularly in relation to training, support for Members and support for staff who provide support for Members.
  With regard to value for money audits, at the time of the Ibbs report, that was the convention in government. Local authorities were urged to undertake value for money studies. We have since moved on to a system of best value, and the Commission should consider best value as the way forward, rather than value for money audits.
  6.45 pm
  Mr. Eric Forth: What depressed me when I first read the report was the statement in paragraph 23 that
  "the status quo is not an option. The process of change needs support or it may falter".
  The report would say that, would it not? If we ask management consultants to produce a report, they must refer to the inevitability of change because that is how they earn their living. In the context of the ghastly modernisation fetish that the House is undergoing, a report must almost inevitability refer to the benefits of change.
  In the early days of the European Community, as it then was, the analogy of a bicycle was always used. We were told that, as in the case of riding a bicycle, if it did not keep moving forward, it would fall over. That was presented as the reason for the need constantly to drive forward and constantly to change, which was usually dressed up with words such as "progress", "improvement" or "modernisation".
  Ms Oona King: Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that change cannot help but come when, for example, the number of women Members has gone from one in 10 to one in six? Does he recognise that women have certain needs, such as child care facilities?
  Mr. Forth: No. I am one of those people who is gender blind. I want neither more nor fewer women Members. The electorate decides how many there are, and the institution goes on, I hope, relatively unchanged and unaffected. I do not regard that as an issue.
  Funnily enough, I did agree with one thing that the hon. Lady said. She said that one of the things that we suffer from—this may be one of the key problems of the House—is the lack of a mission statement. I use that ghastly phrase because it sums up the position reasonably well.
  As I see it, the real difficulty with the way in which we in the House work is that it is not clear whether our objective is to deliver a service to the taxpayer at least cost, or whether it is to spend as much money as possible on ourselves because we are basically not accountable.

  1079
  I know of little or no transparency. If, like the hon. Member for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush (Mr. Soley), I went round and asked the first 50 hon. Members whom I bumped into how much it cost to run this place on an annual basis, I doubt whether any would guess within £100 million a year, yet our main responsibility is supposed to be accountability to the taxpayer for what is spent at large in government. I do not detect that sense of responsibility or accountability among us as a body for what we spend on ourselves or allow, demand or encourage to be spent on us.
  The report does not tackle a fundamental problem—how we see our responsibilities to the taxpayer being discharged in the very conduct of our business. However splendidly the Commission may work, I am not convinced—because I do not know enough about how it works—that that is in the forefront of its mind when it goes about the strategic planning that may or may not happen. Of that, I have some doubt as well. I suspect that that is where the difficulties arise.
  When I turned to page 131 with a sense of excitement and looked for sharp-edged, hard-hitting, punchy recommendations, I felt somewhat let down. Frankly, it is not that impressive. There are many words and many recommendations, but I doubt whether many will be helpful. For example, we read:
  "The Commission should have a high-level version of the Board of Management monthly report".
  I do not know what that means. It may mean something to the people who wrote it, and I hope that it means something to the people at whom it is directed.
  To state that the Finance and Services Committee
  "should monitor progress towards performance targets"
  is hardly profound and does not carry us much further forward. I was not immediately impressed by what I read, but hope that the recipients of the report find it more inspiring and useful than I did.
  May I make a radical suggestion? Here, I belie my suspicion of change. Given that a lot of what has been said during this brief but valuable debate revolves around the fact that Members themselves are unaware of the domestic Committees and the Commission, they almost certainly do not know who sits on those Committee, what their objectives are or what they do, unless they have seen all that rising before their horrified eyes in the form of Portcullis House—£250 million, thanks very much. Apart from that, there is not much awareness among Members of what those shadowy bodies do.
  That takes us to transparency and accountability, which the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow touched on. My suggestion is this: instead of appointing those Committees and the Commission in such a mysterious way, which is how much of what happens in the House works, why not elect them? Members should stand for election to the Accommodation and Works Committee, the Catering Committee and the Finance and Services Committee and issue programmes of aspirations. They could say to their colleagues, "I would like to sell off Portcullis House and give the proceeds back to the taxpayer," or, "I should like caviar to be available in the Tea Room." That would encourage accountability and a sense of purpose in the process. To answer the hon. Member for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush, we would know whom to talk to because we would have
  1080
  voted for them. There would be a direct connection between Members and those who purport to represent them and act on their behalf.
  I suspect that a reason why the system does not work, as so many colleagues have said so eloquently, is that there is no connection between us—the humble punters—and those important people who do that vital work on our behalf. I make my suggestion to those who will mull over the debate and then carry us forward in the exciting, dynamic way referred to by the report. Perhaps we should bring a bit of democracy and accountability to the House of Commons. What a radical thought. We have spent some productive time today talking about the electoral process between us and our voters, of which we are all very proud and with which we are very familiar. Let us transfer that same process to the House and have a properly transparent and accountable system with electoral legitimacy. That would shake things up pretty well.
  6.52 pm
  Mr. Andrew Miller: The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) is becoming a dangerous radical, which will obviously result in my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Ms King) being elected to take charge of the coffee-making facilities. I say to her that we should put on record our thanks to the staff of Hansard, the Parliamentary Communications Directorate, the Library and the Department of the Serjeant at Arms, who have radically transformed information technology in the House over the past few years.
  A few months ago, I had the privilege of attending a conference in Paris with the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan). We discussed the development of IT in Parliaments with colleagues from across Europe and I am pleased to report that a good number of them asked how we were making radical steps forward such as ensuring that Hansard is freely available on the web to every citizen. We should develop initiatives quickly and improve facilities in such ways. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow that we need to drive forward the cabling programme, but she should reflect on the fact that we are dealing with a grade 1 historic building that includes asbestos used in post-war development. Furthermore, there are 659 Members who will not be too keen to move out of their offices when that work needs to be done.
  Having said that, I want to put down a few markers to the Commission in respect of the IT work. Strategic planning has to be at the core of such activity and we have to make sure that Departments and Members understand that their IT preferences cannot drive that strategy. We must identify the desirable outcomes, and then ensure that the information technology strategy accords with them. I am afraid that, in part, we have failed to do that in past years. We have made significant progress in this Parliament and the last, but the strategy still needs to be sharpened.
  For once, I entirely agree with what was said by the hon. Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale), who is not present now. I believe that there is a case for strengthening the base of the Information Committee, and encompassing the functions of broadcasting. That will require careful thinking in regard to the Commission's role.

  1081
  May I correct something that was said by the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith)? Not all Committees refused the documentation to which he referred; in fact, I do not believe that the Information Committee was asked for the minutes. It would certainly have made sense to make them available, because it would have underlined the existence of a strategy.
  We need to encompass the whole process of changed management throughout services in the House. However, the House must realise that, if we are to deliver the change demanded by my hon. Friends the Members for Bethnal Green and Bow and for Milton Keynes, North-East (Mr. White), we must understand the financial implications. That was one of the issues that arose in Paris. Parliaments must realise that the modernisation of their ability to communicate with the outside world will cost money. We must ensure that the public, as well as us, have confidence in the services that we have introduced.
  6.57 pm
  Mr. Andrew Stunell (Hazel Grove): I believe that the House should adopt the Braithwaite report, and recommend the Commission to do so. We should implement the report as soon as possible, and we should go beyond it.
  There are always arguments against change and reform, some of which we have had this evening. The hon. Member for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush (Mr. Soley) was engaged in the endless search for perfection, and the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) in, perhaps, a deliberate attempt to sabotage effectiveness. There is the loss of ancient privileges and perks; and, of course, there is the fear of the unknown. For the past 20 years, the House has swept aside such arguments when they have been advanced by local government, the national health service, the public utilities, companies and financial institutions. We would have none of that nonsense, and we should have none of it now. The fact is that we desperately need a strategic and coherent view of what is going on behind the scenes, and we have not got it.
  There are many flaws and problems, most of which were identified in the Ibbs report 10 years ago. At that time, "unco-ordinated", "unaccountable" and just about every other adjective expressing derision were heaped on the running of the system. The Braithwaite report is full of diplomatic language; it wraps things up a little; but it must be said in all honesty that the shambles of 10 years ago has simply become the incomplete shambles that we have now.
  There is plenty of evidence in the report to back that up. According to pages 151 and 152,
  "Commission does not yet provide strategic direction"
  and
  "Domestic Committees continue to seek executive roles".
  It goes on for page after page. It states that its recommendation for the publication of Commission minutes has not been implemented, and that there is no strategic direction. There are dozens of examples, which we all have. My favourite concerns the Annunciator and the work of the live channel: the wording is still in upper case, because, we are told, it is impossible to put lower-case print on to the screen. Goodness knows why that is so.
  1082
  There are overlapping Committees. There are confused priorities. There is no one in charge. The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst drew our attention to some radical suggestions, but he failed to draw attention to the fact that the Commission should set its calendar of meetings in a—

  Braithwaite Report

    BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
    Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 15 (Exempted business),
    That, at this day's sitting, the Motion on Representation of the People Bill (Allocation of Time) and the Motion in the name of the Prime Minister for the Adjournment of the House may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Dowd.]
    Question agreed to.
    Question again proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Kirkwood.]
    7.2 pm
    Several hon. Members rose—
    Madam Speaker: Order. Just a few more Members wish to speak. It is a House of Commons matter, as the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell) would agree. I want to hear those Members out. It is right that we should.
    Mr. Stunell: Thank you, Madam Speaker.
    Madam Speaker: But I hope that Members will not take up too much of our time.
    Mr. Stunell: I do not intend to. I appreciate your protection from my colleague, the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood).
    We have a string of recommendations, which my hon. Friend described as the first phase, or the first tier of decisions. We should endorse that first tier and encourage him and the Commission to get on with the second tier as quickly as possible.
    In all conscience, the House, having turned on every other public body and institution in the country and reformed it over the past 20 years, should be ashamed of its failure to do the same with its own institutions. We want something that is enabling, invigorating and effective, not obstructive, slow moving and ineffective. Therefore, I urge the House and the Commission to implement and to follow up on the Braithwaite report as quickly as possible.
    7.1 pm
    Sir George Young: As a fellow Commissioner, Madam Speaker, I propose to say little, but I know that our deliberations will have been illuminated by the debate.
    I, too, compliment Michael Braithwaite and his team on the report. It required an unusual combination of skills: insight into the life of Members and the culture of Parliament; and an understanding of modern business management structures. It is a readable document, which has inspired an interesting "Second Reading" debate in the Commission.

    1083
    I make six quick points. First, devising a management system for the complex business that is the House would be a major challenge in itself, but a management system that incorporates Members at the right place, with all the pressures on our time and sensitivities, requires genius. The difficulty that confronted both Ibbs and Braithwaite was how to insert into a conventional corporate management structure an essentially unconventional non-corporate person—namely, a Member of Parliament, whose predominant interests and commitments lie elsewhere.
    Secondly, the report asserts that it is all or nothing. Paragraph 25 states:
    "Our recommendations are an integrated package rather than a list of options."
    There is a tendency for many reports to say that nowadays. I do not think that that holds true. The report contains many stand-alone recommendations, including cross-posting staff in the House from one Department to another and a foundation period for new staff. Parts 5 and 6 contain a huge number of sensible, stand-alone recommendations, which should not be held up simply because we cannot agree on the macro-reforms.
    Thirdly, there are some important issues about the domestic Committees. On Tuesday, we debated an important report from the Administration Committee, to which only three of the nine members had put their name. Select Committees have difficulty with quorums and continuity of membership. The domestic Committees face an even greater problem. Absenteeism on Select Committees has increased from 25 per cent. in 1995–96 to 34 per cent. in 1998–99. The figure for the Select Committee on Education and Employment is 50 per cent. I am happy to say that the Select Committee on Modernisation, on which I sit, has an 84 per cent. attendance rate.
    Members of Parliament come to Westminster to represent their constituents, to support the Government or to hold them to account, to specialise in particular policy areas that interest them and to build a political career. There is growing pressure on our time, and that is unlikely to be reversed. Members do not come to Westminster to sit on a domestic Committee. As the pressure on Members' time has mounted, they have cut back on areas that are not priorities.
    Mr. Llin Golding: I will not detain the House long, but the thing that concerns me about the report is its lack of clarity on what is happening to ordinary staff here. Terms and conditions of work change rapidly, yet I could not find out from the report whom, to talk to if I am concerned about someone, say, in the Tea Room who had had their conditions altered, some of the doormen, or a reduction in numbers. There does not seem to be anything in the report that explains how those matters are decided.
    Sir George Young: It sounds as if the hon. Lady was one of the hon. Members interrogated by the hon. Member for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush (Mr. Soley) and invited to say whom she would go to. The answer that was given by the hon. Gentleman was the Clerk, who will, if not answer the question himself, at least route it in the right direction. However, she has made the point that there is lack of clarity about the management structure.
    1084
    Against the background of the problem of the domestic Committees, I found it a bold recommendation that we should retain them.
    Fourthly, I think that that raises a broader question about an alternative career structure in the House—which recognises that becoming a Minister is not the only way of serving; which recognises that, if Parliament is to do its job properly, it is important to have on both sides of the House hon. Members who do not want to become Ministers; and which recognises the contributions of those hon. Members. Although that takes us beyond this debate, I believe that, if such a structure existed, it would make it easier to deal with some of the problems identified by Braithwaite.
    Fifthly, and penultimately, there is the proposal to make the Finance and Services Committee, which is composed entirely of hon. Members, the Commission's executive committee. The criticism of the domestic Committees was that they acted in executive mode, not policy mode. The proposals for the Finance and Services Committee run the risk of magnifying that problem—of muddling up policy and services.
    As for paragraph 4.21, I am not sure that these are the right tasks for members. One of them is
    "to carry out individual tasks delegated to it by the Commission".
    That is meant to be done by members of the Finance and Services Committee, which includes the Leader of the House and the two Deputy Chief Whips. I wonder whether it is really their job to run the Commission's executive missions. Indeed, it seems that the problem is that the Finance and Services Committee, as described in Braithwaite, becomes rather close to the Board of Management.
    Finally, I should like to say a word on the Commission. Paragraph 4.6 reminds us of what Ibbs hoped that the Commission would do. The report tactfully suggests that we have not lived up to expectations, and I agree. However, I have some difficulty with the paragraph that asserts that the Commission is of the right size. It consists of the Speaker and five Members, many of whom are doing many other things—not least, of course, Madam Speaker.
    It is worth considering the option of a larger Commission, not least because paragraph 15.10 envisages the Commission doing more work. If we had a larger Commission, it would give breadth and depth to our discussion, and we are rather light on newer and younger members.
    With those initial thoughts, I welcome the report and look forward to taking forward its implementation with my fellow Commissioners.
    7.7 pm
    Mr. Richard Allan: It might be useful if I, as Chairman of the Information Committee, were to share with the House some of the Committee's views on the report. Many of the matters that we cover are matters of great concern to hon. Members, and today's debate has reinforced that view in my mind. I should like to try to explain how the Committee sees our role in the context of Braithwaite and of some of the points made in the debate.
    We certainly believe that the information technology infrastructure will be increasingly important in the House. We now have more than 300 hon. Members on our

    1085
    network, and, very importantly, more than 1,000 Members' staff. The vast majority of hon. Members offices are connected, even when certain Members are not using e-mail daily.
    The Library facilities changed dramatically and very successfully under the previous Librarian. The facilities will continue changing in that manner, and they are one of the major points of interface for hon. Members with staff of the House. Library staff are used daily by hon. Members, and the Committee could provide valuable input in that relationship.
    As for the public interface, we have the Official Report and all the work that its staff do, and the website, which provides a growing public interface. The role of the website needs to be examined, and we require policy input from hon. Members.
    As the hon. Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale) said, as the media change, it would be useful to bring together some of the broadcast functions. In terms of policy, the content that we are making available on web television, the internet and normal television could usefully be brought together. The Information Committee would perhaps not want a role in determining the rules of parliamentary broadcasting, as those could perhaps be best determined elsewhere, but we could play a role in their implementation.
    The Committee also acts as a force in putting issues on the agenda. In response to the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Ms King), the Committee regrets that the entire estate is not cabled. However, we act as a force in making it clear that, as a matter of policy, the offices of all hon. Members should be cabled. We do not want the executive role of implementing that policy, and it is certainly up to others to decide whether the money is available and how the policy is implemented. Our Committee does not want to interfere in day-to-day work, but we want to give a clear steer to officers. I hope that they appreciate our clear steers, such as our wish for the offices of every Member of Parliament to be cabled.
    To respond to the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, North-East (Mr. White), let me sat that we are also putting on the agenda the issue of linking all constituency offices to the network. We recognise how Members of Parliament now work. They might want their constituency staff and their support staff in the House to access their diary system. Officers have got that message clearly from us. That would not happen if there were no Committee to go through the issues.
    Mr. Miller: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that the Committee would also like to ensure that the connection to constituency offices is made at no cost to Members?
    Mr. Allan: Our Committee holds that view; it is for others to decide. We are not allowed to go into the office costs allowance, although we continually touch on it. We are a group of Members of Parliament in a formal setting who are interested in the subject, and that is the view that we are putting forward. Without the strength that that formal structure gives the argument, we might lose something. I am not engaging in special pleading for me or for the Committee; I am merely pointing out that the structure has a valuable role. That is down to the membership of the Committee.
    1086
    Domestic Committees sometimes have an unfair reputation. The hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller) is one of the star performers on the Committee, but there are many others who come along on a Tuesday afternoon for very little recompense. They get actively involved in letting officers know what Members of Parliament want. That would not happen with a user group or a less formal structure, when only people with complaints would come. Complaints have to get through, but it is important to have a group of people who are actively involved in policy formulation. I am pleased that members of my Committee are able to do that with the dedication that they show.
    Ms Oona King: Many Members of Parliament want IT support. Has the Committee considered that? In any other company that I have worked for, if my computer broke down, I could contact someone who would fix it. I find it astonishing that, as a British Member of Parliament in the 21st century, if my computer breaks down, I have no recourse.
    Mr. Allan: This morning, I was speaking with a senior officer from the Parliamentary Communications Directorate about the possibility of setting up a Members' support service. That is on the agenda and a report will be produced. We welcome any input on that.
    We are looking for a clearer line of accountability with the Commission. That many also help other domestic Committees. We would like the Commission to come to us with its ideas and ask us, as a group of IT and information specialists, to give our views and do some of the work that it cannot do, because its members do not want to don anoraks and go into such detail. We would also like to have a proactive role and be able to ask the Commission for permission to investigate ideas that have come from Members, such as the radical thought of wanting to use computers in Committee Rooms. Braithwaite recommends clearer two-way communication. We believe that we have such a role, but we would like greater clarity.
    We welcome Braithwaite's reference to a formal statement of costs and benefits. We are not responsible for the detailed budget setting, but we can give a view on whether a proposal is good value for money. As specialists, relatively speaking, we can say whether an idea will provide value for money in the service that it will deliver in a way that the Commission might find difficult. We entirely accept that implementation is down to officers, but we believe that we can act as a useful sounding board and a source of ideas and feedback from Members.
    We accept that Departments should move to a corporate approach on IT. That has been a problem, but we have had a good example recently of how it can work. The IT convergence strategy and the Y2K issue brought all the Departments of the House and all the IT specialists together. The staff of the House are to be congratulated on their success. That should also be a pointer to how we move forward. Indeed, Braithwaite suggests that we move in that direction.
    It is useful to put on record the two small points on which we disagree with the Braithwaite recommendations. He suggests, first, that domestic Committees no longer have specialist advisers. My Committee uses an academic with strong IT expertise. It would feel the lack of any

    1087
    external expert advice. When the issue is considered further, we hope that our particular requirement for expertise will be borne in mind.
    The second point was a suggestion that no departmental paper should come to a domestic Committee before being approved by the Board of Management. We feel that we have a useful role in seeing things early. When something is to be implemented, it should go through the Board of Management, and we do not want to interfere with that executive role. However, we feel that Departments such as the Library should be able to bring things to us at an early stage and get some views before finalising a paper to go to the Board of Management.
    With those two exceptions noted, I can say that we feel that the report is a positive way forward. We exist as a group of Members who are keen to respond to exactly the kind of demands that we have had today, to implement them and to bring forward excellent information systems to serve Parliament. We would welcome a clearer relationship with the Commission to achieve that, and I hope that Braithwaite will give us the kind of structure in which we can work. Hopefully, services can continue to improve, as I believe that they have improved dramatically under the excellent offices of recent years.
    7.16 pm
    Mr. Christopher Chope: When I was the Minister responsible for privatising the Property Services Agency, I had the discussions with Sir Robin Ibbs that led to the Ibbs report. The recommendations in the Braithwaite report are rather woolly. It is an informative report, but it is not clear whether the recommendations are as crisp as I would wish.
    Robin Ibbs was keen to emphasise the importance of value for money, and made recommendations about a lot of value-for-money studies. This report makes it clear that those studies were never really carried out. That is gravely disappointing because, if anyone in this country should be keen on establishing their belief in value for money, it should be this House of Commons. We take it upon ourselves to criticise Government Departments, Ministers and the public sector for the use and priorities of taxpayers' money, and yet it seems that we are still lax in scrutinising our own expenditure.
    The report says that the Members of this House are, in effect, 659 small businesses. One thing is certain—if we were, we would know a lot more about our costs than we do. We would know, for example, what the cost of office accommodation for our secretariat was per square foot. We do not know that and, as we know, if one cannot measure it, one cannot control it. I would like to see more transparency and accountability.
    The report asks what will happen when somebody gives in to the pressure for the office costs allowance to increase. It may mean that people will take on more staff, with more demand for accommodation in the centre of Westminster in one of the most expensive office environments in the world. What can we do about that?
    I would suggest that the costs of Members' office staff accommodation should be included within the office costs allowance. I suspect that, if hon. Members were given an allowance for office costs to include accommodation for secretaries, research assistants and so on, many would decide that it was more economical to employ those people in their constituencies, as the labour and
    1088
    accommodation costs are lower. At the moment, all the incentives are the other way, and all the pressure is to have the extra staff employed in or around Westminster.
    Mr. Forth: I would not want to undermine my hon. Friend's argument, but he should bear in mind that, as ever, London Members are an exception to that. I hope that he recognises that fact.
    Mr. Chope: I am sure that, if the recommendation were to be taken further, a special case could be made for London Members. However, Members with constituencies like mine—about 100 miles away—will agree that, if I employ a secretary in my constituency, the office accommodation costs, the costs of the photocopier, the costs of the photocopier paper and the costs of the telephone calls and faxes all have to be borne out of my office costs allowance. That is one of the reasons why many Members choose to employ staff at Westminster. If we increase the office costs allowance, and that results in an increase in the number of staff employed by Members, who then expect that those staff should be accommodated at Westminster, there will be no limit on expenditure in the future. If we want a rational approach to dealing with that, perhaps the Commission should consider the method of transparency and accountability that I have suggested.
    My final point is a request for information. I do not know how the space in the Press Gallery is paid for. Do the individual newspapers pay for it on a per square foot basis? Who pays for the telephone calls and is there any control over them? If any service is freely available, the temptation always exists to abuse it. In the debate earlier in the week, we discussed subsidising the Line of Route to the tune of £200,000 or more. If we are that strapped for cash, we could start by charging for some of the space that is occupied in the Palace. We could then pay for the Line of Route without undertaking the convoluted process that we discussed on Tuesday night. The idea proposed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), that we should allow free access to this place to members of the public, might be possible on cost grounds if we recovered costs from users of the building who do not contribute at the moment.
    Sir George Young: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I understand that the Government have been defeated by 96 votes in a vote on the Criminal Justice (Mode of Trial) Bill in the other place. The Leader of the House in the other place has said that the Bill is now damaged irretrievably. She has also said that the Home Secretary will make the Government's position clear. Have you received any indication from the Home Secretary that he plans to do that and, if the Leader of the House of Lords has announced that the Bill is to be re-introduced in the House of Commons, should not that announcement have been made here, not in the other place?
    Madam Speaker: I have had no information from the other place about the legislation there. Unfortunately, people do not give me information about what is happening in the other place and I tend to have to wait until I read the Official Report the next day. I take the

    1089
    point that the right hon. Gentleman makes, but I have not been informed by the Home Secretary that he seeks to make any statement to the House this evening.
    Mr. Beith: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. The Leader of the House is represented here and could surely throw some light on what the Government propose to do.
    The Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office (Mr. Paddy Tipping)rose—
    Madam Speaker: Order. I hope that this is a point of order, because I will not allow a debate.
    Mr. Tipping: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. Is it the precedent of the House to have a statement every time the Government are defeated in the House of Lords? If it were, we would not have much time for our own discussions.
    Madam Speaker: Does the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) wish to wind up the debate?
    7.23 pm
    Mr. Kirkwood: Thank you, Madam Speaker. With the leave of the House, I feel a duty to make a brief response to the comments that have been made. I have found this an interesting and useful debate, and my fellow Commissioners will wish to study with great care what has been said.
    The hon. Member for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush (Mr. Soley) mentioned confusion, and it is true that some confusion exists. That is unacceptable, and we are determined to do something about it. As the Commissioner who answers questions on the Floor of the House, I am delighted to be asked oral or written questions, but I cannot stimulate them myself. I do not know what questions hon. Members have. The hon. Gentleman said that he was disappointed that he got such a negative response to the rather nebulous question that he posed to his sample of Members. The answer to his question, and for any hon. Member who is confused about where to seek information, is the Commission's annual report, which is a very thorough document. It deals Department by Department with where responsibility lies and it is updated every year. It is an encyclopaedia of information. If anyone wishes to find out anything about this place, they need only take it home to read in bed.
    Mr. Forth: I shall do so tonight.
    Mr. Kirkwood: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman does.
    The hon. Member for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush did not stray far from the general thrust of the report when he suggested that someone should take charge. However, he is confusing a strategic corporate officer who would set a framework within which the whole organisation could work with a customer complaints manager. That issue is dealt with fully in appendix G of the report. If the Clerk of the House were given the
    1090
    support that the report recommends, he would have it in his power to make arrangements for the appointment of the equivalent of a customer services manager.
    I do not think that there is a gulf between the hon. Gentleman and me. The Leader of the House noted that a person brought in from the private sector who was used to employing normal management practices would not last very long in this place. The House has a federal structure, with Chinese walls between Departments. There are also important questions of departmental independence, but the tone of the report is that we should move more quickly than has been the case so far towards a corporate structure. If we adopt that recommendation, and give the Clerk of the House the support that the report suggests, I hope that some of the problems that have been identified will be resolved.
    Mr. Soley: I agree that the gap between the hon. Gentleman and me is not that great. However, his arguments about Chinese walls and so on reminded me of the arguments used in hospitals and elsewhere to prevent the introduction of chief executives. We are in danger of repeating that error.
    My point is that adopting the structure set out in the report carries the danger that the Clerk of the House would become more of a manager, and less of a Clerk. To let that happen would be to lose something very valuable.
    Mr. Kirkwood: The hon. Gentleman is right to point out that danger, but it is not one that frightens me. If the corporate structure evolves and is properly serviced, one person may end up—in the fullness of time and once people have experience of working in different departments—with the primary management role. In a proper, evolved corporate structure, it is entirely possible that someone other than the Clerk of the House could become the primus inter pares. That is envisaged in the report, although I accept that we must be careful about how we get to that stage, and that doing so will take some time.
    Although I do not think that there is a lot of difference between the hon. Gentleman and me, I undertake to ensure that his comments are studied and considered.
    The hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Ms King) is going to be in great demand for service on just about every domestic Committee. Her plea for better use of her time was irresistible, and I absolutely agree with her. I believe that the new intake of hon. Members has made a positive difference to the House. From the point of view of the Commission, I can tell the hon. Lady that the new intake's approach is beginning to percolate through the House in a very positive manner, and I hope that she will be encouraged by that.
    It is a shame that the hon. Lady is not wired up. I shall speak to my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan), who is not without influence in such matters. I hope that an electrician with a box of wires will appear in her office quite soon.
    The report states that the number of parliamentary data and video network accounts has increased by more than 1,000, or 49 per cent., since December 1997, and that the number of Members of both Houses, and their staff, with PDVN accounts has increased by 115 per cent. since December 1997. Those accounts have to be managed, and we have to find the money to pay for that. Staff are

    1091
    working their socks off to make sure that demand is met, and I am delighted at the support that has been received for the work that is done.
    The Commission is aware of the problems. We know that we are not responding fast enough and that there is a long way to go, but we are trying to get there. I hope that the hon. Lady will find some reassurance in the report.
    I have to tell the hon. Lady that the Commission can do nothing about the rifle range, which does not belong to the House of Commons. In any case, it could be used as a creche only for children who were long and thin, who were prepared to stay in order and run in an absolutely straight line. The rifle range in fact belongs to the staff: the heritable property of the House does not belong to the Commission.
    The Commission is doing its best to build on the very popular staff scheme for child care. Every 18 months or two years, the Commission asks staff about their child care voucher scheme, and they tell us that they are very happy with it. We accept that there is a need to provide such services, and the Commission is doing everything that it can in that respect.
    However, I can tell the hon. Lady that everything that she said is in line with the general thrust of what Braithwaite is trying to do. I take her speech as a stern warning that, if we do not do better, faster, we will have her to reckon with in future, and quite right, too.
    I am always grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith). I learned a lot from him—he was my predecessor on the Commission, and I look forward to picking his brains in the Tea Room at much greater length. I was grateful to his remarks, which added to the debate.
    The hon. Member for Milton Keynes, North-East (Mr. White) talked about the office costs allowance. This might seem perverse, but we have no control over it. I want people to understand that. It is right that, if it were increased by 10 per cent. tomorrow, it would exponentially increase the demand to which our works and administration budget would have to respond. If hon. Members want to influence that, they must make their own representations to the Senior Salaries Review Body. A lot of positive work is done; collective group purchasing is available on the PDVN, and that is a welcome step forward. At the next election, there will be a marvellous opportunity—if the will is there and people who feel strongly about this make their representations in the right way, we might get something done positively in the next Parliament, but I do not think that it will be much before then.
    The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) does not know the cost of running the House of Commons. Page 14 of the annual report gives the figures—it has pie charts, so even the right hon. Gentleman might be able to understand. It has percentages and little coloured graphs.
    Mr. Forth: What is the figure?
    Mr. Kirkwood: The administration vote is £85.3 million. The work services vote is £99.6 million. Taking the office costs member vote into account, the total running costs for last year were £273.9 million. That includes quite a lot of capital expenditure for Portcullis House. We cannot build that fast enough either, but the Braithwaite report does not deal with Portcullis House.
    1092
    I do not know where the right hon. Gentleman has been for—
    Mr. Forth: 16 years.
    Mr. Kirkwood: It seems longer to some of us. We elect the membership of these Committees. There are motions late at night, when sometimes even the right hon. Gentleman is in his place. These motions are amendable and debatable.
    Mr. Miller: Do not tell him.
    Mr. Kirkwood: I have given the game away, and we are now in for many more hard and long nights. These names are all approved by the House. We could delete one name and add another, and eventually end up with a debate. I think that that answers the right hon. Gentleman's question.
    I was grateful for the support that the PDVN received from various hon. Members. I was grateful, too, for the comments of the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young). I look forward to working with him to take this process forward.
    My hon. Friends the Members for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell) and for Hallam both made important points but, again, broadly supported the thrust of the report. I look forward to talking to them informally.
    Finally, the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) is a very brave man if he tells his local and regional press sees that there are moves afoot in the House of Commons to start charging their editors to get copy from the Press Gallery.
    Mr. Chope: I am certainly not going to have my remarks misrepresented in that way. I suggested that there should be a charge per square foot for the office accommodation used by members of the press.
    Mr. Kirkwood: I was teasing the hon. Gentleman. It is an important point. I was astonished when I discovered the extent of the facilities up there. We had a look in the previous Parliament and were so horrified by the facilities that we spent a lot of money trying to improve fire safety and other health and safety measures. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] That is a good question.
    I assure the hon. Gentleman that we will be looking in every corner of the estate to try to make the place more efficient in a way that is properly costed and transparent for all our constituents.
    This has been a valuable debate and, as a Commissioner, I feel that it has given us something to work on. I have assured hon. Members that we will ensure that progress will be reported religiously and transparently in full consultation. All the points made today will be carefully considered, and we hope to make progress quickly and in a way that people fully understand and can respond to as they think appropriate. Without more ado, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

    DISQUALIFICATIONS BILL
    Ordered,
    That, in respect of the Disqualifications Bill, notices of Amendments, new Clauses and new Schedules to be moved in Committee may be accepted by the Clerks at the Table before the Bill has been read a second time.—[Mr. Dowd.]

    COMMITTEES

      PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION
      Ordered,
      That Mr. Peter Bradley be discharged from the Select Committee on Public Administration and Mr. David Lepper be added to the Committee.—[Mr. Dowd]

      MODERNISATION OF THE HOUSE OF COMMONS
      Ordered,
      That Mr. David Drew be discharged from the Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons and David Taylor he added to the Committee.—[Mr. Dowd.]

    PETITION

      Food Labelling
      7.36 pm
      Mr. Kerry Pollard (St. Albans): I am pleased to present and support a petition raised by my local National Farmers Union, which has been signed by more than 2,000 of my constituents.
      It declares:
      The labelling of food is currently confusing and misleading.
      The petitioner therefore requests the House of Commons to urge the Minister to introduce legislation at the earliest opportunity so that only produce which originates in Britain can be labelled as British, thereby allowing consumers who want to buy British the freedom to do so.
      To lie upon the Table.

  Parliamentary Bills
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Dowd.]
  7.36 pm
  Mr. Brian White: The right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) earlier referred to impossible battles, and I shall try to take one on. I am indebted to the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) for his comments on Second Reading of the Electronic Communications Bill. I worry about being so heartily in agreement with a member of the Tory party, but it happens sometimes. I should also put on the record our debt to the House of Lords for debating the matter of plain English several times. I acknowledge the help of the Plain English Campaign, which, since this debate appeared on the Order Paper, has given me some interesting material.
  We should start by asking whose interests we serve. In every sphere of life, in government and business, we are moving from being a producer-oriented society to being one in which users and consumers come first. It is unfortunate that Parliament lags behind. The interests of our constituents should be the primary focus when we draft legislation. A myth exists that some language is "right" and some "wrong". In truth, language evolves. For example, there is currently an interesting debate about Spanish as Hispanics in the United States of America are changing the language. Language changes.
  My main concern is legalese language that is difficult to understand. By that, I mean such things as unnecessary technical terms, the impersonal style of Bills, twisted word orders, needless repetition or elaboration, unhelpful layout, long sentences, use of double negatives, use of passive verbs rather than active ones and so on. I want to deal with several different areas in this debate.
  First, I propose that we have a purpose clause in every Bill. Secondly, we should review legislation as much as pass new legislation. Thirdly, we should tackle the issue of non-sexist language in Bills. Fourthly, we need to use plain English in legislation, particularly statutory instruments.
  I am a member of the Select Committee on Public Administration, which considered the Freedom of Information Bill. It was suggested that the Bill should have a purpose clause, as has been proposed on several other occasion. Nearly every time, such clauses were rejected as setting a precedent. It is not conventional to include them. Occasionally, as in the case of the Children Acts, purpose clauses have been accepted but, in discussions on whether a Bill needs one, we are usually told, "We don't want to do it in this Bill because that's not the way it is generally done."
  Every Bill should have a purpose clause. Some people will point out that, since Pepper v. Hart, Ministers' comments can be taken into account. However, as Lord Lester, who gave evidence to the Select Committee, pointed out, that would be true only when the wording in the Bill is unclear. Only then would the court resort to Pepper v. Hart.
  A purpose clause in every Bill would not only explain the intentions of the Bill, but guard against unforeseen implications and prevent the semantic errors that dog so

  1095
  much of our legislation. It would make the intentions of Ministers clear to the courts in any subsequent arguments over interpretation and enhance our legislation.
  One of the things that we do well in this place is pass legislation; its quantity is testimony to that. However, we rarely review it. When we do so, it is either after a change of Government or because there is a crisis or uproar. The Child Support Agency is a classic example; we reviewed it because it was not working. There were problems, pressure built up and we had to reform it. In other cases, the review is in response to rulings from the European Court—as has happened in the case of the armed forces legislation—or to European directives.
  In America, sunset clauses in Bills have become popular. I support them in certain circumstances; they can play a valuable role. The inclusion of such a clause in the Electronic Communications Bill is a useful innovation. We need to build a quality review process into every piece of legislation and to ensure that, as times change, the purpose of the Bill changes with them. Too often, circumstances change, but legislation fails to catch up.
  The Select Committee on Deregulation has a role to play in that matter. The Committee could consider legislation and initiate changes through its procedures. I urge the Minister, in his review of the Committee, to consider that matter. I realise that the Law Commission examines legislation. I do not suggest the replacement of its role; I want a political review rather than the technical one that it necessarily undertakes.
  I find the use of sexist language in our legislation hard to stomach. When I entered local government in the 1980s and when I was growing up in the trade union movement, there were battles about the use of sexist language. Those battles are over. In business, in local government—even in the local pub—people manage to talk in non-sexist language; it has become the norm. The one matter where we have not caught up is in the drafting of Bills.
  I fully expect the forces of conservatism to continue to use offensive and degrading language. Some hon. Members would be quite prepared to use it deliberately. However, we should not have to acquiesce in that practice. It is important that Bills are written so as to avoid the use of "he" in references to a man or woman. For example, clause 10 of the Electronic Communications Bill contains the words
  "the Director shall not make any modification unless … he has considered every representation made to him about the modification".
  Why cannot we say that
  "the Director shall not make any modification unless representations about the modification have been considered"?
  We do not need to use the word "he" in that context.
  I am not worried if the odd bit of sexist language slips through. My point relates to the use of language and the cultural change that is needed, not to the requirements of narrow political correctness. However, we desperately need to address the issue.
  If we expect people to follow the law, it is important that they understand it. I hope that I am a reasonably intelligent person, but, if I have to read every Bill three or four times before I understand it, there really is something wrong. Acts of Parliament should not just be for lawyers and MPs. That difficulty in understanding legislation is a problem for our democracy.
  1096
  An example occurred this week when the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments was considering a regulation on the working families tax credit, which is one of the best measures that the Government have introduced, and which has helped many people. The tax credit is paid through employers. S.I. No. 3219 details how it should be paid and in what circumstances. The Committee Clerk could not understand a particular part of the regulation. If someone as eminent as a Clerk can misunderstand such a crucial piece of legislation, which is the cornerstone of the Government's policy to help people out of poverty, what hope has a small business man or woman of understanding it?
  We use pre-legislative scrutiny a great deal now; it is becoming the norm. I welcome that innovation. Part of the consultation process ought to be to submit every draft Bill to the Plain English Campaign. The aim should be to ensure that as many Bills as possible get a crystal mark, although certain technical Bills might not be able to achieve it. I understand that the Scottish Parliament would have achieved that mark recently, but for a few minor points.
  In Canada, the Uniform Law Conference's drafting conventions say:
  "An Act should be written simply, clearly and concisely, with the required degree of precision, and as much as possible in ordinary language".
  If there were any Tory Members here, I would upset them with my next quote because even the European Union guidelines say that
  "the wording of an Act should be clear, simple, concise and unambiguous".
  The use of technological terminology should be appropriate, and Acts should not include redundant or archaic words and phrases.
  I accept that change is not the easy option. It would be easier to continue with jargon, legalese and convention. I recognise that it is hard to achieve precision, clarity and ease of understanding and that Parliamentary drafters would have to do a lot more thinking. However, it does not help legislation if we produce Bills with 127-word sentences and excessive detail. That leads to complexity, obscurity and uncertainty.
  The Freedom of Information Bill states:
  "Where, on making his request for information, the applicant expresses a preference for communication by any one or more of the following means, namely
  (a) the provision to the applicant of a copy of the information in permanent form or in another form acceptable to the applicant",
  when the applicant is simply asking for a copy of a record. The Irish Freedom of Information Act says:
  "A head may give access under this Act to a record providing the requestor with
  (a) A copy of the record".
  The Australian Act says:
  "Access to a document may be given to a person in one or more of the following forms —
  (c) Provision by an agency of Government of a copy of the document".
  That is simple and everybody understands it. Why do we need to make it unnecessarily complex and ensure, through the tautology of language, that people do not understand what we are asking them to do?

  1097
  The British Bill has 86 clauses and seven schedules; the Irish Act has 48 clauses and three schedules. By making our legislation unnecessarily complex, we do a disservice to our democracy by placing citizens at the mercy of the bureaucratic state and by making it easier for people to make the legitimate excuse that they did not understand what we were asking of them.
  There is a myth that plain English is not legally accurate, but that has been steadily and repeatedly shattered. In the United States, 44 states have some form of requirement for plain English, and there has never been a case in which a contract has been declared less legally valid because of the use of the plain English.
  We need to replace the long sentences, the verbiage and the countless double negatives. I do not understand why we have to frame legislation in negative terms. We should replace the old formalities with concise, simple, familiar and precise language.
  Nowhere is that more important than in statutory instruments. Last year, we produced more than 3,000 statutory instruments. Why do we need to dot all the i's and cross all the t's? We need a third way of regulation. The laissez-faire of let it rip should not apply and neither should we nail down everything to say how a particular regulation should be implemented. We should set the objective of the regulation, but not necessarily worry about how people achieve it. We should set the way forward. That is a true third way for regulations.
  At present, 60 statutory instruments go through each meeting of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments and consideration of them lasts for about 30 minutes. That shows how much attention is given to them. Unless they are made much clearer and the scrutiny is made much better, our system of checks and balances will be lost.
  We have started to modernise government, but I recognise that there is a long way to go. Although I do not expect the Minister to wave a magic wand—but if anyone could do that, he could—and accept everything that I say, I seek a commitment from the Government that they will consider the issues. I hope that they will examine purpose clauses, the language of Bills and review the way that we legislate.
  In 1997, the Prime Minister said that we had been elected as new Labour and that we intended to govern as new Labour. I think that he has been true to his word. In fact, the Plain English Campaign said that its finest hour was when the Lord Chancellor introduced the Access to Justice Act 1999, which ended Latin usage in the courts. If we can do that in government—we are doing really well with thousands of documents and White Papers—why cannot we do it in legislation? Let us have a third pillar and start to legislate as new Labour with plain language.
  7.52 pm
  The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Mr. Graham Stringer): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, North-East (Mr. White) on securing this important debate. It is highly appropriate that my hon. Friend, who did so much to secure the future of the material on which Acts of Parliament are written and stored, should turn his considerable energies and intelligence to considering what is written on the vellum.
  1098
  I have much sympathy, as do the public, with my hon. Friend's points, and I shall try to answer them in the order in which he raised them. If I fail to deal with them all, I shall write to him.
  By "purpose clauses" people sometimes mean guiding principles for interpreting the text, and sometimes statements of principle on which the detail of legislation is based. In either case, the statements are intended to have legal effect. It is wrong to think that using those techniques in all Bills would be an advance; they would often create confusion.
  Guiding principles may be open to interpretation in many ways. The result is vague law: citizens cannot know with any certainty how the law affects them in their particular circumstances. That approach can have a place, but it must be used with the utmost caution.
  With statements of principle, the problem is duplication. There is a real risk of inconsistency between statements of principle and the detailed provisions of an Act, because the same thing is said twice in different words. That can create a dilemma in deciding where the balance lies between the general principle and the specific rule, and which of them matters most in specific circumstances. Those views have been taken by successive Governments and are supported by the two main modern reports on the law-making process—the Renton report of 1975 and the Hansard Society report of 1992.
  Both types of material have their uses, and examples can be found in various Acts in recent years. There are good reasons not to include such statements in Acts as a routine practice, but we shall continue to use the techniques where it is helpful to do so.
  It is highly desirable that the purpose of a Bill be explained, but it should be explained alongside the legislation and not in the legislation itself. As part of the modernisation programme, the Government took up a proposal by the Office of Parliamentary Counsel for explanatory notes and introduced them from the beginning of last Session. They are published alongside Bills and are available to the general public from the Stationery Office and on the internet. They are prepared when the Bill is first introduced; revised when the Bill enters its Second House; and revised again when the Bill receives Royal Assent.
  The new notes do not form part of the Bill and do not claim to be authoritative or to have received Parliament's approval.
  Mr. White: Does my hon. Friend accept that some explanatory notes have caused problems for those seeking to understand them, or have simply repeated what is in the Bill? There is much that we could learn about improving them as we go forward.
  Mr. Stringer: I am not aware of those examples, although I would be prepared to examine them and to respond to them.
  The freedom is there to use techniques that cannot be used in Bills. The notes can explain the background to a measure; they can give worked examples; and they can explain difficult concepts by setting them out in different ways. All that makes the law easier to grasp. The notes are still in their infancy, but the initial reaction has been encouraging.

  1099
  The next issue is the regular review of legislation, to which the Government give high priority. Such review is essential to change and modernisation. Without a change in the law, many policies could not be implemented. As my hon. Friend mentioned the Law Commission, which regularly reviews the law, I will not go into the detail of the programme that it undertakes.
  The Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994 provides for the repeal of statutory provisions in the interests of deregulation, by an order made after consultation and after parliamentary consideration of the proposal. As hon. Members will know, the Government will be bringing forward legislation to widen the scope of this power.
  My hon. Friend may feel that more could be done, and I would not disagree with him in principle. However, parliamentary and departmental resources are always at a premium, and the price of more weeding out of obsolete law would be the sacrifice of new legislation, which is often needed urgently.
  My hon. Friend spoke of the need for gender-free language in legislation. I congratulate the good burghers of Milton Keynes on having public houses that are free of sexist language. I look forward to visiting Milton Keynes to witness this extraordinary phenomenon.
  The issue is covered by section 6 of the Interpretation Act 1978, which ensures that courts and others give legislation a gender-free interpretation, whether or not the words in the legislation are gender free. If "he or she" is meant, that is how the Act will be interpreted, whether or not the text of an Act uses "he" or "she". Users of legislation, whether they are men or women, have not found the convention confusing. The use of "he or she" and other phrases to overcome the objection to the use of "he" alone adds a complication which is bound on occasion to make the meaning of a provision less easy to ascertain.
  As my hon. Friend suggests, there will frequently be ways round the problem, such as the repetition of a noun or the use of the plural, or the use of an alternative gender-neutral word, where one exists. It is inevitable, however, that there will remain some occasions when a provision will be less simple, and therefore less clear, if the drafter must take account of objectives other than legal accuracy and clarity.
  Let me offer an example. The Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998 inserted a new part into the Employment Rights Act 1996, to protect workers from detriment when making a disclosure which is in the public interest. Section 43G(2) includes the words:
  "that, at the time he makes the disclosure, the worker reasonably believes that he will be subjected to a detriment by his employer if he makes a disclosure to his employer".
  If "he" is replaced with "he or she", the provision reads:
  "that, at the time he or she makes the disclosure, the worker reasonably believes that he or she will be subjected to a detriment by his or her employer if he or she makes a disclosure to his or her employer".
  That is less clear, if non-sexist. The use of masculine pronouns could be avoided without loss of simplicity by using feminine pronouns instead. I do not know whether all those who object to the present system would regard that as satisfactory, but from the drafter's point of view, it would be equally effective.
  1100
  Clarity is enhanced if the policy underlying legislation is straightforward. The Human Rights Act 1998 has been praised for its clarity. It represents legislation in a new field where there was no accumulation of statute and case law that the drafter had to take into account. However, legislation on a complicated topic is bound to be complex.
  Even for simple policies, the law sometimes has to be set out in considerable detail. As the Renton report stated in 1975:
  "the draftsman—
  the word "draftsperson" could have been used in 1975—
  "must never be forced to sacrifice certainty for simplicity, since the result may be to frustrate the legislative intention. An unfortunate subject may be driven to litigation because the meaning of an Act was obscure which could, by the use of a few extra words, have been made plain."
  My hon. Friend asked why there was so much detail in legislation, especially in statutory instruments. There are two elements to the answer. First, there is a need for certainty in legislation, even if that means detail. Leaving matters to be decided by the courts on the basis of broad objectives would mean that people could not know, perhaps for many years, how legislation applied to their specific circumstances. Secondly, much of the detail in statutory instruments covers administrative matters, which it would not be reasonable to expect courts to decide. For example, when a permit scheme is established, it would not be sensible to expect the courts to determine what information an applicant should provide.
  The explanatory notes that I mentioned in the context of purpose clauses are also a step forward in making legislation easier to read. Explanatory material cannot be included in legislation without the risk of affecting its meaning and giving rise to arguments in the courts. However, the explanatory notes that accompany Bills and Acts make them far easier to understand.
  Before leaving the topic, I want to respond to the comparisons that my hon. Friend made between the Freedom of Information Bill and similar measures in Australia and Ireland. Clause 10 appears more complicated because it grants a right of access to information recorded in any form rather than simply to specific documents or records. The provision not only lists the forms in which information may be provided but sets out rules for deciding whether the public authority is obliged to provide access in the form requested by the applicant. For example, it establishes rules to determine whether the public authority can insist on providing a photocopy when the applicant wants the information on disk. The Irish and Australian Acts also contain rules for the same purpose, but they appear later in the measures and my hon. Friend did not quote them. A true comparison with Australian legislation requires examination of section 20 in the Australian measure, which runs to a page. Our clause 10 is more compact, more conveniently arranged, and thus easier to follow.
  It is because of the importance of the issues raised by my hon. Friend that I have gone into so much detail. The issue can be expressed quite succinctly: the essential need in legislation is law which is certain and which delivers the policy intention that underlies it.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at five minutes past Eight o'clock.

Preamble
[SIR ALAN HASELHURST in the Chair]

Small Firms
[Relevant documents: Thirteenth Report from the Trade and Industry Committee Session 1998–99 HC 330 and HC49 Session 1999–2000 (Government Reply).]
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Mr. Dowd.]
2.30pm
The Minister for Small Business and E-Commerce (Ms Patricia Hewitt): I am delighted to open our debate this afternoon on small firms, particularly because this is a happy side effect of Opposition Members' disgraceful behaviour in the House last night: the beneficial effect of not taking the Electronic Communications Bill in the House this afternoon is that I am able to be present at this debate. I want to put on record my thanks to my right hon. Friend the Minister for Trade, who would have opened this debate if I had been piloting the Bill in the House.
We are discussing an important subject and a sign of the importance that we attach to it is that we held a similar debate in June 1998 and a further debate in June 1999 on innovation and enterprise, both of which covered issues of importance to small businesses. I hope that we shall have an equally constructive and helpful debate this afternoon on how the Government can create the conditions in which more small businesses can start, survive and succeed.
Hon. Members will be aware of the wide-ranging report published last October by the Select Committee on Trade and Industry. I am delighted to see my hon. Friend the Member for Ochil (Mr. O'Neill) here. In line with one of the Committee's recommendations, I am delighted that our debate will cover the wider enterprise agenda.
There is another reason why the debate is timely. I had the good fortune this morning to speak at the ceremony for the Parcelforce small business awards, which is one of the largest and best-established of the small business awards programmes. I am delighted that Parcelforce had more than 2,000 entries for the awards whose winners were announced today. That is a tribute to the spirit of enterprise that is alive and well in our country.
It is not Government but business that creates wealth. In the knowledge-driven economy, small businesses are the source of innovation, enterprise and growth. That does not mean, as some in the previous Administration made the mistake of believing, that Government can walk away and tell business to get on with the job. Our responsibility as a Government is to create the conditions in which business can succeed. That is what we are doing. The first and perhaps most important condition for success is an end to the boom and bust that has been so disastrous for investment and business for the past two decades. The first and continuing achievement of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of
266WH
the Exchequer is to steer a course of economic stability and growth. Taking politics out of decisions on interest rates has ensured not only that interest rates are at an historically low level, but that businesses can plan with confidence for a future of stability.
Mr. Christopher Chope: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It will have come to your notice that the annunciator states that a debate is taking place here on small arms. Is it within your capacity to have that corrected?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, but I have anticipated him.
Ms Hewitt: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am under no illusion as to what we are discussing.
We have put an end to that damaging cycle of boom and bust, which saw interest rates peak at 15 per cent, and remain in double figures for four years. The economy that we inherited was set to repeat that damaging cycle. We now have a new and credible framework of monetary policy, inflation is historically low and is expected to remain close to the target figure, and the number of employed has risen by 700,000 since the general election. Virtually all that growth in employment has occurred in the small and medium-sized enterprise sector. More people in this country are in employment than ever before. Levels of joblessness are at a 20-year low. Youth unemployment is down by more than 70 per cent. and long-term unemployment by more than 50 per cent. Those are achievements of which the Government can be proud.
Of course, the climate for small businesses is good. Barclays bank estimates that approximately a quarter of a million businesses started up in the first half of last year, which is more than started up in the first half of the previous year. Almost one million new businesses have started up under this Government. That is a higher average for each quarter than for the first half of the 1990s. In marked contrast, the lowest number of business start-ups on record—a pathetic 77,000 in one quarter—occurred under the previous Government.
While building a firm foundation for stability and success, we have also taken steps to ensure fairness for workers, families and communities. The hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) will probably tell us about the iniquities of regulation. Doubtless she and some of her right hon. and hon. Friends would like workers, some of whom are employed by small businesses, to continue to be paid a pittance and work excessively long hours with no right to paid holidays. We will not accept that. We believe that fairness and enterprise go hand in hand. That is what good, successful employers and businesses believe as well. We want our companies to compete on quality, not on the basis of how badly they can get away with treating their employees.
Of course, it is often difficult for small firms to access the support that they need, and especially sources of finance and information. We are working not only within Government but in partnership with the private sector and the not-for-profit sector to deliver the services and support that small businesses need. In particular, we are creating the new Small Business Service, which is a

267WH
key part of the strategy to create an entrepreneurial Britain. Hon. Members are, I hope, aware that the results of last year's extensive consultation, together with our response to the issues raised, were published yesterday. I am delighted to say that there are 700 high-quality replies to that consultation from a wide cross-section of people, including representatives from a number of firms.
The new Small Business Service will build on the real advances made by the creation of business links. Everyone acknowledges that business links was a great improvement on the complete confusion that existed six or seven years earlier, but it is still not good enough. Small and medium businesses tell us constantly that quality is uneven. Some of the links deliver excellent services, but others are proving inadequate. For some years, the focus has been on larger businesses with high growth potential, so it can prove difficult for the sole trader and those who want to take up self-employment to get practical help.
First, the Small Business Service will help us to create the world-class business support services that our small and medium-sized businesses deserve. Secondly, it will help us to cut red tape. Thirdly, it will help us to simplify and streamline the support services that the Government offer to business. There is a large number of excellent programmes, but the number is so large that the small business person can sometimes have difficulty finding his or her way through. The Small Business Service will help us and it will help the small business customer.
As hon. Members can see from the response to our consultation, we are on the right track. Business across the country has given our vision for the Small Business Service a real welcome. Now we have to deliver on that vision, which we are doing by franchising through business links. We are asking the existing business links partnerships to make the first proposal for that new franchise, but making it clear that if the quality does not match the standard that we demand for our customers, we shall go out to open competitive tender. There are no illusions about the challenge for quality that we are setting for business links.
At the end of last year, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced the appointment of David Irwin as the first chief executive of the Small Business Service. He has an outstanding record in the north-east as chief executive of Project Northeast, an entrepreneurial and largely commercially funded organisation. Its mission is support for start-ups and for small businesses. He will take up his post on 6 March, but I am happy to say that, thanks to e-mail, he is already closely engaged with officials in setting up the Small Business Service. I am sure that hon. Members will join me in welcoming David to his new post. He is ideally placed to develop the Small Business Service into the organisation that we and small businesses want.
Some of those who responded to our consultation questioned whether the chief executive would carry sufficient weight with Government. I can assure hon. Members that he has the confidence and the backing of the entire Government. He will have an independent right of direct access to the Prime Minister if there is an issue of particular importance. He will attend key
268WH
ministerial meetings at which small business issues are discussed. He and the Small Business Service will have the right, but also the responsibility, to scrutinise all proposals for regulation and to examine in detail those that may affect small business, to ensure that the litmus test of thinking small first—thinking about the impact on the small business, the owner manager, the sole trader—is the starting point when considering the implications of regulation. He will also be a member of the new star chamber, the ministerial panel for regulatory accountability chaired by my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office. That panel will call to account Ministers from every Department, including my own, for their regulatory performance and programmes.
We want to deliver world-class business support services to the whole of the entrepreneurial community. That must include women entrepreneurs, who form a growing proportion of that community, although they are still under-represented in this country compared with, for example, the United States of America. It must also include entrepreneurs and potential entrepreneurs from the Afro-Caribbean and other minority ethnic communities, who have not, in the past, felt that the mainstream business support services understood their needs or responded well to them. We must also reach out to support the development of both social and commercial enterprise within the most disadvantaged areas. Regulation is of particular concern to small businesses. We are determined to address that through the Small Business Service, through the existing task force on better regulation, and now through the new ministerial panel on regulatory accountability.
I must also refer to the extraordinary comments made this morning by the British Chambers of Commerce. I have great respect for that organisation, and for its director general, Chris Humphries. In my experience as Minister with responsibility for small business, I have found it a valuable source of advice and information on what is going on in the business community and on all its concerns, but the numbers that it published this morning about the so-called regulatory burden are nonsense. I notice that, an hour or so ago, it issued a revised version of those numbers. They are coming down hourly, but there are at least two difficulties with the numbers issued. The first and most important is that they include the so-called burden of the benefits to workers of the working time directive.
The working time directive is about paid holidays for employees and making sure that they are not forced by their employer to work 70, 80 or 85 hours a week to the detriment of their own and their family's health and often to the detriment of customers and the productivity of the business. There are real benefits to employees from the working time directive, but those are the costs that the BCC has included.
Mrs. Angela Browning: Does the Minister agree with Lord Haskins, who described her Government's stewardship of the working time directive as a dog's breakfast?
Ms Hewitt: The hon. Lady overlooks the fact that we consulted business carefully about the way in which we should implement the working time directive. In response to that consultation, we have significantly

269WH
changed the administrative way in which it will be implemented. The administrative costs included in the business burdens listed by the British Chambers of Commerce are out of date. They are figures that would have existed for the old way of administering the directive, but because we have listened to business and got rid of the record-keeping requirements that increased red tape and administrative burdens, we have got rid of them.
The same is true of the minimum wage. The British Chambers of Commerce has included a substantial figure, although it has changed a couple of times already today, for the administrative costs of the national minimum wage; but we listened to business on how the national minimum wage should be implemented and, having listened, we decided not to pursue some of the options that had originally been proposed in the consultation, including the option to include the minimum wage on the payslip, with the effect that the administrative costs to business of the national minimum wage are virtually zero.
Mrs. Browning: In tidying up some of the nonsense around the administration of the national minimum wage, has the Minister also removed the requirement in statute for directors of limited companies to pay themselves the minimum wage, whether they want to draw that salary or not?
Ms Hewitt: I am not sure that I immediately know the answer to that question, as I am not the Minister with direct responsibility for the national minimum wage, but I shall come back to that point, if I may.
I also want to draw the Chamber's attention to an extremely interesting interview on the BBC's lunchtime business news with one small business man, the director of Rowan Yarns, an excellent company, in Holmfirth. He said that he ran a successful small firm by employing good people, and that he got good people—most of his work force are women—by ensuring that they could balance work and family and did not have to sit at work worrying about their families all day. He is perfectly happy to pay a decent wage and to have good conditions. When the interviewer said, "But surely you have noticed this terrible increase in red tape and administrative burdens over the last two years," he said, "No, actually, I haven't noticed anything of the kind and I think that what's happening is right."
Finally on this point, I want to draw the Chamber's attention to the recent report of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, which examined administrative and economic regulations in the member states and concluded, on the basis of an exhaustive analysis, that the country that imposed the least administrative and economic regulation on its businesses, large and small, was the United Kingdom. We are determined to do even better, but let us not exaggerate the position that we start from and let us not confuse fair standards for employees that will help businesses to improve the quality and productivity of their work force with administrative costs, which we should simplify and strip out wherever possible.
Mr. Chope: What is happening in respect of the payroll service? That involves legitimate administrative costs that are especially burdensome to new small businesses.
Ms Hewitt: That is another happy example of consulting with and listening to small business. We knew that small businesses were particularly concerned about payroll administration and the implications of the working families tax credit. We consulted them on a proposal to introduce a payroll voucher, which would have helped with the costs of payroll administration, but they told us clearly that they did not want that, but rather the kind of one-to-one advice that the Inland Revenue can provide. Just before Christmas, my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary and I announced that investment was to be put into expanding the Inland Revenue's NESI—new enterprise support initiative— scheme, which enables new businesses, in particular, to get tailored advice on how to administer their payroll.
One of the best ways of slashing administrative costs, including those of payroll administration, is by exploiting information and communications technology. I should like to dwell for a moment on electronic commerce.
Mr. Chope: Regarding payroll, it was said at the time of the previous Budget that a substantial sum—about £70 million—was to be made available to the Small Business Service to administer the payroll. Now that it is no longer to be charged with that responsibility, is that £70 million still available to help small businesses in other ways?
Ms Hewitt: As I have already said, we are investing in an expansion of the Inland Revenue's one-to-one support service for small business, because that is a service that small business wants. When we publish the budget for the Small Business Service, the hon. Gentleman will see the full figures. He will also see, in April, the launch of an immensely exciting new initiative—an internet-based gateway to all Government business support information and services, aimed directly at the small and medium-sized enterprise sector. It will be available on-line—for those who are on-line— or through a call centre or through advisers for those who want indirect access.
It is essential that our small businesses exploit to the full the power of electronic commerce. We have in our country some world-class small businesses that are helping to lead the way in e-commerce.
Mr. Brian Cotter: Will the Minister expand on that? I believe that a trial scheme is in operation whereby when one registers as a self-employed person, one can fill out a form that can then be distributed electronically. That is a welcome development. How is that progressing, how quickly is it to be expanded so that it can be used more widely, and how many people are aware of its existence?
Ms Hewitt: I was delighted to find that shortly after coming into Government we ran an experiment that took the four forms that someone becoming self-employed had to complete, and turned them into a single form. As the hon. Gentleman said, it was then

271WH
trialled as an electronic intelligent form. The single form is still in use, and I have asked officials to ensure that it is one of the services that is offered as part of the electronic gateway for the Small Business Service. It is an excellent initiative that needs to be made more widely known and available. It is just one small example of the power of electronic commerce to transform the ways in which small businesses interact with Government and, by doing so, reduce their administrative costs.
I am worried that although there are some shining examples of firms exploiting e-commerce, if one looks across the piece at our small—especially very small-firms, they are lagging behind. Our benchmarking study, published last year, suggested that our smallest firms were at the bottom of the G7 league table for the use of information and communication technology. They cannot afford to be left behind in that regard because within a year or two the internet will be as common and as essential to business as the telephone is today.
We have rolled out across the country information society initiative support centres and ISI local centres. I opened one in Luton yesterday. They are already delivering objective advice to small businesses in plain English. That advice is driven not by the desire to sell a product but by business needs and a desire to establish how information and communication technology can be applied within their business.
The results are outstanding. Optimum Designs, based in Wigan, is a sportswear firm, and it was one of the first companies to come to the ISI centre. It was given help in setting up a full e-commerce transactional website. As a result, during its first 12 months of internet trading, its turnover increased tenfold. Across the country small businesses have experienced extraordinary increases in markets and extraordinary reductions in the cost base. That shows the power of electronic commerce and explains why I am so passionate about the synergy between the two parts of my ministerial role.
Our country led the world into the first industrial revolution. We are determined that we should be the winners and leaders in the new knowledge-driven economy in which small businesses have a vital role to play.
I have not been able in the time available to describe many of the other programmes and support services that we are working on with businesses. I look forward to the rest of the debate and to responding to the points that hon. Members raise.
2.56 pm
Mrs. Angela Browning: I declare two non-registerable interests as a former director of the Small Business Bureau and the current president of Women into Business; neither post has been remunerated.
I am delighted that at long last a debate has been devoted to small business. When the Labour party came to power, it promised an annual debate on this subject. When the then Financial Secretary, the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Mrs. Roche), presented the first small business debate, she flagged it up as an event that we could look forward to. During
272WH
the past year, however, and despite many promptings from the Dispatch Box from Conservative Members, the Government have not made time for a debate dedicated to small business. We are glad that the debate is being held today, although it is late. Conservative Members would have preferred it if the debate had taken place on the Floor of the House. That would have given due recognition to the importance of this sector of our economy.
The Labour Government are now into their third year. I listened carefully to the Minister, who gave the impression that during those three years things had only got better for small businesses. In fact, the reverse is the case.
The Prime Minister characteristically pledged before and during the general election that this Government would cut red tape. He said that they would not impose burdensome regulations on business because they understood that successful businesses need to keep costs down. In November 1997, he discussed the importance of investing in people, skills and technology rather than regulation and the imposition of constant burdens on employers, and he added that he wanted to reduce costs and burdens. That signalled for the first time a different direction.
The information that the Minister cited from British Chambers of Commerce and the figures that just about every small business organisation has presented during the past year show that, as a result of the Labour Government's initiatives during their first two years in power, there are additional regulatory burdens on business, especially on small businesses. The problem is of such proportions that now, in year three, it is starting to do significant damage.
I share the Minister's enthusiasm for the event that she attended this morning, at which she presented small business awards. Through Women into Business, I run an annual business award scheme, so I know how encouraging it is to see businesses flourishing and being recognised for their success. However, I hope that the Minister will take seriously what she hears today. She should acquaint herself with something other than celebrating those who have done well; she should focus on those who are failing under new Labour.
The Government's record on business, enterprise, and especially small business, was summed up in the 13th report of the Trade and Industry Committee, which was published last year. It stated:
"From the situation as we saw it a year ago, where there seemed to be something of a policy vacuum on SMEs, we have moved to one where there is at least some risk of an excess of loosely connected and apparently uncoordinated policy initiatives shooting off in all directions, generating noise and interest, but not commensurate light."
This debate— the so-called annual small and medium-sized enterprises debate—should provide an opportunity for the Minister. I have heard nothing, apart from what she said about the future of e-commerce in this country, with which I agree, that can be described as anything other than abject complacency on the part of the Government.
The Minister will not be surprised to know that hon. Members of all parties have studied the information released by the British Chambers of Commerce in the past 24 hours. Its base line is constructed on compliance

273WH
cost assessment figures supplied by the Government. If the Minister is saying that those assessments are wrong, as a result of putting right the mess that the Government made of at least 20 pieces of legislation, we would welcome that, but we shall press her for revised, accurate figures. She will understand our suspicion about the Government's figures on business, the cost to business, and support for small businesses, given that the 13th report of the Trade and Industry Committee questions the happy-clappy way in which Ministers use figures to repackage good news and, as we have heard this afternoon, suppress bad news. I give the Minister 10 out of 10 for consistency, because that is the approach not only of her and her Department, but of the whole Government.
What has happened in the past two to three years under new Labour? The British Chambers of Commerce, the Institute of Directors, the Centre for Policy Studies, the Federation of Small Businesses, the Forum of Private Business, the Confederation of British Industry, and all the other recognised business organisations, recognise the burden on business, as the British Chambers of Commerce described it, created by £10 billion of Labour red tape. The blame is laid clearly at the door of the Government. There is a burden barometer, which shows that, from day one, this Government have been ideologically driven. One of their first acts was to sign up to the social chapter, which allowed the application not only of new legislation but of retrospective legislation to which other European countries had signed up. That is beginning to hurt, and it is storing up problems for the future. If it hurts now, it will become very painful in the coming years.
The problem, of course, is that the smallest businesses feel the pain far more than those with an in-house lawyer, who sorts out the legal side of compliance, and a payroll department, which can deal with administration. The bigger businesses will also eventually feel the cost, which will filter through into competitiveness. The smaller companies feel the pain first, however, and they are beginning to shout. Instead of being complacent, the Minister should listen to what they are saying. This is not about tossing statistics between bodies—a million here or a billion there over two, three, four or five years—but about individual businesses and people. The Government have made a virtue of people. The Minister is right to say that people are important in business. Employers need to have highly skilled people and to ensure that morale is high.
What the Opposition predicted when we saw the tide of legislation that the Government have rushed to implement is beginning to materialise. The rhetoric was apparent from the start. In tandem with the rush to increase the cost, regulation and administration of small and medium-sized enterprises, the Government established the better regulation task force—not the deregulation or less regulation task force, but the better regulation task force. What a mockery that made of how they imposed the working time directive, the minimum wage and other horrors on business. There was nothing businesslike about the Government's actions. There was no recognition of the lead time that businesses need to change systems, brief their staff and comply with the
274WH
law. That is an important consideration because most of the legislation imposes heavy penalties if the letter of the law is not followed.
Ms Hewitt: Is the hon. Lady aware that the British Chambers of Commerce told the Low Pay Commission that businesses recognise that a low-wage policy leads to a vicious circle of low morale, low performance and low productivity? Does she realise that the British Chambers of Commerce, unlike the Conservative party, supports a minimum wage and that the Confederation of British Industry described the introduction of the minimum wage as a model of how to legislate?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody): Order. Interventions must be brief, even if they are ministerial.
Mrs. Browning: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
The minimum wage was debated in the House, but having got it on the statute book, the Government have not been businesslike in their use of secondary legislation or in the advice that they have given to businesses on how they should apply the legislation in the workplace. They have shown no understanding of how businesses, especially small businesses, work. They must get to grips with the fact that it is a burden for businesses to read and apply, with only a few weeks' notice, what is contained in a document that has more than 100 pages. By definition, a burden is a cost on business. Individual documents might seem significant, but the cumulative effect of more than two years of a continual tide of regulation is starting to damage British business.
Ms Linda Perham: Does the hon. Lady agree that part of the remit of regulation is to help and guide business, which is the case with telecom licences? The Conservative Government introduced about 3,000 regulations for each of the last three years of their Administration.
Mrs. Browning: I will come in a moment to what the Conservative party intends to do to save British business from the consequences of this tide of regulation. The hon. Lady is right: the point is how regulation is applied. Her intervention could not have come at a more opportune moment.
Ms Perham: I must be a plant.
Mrs. Browning: We will keep that between ourselves; it might not do the hon. Lady's career much good if the Whips hear that.
A report produced only last week by Peninsula, the Manchester law company, showed the biggest ever increase in the number of businesses seeking advice on how they should apply legislation and revealed that more than 32,000 more calls were made this year than last year. Businesses are spending more and more time that they could use to do business ringing up for advice and trying to find out how they can do the Government's business, which is to apply all the legislation that they are imposing. More than two years ago, the Opposition predicted that the burden on

275WH
businesses would become so great that it would start to affect their success and competitiveness. Indeed, Peninsula predicted in its report that more business failures would result. That announcement comes on top of the Dun and Bradstreet report of 4 January, which clearly showed that business failures increased by more than 12 per cent. in 1999, which is the third largest increase in a decade. The report also revealed a fatality total of 830 businesses going under a week, which is the highest for five years.
I remind the Minister of the economic scene that she set at the outset of her remarks. She spoke of low inflation, low unemployment and the right economic backdrop for business growth. If she believes that the economy is so wonderful and that the Treasury's economic management is so good, she must wonder why more and more businesses are going under. The two arguments do not correlate. What does she think the answer is? Why are more businesses going under in the wonderful economic environment that the Government claim to have provided? They will find that the answer lies in what they have done in just over two years. They have increased taxes on business and the cost of regulation.
Whatever the benefits of low unemployment and of lower inflation or lower interest rates—I remind hon. Members that interest rates are now creeping up—they are overtaken by the Government's own hands and by their intervention in taxing and regulating to such an extent that it is causing business damage. Unfortunately, predictions from organisations considering the trends show that we can expect those circumstances to get worse and not better during coming years. "Things can only get better," somebody once said; and Labour Members still believe it.
One of the things that Britain must do if it is to succeed and to use the excellent talent that it has in small firms is to enable small businesses to grow into medium-sized businesses. For many years, our competitors such as Germany succeeded in doing so, although circumstances there are not looking quite so rosy now. We have lessons to learn from such countries on how to grow small businesses into medium-sized businesses. Many factors, such as access to capital, are involved, and they are all subjects for legitimate debate.
Only last week, I visited a medium-sized company that has been kind enough to prepare for me some details of its regulatory burden. It currently employs 400 people and has grown from a small company to its present size. It has examined its revenue and regulatory costs in relation to its financial figures for the end of 1998. Subtraction of those costs from the company's revenue reveals that its regulatory burden is the equivalent of 8.4 per cent. of its operating overheads, excluding depreciation. The regulatory cost represents 46.3 per cent. of its profits after tax and is the equivalent of 193.6 per cent. of its corporation tax payments.
Despite the rosy picture of the economic climate painted by the Minister, other factors burden business. The factors are not obscure: they are immediately apparent to anyone when the regulatory burdens are broken down. Regulatory charges, environmental taxes, compliance costs, health and safety and employment burdens—and, gosh, employment legislation has grown
276WH
so much in the past two years—represent a significant burden when added to the requirement to pay corporation tax and the other necessary charges on the company's accounts.
The Conservative party will take no lessons from new Labour. Neither business nor we shall be lulled into a false sense of security, feeling that all is well and that everything will get better. The Government will shortly precipitate a downturn typified by business failures unless they act.—[Interruption.] The Minister laughs. If she thinks that the Dun and Bradstreet figures are funny or if she is prepared to dismiss small business failure, fair enough. Let us say that that is the price to be paid for the happy-clappy-keep-em-all-happy song. If she is not prepared to take the issue seriously, the problem that I have outlined will be accelerated over the coming two years.
Ms Hewitt: Is the hon. Lady aware that Dun and Bradstreet expect the number of business failures to fall this year
"as a result of the improvement in the economy"?
Mrs Browning: Whenever a statistic is heard, the Government, and especially this Department and this Minister do not want to believe it and so pluck another out of the air. The Minister will have seen the Dun and Bradstreet figures and heard what I said about the law firm that studied the problem of the burden placed on business in the Manchester area. The problems are having an effect not only individually on businesses but cumulatively, and they are starting to bite into the country's economic success.
We would not merely create more star chambers and similar bodies, holding dinners at Lancaster house as a first act. The new deregulatory hope for the country started with a dinner at Lancaster house with a few representatives of the companies in the FTSE-100—not many small businesses there. Is that the priority and the way in which deregulation will be advanced—with talk and proposals for better regulation, but with no commitment to rolling back regulation? The Conservatives will roll back regulation, making significant changes to the culture in Whitehall.
I was formerly a Minister in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food—they know all about regulation there, believe me. The Minister has an opportunity to roll back regulation. If we are to have more than words, she will have to be pretty smart. We will introduce regulatory budgets, with every Department and Secretary of State reporting not only to the Cabinet Secretary but to Parliament. Departments will report on reductions in cash terms, against a declared budgetary target, in the regulations impacting on business for which they are responsible. Only by our reducing the cost impact on business will businesses start to feel the burden less. If the Minister does not act quickly, she will have passed the point of no return.
3.18 pm
Mr. Martin O'Neill: The hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) began by complaining about the delay in holding this debate. Listening to what she said, I thought that she could almost have been speaking on 2 May 1997 because she

277WH
seemed to have ignored everything that the Government have sought to place on the agenda for the small business debate. She delivered a meaningless, spiteful rant about regulation and said nothing about anything else relating to small business. She sought to disparage the obvious facts about the improved economic climate of which my hon. Friend the Minister spoke at the start of the debate.
I remember visiting small businesses in my constituency during the 20 years for which I have been a Member of Parliament and being told that they had terrible problems with interest rates. Rates are now low; I would like them lower. I would like us to enter the European monetary system at the appropriate time, so that we may enjoy the interest rates that our colleagues in Europe currently have. I do not know whether the hon. Lady would like us to reduce the burden by taking that route. If she answered at all positively, I am sure that the bleeper would quickly go off. I do not know whether we would welcome her into our ranks as a bleeper refugee, but there is always rejoicing in heaven when a sinner repents.
I remember complaints about inflation of 15 to 20 per cent. in the early 1980s, about the problems of the burdens that were going to be on small businesses and about having to deal with high wage rises. Some have had to deal with big wage rises because of the introduction of the national minimum wage. Sadly, the working terms and conditions of people working in small businesses in this country have often been inferior to those of people working in larger businesses. They have had to put up with low pay, and holidays, time off and family-friendly conditions have been given grudgingly. The boss was delightful and he really liked the employees, but he usually exploited their proximity and close relations.
Such employees were often open to the abuse of their reasonable freedoms, including the right to be free from wage exploitation and poverty pay. If enforcing those freedoms requires detailed regulation because mean-minded employers will not meet their social and legal responsibilities, so be it. They must be told about such matters because, in the past, left to the free market, far too many employees of small businesses did not get a decent living wage.
Mrs. Browning: Why does the hon. Gentleman think that hon. Members of all parties are being inundated with correspondence from people saying how unfair the Government's parental leave directive is because it is unpaid? The wealthy and those on good salaries can take advantage of it, but not others. It is immaterial whether one supports parental leave. Is it not strange that the Government have introduced a popular measure but expected business to pick up the tab?
Mr. O'Neil: If the hon. Lady is suggesting that we should increase taxation to fund the measure—
Mrs Browning:I am not.
Mr. O'Neill: Most current public expenditure is paid for by taxation, which the hon. Lady's party never ceases to try to find means of reducing. It is a bit much for her to say that parental leave is good and that the
278WH
Government should fund it. Those who run businesses must consider their social as well as their financial responsibilities. Those social responsibilities extend to their employees.
I should like to proceed to speak briefly about another matter, Mrs.—I mean Madam Deputy Speaker. I have known you for so long as "Mrs. Dunwoody" that your elevated title escapes me at times.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I do not mind what the hon. Gentleman calls me, so long as he does not call me some of the things that I have been called in the Labour party.
Mr. O'Neill: I do not know whether I should call you comrade, Madam Deputy Speaker.
The debate ought to be taken seriously. The Conservatives could have used one of their Opposition day debates had they thought the subject that important. We have seen the emergence of the Small Business Service, the appointment of David Irwin and the encouraging willingness of the Government to study the American model of small business administration. The presence in the United Kingdom for the past 12 months of Philip Lader, the United States Ambassador, who was head of the Small Business Administration there, has been helpful. He did that work as a member of one of the early Clinton cabinets, because of the separation of powers and the way in which they run their Government. That kind of appointment is not possible in the United Kingdom, but we have a reasonable compromise. David Irwin is at the heart of the Government machine. He is not accountable in the sense of being required to come to the Floor of the House, but he can, and I am sure will before too long, be invited to the Select Committee, which I have the honour to chair. We are very interested in that.
Doors were opened to us in the United States through the good offices of Philip Lader. We were able to have lengthy discussions with several of the players in the Small Business Administration, which has been in operation since the 1950s. It was introduced by a fairly right-wing Republican Administration, led by President Eisenhower, but has built up over the years expertise in assisting small businesses and an ability to identify their problems. Its cumulative experience has allowed advice and assistance to be provided through a sophisticated mentoring scheme.
When, before the general election, we considered the operation of business links, we found it disturbing that its advice and mentoring service had several shortcomings. I do not want to be offensive to the people who were involved in it, but some were failed business people who did not have the get up and go to start a business again and were looking for the soft option of explaining to people how they had gone wrong and telling them, "Make sure you don't do as I did; do as I say." That is a perfectly legitimate view, but not really the positive approach for which one would hope. We want a mentoring scheme in which the mentors have been successful people, able to show best practice.
If we can do something about the insolvency legislation, which is, as it were, pencilled into the Government's agenda at present, we shall have a greater tolerance of business failure. Of course it is distressing to

279WH
see businesses go to the wall. However, especially in the case of small businesses, we do not want the people involved, who often lose many of their assets and even their homes, to be denied access to financial support and even to the mainstream of business life. That is almost kicking people when they are down. A consensus exists and the draft legislation on the issue has been broadly welcomed. I hope that it will be presented to the House.
We should recognise that we need a climate of economic confidence in the country and in business, so that business people will be prepared to come back after things have not gone right for them. Some of the mentors whom we met in the United States said that they gave most support to, and most wanted to encourage, the folk who had failed—because they would not fail again, given half a chance; they would not want to go through the trauma. There are, in the bones of the Small Business Service, causes for optimism about those matters.
With respect to the payroll service, matters need to be cleared up. The Government were going to introduce something that might have involved the R-word, but cast their net wide, consulted, and came up with something else. One of the good things about them is that they occasionally find the time to pause and reflect. They are often big enough to admit that they may have got things wrong and there might be a better approach. The Conservatives' rather mean-minded approach of dwelling only on the imposition of particular types of regulation, in support of objectives with which they disagree, is unfortunate and is skewing the debate.
The Electronic Communications Bill is important, because if the American experience shows anything, electronic commerce can enable small businesses to widen and simplify their marketing through the use of websites and networking. Businesses are flourishing in a way that was never imagined by using those facilities. Admittedly, America is a big country and has always had the network of the catalogues—Sears Roebuck culture—to a far greater extent than here. Women who worked in major textile mills in my constituency bought many of their clothes and Christmas presents through the Littlewoods catalogue, but in America many more people have been used to living in remote places, far from the main street store, and have chosen to shop in that way.
We do not have so much of the American communications-retailing culture, and we have the terrible problem of having to pay for local telephone calls. That has resulted in businesses being reluctant to become involved in electronic commerce, or to go on the net, because of the fear that keeping lines open for 24 hours a day, 60 minutes per hour, would cost a fortune. Indeed, an American to whom I spoke was incredulous when I explained our problems with the local call syndrome. He said that it was rather like going to a shopping mall and being given a meter that requires one to pay for every minute spent in the mall.
There are encouraging signs. Hon. Members on the Select Committee have successfully twisted BT's arm. It was no secret that we were to interview the Director General of Telecommunications at 10 am. Lo and behold, on the same morning BT produced the first packageoffering free internetaccess℄not just for
280WH
getting on the internet, but for using it. Admittedly, there is no such thing as a free phone call, just as there is no such thing as a free lunch. However, there will be more opportunities, through packages, for freedom from anxiety about an open telephone line capable of receiving calls 24 hours a day through e-mail.
Mr. Nick St. Aubyn: Will the hon. Gentleman join me in regretting the feebleness of clause 10 of the Electronic Communications Bill£ Does he agree that it should tackle the problem more effectively and that an attempt should be made to get BT to act faster and sooner£ Without fast action we—I mean small businesses, in particular—will be losers in the matter of access to the net.
Mr. O'Neill: One of the hon. Gentleman's problems is that he has perhaps forgotten in his impatience that we live in a free enterprise economy and that it is not always possible, even for Governments who from time to time want to be interventionist, to interfere in the markets— especially regulated markets.
Mr. St. Aubyn: Monopoly markets.
Mr. O'Neill: No, it is not a monopoly market— perhaps it is oligopolistic, or has a dominant player, but there is a fair amount of competition. There are about 35 players in telecoms. I am groping for a figure, but my point is that the market is not helpful in several respects, because of the dominance of BT. However, BT is the big tanker that takes a while to turn around. It is turning because smaller players are coming into the game and nibbling away at its market share. It has moved, and the Government are to be congratulated on that. Nothing in law requires the Director General of Telecommunications to get BT to move.
The original question was whether the Government were doing anything. I said that it was the regulator's responsibility. It would be open to legal challenge were the regulator to be given the power to intervene and dictate to a single company in a free market.
The climate in telecommunications is changing. BT is moving. We had to kick it, shove it, embarrass it and abuse it in the Select Committee. A bit of rough trade goes on there from time to time—in the best sense of the term, I hasten to say. We have seen the beginning of a movement. When the biggest player moves, I think that there will be a significant change. We are putting the legislation in place. We have been able to avoid some of the worst excesses that were being forced on us by the forces of darkness in terms of key escrow and the restrictions on electronic commerce, but step by step the pieces are being put in place.
We must weigh up the initiatives that the Government are suggesting and the current economic climate. Only 12 months ago we were hearing sad noises about big business, the macro-economy and the whole British economy, to say nothing of the European economy, which Conservative Members do not like and know nothing about, although that does not prevent them from expressing opinions on it; ignorance has never been a barrier to expressing opinions in the House.
In the past 12 months we have seen a transformation and a consolidation in our economy. There is nothing to suggest that that will not continue in the months ahead.

281WH
The moaning and, as we say in Scotland, the girning and greeting that we have heard about regulation will be put into perspective and we will see that it is just a minor irritation in the development of small businesses, for which the Government deserve a great deal of credit and the support of the House.
3.37 pm
Mr. Brian Cotter: I want to fire two shots over the bows in both directions. I welcome today's debate. I was concerned that it would perhaps not take place and that it would clash with the Electronic Communications Bill, which many of us are interested in too. I must also refer to the appalling behaviour of Conservative Members last night, which resulted in the business being changed, but let me move on in a more constructive manner.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Cotter: In the short time that we have I want to concentrate on the debate.
The Minister rightly referred to the economic background, which was helpful. I should repeat that I run a small business. It is an interest that I have declared, but perhaps I should declare it publicly again in this debate. Currently I am struggling to keep it well on the rails. I want to express a small concern about one aspect of the country's economic performance—the high value of the pound. It does not necessarily affect small businesses directly—it does not in my case—but it affects many of my customers, who find it increasingly difficult to trade. I shall not drift into a big discussion of how I feel that that could be improved, but the Minister knows some of the Liberal Democrat views about that.
As we all know, small businesses remain an extremely important part of the economy, with 3.7 million in the United Kingdom, and they have been an important sector for the work force. The debate gives me a good opportunity to talk about the Small Business Service, to which the Minister referred. I welcome it, because I hope that it will genuinely replace the past proliferation of bodies such as the training and enterprise councils, business links and enterprise agencies, which perhaps waste money and resources. As the Minister has said, some of those bodies are not performing particularly well, and we look to this new organisation to make up that deficiency.
I am worried that the chief executive, who will bear a great responsibility on the small business community's behalf, will not be directly responsible to Parliament, and we shall have to approach the Minister on such matters. The hon. Member for Ochil (Mr. O'Neill) referred to the United States example, where the chief executive responsible for small businesses is a member of the Cabinet. I hope that the new organisation will adopt a direct approach and, unlike past organisations, accept responsibility. I look forward to hearing the Minister's views on that.
Extensive reference has been made to regulation, which is of increasing concern to business. As the Minister and others will argue, regulation is necessary to create the conditions in which employees and businesses can thrive. In that respect, the Opposition's worries about the national minimum wage have proved to be
282WH
totally without foundation. Nevertheless, I hope that the Small Business Service will examine regulation on behalf of business people.
The latest survey by the Forum of Private Business shows that employment regulation is an issue of importance that is second only to business rates. I shall not say too much about business rates this afternoon, except to note that many firms that the forum represents are particularly worried about that issue.
The need for deregulation is clear. Recent research by the Institute for Fiscal Studies found that administration costs fall disproportionately heavily on small businesses. The estimated administration cost of hiring one person was £330 for small businesses, and £404 for businesses inexperienced in the attendant bureaucracy. However, the equivalent cost for businesses that employ more than 5,000 people is only £5. That is a tremendous difference. Employees of a small business often have to fulfil a number of different roles, and I can attest to the difficulties that such businesses have in finding, employing and training suitable people.
A number of worries have been expressed about regulation. We support the working families tax credit in principle, but we are concerned about its implementation. Moreover, it has undoubtedly placed an extra burden on the small business community.
Despite the Minister's comments, hon. Members were concerned about the way in which the working time directive was implemented. There was insufficient debate in the House, and very little notice was given to business. Certainly, my small business received little information on it.
An announcement was made this week about consultation on a part-time workers directive. Again, the time scale is short: regulations must be enforced by 7 April. That will not allow sufficient time for the consultation to be properly carried out, for Parliament to have a proper opportunity to debate it, or for small firms and other firms to get advance notice of what is coming up.
Another matter of grave concern is the glib presentation of impact assessments relating to Bills. Often, impact assessments are not linked to Bills until shortly before Second Reading. Ideally, they should form part of the Bill when it is first published, so that the potential cost effects can be properly considered before it progresses. Furthermore, impact assessments are often put together in such a way as to be misleading. I intend to continue to address that matter on behalf of my party in future. For example, the impact assessments that were produced to accompany the Employment Relations Bill estimated the average cost to employers of implementing parental leave to be £140. However, that figure was reached by estimating the total costs to the 15 per cent. or so of employers that were likely to be affected, and then dividing them by the total number of employers. That figure was completely meaningless, and obscured the far more relevant figure of £935, which appears in black and white as the estimated cost to a firm of arranging cover for one individual taking parental leave. I should like to see more precise figures and a better impact assessment process. Impact assessments are often narrow in concept. I look forward to the Minister's response to those points, today or in the future.

283WH
There should be an annual general impact assessment to consider all the regulations that are introduced and provide some clear figures on the total administrative burden that weighs on small businesses. The House should be able to consider and debate the costs on an annual rolling basis. The Government have made it clear that they intend to make regulation as fair and light as possible. They should have the courage of their convictions and allow us to assess the impact as the year goes on. I shall say no more about regulation, as I am sure that the subject will arise again.
Several Government actions have not been helpful. For example, the changes to capital gains tax made a mockery of the plans of many retiring small business owners who had anticipated that the sale of their business would provide a nest egg for their old age. A recent debate on sub-post offices revealed the great uncertainty that exists about their future. I am sure that other hon. Members have met sub-postmasters and mistresses who are worried about their nest egg and the way in which they were led to expect that certain aspects of their business would continue.
In the interests of giving other hon. Members a chance to speak, I shall refer only briefly to the Government's actions in respect of IR35, which have created difficulties for many small contractors. I merely flag up that I do not intend to lose sight of that. It was an unnecessary use of a sledgehammer to crack a nut, and it will return to haunt the Government in due course.
Consultation on legislation and impact assessments are crucial. People who run small businesses are slightly ahead of civil servants in their knowledge of the problems and difficulties involved. I welcome the interchange programme, whereby civil servants and others can acquire experience in companies, but the scheme relates only to large companies. They work for two years or more in the Shells and BPs of this world, but I suggest to the Minister that consideration should be given to expanding the interchange scheme to include the smallest companies so that civil servants and, perhaps, Ministers could sit alongside a small business owner—for example, the owner of a garage or small shop—for a week or two. They would then see for themselves the real problems facing small businesses. There is a great lack of knowledge about the smallest of businesses. That comes up time and again. Large businesses receive appreciation of their problems, but small businesses do not, as I know to my cost because I ran a small business in years past and had to do the VAT books and so on at 1 and 2 o'clock in the morning.
The hon. Member for Ochil referred to the Electronic Communications Bill. We all agree that electronic communication is a tremendous challenge and a great opportunity for small and other businesses but, as I said when discussing the Bill, it must be made absolutely clear, particularly to small businesses, that it is not simply a matter of obtaining a web site and plonking something on it. An article on e-commerce in The Guardian today stated that
"we're not quite there yet, US retailers made billions from wired consumers last Christmas but they also lost billions. One source estimated that poorly designed websites cost American retailers six billion dollars in potential sales".
284WH
I shall not continue, but there is much more in the article.
I make a plea for the Small Business Service to consider the matter seriously. The Minister said that she had opened a centre yesterday and referred to a firm that has done extremely well, but for every one that does extremely well, many struggle to take on new ways of business. I plead with the Minister to ensure that small businesses are able to appreciate the pros and cons of e-commerce opportunities.
The hon. Member for Ochil referred to mentoring and the concern that many of us feel about the quality of the advice given to small businesses and of mentoring schemes. I have been involved with the Prince's Youth Business Trust and I am sure that the Minister knows how effective that has been in following through its support for small businesses, shown in its success rate. In general, two thirds of small businesses in this country fail and only one third continue for more than five years and become successful. The British Chambers of Commerce stated that one of the aims of the Small Business Service is to encourage more start-ups. I would say, what about carry-ons? It is important to help firms to carry on, because it is no good having many start-ups if not many carry on. A crucial element is to ensure that business mentors are properly accredited. That has not happened in the past and an accreditation scheme should be put in place so that we can assess their worth and ability.
I want to give other hon. Members an opportunity to speak in this welcome debate. We must watch carefully the development of the Small Business Service, which I expect will replace the previous system and be more effective. Throughout the coming year I shall inquire or make speeches about progress in this regard.
3.55 pm
Mr. Tony Lloyd: The Minister made a profound point when she said that the Government's most important act was to create an economic climate in which small businesses could flourish. In fact, the Government have created a climate in which business can flourish. Small businesses flourish when they trade with larger businesses, and vice versa. It is vital that all parts of the economy have such opportunities. That is the single most important task that the Government have performed.
There was a brief but interesting exchange between the Minister and the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning), the Opposition spokesperson. The hon. Lady said that we would have to go back five years to find a period when business failures were worse than they are currently. That was one of the last years of the previous Conservative Government, who had a disastrous record and who failed to create a climate in which small or larger businesses could function.
I warmly endorse my hon. Friend the Minister's comments on the importance of providing adequate services for`the development of businesses among Afro-Caribbean entrepreneurs. Despite the fact that that community is now well established in this country, development of Afro-Caribbean businesses has been hindered. We need to examine why they have not grown and what can be done to rectify the problem. There are

285WH
examples of good practice—I pay tribute to the Cariocca business park in my constituency, which is Afro-Caribbean led and which has helped to ensure that people have access to appropriate advice and mentoring. The important concept of mentoring was discussed by the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Cotter). It is particularly important when there is a thinness of culture—people should have access to others who can add practical value in terms of management and business operation.
Dr. Ashok Kumar: My hon. Friend mentioned the Afro-Caribbean community. Does he agree that the Asian community has made a tremendous contribution to the business sector? Who would have believed 10 or 15 years ago that the success that it enjoys would have been possible? Despite the difficulties that ethnic minorities generally face, the Asian community has done well and we should recognise its tremendous spirit. Thanks are due to many Labour local councils and authorities for the help that they have given Asian businesses.
Mr. Lloyd: I join my hon. Friend in suggesting that Labour councils have a particularly good record. A quick walk around the centre of my constituency and the centre of Manchester would reveal the dynamism of Asian-run businesses. Asian businesses have bought older properties in the centre of Manchester and helped to ensure that it once again experiences enormous economic dynamism.
Perhaps I should be slightly pedantic and point out that that dynamism involves only a subset of the Asian community. My hon. Friend anticipated a point that I wanted to make. Such access is patchy. The Bangladeshi community, for example, does not enjoy the same business success as the Indian and Pakistani communities. We need to address the cultural phenomenon that might be involved.
I put in a special plea for the newer communities that arrived here recently, including the Somalian community. Its members lag a long way behind in the development of entrepreneurial skills. The nature of our economy in recent years means that they also lag behind in the access that they have to conventional employment. It is especially important to examine what can be done for more marginal communities, or for those most recently arrived. I hope that the Minister will consider that.
A number of inter-related issues influence small businesses. I am a little impatient with the view that the small business sector is monolithic; it is neither monolithic nor homogenous. Practice varies enormously within it, as all the studies indicate. The companies that we look to for growth are well defined: they are well managed, they tend to be newer and they are in an innovative sector. However, we have to be careful not to be over-enthusiastic about the small business sector. If we think, "Small business good, everything else not so good", a number of things will follow. First, we will ignore the real problems that affect small businesses, although the Government are now addressing those problems. Secondly, we will ignore the fact that outrageous practices exist among small businesses, which we must also address.
286WH
This country still lags behind in business innovation. That is not primarily a problem of small businesses. If we compare the best firms with the worst firms, however, we find that training costs range from £294 per employee per annum down to £34 per employee per annum. Sadly, the bulk of those at the top are larger firms and more innovatory companies, while smaller firms tend to be heavily clustered among those at the bottom. The failure of small firms to invest in training and innovation must be addressed. A big gap exists, so we should not be starry-eyed.
I recently had an opportunity to see how exporters operated, and was struck by the relative dearth of small British firms. Compared with German exporters, for example, British small firms are significantly underrepresented. The Small Business Service has a significant role to play in export promotion, and in working with the DTI and the whole Government system to encourage small firms to be more export oriented.
We should also recognise that the management of small firms varies enormously. Some are well managed and dynamic, and look to growth. Some, however, will never grow and do not seek to grow, which we should also accept. We do not look to the sole trader to be the engine of growth. However, some firms, which are not well managed and do not look for anything more than stagnation, are grossly underperforming. That management issue should be addressed, because it has consequences for innovation and investment. It also has consequences for regulation, which I shall discuss in a moment. The Small Business Service should encourage dynamic management attitudes and the strategic management of firms.
I am extremely impatient with the rosy view that regulation is bad and deregulation is good. That is nonsense; it has no basis in common sense or economic efficiency. When small firms are asked whether they want to play on a level playing field or whether they want to compete with firms who are engaged in the most dodgy, outrageous practices, time after time good firms say that they want regulation that works. I shall give examples of unacceptable practices by small firms, which I hope the Opposition will join me in condemning. They are practices that have no place in modern society.
Mrs. Browning: I echo the hon. Gentleman's emphasis on the need for a level playing field. When the Employment Rights (Dispute Resolution) Bill went through the House, Conservative Members tabled an amendment to the effect that companies employing fewer than 50 people should be exempt from the legislation. That would have brought the regulations into line with those governing European companies, so that United Kingdom companies would not have been placed at a competitive disadvantage to those in mainland Europe. However, the Government rejected the amendment and set the level at 20 people rather than 50.
Is the hon. Gentleman worried that there is now no level playing field because the Government refused to accept a principle that we thought fair—that UK companies should work on the same basis as European Union companies?
Mr. Lloyd: At least one part of the hon. Lady's argument is simply wrong. All the evidence suggests that

287WH
the United Kingdom does not have an over-regulated economy. The Minister referred to the OECD report, which makes it clear that, when measured against a comparable group of international traders in modern, efficient economies, Britain is at the bottom of the regulatory pile. That was an extensive study by the OECD, and we must take it on board in saying that Britain is not over-regulated.
There is always a problem with cut-off points for small firms. A firm employing 25 people is more likely to compete with a firm employing 15 than with a firm employing 10,000. These limits are extremely arbitrary. Moreover, a firm that would have been described as a small firm at the time of the Bolton report, a long time ago, employed considerably more people than a small firm does today. The definition of the term "small firm" has changed.
I shall cite the example of a shop in the north-west of England, in which four workers are employed. An employee who started work in June 1999 asked for, and was refused, paid holiday and was told that entitlement to paid holidays would begin only after 12 months' employment. The shop refused to allow its staff a meal break in an eight-and-a-half hour working day, although that is illegal. When the employee asked for a payslip, she was told merely that everything was in order. That is an example of a bad employer who is breaking the law and needs regulation.
Let us take the further example of a firm employing a 20-year-old. Instead of paying her £3 an hour to which she is entitled under the minimum wage legislation, it has dropped her wage to £2 an hour. I wonder whether the Opposition spokesperson can justify paying a 20-year-old £2 an hour as an acceptable living wage in today's world. I certainly cannot. When challenged about why he had not issued that employee with a payslip, the employer told her that it was because he could not afford to employ an accountant.
Those are examples of atrocious employers who need regulation. I make no apology for saying that I am convinced of the reasons why I am a member of the party of government, rather than the party of opposition, when I hear the arrant nonsense that regulation is bad and deregulation is automatically good. That describes not the better regulation that the Government want to introduce, but the deregulation that the Opposition favour. I am also convinced that the people of this country will continue to vote for the party of Government and not for the Opposition.
Mrs. Browning: A balance must be struck. If one is keen on deregulation, or a light touch of regulation, that does not mean that one is a total free marketeer. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, during the previous Parliament, I tabled an amendment to a Conservative Bill that gave part-time workers the right to a payslip?
Mr. Lloyd: I congratulate the hon. Lady.
Mrs. Browning: Now you do.
Mr. Lloyd: I congratulate the hon. Lady on that. It is remarkable, however, that it took her own efforts to
288WH
persuade the previous Government to introduce legislation whose importance is so obvious to all of us. Perhaps that explains why she is a little confused. She is a natural regulator who is now in the ideological trap of the Opposition and is having to work hard to justify her own unsupportable position.
Mr. St. Aubyn: Not only my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton but members of the previous Conservative Government should be appalled by the hon. Gentleman's comments on their efforts to tighten health and safety regulation. How does he reconcile Conservative Members' actions in that regard with his statement that they are against regulation?
Mr. Lloyd: I am happy to debate health and safety at any time. Under the previous Government, this country experienced a deteriorating health and safety record and the erosion of regulation. That especially affected small firms, whose employees are extremely vulnerable to a lack of regulation. Without health and safety inspectors, small and large firms did not perceive any pressure to maintain their health and safety records. More people in small and large firms continued to die under the previous Government because they ignored health and safety and underfunded the Health and Safety Executive. Labour Members do not need any lessons about that.
This is an important debate. We need to examine the role of small firms and how we can make them more dynamic. The Government are doing many of the right things, but I appeal to my hon. Friend the Minister: we must get away from a culture of saying that small firms are automatically dynamic and good when not all of them are dynamic and some are awful. In particular, we must get away from the idea that small firms are entitled for those reasons to plead for deregulation in all circumstances. We want better regulation and a bonfire of irrelevant regulation. We also want regulation that strikes a fair balance between the rights of employees, customers and other stakeholders and those of employers. My plea is that we should never lose sight of the fact that the Government must create that central balance. If we take the nonsensical view that regulation is bad and that deregulation is good, we do so at the expense of millions of our fellow citizens—not only employees but customers and other stakeholders—who will not thank us.
Madam Deputy Speaker: I call Mr. Leigh—I am sorry, I mean Mr. Chope.
4.13 pm
Mr. Christopher Chope: That reminds me of when I joined the House and was mistaken for my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) by a colleague who wanted to give me a drink and lobby me to vote for him for chairmanship of a Select Committee. As a new boy, I accepted the drink and said that I did not think that hon. Members who were not Select Committee members had votes on their chairmanship. My colleague then asked, "Who are you?" I was immediately forced to abandon my drink, and he rushed off to lobby the correct person. You are therefore not alone, Madam Deputy Speaker, in having muddled me up with another hon. Member.

289WH
It is a great pleasure to participate in the debate. Having served on the Health and Safety Commission during much of the previous parliamentary Session, I should tell the hon. Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Lloyd) that his remarks about health and safety are far removed from the facts. I shall not go into the matter in detail, but I remind hon. Members that the health and safety record was improving as a result of the previous Government's policies.
I am also suspicious about the suggestion of the hon. Member for Manchester, Central that we should not go overboard in supporting small businesses. His remarks chimed conveniently with comments made by the Trades Union Congress in a letter discussed in the Trade and Industry Committee earlier this week. The letter stated:
"It is also questionable that small firms should have extra incentives simply by virtue of being small or because more small firms in the economy is automatically a good thing…the role of small firms in improving productivity growth, enterprise and innovation does not sit easily with the facts…In order to significantly raise national productivity and investment rates, it is the behaviour of the corporate and public sectors that is key."
That is the traditional view of the Labour party. It is obviously the view of the Trades Union Congress, which is concerned that more than half the people who work in this country are employed by small firms employing fewer than 100 people. I suspect that one reason why there has been so much delay in the Government's introduction of a substantive programme of assistance for small firms is that they were interested in window dressing, propaganda and seductive words before the general election. They found, when they got in, that the TUC and others—the big battalions, the corporate side and the public sector—were lobbying strongly against the interests of small firms and as a result they thought that the best thing would be to go slow on the matter. Thus, there was no proper debate last year, and this year's debate is being curtailed. It will be three hours rather than the five hours that the Government promised would be the norm every year during their tenure of office.
On the theme of actions speaking louder than words, and to illustrate the Government's indifference to the problem faced by a small firm in my constituency, I shall explain what happened to Coulton Instrumentation, of Christchurch, which wanted to export valves to another country. A representative of the firm telephoned the Department of Trade and Industry on 2 February 1999. He asked for the department responsible for exports to Iran, and was put through to someone on the middle eastern trade desk. He explained that the company was quoting for a project in Iran and needed advice, as it had never supplied Iran before. He described the goods involved and gave the name of the firm's customer to the gentleman on the DTI desk, who telephoned the same day and advised that the customer was known to the DTI and that there would be no problem in securing payment. The firm asked whether any special documentation was required for Iran and was told no. It was encouraged to go ahead and proceed with the business.
The firm was under the impression that it had received the complete picture and that the person to whom its representative had spoken was able to speak on behalf of the Iranian desk. It became clear after the firm had produced the goods and was in the process of exporting
290WH
them that it was wrong to have accepted the information from the DTI at face value. On 12 August Customs and Excise at Heathrow stopped the control valves from going on the flight to Iran and wrote requesting further technical information. The firm telefaxed copies of the information requested by return and a few days later chased Heathrow customs to find out what was happening. A representative spoke to Mr. McFarland from the Customs and Excise export enforcement team and explained that the firm had contacted the Department of Trade and industry about the matter and had not been given any special instructions. His words were:
"If you go to the DTI Iran trade desk they will encourage you to export. But if you go to DTI export control, they will do their best to stop you. That is a very silly situation."
He said that the firm forwarded the documents to the DTI. On 19 August, the firm chased Heathrow customs again and was advised that it could be up to two weeks before it received a reply from the DTI. On 24 August, it received a letter from customs stating that the DTI had decided to request an export licence application. That was the first time that that small firm, which had not exported to Iran before, had heard that it needed to obtain an export licence. The matter did not end there. Even at that stage, the Department of Trade and Industry and the Government could not get their tackle in order to enable the export to proceed. After the firm contacted the DTI helpline to request an application form, it received information on how to apply, but no form. It repeated its request for an application form, which arrived on a computer disk.
The firm wrote to Iran to obtain the necessary end user's undertaking, which it had to telefax to the DTI for confirmation that the form had been completed correctly because the instructions were ambiguous. Ambiguity is a major burden on small business. The firm telephoned the DTI three times in one day for a response to the telefax. The last call was transferred to four different people. No one could help. It was eventually referred to the supplementary notes in the standard application form. By 20 September, some 11 days after the firm first asked for the information, no reply had been received and it had no alternative but to assume that the end user's undertaking had been completed correctly. The application form was then sent to the DTI with a covering letter explaining that the firm was short of time because its letter of credit was due to expire in three weeks. It asked for assistance in processing the application.
The DTI wrote back the following day confirming receipt of the document and allocating a reference number to the export licence application. Some 10 days later, the firm called the DTI to find out how the application was progressing. It was told that it would take between 10 and 20 days to process. The individual to whom the application had been allocated said that licence processing was a sensitive political issue and that other Departments had to give their approval. She advised that the application was booked to go to an interdepartmental committee meeting on 12 October. As the delay was being caused by three Government Departments and 12 October ws a long way away, the managing director of the small firm wrote directly to the Prime Minister and copied the letter to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. He described the efforts

291WH
that had been made over many years to produce exports for Britain and appealed for intervention in this problem. The firm also wrote to its customer and requested an extension of the letter of credit. It was told over the telephone that all other European and American-owned suppliers to the project had made delivery on time without export control problems. It is a major issue that our firms are burdened with controls that their competitors do not have.
On 12 October, the firm contacted Mr. Peter Reed of Dorset business link. The hon. Member for Manchester, Central said that we need to get business links or the Small Business Service involved in helping small firms to export. I hope he listens carefully to what happened. Dorset business link spoke to Jayne Carpenter, the head of licensing at DTI export control, who was aware of the letter that had been sent to the Prime Minister. She advised that the application had to go before the interdepartmental committee and that the delay was outside her control. It is not much use having a small firms service that can intervene at the highest level of Government to remove red tape and bureaucracy and enable goods to be exported if the head of the relevant Department cannot assist.
On 13 October, the firm received a reply made on the Prime Minister's behalf by Mr. Coupland, the correspondence secretary at No. 10. He advised that the letter had been passed to the Department of Trade and Industry and that it would send back any comments direct. Fortunately, the firm received from its customer an extension of its letter of credit. On 14 October, it telefaxed the Department of Trade and Industry person allocated to deal with its application, to find out whether a decision had been made on the meeting that occurred on 12 October and whether an export licence had been granted. It was told in response that its licence had not been considered in that meeting but that another meeting was scheduled for 18 October.
On 15 October, the firm telefaxed the head of export licensing and asked for help to shorten the delay. She telefaxed back by return, apologising for the conflicting information and stating that although she was unable to give a definite time scale she thought that it would take roughly a further six to eight weeks for the application to be processed. She explained that the application had to be considered by an interdepartmental committee consisting of representatives from the Department of Trade and Industry, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Ministry of Defence.
In desperation, the firm sent another telefax to the Prime Minister explaining that the problems had increased since it had last written. It said that in its opinion the Department of Trade and Industry was unable to meet its obligations to exporting companies and asked again for the Prime Minister's personal intervention. By that time, the House had returned from the summer recess. I tabled four parliamentary questions to the Department of Trade and Industry about the licence application, and it is a fair summary to say that I received completely inconclusive replies. I emphasised in the questions that the issue had been drawn to the attention of the Ministers concerned and
292WH
that I hoped that we would be able to resolve the problem and ensure that the export could be carried to a successful conclusion.
The firm was then told that it would take much longer for the application to be dealt with and that it should obtain yet another extension to its letter of credit. Having obtained an extension to 15 November, the firm was informed that the application would not be dealt with until between 1 and 15 December. It then obtained a further extension. You will not be surprised to hear, Madam Deputy Speaker, that the licence application was not dealt with by that time, which meant that by Christmas the company had still not received a yes or no to its application. The firm is keen to increase its export business—
Mr. Tony McWalter: Still?
Mr. Chope: The hon. Gentleman asks whether it is still interested, but I shall tell him what has happened now. It is now four months since the application was accepted for processing by the Department of Trade and Industry. Mr. Coulton, the managing director of the firm, wrote to me on 11 January. His letter states:
"Words will not begin to express my feeling of absolute frustration. This application has been the subject of four parliamentary questions, two letters to the Prime Minister and a letter to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, yet no one can advise when a decision will be made".
Unfortunately, the decision was made by his customer, who decided to cancel the order for the shipment of control valves, which was afterwards placed with a company in Germany. Mr Coulton wrote to Customs and Excise, which had been holding the goods since its intervention in August, stating that he would arrange for the valves to be collected and returned for disposal.
That is the reality of how joined-up government is treating small entrepreneurs eager to export and to back Britain. It is absolutely disgraceful that people write to the Prime Minister and to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry but receive no adequate response. I hope that the Minister will apologise unreservedly to the firm and ensure that it receives compensation for its ordeal. I hope that she will ensure that the systems are changed within Government so that timely decisions are taken on export applications. If ever there was a deterrent to small businesses trying to build export trade, that experience is surely an example of it.
I can regale the Chamber with another example from my constituency, of a different firm involved in selling replacement parts for aircraft. Some very large operators are engaged in that business; they can get an export licence from the Government that covers a range of products so that they do not have to make a licenceby-licence application. The firm in my constituency is too small to qualify for such a licence so it has to make applications to the Government case by case for permission to supply spares to aircraft in countries such as Pakistan and India.
The firm is at a disadvantage because other, larger firms can export on the basis of a list approved in advance. If the Government were interested in helping small businesses and creating a level playing field, one might expect that in return that firm would be able to get timely consideration of its applications, but it cannot.

293WH
The company keeps phoning me and telling me about its frustrations. It asks, "How can we possibly build a niche export business to provide spare aircraft parts if we do not get at least some assistance from the Government and the Department of Trade and Industry?"
I have given two examples of the Government seriously letting down small businesses in my constituency. My third example is of a completely different kind of small business: a doctor who runs a small general practice in West Moors. He wrote to me recently stating:
"The Department of Health has just issued yet another version of the NHS prescription form FP10."
The letter goes on to say:
"This is the third version we have had in the past year. The previous style was in use for 20 years or more. In the past we have at least been able to use up the old stock before switching to the new ones, but on this occasion we have been told to return the old stocks to the health authority for destruction. We have sent back a considerable number of boxes, several months supply."
The doctor wanted to be able to use the old forms. He suggested to the Department that supplies of cut sheet prescription forms could be produced to allow the use of modern laser printers—they are cheaper to run, and faster and more secure than the old slow and noisy dot matrix printers. He was told by the Government, who are geared to modern technology, that funds were not available for that purpose. That general practitioner was trying to get up to date and asking for prescription forms that he could use with his modern laser printer, but it was not possible.
That is another, real, live example that shows that for all the Minister's rhetoric about how the Government will encourage new forms of commerce and e-commerce they cannot even provide forms in a way that will enable my constituent, Dr. Blackmore, to operate more efficiently.
From my constituents' experience, the Government's performance in respect of small businesses is lamentable. From the proposals for the Small Business Service and the rough document that was issued yesterday—it was stapled together in what was obviously a last-minute, desperate measure—it is clear that there is no consistency about what is meant by a small firm. The people who will serve on the Small Business Service council will be representatives of not only small but medium-sized firms, yet we know that 94.7 per cent. of all the firms in this country have fewer than 10 employees. They are effectively microbusinesses. Another 4 per cent. have between nine and 100 employees. But it seems that the small firms body that is to be set up will be run by representatives of much larger firms. There is all the difference in the world, thankfully, between a microfirm and a small firm. If the Government are committed to small businesses, there is no need for medium-sized businesses to be represented on this new, small firms organisation.
We do not even know what the budget for the organisation is. As part of what I think is a concerted delaying tactic, the Government are again saying that they will leave it to the new organisation to work out its programme and prioritites. The chairman has only just been appointed and will not be paid until next month or the month after. Another six or nine months will pass before there is a clear policy and, by then, the
294WH
Government will have been in office for three and a half years. If ever a Government should be indicted for not getting down to the business, this Government should be for their attitude towards small firms. Something serious must be done about that, and I hope that we shall have another debate on small firms soon, not in a year's time, so that we can hold the Government to account. At present, they think that they can rest on their laurels and on some clever wording.
In conclusion, I remind hon. Members of the statement that was made in the so-called "Small Business Action Update" issued in June 1998, on which much reliance was placed in our previous debate on small firms. It stated:
"On 25 March, the Minister for Trade announced a new package of export support which will mainly benefit small firms".
I hope that the Minister will realise from what I have said today that, whatever that package was, it was not fit for the purpose.
4.37 pm
Ms Linda Perham: I am pleased to have been called to speak in this debate. Small business and enterprise has been a particular interest of the Select Committee on Trade and Industry in the past year and, as a member of that Committee, I have taken part in hearing evidence and have been fortunate enough to have the opportunity briefly to visit the United States, where we could compare, exchange and learn from experiences in the UK and the USA. My hon. Friend the Member for Ochil (Mr. O'Neill) has covered part of what we did there.
In this small business debate we are in a position to welcome the advent of the Small Business Service, which starts in April. This is a great step forward, which I hope will be acknowledged by small businesses throughout the country as an indication of the importance that the Government attach to them.
Barclays bank estimates that there were 470,000 new business start-ups in 1999. Others have said that the small business sector is of enormous importance to the UK economy, and I agree. The hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) mentioned the statistics for small businesses. The Department of Trade and Industry's statistics for small and medium-sized enterprises in the UK show that 94.4 per cent. of businesses employ fewer than 10 people and 99.6 per cent. employ fewer than 100 people.
In London in particular the growth in jobs that has been achieved in recent years has been largely in the so-called microbusiness sector, to which other hon. Members have drawn attention. The latest figures from the Federation of Small Businesses in London show a growth of 14.4 per cent. among companies employing fewer than five people between 1995 and 1997. John Emmins, who chairs the FSB in London, said on 8 December 1999:
"We have always been convinced that any future growth in London's economy will come from the microbusiness sector, typically those firms employing between one and four workers. More importantly, it is from this sector that we can expect job creation which may lead to everyone's golden scenario, namely full employment."
The prospect of that golden scenario prompted many of us to enter the House and remains a policy priority for the Government.

295WH
However, that Federation of Small Businesses report, which is based on annual employment surveys, makes less happy reading in respect of the retail sector. The revitalising of our high streets is largely dependent on the growth of small traders. We have, after all, been famously called a nation of shopkeepers. There is growth, and there is enormous potential for further growth, but consistent help of the highest quality must be provided.
My hon. Friend the Minister mentioned encouraging the involvement of women in small and medium-sized enterprises. The Select Committee was heartened by its visit to the United States last May, when we met the head of the American small business administration, Ms Alvarez, and heard about its initiatives. As my hon. Friend the Member for Ochil said, Ms Alvarez's appointment to a Cabinet post demonstrates the importance that the USA Government place on small businesses. We also visited Sweden last month, and learned about the help that is given to Swedish women entrepreneurs.
The East London small business centre reported 255 business start-ups in the 18 months before December 1999, 42 per cent. of which are run by women. Ethnic minority businesses, which constitute an important sector in north-east London and elsewhere, as hon. Members have noted, accounted for 34 per cent.
My hon. Friend the Minister for Small Business and E-Commerce called for integration of the support offered to small businesses, and a drawing together of the different strands of provision that are funded by the Department of Trade and Industry, the European Union, the single regeneration budget, chambers of commerce and local government. Indeed, the Federation of Small Businesses has called for some time for a one-stop shop or single gateway for small businesses. The list of topics that need to be addressed is long, and includes credit, export advice, employment legislation, health and safety, value added tax, other taxation and insurance arrangements, benefits, national non-domestic rates and utilities. Bringing all relevant expertise under one roof will be difficult, but that is what the SBS—and, of course, small businesses—must try to do.
The need for integration will be quickly and specifically highlighted by the development of plans to spend funding achieved through European objective 2 status. Those areas that are granted such status will benefit fully from funding only if they enmesh their plans with those of other agencies and funding streams. The role of small businesses will not be maximised unless they are brought into the planning stage. In London, the detailed plan for objective 2—the programme complement document—must be ready by the end of the year.
Steps have also been taken in London to achieve a single franchise for the SBS. That has not been an easy task. The Government office for London has had to contact about 170 interested organisations, some 87 of which are business links partnerships. During the
296WH
process that the Government office for London endorsed, Lord Sawyer was drafted in to chair the meetings. His brief included being able to
"flush out hidden agendas and hold the ring",
which sounds like a cross between Dyno-Rod and Lennox Lewis. Hon. Members will note that I was careful to mention a British boxer.
I stated my commitment to the concept of business links partnerships during a debate in the House on 19 June 1998. Indeed, last year, in my own constituency, Business Links London East received a nationwide best practice accolade for providing a business support service that helped local business to improve turnover and profits.
Notwithstanding the general benefits of integration and partnership to which I have referred, I hope that the vital role of local government in supporting small businesses is given the recognition that it deserves. Councils are key providers of services such as planning, environmental health, licensing, car parking, town centre management and waste collection. Legislation will shortly impose on councils a statutory duty to develop local economies.
The importance of the contribution of local councils to economic development has never been greater. If the SBS is to achieve the success that we all wish for, it must obtain and maintain the best possible links with local government. In turn, local government will be failing itself and its supporters if it does not recognise the benefits of establishing a close relationship with the SBS at the appropriate level. It is inconceivable that any council's local economic strategy can be realisitic if it does not stress the importance of small and medium-sized enterprise.
We must tackle the integration of the regional development agencies. RDAs are being heralded in some quarters as the most dramatic development for UK businesses in many decades. If that is to be so, there must be a clear understanding of what is best done by the RDAs and where the SBS should concentrate its inevitably limited resources. In London, those questions will need to be addressed when the London development agency is up and running and the Greater London Authority and the Mayor are giving it the democratic guidance that it will require.
I have some queries about the SBS. Who will propose and approve its performance indicators? As the years go by, we shall need to know whether it is as successful as we hope and expect that it is going to be.
The SBS's remit is to help firms comprising up to 250 people. I am worried that too much emphasis may be placed on the higher end of the scale, thereby diluting the help that might otherwise be concentrated on the smaller firms. However, I have been somewhat reassured by the Minister's opening remarks, by the Government's reply to the Select Committee report—which recognises the need to develop a differentiated approach in supplying advice and services across the range—and by the announcement on 20 September 1999 of the Business Volunteers Mentoring Association to help start-up firms.
The SBS may have the specific expertise to assist cooperatives. If new mutualism is to be the exciting development that some have said that it will be, the SBS

297WH
could act as a catalyst for the development of cooperative enterprises. However, it will need to have the relevant experience and skills if it is to do so.
My last two queries are about the level of funding of the SBS—especially given that it is not to have the payroll service—and whether the chief executive will be free to publish his views on regulatory legislation, particularly where he considers that small businesses' concerns have not been addressed.
I conclude by drawing hon. Members' attention to the excellent work that the Government have undertaken in encouraging small businesses. The tax regime has been improved by the new lop rate of corporation tax and £20 million has been invested in venture capital to finance high technology businesses in their early stages. The great injustice of late payment, which is a real problem for small businesses, has been tackled. The SBS is clearly another major step in the right direction. All that good work means that a thriving small business sector will play a substantial part in the continuing success story that is the British economy under a Labour Government.
4.48 pm
Mr. Nick St. Aubyn: It gives me great pleasure to speak in a debate on small business, as the chairman of a small business and someone who has been involved in the sector for 10 years. During that time, I had the experience of a company that hit the rocks, although I am glad to say that on that occasion nobody was hurt.
At one point, I had close contact with clothing manufacturers in Wales. Hon. Members who tell us about the effects of the national minimum wage should be aware that the minimum wage has lost the Welsh clothing industry thousands of jobs. Thousands of people have gone from low pay to no pay. Much as we want to see a high wage, high performance economy, the proper route to achieving that is through investment and the development of the real economy, rather than artificial measures that, unfortunately, often do far more harm than good.
E-commerce, will have an important impact on the small business sector. My hon. Friends and I regret the fact that Labour Members have no stomach for a fight and that the Minister and her colleagues preferred to give their hundreds of Labour Back Benchers an early night—none of them is here today—than to put yesterday's business through in the time available, so that we could have discussed the Electronic Communications Bill on the Floor of the House today. That is what happened during the past 24 hours and the many millions of people who want early implementation of the Bill will be disappointed that the Government gave it so little consideration when determining the business of the House this week. We know from the Second Reading debate on that Bill that the Government do not understand the importance of the sector. I am thinking of IR35 and the effect that the new tax rules will have on small businesses and information technology providers generally—there are many in my constituency—who were accused by the Minister in the House a few weeks ago of being tax dodgers.
It would be helpful if the Minister would clarify whether she believes that every small business man who takes legitimate steps to avoid taxation is behaving in
298WH
the same way as people who illegally evade taxation. Does she consider those two actions as one and the same? If so, and if her Government intend to portray tax avoidance as illegal tax evasion, the framework within which small businesses must operate in this country will be so discouraging and difficult that many will give up entirely. People in the IT industry can often choose in which jurisdiction to operate and will decide to operate elsewhere. The Government's aspiration to gain the lion's share of e-commerce trade for the United Kingdom will remain merely that—an aspiration.
Related to that problem is that of the temp-to-perm regulations, which we await with great interest. I know from small firms in my constituency that many people believe that the Government do not understand the need in a flexible economy for the easy hiring and engagement of temporay employees or the value to businesses of being able to translate them into long-term employees without the sort of penalties which the Government initially contemplated with their original temp-to-perm regulations and which many fear will still come about when we see the full details shortly.
To put the matter in context, I have been advised by local firms that the cost of employing outside contractors to undertake IT work for a small business will rise by 25 per cent. on an hourly basis as a result of the implementation of IR35 and the expected temp-toperm regulations. How can small businesses invest in new technology—we all agree that they must do so—when the Government are increasing their costs by 25 per cent. per hour? The Government are imposing that appalling burden on small businesses as we speak.
Mr. O'Neill: I am a wee bit at a loss. If I choose to employ a plumber, I like to think that he is paying his tax, which is reflected in the bill that I pay. Why should people in the IT business be different from the plumbers I employ to fix the sink in my house? Why should one group of workers be subsidised by the rest of us because of a loophole in the tax system, which the Government are now choosing to fill?
Mr. St. Aubyn: I am sure that every IT contractor would be delighted to be treated as a self-employed business man, as is the hon. Gentleman's local plumber. The problem is that self-employed IT workers are treated more like employees than like the local plumber. Although they are employed to fix problems in the system, they are not allowed to charge on the same basis as local plumbers. That explains why costs are going up and why the best and most able IT people, who use the current rules to accumulate capital to invest in their business and to employ more people, will leave our shores and find a better environment, such as that on the other side of the Atlantic, where their skills will be better appreciated. If that happens—there is every sign that it may—it will be the best rather than the majority of IT workers who will leave, although the others will suffer as a consequence.
I am deeply concerned about the cost of access to the internet. We heard earlier about how the gainsaying of the Select Committee on Trade and Industry persuaded British Telecom to move a small distance in the right direction. I am reliably informed that the current estimates are that British Telecom's windfall profits from IT connections are in the order of half a billion

299WH
pounds a year. Another consequence of the IT revolution is that British Telecom's revenue from international traffic is probably much lower than it expected for the same period. However, a strategic issue is involved that goes beyond the interests of a monopolistic—or, as the hon. Member for Ochil pointed out, perhaps I should say oligopolistic—supplier. If businesses are to be connected to the net as quickly and effectively as their counterparts in other countries, those costs must be reduced dramatically. British Telecom's high connection charges have held up development, which has had on-going, long-term costs to our economy. That is a more important consideration than the individual interests of a firm, although those interests still deserve to be considered. The Government had an opportunity to deal with that issue in part III of the Electronic Communications Bill but they failed to do so, and that failure will return to haunt them. Britain has a golden opportunity to become the major player in Europe in the world of e-commerce, but the Government are losing that opportunity through their lethargy and inaction, and their failure to grasp the real and difficult issues that are involved.
I am aware that many other hon. Members want to speak so I shall conclude by making one more point. The changes that e-commerce involves are not encouraging for many small businesses. In the long run, the portals to commerce that the new framework will produce and the way in which distribution will be conducted mean that a small number of e-commerce companies will control the gateway to customers. It will be hard for many small businesses to get through that gateway at a price that gives them a decent return. If they are to do so, they must be allowed to have access to the new technology and to get on top of it as fast as they can. The Government failed to give them that opportunity because they failed to tackle the problems that I raised. Their failure will impoverish small businesses in this country.
4.58 pm
Dr. Ashok Kumar: I shall not respond to the doom and gloom that we have heard from the Tory Benches this afternoon. I want to bring optimism and light into this Chamber. I have much to say but, in view of the time, I shall try to be brief. I shall say a few words on the needs and aspirations of small firms in my constituency and explain how the Government's policies are helping them grow and prosper.
Only last week I was privileged to open the new premises of a small firm called TAS Fleet Trainers. It was started by one of my constituents, Lyn Treadgold, who spent a decade and a half working for others—and for herself—as a driving instructor before she realised that her talents could be used more laterally. The growth of two and three-car families means that there is a need for more driving instructors. Tighter insurance requirements and a tougher driving test, with a written exam built in, meant better driving instructors. Because of changes in the structure of daily work, more people are becoming more mobile in their working day. The growth in personal service industries has resulted in more people on the road, and more people meeting and
300WH
working with other people in their homes, offices and workshops. However, the sheer growth of such mileage can have a down side. I read recently that 25 per cent. of all road accidents involve people driving as part of their work routine. That figure hides personal misery and linked insurance premiums and overheads.
Lyn Treadgold's idea was to combine her talents as an advanced training instructor with the needs of local companies for advanced fleet driving trainers. That training combined elements of advanced driver training with defensive car driving techniques, which cut down on road accidents and improved the overall quality of open road driving. Therefore, the road became a safer place for the general public and firms were helped to avoid pain and cost. Most importantly, it helped to keep people alive.
Lyn Treadgold's idea meant setting up her own business and employing other driving instructors. Local agencies in my area helped that idea become a reality. Tees Valley business link helped her with the initial business plan and her cost projections, employment services helped her find the right people to employ, and Redcar and Cleveland borough council, which is in my constituency, helped by providing premises in a small, easy-in easy-out business centre. The centre is based on a conversion of the old Redcar railway station, and the station offices, booking hall and concourse have been converted into a large number of individual units. The borough council also employs a centre manager and staff, who act as the front desk for the tenant. Lyn Treadgold was therefore helped by a government agency, a local business support system and a local authority. Those agencies, which worked in partnership with the banks, and, of course, Lyn Treadgold herself, turned this bright idea into reality.
I am sure that such stories are replicated all over the country, as older industrial structures based on large employers and mass production techniques change to a structure based on small firm creation, management buy-outs and spin-offs. Those structural changes have a big impact on areas such as Teesside, where heavy industry has been combined with developing technology. Our chemical industry is changing from being a big bulk producer dominated by a small number of world-class firms to one where smaller batch production of higher value-added products is becoming the norm. Our engineering industry once specialised in large fabrication for the old, heavy, iron and steel and shipbuilding industries, and has had to adapt historical in-built skills to cater for the new precise instrumentation needs of a steel industry that now competes on quality rather than quantity. Our offshore engineering sector is undergoing structural decline as the depletion of the North sea reserve gathers pace, but it has pioneered advanced undersea engineering techniques.
The workers in those industries still have those skills in their brains. Many of them are looking to apply them in newer, more advanced manufacturing techniques. Many of them are looking to sell their skills and ability through self-employment or starting their own firms. Society can also utilise many of those skills. For example, as a result of climate change, a large part of the UK and many parts of the developing world need new forms of flood defences and new techniques for marine management. The subsea engineering techniques

301WH
developed by the Teesside offshore industry could be developed and adapted to help those regions and countries. I am sure that there are many other examples.
The Government's programme for small firm support will help those dreams to become a reality. I am particularly excited that much technically innovative work is being helped through by the expansion of the DTI's innovation budget. Locally, small firms and agencies, such as the Middlesbrough-based CAD/CAM centre, and high-technology centres, such as Cleveland Innovation, are making full use of the opportunities offered by this expansion, which they match with specialist European Commission funds to provide a comprehensive package of support for local companies and budding new Teesside innovators.
Such agencies can network with other local business centres to ensure that technical innovation goes hand in hand with the development of high-quality training and retraining facilities, and with bodies such as the local branch of business links, so that financial advice, mentoring and business plan development can be offered under one roof. Local authorities can also help through the provision of specialist accommodation, such as the Redcar business centre that I mentioned earlier, with direct finance through loans, grants or loan guarantees and with help in finding a way through the licensing or planning maze. The Government's plans to consolidate this by setting up a comprehensive Small Business Service based on the business links network must be welcomed.
I give a warm welcome to all the policy initiatives that the Government are adopting to help small businesses and their trading needs.
5.6 pm
Mr. Kerry Pollard (St. Albans): As chairman of the all-party small business group and from running my own microbusiness before I came to the House, which began with two employees and went up to 25 within four years, with a corresponding increase in throughput, I know how the small business sector operates and what it needs. I can remember hoovering up before I went home at night and putting the milk bottles out.
The small business sector is vital to the success of the British economy, with 38 million small businesses representing 55 per cent. of private sector employment and 45 per cent. of gross domestic product. Those figures highlight the importance of small businesses to our economic future as the engines of job creation and growth.
I am delighted that the Prime Minister recognised the importance of the sector by changing the ministerial post from Under-Secretary to full Minister of State. We are indeed fortunate to have such a high-calibre Minister in my hon. Friend. The small business sector also has friends in high places, with Ministers in the Treasury and the Department for Education and Employment who were former small business Ministers. The Government recently appointed David Irwin to head up the new Small Business Service, and I was pleased to hear his pledge to tackle the problem of red tape for small businesses as a matter of urgency.
The Government have introduced new employment legislation to create greater fairness at work, including the minimum wage, the working hours directive and the
302WH
working families tax credit, but the cumulative effect of the deluge of new regulations is a matter of concern, with the full onus of compliance on the small business owner. In small firms with only a few workers, resources are taken away from the main task of making money to concentrate on employment and other legislation. The higher administrative burden for small businesses, particularly as compared with bigger businesses, adds greatly to the cost of compliance. I am therefore gratified that red tape is high on the new SBS agenda and that it will act as a single gateway for small firms, to ensure easy access to Government services.
The Government are firmly committed to stimulating the creation, competitiveness and growth of new and small business. The European awards for the spirit of enterprise have just been launched by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Energy and Competitiveness in Europe. Through that initiative, small and medium-sized enterprises can gain wider recognition and business exposure. The awards, which are backed in the UK by the DTI and across Europe by the European Commission, are made at regional, national and European level, giving us an opportunity to acknowledge new and developing businesses and encourage entrepreneurs. This year is the first time that the awards will be held in the UK, although they have been running in other European member states since 1991.
In my constituency, businesses are almost exclusively small and medium-sized, with many fine examples of enterprise and the growth of e-commerce. One example is Hocking NDT, a high-tech business that exports worldwide, which was started some years ago by Don Hocking from a shed in his garden. It now employs high-calibre people and is an important part of our local and regional economy. There are many similar companies.
Mr. Tony McWalter: Is he still in the shed?
Mr. Pollard: He has moved on to two sheds.
The all-party small business group with responsibility for furthering the interests of and providing feedback on small business in Parliament maintains close links with small business organisations such as the Forum of Private Business, the Federation of Small Businesses, which represents more than 180,000 independently owned small businesses throughout the United Kingdom, the Small Business Bureau, and the associations of chartered and certified accountants. Those groups have provided a great deal of relevant reserch that is useful to the Government in conjunction with the direct feedback that they receive from their small business members. They will want to work closely with the new SBS to co-ordinate further the support for the sector. All those groups are putting names forward for the council that will manage the SBS, contrary to what has been said.
In addition to the increased administrative burden and costs of compliance that are associated with red tape, a key problem for the small business sector is that of easier access to finance. Evaluation of the Government's small firms loan guarantee scheme is taking place with lenders. Furthermore, although I welcome the new lop corporation tax rate for small

303WH
companies and the extension of the 40 per cent. capital allowance for small and medium-sized enterprises to encourage investment and growth, I endorse the view that small businesses should be encouraged to retain cash in the business, perhaps by reducing tax rates on profits that are returned to it. I look forward to seeing further improvements in those measures to assist the small business sector.
Madam Deputy Speaker: May I say that several hon. Members have made extensive use of copious notes? They know that the reading of speeches is not permitted, which I am sure they will bear in mind. I recognise that the use of notes is acceptable and prompts other than electronic reminders sometimes have to be used when an hon. Member makes a contribution. Does Mrs. Browning want to speak again?
Mrs. Browning: I do, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Two clear messages have come out of the debate. First, we can all flag up, with great pride and pleasure, successful businesses, especially smaller businesses, that are in our constituencies. Secondly, although we had a flourishing small business sector—the hon. Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Lloyd) commented that we are known internationally as a low-regulation country—that did not happen by accident. We have that reputation because in the years of Conservative stewardship, we had specific policies that were aimed at creating a low-regulation country. We saw the definite advantages of that for the business sector and the overall growth of our national economy.
However, almost every business that I talk to mentions the cumulative effect of two years of relentless regulation. We hear the same cry from a range of businesses. Businesses from all sectors, large or small businesses, the Confederation of British Industry and organisations that represent smaller firms all send the same message: regulation is at the top of their list of concerns and they want the Government off their backs.
We heard a great deal about another Government task force that is determined to tackle regulation. I challenge the Minister on that. Our debate has rightly focused on the burden of regulation that is placed on small businesses. Week after week, the Opposition face another regulation that the Government want to add to the burden. Only last week, I prayed against the Minister's regulation to introduce statutory works councils at a cost to business of £850 million. In opposition, we must pray against regulations to bring to the House an open debate about the damage that the Government are doing.
From the contributions, especially from those of Ministers and other Government Members, it is clear that there is an ideological divide. We are pilloried for supporting deregulation. I am sorry to pick on the hon. Member for Manchester, Central, but what he said was pertinent. I gave him a clear example from the passage of what became the Employment Relations Act 1999. The Conservative party tabled an amendment to exempt from a regulation companies of fewer than 50 employees because companies of that size had such an exemption under equivalent European legislation. The Government opposed the amendment and made our companies reduce the ceiling to 20 employees.
304WH
The Government talk about the level playing field, but what is that if, when we compete with German, Italian or French companies, we find that we must work to different rules and that the Government deem it appropriate to handicap them further?
Mr. McWalter: Will the hon. Lady try to resist treating trade unions as if they are an encumbrance to business? Whatever the size of a business, good relations between trade unions and management are of real benefit, helping to secure improvements in health and safety, better conditions and a happier work force.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Interventions must be brief.
Mrs. Browning: I shall resist doing what the hon. Gentleman referred to because there has been a clear change in the relationship between the trade unions and companies. That has arisen because of the trade union reforms under the Conservative Government of the 1980s, by which power was returned to trade union members.
Good communications between management and work force, whether via a trade union or not, do not require statutory works councils with their attendant costs. Those of us who, like me, worked in British manufacturing in the 1970s and early 1980s—I then proceeded to run my own business for 10 years—knew that there had been a sea change. That change was necessary both for the work force and for the management—I could be critical of managerial practices from the early 1980s. Much of the Government's action to put affairs on a statutory basis has been unnecessary.
The Government will be judged by their actions, not by their words. I have heard nothing to make me think that there will be fewer regulations for me to pray against or that the pound cost burden on business will lighten. I assure people that the Conservative party will put right the Government's failures when we come to office.
5.17 pm
Ms Hewitt: May I begin by asking for your assistance, Madam Deputy Speaker, with an intervention with the authorities of the House? We have had blessedly little hot air during the debate, but it would have been nicer had more heat come from the radiators in the Chamber.
Even in freezing temperatures, we have had an extremely interesting and valuable debate. I was impressed especially by the thoughtful and well-informed contribution of my hon. Friends the Members for Ochil (Mr. O'Neill), for Manchester, Central (Mr. Lloyd), for Ilford, North (Ms Perham), for Middlesbrough, South and Cleveland, East (Dr. Kumar) and for St. Albans (Mr. Pollard).
I should respond to the case of Coulton Instrumentation, raised by the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope). Of course, I apologise to

305WH
Mr. Coulton—he did not get the service that he should have had. Such problems happen even in the best-run businesses and Governments.
Mr. Chope: The problem is not that he failed once to get a service but that he was told repeatedly that he would get a service that was never delivered.
Ms Hewitt: I completely understand—the hon. Gentleman could hardly have made the point clearer. I shall personally get a report on what happened in the case and the reason for the delays.
I did not have time to mention British Trade International, a joint venture of the Department of Trade and Industry and the Foreign Office. It will put together all our export development and export support work and information about potential markets. It is already doing excellent work to support small businesses that want to move into new markets and is planning to put on line export control data for countries such as Iran, where restrictions are in place. I shall find out whether that information can be put on line even more quickly to ensure that businesses and people advising them have access to the most accurate and up-to-date information available.
I urge hon. Members who have constituents with urgent business problems of the sort under discussion not to waste time and to bring their problem to me. I do not promise that I can always provide a solution, but I promise that I shall try and that I will learn the lessons from such problems to try to ensure that the service is better in future.
Mr. Chope: What more should a constituent do than write directly to the Prime Minister, who promised that he was making contact with his own Government? I, too, took up the matter on the telephone, and spoke to a Mrs. Carpenter, although I was not going to mention that. I hope that the Minister is not suggesting that my constituent was at fault.
Ms Hewitt: Of course I am not, but as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is so exceptionally popular he receives an exceptional number of letters. It is therefore difficult to obtain fast replies, especially on complex problems. I am saying simply that if hon. Members speak directly to me or to one of my colleagues in the Department, we will try to sort out their problems quickly, which is what Mr. Coulton and others in his position needed.
The hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) spoke about deregulation and suggested that the Government were not doing enough. She will not mind if I remind her of her words. She said that as a Minister in the previous Government she would be the first to say that they did not do very well on better regulation. Having admitted that the Conservatives did not get it right after 18 years, it is a bit much for her to complain that we have not got everything right in the first two and a half years. As she rightly said, there is a powerful Whitehall culture and a complex and deep-seated bureaucracy that will sometimes make regulations and guidance much too complicated and will fail to sort out some problems as quickly as they should be sorted out.
306WH
With the backing of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, we are trying to put in place powerful forces for better regulation. That is the point of the new ministerial panel, the new Small Business Service and the better regulation task force, and it is enormously important.
My hon. Friends the Members for Manchester, Central and for Middlesborough, South and Cleveland, East rightly referred to the entrepreneurialism of many Asian communities. In my constituency city of Leicester, the Indian community in particular has generated vibrant and dynamic small businesses, as well as rather large businesses, often from almost nothing, which is what many in that community had when they arrived in Britain. We must not only celebrate that and other such success but support enterprise in other Asian communities and in the Afro-Caribbean community, which have other problems.
I am happy to say that I shall soon announce the appointment of the chairman of the new ethnic minority business forum. I hope that its membership will soon be in place, to ensure an early meeting. That organisation will work alongside the small business council, and the two bodies, which will no doubt have some overlapping membership, will give the Government a sounding board and a direct voice on the experience of a range of small business people from exactly the sort of diverse background to which my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Central rightly referred.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ochil and the hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. St. Aubyn) referred to the importance of bringing down the cost of telecommunications to enable business to connect more easily and cheaply to the internet. I entirely share their concerns; the cost of off-peak, weekend access to the internet, which a residential customer might use, is among the cheapest in the world, but the peak-hour, weekday access is undoubtedly too expensive. I want those costs to continue to fall much further and faster and I want a greater variety of tariff packages, including the option of a flat-rate subscription without a taximeter running for every extra minute of the call.
Mr. St. Aubyn: Will the Minister briefly explain why she has not tackled the problem in clause 10 of the Electronic Communications Bill?
Ms Hewitt: It is extraordinary that the hon. Gentleman should be asking us to propose a particular tariff structure on a private company in primary legislation. That is an absurd proposition. I did not realise that the hon. Gentleman was a devotee of various bits of old Labour, but there we are.
Mr. St. Aubyn: Will the Minister give way again?
Ms Hewitt: I am sorry; we are near the end of the debate. We will get the costs down and get the tariff packages right by driving competition further into the telecommunications marketplace, as we are doing, and by having tough and effective regulation, which Oftel is delivering. Last week, Oftel had a useful meeting with the internet service providers, with BT and with other interested parties. They will shortly settle interconnection charges with BT for internet access

307WH
which will enable a range of tariff packages, including unmetered access, to be introduced within the next couple of months. After that, there will be the introduction of digital subscriber loop technology, local loop unbundling, third generation mobile and fixed access, broad band wireless, all of them intensifying competition in the local loop and bringing costs down. That is part of getting the infrastructure and the conditions right for business success. Our commitment to e-commerce success means that we will do that extremely energetically.
The hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton asked a question about the minimum wage and company directors. The minimum wage, rightly, does not apply to office holders, which includes directors of companies. She continued to complain about what she called overregulation and what we know as fair standards for workers. It is not only Government Members who regret the position of the official Opposition on the matter; millions of employees and hundreds of thousands of small business owners regret the fact that we have an official Opposition who believe that wages should be allowed to fall through the floor, but do not believe that employers should have a right to paid holidays and a modest right to unpaid parental leave. It is an absurd position, but if the Conservative party had the chance to implement such beliefs it would mean a
308WH
real fall in living standards for millions of ordinary people in this country who have benefited from the minimum wage and from the working families tax credit, which the official Opposition are also committed to repeal. That is not the way to create the conditions for business success.
The way to do that is to ensure that we get the macroeconomic conditions right, as we are doing, and that we get the tax environment right, as we are doing by cutting corporation tax rates to their lowest ever and by introducing a 10p starting rate of income tax which will benefit the several million self-employed people who run small businesses.
The way to get the conditions right is to get the infrastructure right, as I said, and to ensure that we regulate when necessary and when the benefits clearly outweigh the costs, as my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Central said, very eloquently. When we regulate, we will ensure that we do it in the most effective and simple way possible, always using the litmus test of thinking small first. That is precisely what we shall do to ensure that under our stewardship small businesses in our country continue to flourish and that more of them start, survive and succeed and become world beaters in their own right.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes past Five o'clock.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Horizon Working Group
  Mr. Ashdown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will publish the report of the Horizon Working Group on post office business issues submitted to the Cabinet Office in December 1999; and if he will make a statement. [104724]

  Mr. Byers
  The document concerned represents work in progress and contains commercially sensitive information.

  Post Offices
  Mr. Ashdown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many post offices there were in(a) Somerset and (b) the Yeovil constituency in each year from 1980 to 1999; and if he will make a statement. [104748]

  Mr. Byers
  I understand from the Post Office that they do not hold historic information on the numbers of post offices in each parliamentary constituency or local administrative area and that such information cannot readily be compiled.

  The Post Office advise that in October 1999 the number of post offices in Somerset was 234 and in the Yeovil constituency was 42.

  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what proposals are being considered by his Department to help sustain and develop the viability of rural and urban sub-post offices. [105859]

  UK imports of soya from the USA

  £000

  SITC/CN/Description

  1996

  1997

  1998

  19991

  08131 Oil cake and residues of soya beans

  15,635

  34,487

  28,836

  12,645

  22220 Soya beans

  77,892

  86,232

  71,054

  20,329

  120810000 Flours and meals of soya beans

  32

  21

  16

  19

  42111 Crude soya bean oil

  1

  0

  47

  96

  42119 Refined soya bean oil

  25

  32

  22

  1

  Total

  93,585

  120,772

  99,975

  33,090

  1 January-November

  Source:

  Overseas Trade Statistics of the United Kingdom, HM Customs and Excise

  National Assembly for Wales
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what training staff in his Department have received on the implications of the establishment of the National Assembly for Wales on their work in giving advice in response to inquiries. [106070]
  518W
  Mr. Alan Johnson
  The Government are making a substantial contribution to the costs of automating the entire post office counters network to strengthen the viability of the network as a whole. Automation will enable Post Office Counters Ltd. to offer substantial enhancements to the services it is able to offer to clients and customers which in turn will increase the attractiveness of post offices compared with other service delivery channels. In addition, the Performance and Innovation Unit in the Cabinet Office is carrying out an urgent study on the post office network.

  Lord Archer
  Mrs. Browning
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry under which section of the Companies Act 1985 he asked officials to investigate Lord Archer of Weston-super-Mare in 1999. [106005]

  Mr. Byers
  I have never asked my officials to investigate Lord Archer of Weston-super-Mare.

  Newspapers
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will prevent recent proposed changes in the ownership of newspapers circulating in Wales. [105423]

  Dr. Howells
  I understand that the question refers to the proposal by Trinity Mirror plc ("Trinity Mirror") to acquire the newspapers and related assets of News Communications & Media plc. Under section 58 of the Fair Trading Act 1973, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's prior written consent is required before such an acquisition is made. I announced on 21 December that I was referring Trinity Mirror's application for consent to the Competition Commission. The reference, which was mandatory under the terms of the Act, does not prejudge the issues involved. The Competition Commission will investigate and report their findings to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State by 13 March 2000.

  Soya Imports
  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much soya was imported from the USA to the UK in(a) 1996, (b) 1997, (c) 1998 and (d) 1999. [106092]

  Mr. Caborn
  The available information is as follows:

  Mr. Caborn
  Information and guidance on the implications of devolution on the work of the Department, including handling of correspondence and inquiries, has been promulgated to staff throughout the Department and placed on the Department's intranet. In addition, a number of seminars have been held to provide information to staff
  519W
  and to encourage discussion on the effect of devolution on their responsibilities. I have also written to all senior officials in DTI to remind them of the need to work with the devolved administrations in accordance with the arrangements set out in the Memorandum of Understanding and concordats (Command Paper Cm 4444, published on 1 October 1999) and in a bilateral concordat between DTI and the National Assembly for Wales which I expect to be published shortly.

  Regional Assistance
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he expects the new EU regional assistance map for the UK to be agreed. [106078]

  Mr. Caborn
  Discussions with the Commission on the proposals for new Assisted Areas are continuing. We will announce the new map as soon as possible.

  Coal Miners (Compensation)
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if the payment of compensation to ex-coalminers and their widows in respect of emphysema and chronic bronchitis includes an element of compensation for pain and suffering; and if he will make a statement. [106074]

  Mrs. Liddell
  Compensation for successful claims in respect of chronic bronchitis and emphysema includes general damages for pain, suffering and loss of amenity.

  Departmental Properties
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list those properties held by his Department and agencies responsible to him which are(a) wholly and (b) mainly unoccupied at present, giving locations and when they became so unoccupied in each case. [105307]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 19 January 2000]: The information is as follows:

  (a) None.

  (b) Three.

  (i) Lime Grove, Eastcote, Middlesex

  My Department vacated this site in late 1998. Part of the site, however, continues to be occupied by US Forces personnel and my officials are therefore exploring a transfer of site responsibility to the Ministry of Defence.

  (ii) Dee Hills Park, Chester

  (iii) Gordon House, Rochester

  These freehold properties were vacated on 6 December 1999 and 9 January 2000 respectively. Sales of both are expected to be completed shortly.

  Glassmaking
  Mr. Rammell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what estimate he has made of the Manufacturing capacity of glass making in the UK, expressed in tonnes per day. [104766]
  520W
  Mr. Alan Johnson
  This Department has responsibility only for the lead crystal, container, scientific/technical and automotive glassware sectors. No such assessment of the manufacturing capacity in these industries has been undertaken.

  Mr. Rammell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment he has made of the medium-term demand for manufactured glass in Britain. [104765]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  This Department has responsibility only for the lead crystal, container, scientific/technical and automotive glassware sectors. No such assessment of the medium-term demand for manufactured glass in Britain has been undertaken. However, independent reports suggest that the UK glassware market is being increasingly influenced by fashion and design as part of the general trend towards casual dining which has increased the demand for glassware products.

  Gas-fired Power Stations
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment he has made of the economic impact of the moratorium on gas-fired power stations, including the direct and indirect impact on employment. [105160]

  Mrs. Liddell
  I am monitoring carefully the economic impact of the Government's policy of stricter consents for gas-fired power stations. In particular, I have received representations about the impact of the policy on proposals for industrial regeneration in local economies and the impact on employment in the oil and gas, power generation equipment and other sectors. However, the policy is necessary, as a temporary measure, to protect security and diversity of supply while the electricity market is reformed. It will be relaxed as soon as the reform programme has been undertaken and the distortions in the market have been removed.

  Business Rates (North-West)
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent discussions have taken place between his Department and the DETR about reducing business rates in the North-West. [105272]

  Mr. Caborn
  There have not been any discussions between the Department of Trade and Industry and the Department of Environment, Transport and the Regions specifically about a reduction in business rates in the North-West. However, my Department has been involved in discussions about the arrangements for transitional relief and is also involved in the Government review of the system of revaluation of non-domestic rates in England.

  BSkyB and Cable
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the Office of Fair Trading's investigation into BSkyB and cable. [105261]

  Dr. Howells
  The decision to undertake a competition review of BSkyB's position in pay television is a matter for the Director General of Fair Trading.

  Petrol Sales
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will investigate the prospects for independent petrol retailers. [105269]

  Dr. Howells
  DTI Ministers have no plans to investigate this particular market sector. In so far as there are any possible competition issues, it would be for the Director General of Fair Trading to investigate.

  The Director General last looked at the petrol market in 1998. He found that independent petrol retailers had suffered as a result of strong competition between the oil companies and the supermarkets, but overall the market was competitive and consumers were benefiting.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he investigates regional monopolies of the sale of petrol by oil companies. [105270]

  Dr. Howells
  Under UK competition legislation, responsibility for investigating allegations of anti-competitive practices, abuse of monopoly position and restrictive trade practices lies with the Director General of Fair Trading.

  Any evidence of abuse of monopoly position, on a regional or national basis, should be passed to the Director General of Fair Trading.

  Agency Banking Services
  Mr. Hurst
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps he is taking to encourage the major clearing banks to agree agency banking services with Post Office Counters. [105330]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  The Government have taken steps to put back on track the Horizon project to automate the post office network thereby establishing a platform for provision of on-line agency banking services at all post offices. However the extension of the provision of agency banking services at post offices is primarily a matter for commercial negotiation between the clearing banks and Post Office Counters Ltd.

  Coal Industry
  Mr. Bill O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what were the total tonnages of coal delivered to power stations in Great Britain in 1999, giving the breakdown between(a) collieries in England, Scotland and Wales and (b) deep mines and opencast. [105513]

  Mrs. Liddell
  Figures for 1999 as a whole are not yet available, but in the first three quarters of 1999 it is estimated that of the 24 million tonnes of coal delivered from collieries and opencast sites in Great Britain to UK power stations, about 15 million tonnes came from England, four million tonnes came from Scotland and less than one million tonnes from Wales with a further four million tonnes from small producers that cannot be readily allocated geographically. Of the 24 million tonnes about 13 million tonnes was deep mined and about 11 million tonnes opencast and recovered coal.
  522W
  A further five million tonnes of imported coal were reported by power stations in the first three quarters of 1999.

  Mr. Bill O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much coal was imported into the United Kingdom in 1999(a) in total and (b) from each country supplying coal to the United Kingdom. [105514]

  Mrs. Liddell
  Figures for 1999 as a whole are not yet available, but in the first three quarters of 1999, it is estimated that 14.6 million tonnes of coal were imported into the UK.

  Coal imported1 into UK, January to September 1999

  Country

  Thousand tones

  Belgium/Luxembourg

  41

  France

  2

  Germany

  12

  Irish Republic

  39

  Netherlands

  136

  Total EU2

  230

  Australia

  4,336

  Canada

  1,331

  China

  219

  Colombia

  2,603

  Indonesia

  50

  Mozambique

  19

  Norway

  21

  Poland

  975

  Russia

  83

  South Africa

  2,101

  USA

  2,107

  Venezuela

  435

  Vietnam

  114

  Total Non EU

  14,392

  Total all countries

  14,622

  1 Country of origin basis.

  2 Imports from EU countries include coal from outside the EC routed through these countries.

  Electricity Cabling
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what percentage of electricity supply cabling in urban areas of England is over(a) 25 years, (b) 35 years and (c) 50 years old. [105665]

  Mrs. Liddell
  Separate figures are not available for England. Percentages for Great Britain are as follows:

  Age

  Percentage

  Over 25 years old

  75

  Over 35 years old

  52

  Over 50 years old

  26

  Source:

  OFGEM 1999 review of Distribution Price Controls

  Electricity Market
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what percentage of the electricity market had been opened up to competition as at July 1999 by each of the member states of the EU. [104886]
  523W
  Mrs. Liddell
  The latest information available from the Commission gives the position as follows:

  Member state

  Percentage of market opening by May 1999

  Germany

  100

  Sweden

  100

  Finland

  100

  UK

  100

  Denmark

  90

  Netherlands

  33

  Spain

  30

  Italy

  30

  Portugal

  26

  Austria

  27

  Source:

  Vol. 1 of the Second Report from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament on the State of Liberalisation of the Energy Markets (May 1999)

  France and Luxembourg have not yet implemented the Directive and the Commission has initiated infraction proceedings. Their draft laws, however, provide for market opening of 26 per cent. and 45 per cent. respectively. Belgium, Ireland and Greece have been allowed to delay the implementation of the Electricity Directive, Belgium and Ireland until February 2000, Greece until February 2001.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry by what date he intends to reply to the letter from the right hon. Member for Wells concerning the business dealings of the hon. Member for Coventry, North-West (Mr. Robinson) and his Department's inquiries into those dealings. [104673]

  Mr. Byers
  I replied to the right hon. Member's letter today.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry by what date he intends to reply in full to the letters from the right hon. Member for Wells dated 15 July 1998, 23 November 1998, 26 November 1998 and 11 December 1998 concerning the activities of Hollis Industries plc, TransTec plc and AGB International plc. [104675]

  Mr. Byers
  My predecessor replied to the right hon. Gentleman's letters as follows:

  Letter

  Reply

  15 July 1998

  23 September 1998

  23 November 1998

  11 December 1998

  26 November 1998

  11 December 1998

  11 December 1998

  21 December 1998

  Hollis Industries plc
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will publish the report arising from his Department's investigations into Hollis Industries plc and the hon. Member for Coventry, North-West (Mr. Robinson). [104670]
  524W
  Mr. Byers
  These were confidential inquiries and in accordance with established practice and legal constraints I have no proposals to publish the findings of the investigation.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Parades Commission
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the religious and political affiliations of each member of the Parades Commission. [106109]

  Mr. Ingram
  Three members of the Parades Commission are from the Protestant community, three are from the Roman Catholic community and one is non-denominational. None has any active involvement with any political party.

  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many facilitators have been employed by the Parades Commission; how much has been paid(a) in total and (b) to each; and to what religious denominations they belong. [106108]

  Mr. Ingram
  A team of 12 Authorised Officers, representing a balance in gender and religion, has been employed by the Parades Commission, through Mediation Network NI, since April 1998.

  The remuneration for 1998–99 was £7,000 per annum, based on a minimum of 80 days commitment per year. The remuneration for 1999–2000 was £7,200. The Commission has recently decided to extend the remit of the Authorised Officers to include education and community development and, accordingly, the days have been increased to a minimum of 100 days per annum with a commensurate increase in remuneration to £9,000 per annum. Since April 1998 to end December 1999 the total remuneration was £151,000.

  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) what are the religious affiliations of the applicants for the post of Chairman of the Parades Commission; [106107]

  (2) how many applications have been received for the post of Chairman of the Parades Commission. [106110]

  Mr. Ingram
  Of the 45 applicants who recently applied for the post of Chairman of the Parades Commission. 18 were Protestant, 11 were Roman Catholic and 16 were from other denominations or did not specify.

  This information was obtained for the purposes of equal opportunities monitoring. It was not made available to the interviewing panel.

  Mr. Richard Jameson
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what assessment he has made as to whether(a) the murder of Mr. Richard Jameson was carried out by a terrorist organisation and (b) that murder indicates that the ceasefire has been broken. [106102]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Secretary of State keeps his judgment about the ceasefires under continual review, taking account of all the information he receives from his
  525W
  security advisers. It is the Government's view that the main ceasefires on balance are holding. If there is evidence that an organisation is not maintaining its ceasefire he will not hesitate to act.

  Decommissioning
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what has been the cost to date of the International Independent Commission on Decommissioning. [106081]

  Mr. Ingram
  Updated costs are currently available only to 30 September 1999. The total expenditure shared by the British and Irish Governments from September 1997 to that date was IR£2,528,047. The British Government's share of that was STG£1,005,029.

  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the dates of the meetings held between the International Independent Commission on Decommissioning and the representatives of each political party and terrorist organisation since the creation of the Commission. [106080]

  Mr. Ingram
  That is a matter for the Independent International Commission on Decommissioning.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Solicitors (Age Discrimination)
  Mr. White
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what steps he is taking to prevent age discrimination in the training of solicitors. [105598]

  Mr. Lock
  The solicitor's profession is independent and self-regulating. It is for the Law Society, in the first place, to set and to apply any requirements in respect of the training of solicitors.

  Meanwhile, the Government are committed to tackling age discrimination across the board. On 14 June 1999, the then Minister of State for Employment and Disability Rights launched the Code of Practice for Age Diversity in Employment, with supporting guidance for employers. It is aimed at all employers, including solicitors' firms. Although it is non-statutory, the Code sets the standard for non-ageist approaches to recruitment, training and development, promotion, redundancy and retirement.

  Departmental Smoking Policy
  Mr. Crausby
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what action he is taking to reduce smoking in his Department. [105797]

  Jane Kennedy
  My Department has a well established "Smoking Policy" designed to provide smoke-free working conditions for those staff who want them, while offering limited, designated, smoking facilities for smokers and help for those who wish to stop smoking.

  Recent Health Awareness events held in various areas of the Department were designed to encourage staff to consider the effect of their life styles on their health, including exercise, diet, smoking and drinking habits. Further such events are currently being considered.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  M60
  Mr. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) if he will list, for each of contracts 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 for the M60 motorway between Denton and Middleton(a) the original price, (b) the cost of the completed contracts and (c) the estimated final cost of the remaining contracts; [104425]

  (2) when he expects the M60 between Denton and Middleton to be completed; and if it will be opened in phases or in its entirety. [104426]

  Mr. Hill
  I have asked the Chief Executive of the Highways Agency, Mr. Peter Nutt, to write to my hon. Friend.

  Letter from Peter Nutt to Mr. Andrew Bennett, dated 20 January 2000:
  The Transport Minister, Keith Hill, has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Questions about the costs and programme for the M60 Manchester Outer Ring Road.
  The scheme is split into four main contracts. The tender prices for each contract were: Contract 1, £101.9M; Contract 2, £48.9M; Contract 3, £50.1M and Contract 4, £18.2M.
  Contracts 1 and 3 are still under construction so it will be some while before we know the final cost and although work on Contract 2 is complete, the final account has not been settled. In the circumstances, I am afraid I cannot let you have an estimate of the final outturn cost for these contracts. To do so would prejudice our position with the contractors in the event of disputes over claims or the settlement of accounts.
  The final cost of Contract 4 was £30M.
  The contract was let under the Institute of Civil Engineers 5th Edition form of contract which allows the contractor to be paid for the actual, rather than the estimated, work done and the risks that occur.
  It is not always possible to identify in advance all the necessary work nor the precise nature of the ground and the contract allows for extensions of time for certain risks. In this case, the contract was extended by 37 weeks to allow for unforeseen ground conditions, including contaminated ground. Work was also severely delayed by exceptionally bad weather.
  It is this additional work which caused costs to rise.
  The disadvantage of this form of contract was the uncertainty of cost and time and the Agency addressed these issues in a review which led to an announcement in 1997 of new procurement initiatives. We are now using other forms of contract which share risk more equitably and encourage a partnering approach to get away from the adversarial way which has marked some of our contracts in the past.
  We expect the remaining contracts to be completed and opened in their entirety by Summer this year. There are no plans for phased openings.

  Cycle Routes
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what is the mileage in the Greater London area that has been constructed for use as cycle routes. [104792]

  Mr. Hill
  The total length of the London Cycle Network routes implemented at 1 April 1999 is some 755 miles.

  Sustainable Development Commission
  Mr. Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) when the first meeting of the Sustainable Development Commission will take place; and how often the Commission will meet; [104786]

  (2) how many permanent staff the Sustainable Development Commission will employ; [104787]

  (3) if he will list the membership of the Sustainable Development Commission; [104788]

  (4) what is the proposed budget of the Sustainable Development Commission; and how much of it will come from public funds. [104789]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Sustainable Development Commission, which will replace the existing UK Round Table and British Government Panel on Sustainable Development, is expected to begin work in the spring. It will be for the Commission to decide the frequency and timing of its meetings along with its other working arrangements. The DETR will provide funds for administrative support for the Commission which will have about 15 members, and a Secretariat that permits an increase on current staffing for the two existing advisory bodies, which currently have six permanent staff. A proposed budget of £492,000 has been allocated for the Commission for 2000–01. It will be open to the Commission to encourage others to contribute support, for example, by providing staff on secondment. The process of appointing members is under way in accordance with the guidance laid down by the Commissioner for Public Appointments.

  No-car Days
  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will introduce pilot no-car days in the UK. [104837]

  Mr. Hill
  No. Our view is that it is for local authorities to decide whether they want to introduce no-car days, taking into account local circumstances.

  London Cabs (Blind Passengers)
  Mr. Efford
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) how many complaints have been received by the Public Carriage Office regarding London taxi drivers who have refused to carry blind passengers with guide dogs in the last year; [105203]

  (2) if he will estimate how many passengers with guide dogs are carried by London taxi drivers per year. [105204]

  Mr. Hill
  The Public Carriage Office has no recorded complaints of London licensed taxi drivers refusing to carry guide dogs in the last year.

  Neither the Public Carriage Office nor the Department monitors the number or proportion of taxi journeys in London involving passengers with guide dogs.

  Road Gritting
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what guidelines his Department has issued for the gritting of roads in icy conditions. [105056]
  528W
  Mr. Hill
  [holding answer 17 January 2000]: The Highways Agency aims to provide a winter maintenance service of de-icing and snow clearing which, as far as possible, allows the safe movement of traffic on motorways and all purpose trunk roads in England, and keeps delays and accidents caused by adverse weather to a minimum. Their maintenance agents undertake the operational management of this service following the guidelines in the Highways Agency Trunk Road Maintenance Manual: Volume 2, Routine and Winter Maintenance Code.

  For local authority roads, the Code of Good Practice for Highway Maintenance produced by the local government associations in England and Scotland in 1989 provides advice on systems to predict freezing conditions at Appendix 4.7. A partnership project between DETR, the Local Government Association, the Welsh Assembly, and DOE(NI) is currently considering the revision of this code.

  London Elections
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he plans to announce the outcome of his consultation on the proposed spending limits for London Mayoral and Greater London Assembly candidates and his decision on whether candidates will have free mailshots; and if he will make a statement. [105282]

  Mr. Hill
  We are considering the comments we received on our proposed limits to the spending of Mayoral and Assembly candidates in GLA elections. We will announce our conclusions in a written answer shortly. The limits will be set in an order subject to affirmative resolution.

  Road Maintenance
  Mr. Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what was his Department's budget for road maintenance in each of the last 10 years. [105704]

  Mr. Hill
  [holding answer 18 January 2000]: Motorway and trunk road maintenance is the responsibility of the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions. The Highways Agency (an executive agency of the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions) carries out this function on the Secretary of State's behalf.

  The responsibility for maintenance of local roads rests with local highway authorities. Central Government funding for routine maintenance of local authority roads is provided through the highways maintenance element of the Revenue Support Grant (RSG). This is distributed by the Highways Maintenance Standard Spending Assessment (HMSSA).

  Funding for structural maintenance of local authority principal roads and bridges has been provided through

  529W
  Transport Supplementary Grant (TSG) until 1999–2000. In the future it will be provided by the Local Transport Plan capital settlement.

  The provisions for the last 10 years were:

  Year

  £ million

  Highway maintenance standard spending assessment

  1990–91

  1,578

  1991–92

  1,786

  1992–93

  1,806

  1993–94

  1,736

  1994–95

  1,759

  1995–96

  1,759

  1996–97

  1,759

  1997–98

  1,759

  1998–99

  1,767

  1999–2000

  11,813

  Transport supplementary grant

  1992–93

  47.64

  1993–94

  86.5

  1994–95

  75.5

  1995–96

  70.52

  1996–97

  43.9

  1997–98

  46

  1998–99

  40

  1999–2000

  56.75

  Maintenance provision for motorways and trunk roads

  1990–91

  2408

  1991–92

  2430

  1992–93

  2478

  1993–94

  726

  1994–95

  690

  1995–96

  675

  1996–97

  547

  Table B: Orders being considered

  Topic

  Timing

  The disposal of houses by local authorities in England

  Expected to be made in late April/early May

  Amending Section 7 of the Building Act 1984

  Expected to be laid before Parliament before the summer recess

  Eligibility to drive a private hire vehicle outside London

  Under consideration in the light of responses to consultation

  Correspondence
  Sir Brian Mawhinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when the right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire will receive a reply to his letter of 1 December on behalf of his constituent, Mr. Hall. [105922]

  Mr. Raynsford
  This letter was sent to the Highways Agency for advice. They transferred the papers to the Government Office for the East of England for reply. Because of a clerical error this transfer was not completed. However the papers are now receiving urgent attention and my right hon. and noble Friend the Minister for Transport will reply shortly.

  Tyneside Metro
  Mr. Swinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has for public investment in the Tyneside Metro. [104829]
  530W

  Year

  £ million

  1997–98

  531

  1998–99

  651

  1999–2000

  765

  1 Provisional figure

  2 Outturn figures

  Note:

  No separate TSG allocation was made for road maintenance before 1992–93

  Deregulation
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what orders his Department has made under the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994 in each year since 1994; and what plans it has to introduce such orders. [106087]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The five orders my Department has made under the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994 are listed in table A. We continue to look for opportunities to use such orders to remove legislation where we can. Three areas where we expect to take action are listed in table B.

  Table A: Orders already made

  Year

  Title

  1996

  The Deregulation (Parking Equipment) Order 1996

  The Deregulation (Motor Vehicles Tests) Order 1996

  The Deregulation (Building) (Initial Notices and Final Certificates) Order 1996

  1998

  The Deregulation (Exchangeable Driving Licences) Order 1998

  The Deregulation (Taxis and Private Hire Vehicles) Order 1998

  Mr. Hill
  The Deputy Prime Minister announced the go-ahead for the extension of the Tyne and Wear Metro to Sunderland and South Hylton on 13 December last year. In addition to ERDF funding we expect to support at least £35 million of expenditure on the scheme.

  Building Regulations (Fire Safety)
  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he expects to publish the revised guidance to support Part B (Fire Safety) of the Building Regulations; and if he will make a statement. [106529]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  I have today published the 2000 edition of the Approved Document to Part B of Schedule 1 to the Building Regulations 1991. The Building Regulations (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 1999, which amended Part B, were laid before Parliament on 21 December 1999. The 2000 edition of the Approved Document offers ways of meeting these revised
  531W
  requirements of the Building Regulations. The amendment Regulations and the 2000 edition of the Approved Document will both come into force on 1 July 2000.

  There are a number of changes in this guidance, which was last published in 1992. Many of them have been to address areas where the guidance has become outdated, or where the guidance has needed clarification. In addition the guidance now contains information specifically relating to schools and gives guidance on sandwich panel construction.

  Some new issues have also been introduced in the 2000 edition of the Approved Document. The revised Approved Document includes guidance on fire alarm and fire detection systems within all relevant buildings and not just dwellings, as was the case in the 1992 edition of the Approved Document. The revised Approved Document now suggests that within a dwelling all habitable rooms within storeys not more than 4.5 metres above ground level should be provided with an emergency egress window. Guidance has also been added to deal with means of escape from storeys within buildings other than dwellings which are also used for the consumption of food and/or drink by customers. This follows two fatal fires in department stores where it has been shown that people in a cafe are not so quick to respond to a fire alarm compared to the other general shoppers.

  As announced on 14 December 1999 by my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning, the revised Approved Document now includes a provision for compartmentation or sprinkler protection in single storey retail buildings with a floor area exceeding 2000m2.

  In some areas where it has become evident in the light of experience that the guidance in the 1992 edition of the Approved Document was too onerous, the guidance has been relaxed. An example of this is the provision for firefighting shafts (a protected stair core incorporating a stair, lobby, dry riser and in the case of taller buildings a lift for use by the fire brigade). The guidance on these, which was introduced in the 1992 edition of the Approved Document, was found to be unreasonably onerous in certain low rise (between 7.5 metres and 18 metres higher) buildings which have a floor area of 600m2 or more. The 2000 edition of the Approved Document relaxes the provision for certain buildings of this type and gives advice that recommends their use only in the shop and commercial, industrial and storage purpose groups.

DEFENCE

  Gulf War
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if the recommendations in the report of the external audit of the Gulf Veterans' Medical Assessment Programme have been implemented. [106501]

  Mr. Spellar
  The Ministry of Defence response to the recommendations in the report of the audit of the Gulf Veterans' Medical Assessment Programme (GVMAP) has now been completed. A very small number of issues remain outstanding but the response explains why this is so and what action is being taken.
  532W
  The staff of the GVMAP have welcomed this opportunity to review their working practices and take action where necessary. The implementation of the audit recommendations will provide an improved service for Gulf veterans.

  I am placing a copy of the response to the audit report in the Library of the House and it is also being published on the Ministry of Defence Gulf Veterans' Illnesses website.

  Mrs. Gilroy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement regarding the implementation of the immunisation programme against biological warfare agents for United Kingdom forces during the Gulf conflict 1990–91. [106493]

  Mr. Spellar
  The Government's "New Beginning" policy statement set out the way forward for addressing the health concerns of Gulf veterans and included a commitment to establish a Fact Finding Team to look into the implementation of the anti-biological warfare immunisation programme during the Gulf conflict. Their work has now been completed and I am today publishing a paper entitled "Implementation of the immunisation programme against biological warfare agents for UK forces during the Gulf conflict 1990–91". Copies of the report have been placed in the Library of the House.

  The publication of this paper reaffirms the Government's commitment to ensuring that Gulf veterans should have access to whatever information the Ministry of Defence possesses which might be relevant to their illnesses.

  The deficiencies in the implementation of the 1990–91 anti-biological warfare immunisation programme have been, and continue to be, addressed in improvements to our current arrangements. When we again deployed to the Gulf in 1998 our immunisation programme was unclassified, all troops were fully briefed using standard material, the nature of the threat and the vaccine were described in detail and all records were updated, showing that the lessons of 1990–91 have been learned.

  The report found that the voluntary nature of the immunisation programme operated as intended in the majority of units and locations. It confirms that no unusual or previously undisclosed immunisations were given during the Gulf conflict and also explains the codewords which were sometimes used for the vaccines.

  Uptake of the anti-biological warfare immunisations in the early stages of the programme was high. Over 75 per cent. of all personnel deployed to the Gulf region are likely to have had anthrax and pertussis immunisations, and in many units this approached 100 per cent. Uptake of the second anthrax and pertussis immunisations and the first plague was less and varied between and within formations. Uptake of the third anthrax and the second plague immunisation was rare.

  Mr. John Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the suggested exposure of United Kingdom troops to chemical warfare agents in A1 Jubayl on 19 January 1991. [106495]

  Mr. Spellar
  The 1997 "A New Beginning" policy statement set out a number of commitments to help address the health concerns of Gulf Veterans. One of these commitments was to review specific incidents of
  533W
  suggested biological or chemical warfare exposures. As part of this commitment I am today publishing a paper entitled "A Review of the Suggested Exposure of UK Forces to Chemical Warfare Agents in A1 Jubayl on 19 January 1991". A copy will be placed in the Library.

  As a result of our review of the available information we assess that UK troops were not subject to attack or exposed to chemical warfare agents at A1 Jubayl on 19 January 1991. Although it is not possible to give a single comprehensive explanation for all the events that took place on the morning of 19 January we conclude from the available information that the indications of the presence of Chemical Warfare agents were false alarms.

  Mr. John Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about the relationship between organophosphate pesticides and the illnesses suffered by some veterans of the 1990–91 Gulf conflict following recent reports from the Committee on Toxicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment and the Institute of Occupational Medicine. [106496]

  Mr. Spellar
  The COT report, published in November, concluded that neuropsychological abnormalities can occur as a long term complication following acute organophosphate (OP) poisoning, particularly if the poisoning is severe. Persistent peripheral neuropathy (disorders of the peripheral nerves) may occur, but not generally at a level which would give rise to symptoms. The body of evidence gives little support to the hypothesis that low-level exposure to OPs can cause chronic disease of the nervous system. However, the report notes that there remains a question over whether a small proportion of subjects may be at increased risk of clinically significant disease following low level exposure and recommends further research in this area.

  The Institute of Occupational Medicine (IOM) report on the relationship between OP sheep dips and illness in exposed sheep farmers and dippers found the critical exposure factor to be contact with concentrate dip: much higher rates of symptoms, predominantly of a sensory nature, were reported among those who had been principal concentrate handlers. There is a very limited evidence that long term low-level exposure to organophosphates leads to long term neurotoxic effects.

  The conclusions from these reports are in line with the findings of the Defence Scientific Advisory Council's (DSAC) Working Party report, the publication of which I announced on 20 October 1999 and which reviewed existing literature on the long term neurotoxicity of anticholinesterases. It concluded that high doses of organophosphates may have long term effects on the peripheral nervous system, but that there is limited evidence about long term toxic effects following low doses.

  During the Gulf conflict very few UK service personnel would have handled concentrated OPs. Those that did would have been Environmental Health Officers or technicians, or individual regimental hygiene duties personnel who were appropriately trained in procedures and the use of equipment. There was no evidence of acute organophosphate poisoning or of subsequent unusual ill health arising in this small group.
  534W
  Neither the IOM nor the COT report provides evidence which would cause us to reassess our view of the possible role of OPs in relation to Gulf Veterans' illnesses. The case for ill-health effects resulting from long term low level exposure to OPs remains unproven and there is currently no reason to believe that Gulf veterans who might have been in casual contact with dilute pesticide (e.g. from the treatment of tents and equipment) or with the malathion dust used to de-louse Iraqi prisoners of war, are at increased risk of long term ill-health.

  Although it remains the case that there is limited evidence of a link between low level exposure to OPs and adverse health effects, MOD will continue to monitor the debate about the safety of OPs. We will continue to review scientific evidence in the light of potential exposures which may have occurred in the Gulf and follow future research, including that recommended by the COT report, very closely.

  Duke of York Royal Military School
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what key targets have been set for the Duke of York Royal Military School for the financial year 1999–2000. [106545]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  The Chief Executive of The Duke of York's Royal Military School has been set the following key targets for 1999–2000:

  To achieve 100 per cent. of GCSE passes at grades A* to G.

  To achieve five or more GCSE passes at grades A* to C; 1999–2000 target is 86 per cent.

  To achieve 88 per cent. of A level passes at grades A to E.

  To achieve three or more A level passes at grades A to E; 1999–2000 target is 80 per cent.

  To achieve 34 per cent. of A level passes at Grades A and B.

  To achieve 100 per cent. award rate for GNVQ Advances and BTEC National Diploma courses.

  To achieve places in higher education for at least 80 per cent. of sixth form leavers.

  To achieve a pupil per capita cost of no more than £12,922.

  To generate income of at least £475,000.

  To achieve at least 270 applications for September 2000 intake.

  Helsinki Council
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to the Annex to the Presidency Conclusions of the European Council held in Helsinki relating to three new military committees under that Council,(a) what is the specific purpose of each and how it relates to the others, (b) what instructions have been sent by the Council to the Secretary General or High Representative of each in respect of his function and duties and (c) what the lines of accountability are. [105131]

  Mr. Vaz
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Helsinki European Council set the framework for the political and military structures that will be necessary for the EU to decide and act on security and defence matters. These bodies are a standing Political and Security Committee (which will handle the full range of Common Foreign and Security Policy issues), the Military Committee and the Military Staff. The incoming Portuguese Presidency was tasked, together with the EU Secretary General/High Representative, to

  535W
  carry this work forward. The terms of reference, guidance and accountability for each body will thus be developed in due course.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Concessionary Television Licences
  Mr. Dobbin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many retirement pensioners in Heywood and Middleton aged 75 or over(a) will benefit and (b) will not benefit from free TV licences. [105198]

  Janet Anderson
  Figures are not available for the number of people aged 75 or over in Heywood and Middleton. However, as my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced in his pre-Budget statement on 9 November 1999,Official Report, columns 883–91, everyone aged 75 or over will receive their television licence free of charge from this autumn. We shall announce full details of the scheme shortly.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will take steps to ensure that all pensioners receive free TV licences. [105414]

  Kate Hoey
  As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced on 9 November 1999,Official Report, columns 883–91, from this autumn, everyone aged 75 or over will receive their television licence free of charge. The Government are introducing this concession for older pensioners because, as a group, they are more likely to rely on television as their window on the world and to be on low incomes. We have no plans to extend the concession to all pensioners, but we are considering the Davies report's recommendations on the existing concessionary television licence scheme in the light of responses to the public consultation and will announce our conclusions shortly.

PRIME MINISTER

  Media Policy
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Prime Minister if those dealing with the media in(a) his Office and (b) other ministerial offices, (i) ever, (ii) routinely and (iii) always record conversations with journalists; and for what period (1) unofficial and (2) official recordings are preserved. [106036]

  The Prime Minister
  It is now standard practice to tape press briefings given by the Prime Minister's Official Spokesman and other Downing street Spokesmen and a written record is circulated around Whitehall Departments, an innovation introduced by this Government. A record is kept on file.

  European Defence
  Mr. Ottaway
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to the answer from the Secretary of State for Defence to the hon. Member for Craydon, South of 10 January 2000,Official Report, column 97W, if he will place in the Library the speech given by his Policy Unit adviser on Europe and
  536W
  Defence, Mr. Liddle, to the French-German-UK Seminar at the Institut de Haute Education de la Defense Nationale, Paris in November 1999. [104803]

  The Prime Minister
  I am advised that Mr. Liddle's talk was not transcribed. I am therefore unable to consider the hon. Member's request.

  Ilisu Dam
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Prime Minister what discussions took place between EU Commission officials and the Prime Minister of Turkey on the Ilisu Dam Project during the 48 hours prior to his attendance at the Helsinki Summit. [105592]

  The Prime Minister
  I have no responsibility for any discussions which the European Commission officials may enter into. However, I am advised that officials of the Export Credits Guarantee Department and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office are not aware of any discussions on the Ilisu Dam project taking place between European Commission officials and the Prime Minister of Turkey during the 48 hours prior to his attendance at the Helsinki Summit.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Higher Education
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what the Government's plans are in respect of salaries and conditions in higher education. [103688]

  Mr. McWalter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on university staff salaries. [103706]

  Mr. Wicks
  The pay and conditions of staff in higher education are a matter for the employers not the Government. The Bett Report into higher education pay and conditions, published in June 1999, made a number of recommendations for restructuring the sector's terms and conditions. It will be for the higher education employers to consider how these recommendations can be implemented.

  Exclusions
  Mr.Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what measures the Government have taken to support schools in reducing he number of exclusions. [103690]

  Jacqui Smith
  Last July we issued new guidance on 'Social Inclusion: Pupil Support' which includes practical preventive strategies, based on good practice, to help schools deal with behaviour problems. This is backed up with nearly £500 million over three years for projects to prevent exclusions.

  Learning and Skills Council
  Mr. Miller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what role will be played by business on the Learning and Skills Council. [103691]
  537W
  Mr. Wicks
  As the LSC Prospectus published before Christmas says, business will have a key role in the new Learning and Skills Council. We intend that at least 40 per cent. of the new Council's members will come from the private sector, and we will be looking to people with business experience to chair the national and most local Councils. In addition, the LSC's local arms will work closely with the new Small Business Service on workforce development.

  Mr. Love
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on his plans for the Learning and Skills Council. [103713]

  Mr. Wicks
  On December 14 my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment published a detailed Prospectus for the LSC. Subject to the passage of the Learning and Skills Bill, we expect the Learning and Skills Council to be in full operation from April 2001.

  Secondary Schools
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what steps he is taking to improve the quality of education for secondary school pupils. [103692]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  An agenda for raising educational standards for secondary school pupils was laid out by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment at the North of England conference on 6 January.

  Small Businesses
  Mr. Bill O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what structures exist to facilitate communication between his Department and small businesses. [103693]

  Ms Jowell
  My Department communicates with small business primarily through small business representative bodies, and through intermediary organisations like Training and Enterprise Councils, Business Links, National Training Organisations and enterprise agencies.

  Rural Areas
  Dr. George Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has to address pockets of low expectations and low skills in rural constituencies. [103694]

  Mr. Wicks
  We are committed to addressing low expectations and low skills wherever they are found. That is why we are setting targets at school and LEA level and creating a new system of post-16 learning that is responsive to local needs.

  Labour Market
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what steps his Department is taking to broaden participation in the labour market. [103695]

  Ms Jowell
  The Government's Welfare to Work programme is the biggest ever initiative to help more people participate in the labour market and get back into work.

  Age Discrimination
  Mr. Connarty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what steps are being taken to promote the code of practice on age discrimination in the workplace. [103696]

  Ms Hodge
  The Code has been well received, with over 40,000 copies being issued since its launch in June. Copies of the Code of Practice were sent to Chambers of Commerce; Training and Enterprise Councils; Local Authorities; National Training Organisations; Trade Associations and 5000 businesses. Advertisements about the Code have appeared in Citizens Advice Bureaux; Jobcentres; local libraries and in a calendar sent to 120,000 small firms. Advertisements have also appeared in a range of publications aimed at management and personnel professionals.

  I will be making an announcement next month on further plans for promoting its key messages.

  Disabled People
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has to propose legislation to guarantee legal rights of access for the disabled to education and training. [103697]

  Ms Hodge
  We announced our intention on 13 December to bring forward legislation to give people with disabilities equal access to schools and further, higher and adult education. The provision of training is generally already covered by Part 11 of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 (DDA) where it concerns employees, or Part III of the DDA where it constitutes a service to the public, depending on the particular circumstances of the disabled person and the provider.

  Job Mobility
  Mr. Best
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what assessment his Department has made of the role of mobility within city boundaries in matching jobseekers to vacancies. [103699]

  Ms Jowell
  My Department recognises that increasing the mobility of jobseekers is critically important in helping people to find jobs, and employers to find people. The Employment Service has developed a comprehensive strategy to address mobility issues.

  Attendance Rates
  Mr. Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what support and advice has been given to schools to improve the rate of attendance by pupils. [103700]

  Jacqui Smith
  We are investing £500 million over three years on projects tackling truancy and school exclusion and other initiatives to get children back into school and learning. To support this major investment, we issued new guidance to schools in July 1999 entitled "Social Inclusion: Pupil Support", which includes evidence on what works in increasing attendance rates at school.

  On 1 November 1999 we also issued our strategy document "Tackling Truancy Together" which sets out our further proposals for helping to reduce unauthorised absence from school. We are currently considering the

  539W
  many responses we received to the proposals in that document, and will make an announcement soon on what further action we want to take to help reduce unauthorised absence from school.

  Further Education
  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on his plans for funding the further education sector. [103701]

  Mr. Wicks
  In November 1999 1 announced an additional £365 million for further education in 2001–02, bringing funding to nearly £3.9 billion, a 7.7 per cent. rise in real terms over 2000–01. A consultation document which we published on 11 January sets out how the Learning and Skills Council will fund post-16 education and training from April 2001. Further Education will continue to play its key role in improving the skills base of the country.

  Mrs. Betty Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has to raise standards in the further education sector. [103710]

  Mr. Wicks
  Higher standards in further education colleges are being promoted through the Further Education Standards Fund which comprises £275 million over the three years from 1999–2002. The Government will also continue to promote high standards in Further Education through new legislation in the Learning and Skills Bill, which includes provision for improved post-16 inspection arrangements.

  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many 16 to 19-year-olds are receiving full-time education in(a) school sixth forms, (b) sixth form colleges and (c) general further education colleges. [106014]

  Mr. Wicks
  The latest provisional figures for 16 to 18-year-olds in full-time education in England are for end of calendar year 1998. They are shown in the table:

  Thousand

  Schools1

  394

  Sixth form college

  112

  Other FE college

  380

  Total

  886

  1 Includes independent and special schools

  Source:

  Statistical First Release13/99: Participation in education and training by 16 to 18-year-olds in England, 1988 to 1998

  Families
  Mr. Ernie Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has to encourage changes in employment practices to facilitate the combination of employment with family responsibilities. [103703]

  Caroline Flint
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what progress is being made 540W
  in developing a campaign to encourage changes in employment practices to bring about a better balance in people's lives between work and home. [103712]

  Ms Hodge
  Our campaign will be delivered in partnership with leading employers and others. It will promote good practice that both benefits the business and enables employees to balance work and home better. Details are currently being finalised.

  Higher Education (External Examiners)
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has to assess the independence of external examiners in the higher education degree process. [103705]

  Mr. Wicks
  My right hon. Friend has no such plans. External examiners are contracted by, and answerable to, the autonomous higher education institutions who appoint them. The institutional reviews undertaken by the Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education look at a range of issues relating to external examiners.

  Employment Service
  Mr. Healey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has to make it easier for firms to notify vacancies to the Employment Service and to obtain information on vacancies posted. [103707]

  Ms Jowell
  From Autumn 2000 the Employment Service will be introducing a new set of IT-based gateways to give its customers convenient, user friendly access to its services. Employers will benefit from having their vacancies displayed to a much wider range of jobseekers through touchscreen kiosks in Jobcentres and elsewhere, and on an Internet Jobsbank. Notifying Jobcentres will be made easier for employers by providing them with a single national telephone number and internet-based links.

  New Deal (Young People)
  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on progress made under the new deal for young people in meeting the target of moving 250,000 young people into jobs. [103708]

  Ms Jowell
  With over 169,000 young people having found jobs to the end of October 1999, the trend indicates that we will meet the manifesto commitment to move 250,000 young people into work under the New Deal for Young People. The success of the New Deal so far will be built on by extending further help with basic skills and personal presentation to young people who will benefit, particularly the most disadvantaged. The 60 per cent. cut in long-term youth unemployment since May 1997 is good news for our young people and for the prosperity of the country.

  Standard Spending Assessments
  Mr. David Heath
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has to
  541W
  reform the standard spending assessment distribution per pupil to reduce disparities between local education authorities. [103709]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The Government announced in November 1998 a three year review in partnership with local government to look for a way of distributing revenue support grant which is simpler, more stable, more robust and fairer than the present arrangements for SSAs.

  Drug Use
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on the impact of anti-smoking and anti-illegal drugs education programmes on reducing drug use. [103711]

  Jacqui Smith
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave on 21 December 1999,Official Report, column 555W, in which I announced plans for a long-term study on the effectiveness of drug education.

  Curriculum 2000
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what proportion of the funds allocated to schools for the implementation of Curriculum 2000 will be allocated to sixth forms with fewer than(a) 50, (b) 100, (c) 150 and (d) 200 pupils; and what will be the method of allocation. [104849]

  Mr. Wicks
  The Education Standard Spending Assessment for 2000–01 takes into account the estimated additional recurrent costs of successfully implementing the forthcoming reforms to post-16 qualifications in LEA maintained schools. It is for individual local education authorities to decide how to allocate resources to the schools they maintain.

  New Deal (Over-50s)
  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on the progress to date of the New Deal for those aged over 50 years. [103702]

  Ms Jowell
  New Deal 50plus has made an excellent start in nine selected areas of the country. People aged over 50 who have received one of a number of benefits for six months or more are eligible for a package of advice and other support including a cash employment credit to help them back into work. By early January over 350 people had found work with the support of New Deal 50plus. Many of those finding work so far through this New Deal have been out of work and on benefits for a long time. We will launch New Deal 50plus across the whole country in April.

  Ofsted Inspections
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make it his policy that Ofsted inspectors will, as a matter of course, meet the trade union representatives during an inspection. [103704]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  This is a matter for Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools, Chris Woodhead. I have asked him to write to my hon. Friend and to place a copy of his letter in the Library.

CABINET OFFICE

  On-line Services
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what steps she has taken to benchmark the extent of on-line Government services in the United Kingdom against other countries, with particular reference to the US and Australia. [105187]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  The Government are very keen to learn from good examples of international electronic service delivery. There are a number of very interesting examples of developments in this area not just in the USA and Australia, but in other countries. We intend to publish a report in the summer that will set out the results of our research and indicate what lessons we can learn from exemplars of international best practice.

  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what steps Her Majesty's Government have taken to introduce the use of the Internet for(a) VAT payment, (b) passport renewal, (c) renewal of television licenses, (d) renewal of vehicle licences and (e) Government procurement contracts; and what targets exist for Internet based transactions in these areas. [105249]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  As part of our Modernising Government programme we announced in our Action Plan, published in July 1999, that we would provide six-monthly reports on our progress in delivering Government services electronically. The second of these reports was recently published on the Central Information Technology Unit (CITU) website (http://www.citu.gov.uk). Copies of these reports are available in the Libraries of the House.

  I refer the hon. Gentleman to my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, North (Helen Jones), on 17 January 2000, Official Report, column 276W.

  Health Appointments
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what representations she has made to the Commissioner for Public Appointments regarding the date of publication of her report on appointments to NHS trusts and health authorities. [106018]

  Mr. Stringer
  None.

  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office when she expects the Commissioner for Public Appointments to publish her report on public appointments to NHS trusts and health authorities. [106019]

  Mr. Stringer
  The publication of the report is entirely a matter for the Commissioner. However, I understand that a press release issued by the Commissioner's office on 17 January 2000 stated that the Commissioner will announce her findings and recommendations in early March.

  Drug Misuse (Gloucestershire)
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what were the numbers of registered drug misusers in Gloucestershire(a) 1997 and (b) 1999. [105552]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  The Addicts Index was discontinued by the Home Office in 1997. The following table shows the number of drug misusers presenting to
  543W
  treatment agencies in the Gloucestershire Health Authority area. Figures for the six month period ending September 1999 are not yet available.

  Six month period ending

  Agency episodes reported in Gloucestershire Health Authority area1

  March 1997

  28

  September 1997

  33

  March 1998

  63

  September 1998

  71

  March 1999

  96

  1 The number of agency episodes is generally higher than the number of users as a person may start an episode during the period at more than one agency

  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what measures she is taking to counter the increase in numbers of people registered as drug misusers in Gloucestershire. [105551]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  The Government's strategy for tackling drug misuse was set out in the White Paper "Tackling Drugs to Build a Better Britain" in 1998. The Government backed this ten-year strategy by allocating an extra £217 million for anti-drugs work as part of the Comprehensive Spending Review. This includes an additional £70.5 million for health and local authorities over the next three years for drug treatment services and £18 million to support drug prevention activities, particularly among young people. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has also announced a further £20 million for the expansion of Arrest Referral Schemes to help drug-misusing offenders obtain treatment. The Gloucestershire Drug Action Team is responsible for co-ordinating local implementation of the strategy.

SOLICITOR-GENERAL

  Departmental Smoking Policy
  Mr. Crausby
  To ask the Solicitor-General what action he is taking to reduce smoking in his Department. [105793]

  The Solicitor-General
  The Law Officers' Departments have different policies on smoking in offices, reflecting the different buildings and the results of locally based decisions. The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) has a general no smoking policy. Staff may not smoke in their own rooms. The provision of a separate smoking room is a matter for managers to decide locally, taking into account the interest of staff. CPS HQ is in two buildings. In the London office, the number of smoking rooms has been reduced to one and in the York office, there is no separate smoking room. Information about the provision of separate smoking rooms in the CPS's 42 Areas is not available centrally.

  The Counselling and Support Service of the CPS advertises the now annual National No Smoking Day (in their in-house publication "Inform") and offer literature to assist anyone wishing to give up smoking.

  The Treasury Solicitor's Department has a policy of restricting and confining smoking to clearly defined areas.
  544W
  The Department's Health and Safety Advisory Committee is currently reviewing the policy and will in due course be making recommendations.

  The Serious Fraud Office accommodation is non-smoking although a small smoking room is provided. Free health screening checks have recently been made available to all staff and these will make staff more aware of the dangers of smoking.

  In the Law Officers' Legal Secretariat smoking is not permitted in any of the meeting rooms or the shared offices. Smoking is restricted to a smoking room. Staff are encouraged and supported in giving up smoking.

  William Beausire
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Solicitor-General what reports he has received concerning the disappearance of William Beausire in Santiago in 1974; and what requests he has received for a private prosecution. [106029]

  The Solicitor-General
  Solicitors acting for a number of individuals applied for Law Officer consent to prosecute Senator Pinochet for offences of torture and hostage taking. The papers included reference to William Beausire. On 11 February 1999, the then Attorney-General considered the application and took advice from Treasury Counsel. The solicitors were advised that consent to prosecute was declined. The basis of that decision is that the relevant legislation is not retrospective and the material supplied by the solicitors in support of the application provided insufficient admissible evidence to justify a prosecution.

SCOTLAND

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Ottaway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the number of asylum seekers and refugees seeking places in Scotland. [104808]

  Dr. Reid
  At present, local authorities in Scotland give support to between about 150 and 200 new asylum seekers each year.

  In addition, in 1999, 349 refugees from Kosovo came to Scotland under the Kosovo Humanitarian Evacuation Programme.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Switchboard
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Chairman of the Information Committee when the delays in connecting hon. Members to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and other Government Departments via the House switchboard will be remedied; what the cause is of the delays; and when the House authorities became aware of the problem. [106053]

  Mr. Allan
  This is an operational matter falling within the remit of the Head of Telecommunications. I have therefore asked him to reply directly to the hon. Member.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Correspondence
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 25 November 1999,Official Report, column 179W, for what reason he has failed to fulfil the undertaking to reply shortly to the letters dated 4 August, 10 September and 14 October, from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton, with regard to Mr. Cleveland Savory. [104466]

  Mr. Straw
  I am sorry for the delay in replying to my right hon. Friend. I am looking into the matter and will write to him this week.

  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he intends to reply to the letters dated 21 September, 27 October and 2 December 1999 from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton with regard to Mr. Ahmed Said Mohammed Aderi. [104455]

  Mrs. Roche
  My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary wrote to my right hon. Friend on 17 January 2000. I am sorry for the delay in replying.

  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he intends to reply to the letters to him dated 21 September, 27 October and 2 December 1999 from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton, with regard to Mr. Muhidin Abdul Rahman. [104454]

  Mrs. Roche
  My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary wrote to my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton on 19 January 2000. I am sorry for the delay in replying.

  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he intends to reply to the letters dated 21 September, 27 October and 2 December 1999 from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton, with regard to Mr. N. Askander. [104456]

  Mrs. Roche
  My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary wrote to my right hon. Friend on 17 January 2000. I am sorry for the delay in replying.

  Sir Brian Mawhinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire will receive a reply to his letter of 30 November on behalf of his constituent, Mrs. Djukic. [105921]

  Mrs. Roche
  My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary wrote to the right hon. Member on 18 January 2000.

  Sir Brian Mawhinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire will receive a reply to his letter of 25 November on behalf of his constituent, Mr. Reeves. [105924]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary replied to the right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire's letter of 25 November 1999 on 14 January 2000.

  Fathers
  Ms Kelly
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment the Government have made of the impact of fathers' involvement in childrearing on the behaviour and attainment of their sons and daughters; and if he will make a statement. [104876]

  Mr. Boateng
  There is strong evidence that fathers play a critical role in bringing up children. Boys who have no contact with their fathers are more likely to underachieve at school. Supporting fathers is an important part of the Government's family policy. We have also provided fathers with the right to parental leave, and those in receipt of Working Families Tax Credit and some other benefits will receive income support while taking the leave to make it a viable prospect for all parents. Under the Family Support Grants programme, a number of voluntary organisations have been funded to develop work specifically with fathers.

  Police
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list for each police authority in England the percentage of net expenditure in(a) 1996–97, (b) 1997–98 and (c) 1998–99 which was funded by (i) council tax, (ii) police grant and (iii) other grants. [105258]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The information requested on council tax and police grant, which has been compiled from the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy's Police Statistics, is set out in the table. Information on the percentage of net expenditure funded by other grants is not readily available.

  Percentage of English police force net expenditure met by council tax, Home Office police specific grant and other sources, 1996–97 to 1998–99

  Council tax

  Home Office police specific grant

  Other sources

  1996–97

  Avon and Somerset

  14.8

  50.8

  34.4

  Bedfordshire

  14.9

  50.9

  34.2

  Cambridgeshire

  15.7

  51.3

  33.0

  Cheshire

  16.0

  52.6

  31.4

  City of London

  n/a

  48.6

  n/a

  Cleveland

  9.9

  50.3

  39.7

  Cumbria

  14.4

  50.5

  35.2

  Derbyshire

  14.7

  51.3

  34.0

  Devon and Cornwall

  16.1

  51.2

  32.7

  Dorset

  22.1

  47.9

  30.0

  Durham

  11.4

  52.7

  35.9

  Essex

  17.4

  50.3

  32.3

  Gloucestershire

  15.2

  50.2

  34.6

  Greater Manchester

  10.0

  50.4

  39.6

  Hampshire

  16.3

  51.0

  32.8

  Hertfordshire

  17.8

  51.0

  31.2

  Humberside

  11.7

  51.9

  36.4

  Kent

  15.8

  51.1

  33.1

  Lancashire

  12.1

  50.6

  37.2

  Leicestershire

  13.6

  51.0

  35.3

  Lincolnshire

  21.1

  48.5

  30.3

  Merseyside

  10.6

  50.9

  38.5

  Metropolitan Police

  8.3

  50.3

  41.4

  Norfolk

  15.4

  50.6

  34.0

  Northamptonshire

  20.7

  49.5

  29.8

  Northumbria

  10.0

  50.5

  39.5

  547W

  Percentage of English police force net expenditure met by council tax, Home Office police specific grant and other sources, 1996–97 to 1998–99

  Council tax

  Home Office police specific grant

  Other sources

  North Yorkshire

  17.7

  52.1

  30.1

  Nottinghamshire

  12.1

  50.9

  37.0

  South Yorkshire

  10.8

  51.7

  37.5

  Staffordshire

  14.5

  50.6

  34.8

  Suffolk

  16.2

  50.9

  32.9

  Surrey

  17.0

  49.3

  33.7

  Sussex

  17.2

  50.3

  32.5

  Thames Valley

  17.9

  50.5

  31.6

  Warwickshire

  17.0

  51.8

  31.1

  West Mercia

  17.0

  50.6

  32.4

  West Midlands

  10.1

  51.0

  38.9

  West Yorkshire

  10.4

  49.2

  40.5

  Wiltshire

  17.4

  50.7

  31.9

  Total

  12.3

  50.6

  37.1

  Council tax

  Home Office police specific grant

  Other sources

  1997–98

  Avon and Somerset

  16.9

  52.1

  31.0

  Bedfordshire

  16.5

  51.4

  32.1

  Cambridgeshire

  17.2

  50.3

  32.6

  Cheshire

  16.7

  49.1

  34.2

  City of London

  n/a

  47.5

  n/a

  Cleveland

  11.4

  49.7

  38.9

  Cumbria

  15.2

  48.7

  36.1

  Derbyshire

  16.0

  50.3

  33.7

  Devon and Cornwall

  17.1

  50.9

  32.0

  Dorset

  23.9

  48.5

  27.6

  Durham

  12.1

  48.6

  39.3

  Essex

  18.9

  50.6

  30.5

  Gloucestershire

  17.4

  51.8

  30.8

  Greater Manchester

  11.4

  49.8

  38.7

  Hampshire

  17.8

  50.1

  32.1

  Hertfordshire

  19.3

  51.0

  29.6

  Humberside

  12.8

  49.9

  37.2

  Kent

  16.6

  48.6

  34.8

  Lancashire

  13.6

  49.5

  36.9

  Leicestershire

  14.8

  49.9

  35.2

  Lincolnshire

  20.5

  46.5

  33.0

  Merseyside

  12.2

  50.7

  37.1

  Metropolitan Police

  9.4

  53.7

  36.9

  Norfolk

  16.7

  48.7

  34.7

  Northamptonshire

  21.2

  46.8

  32.1

  Northumbria

  11.1

  49.0

  39.9

  North Yorkshire

  18.4

  49.8

  31.8

  Nottinghamshire

  12.4

  49.0

  38.6

  South Yorkshire

  11.6

  47.8

  40.6

  Staffordshire

  16.3

  51.9

  31.8

  Suffolk

  17.8

  50.0

  32.2

  Surrey

  16.6

  49.3

  34.1

  Sussex

  18.7

  49.7

  31.6

  Police force net expenditure, and percentage met by council tax, Home Office police specific grant and other sources, 1996–97 to 1998–99

  £000

  1996–97

  1997–98

  Council tax

  Home Office police specific grant

  Other

  Net expenditure

  Council tax

  Home Office police specific grant

  Other

  Net expenditure

  Avon and Somerset

  22,443

  77,279

  52,365

  152,087

  25,839

  79,564

  47,270

  152,673

  Bedfordshire

  8,433

  28,811

  19,383

  56,627

  9,643

  30,102

  18,825

  58,570

  Cambridgeshire

  10,236

  33,356

  21,432

  65,024

  11,800

  n/a

  n/a

  68,681

  Cheshire

  15,072

  49,500

  29,605

  94,177

  17,322

  51,103

  35,580

  104,005

  City of London

  n/a

  27,832

  n/a

  57,317

  n/a

  27,476

  n/a

  57,893

  Cleveland

  7,250

  36,801

  29,057

  73,108

  8,587

  37,523

  29,316

  75,426

  Cumbria

  8,168

  28,689

  19,999

  56,856

  9,365

  30,038

  22,306

  61,709

  548W

  Council tax

  Home Office police specific grant

  Other sources

  Thames Valley

  19.5

  49.7

  30.8

  Warwickshire

  18.2

  50.4

  31.4

  West Mercia

  18.5

  49.5

  32.0

  West Midlands

  11.1

  48.7

  40.3

  West Yorkshire

  11.5

  47.0

  41.4

  Wiltshire

  20.1

  53.0

  26.8

  Total

  13.5

  50.6

  35.8

  Council tax

  Home Office police specific grant

  Other sources

  1998–99

  Avon and Somerset

  17.0

  51.6

  31.4

  Bedfordshire

  16.9

  50.6

  32.6

  Cambridgeshire

  15.4

  50.4

  34.3

  Cheshire

  17.3

  50.3

  32.4

  City of London

  n/a

  42.9

  n/a

  Cleveland

  9.5

  51.3

  39.2

  Cumbria

  18.8

  47.0

  34.3

  Derbyshire

  17.2

  50.0

  32.8

  Devon and Cornwall

  15.8

  51.7

  32.4

  Dorset

  25.8

  47.6

  26.6

  Durham

  11.3

  53.6

  35.1

  Essex

  22.1

  50.1

  27.8

  Gloucestershire

  18.5

  48.6

  33.0

  Greater Manchester

  12.0

  52.8

  35.2

  Hampshire

  16.9

  52.1

  31.0

  Hertfordshire

  21.4

  49.2

  29.4

  Humberside

  12.2

  50.3

  37.5

  Kent

  15.6

  52.3

  32.1

  Lancashire

  13.2

  50.6

  36.2

  Leicestershire

  16.9

  49.3

  33.7

  Lincolnshire

  23.5

  45.7

  30.8

  Merseyside

  12.2

  49.6

  38.2

  Metropolitan Police

  11.9

  54.3

  33.8

  Norfolk

  17.7

  51.5

  30.8

  Northamptonshire

  20.7

  48.1

  31.2

  Northumbria

  9.8

  51.0

  39.2

  North Yorkshire

  17.3

  51.4

  31.3

  Nottinghamshire

  13.1

  49.4

  37.4

  South Yorkshire

  11.8

  50.6

  37.6

  Staffordshire

  20.5

  49,0.

  30.5

  Suffolk

  17.8

  51.4

  30.8

  Surrey

  24.7

  44.5

  30.8

  Sussex

  18.2

  51.5

  30.3

  Thames Valley

  19.0

  53.6

  27.4

  Warwickshire

  21.3

  50.4

  28.3

  West Mercia

  18.8

  47.8

  33.4

  West Midlands

  10.1

  51.6

  38.3

  West Yorkshire

  11.7

  51.4

  36.9

  Wiltshire

  20.0

  47.2

  32.8

  Total

  13.7

  49.0

  37.3

  Source:

  1996/97–1998/99: CIPFA Police Statistics Actuals
  549W

  Police force net expenditure, and percentage met by council tax, Home Office police specific grant and other sources, 1996–97 to 1998–99

  £000

  1996–97

  1997–98

  Council tax

  Home Office police specific grant

  Other

  Net expenditure

  Council tax

  Home Office police specific grant

  Other

  Net expenditure

  Derbyshire

  13,333

  46,356

  30,731

  90,420

  15,276

  48,090

  32,275

  95,641

  Devon and Cornwall

  24,192

  77,025

  49,175

  150,392

  26,602

  79,047

  49,786

  155,435

  Dorset

  14,983

  32,474

  20,374

  67,831

  16,684

  33,804

  19,239

  69,727

  Durham

  7,778

  35,828

  24,429

  68,035

  9,087

  36,513

  29,566

  75,166

  Dyfed-Powys

  7,901

  24,241

  15,727

  47,869

  8,244

  25,198

  17,510

  50,952

  Essex

  26,275

  76,161

  48,976

  151,412

  29,817

  79,694

  47,976

  157,487

  Gloucestershire

  8,874

  29,316

  20,230

  58,420

  10,223

  30,371

  18,039

  58,633

  Greater Manchester

  34,075

  171,881

  135,214

  341,170

  40,354

  176,078

  136,887

  353,319

  Gwent

  8,193

  31,334

  18,215

  57,742

  8,667

  32,423

  23,508

  64,598

  Hampshire

  28,134

  88,069

  56,642

  172,845

  32,134

  90,616

  58,041

  180,791

  Hertfordshire

  15,792

  45,305

  27,766

  88,863

  17,971

  47,465

  27,575

  93,011

  Humberside

  11,653

  51,746

  36,320

  99,719

  13,622

  53,034

  39,564

  106,220

  Kent

  25,477

  82,584

  53,564

  161,625

  28,909

  84,673

  60,629

  174,211

  Lancashire

  19,638

  81,984

  60,243

  161,865

  22,982

  83,768

  62,525

  169,275

  Leicestershire

  12,649

  47,390

  32,814

  92,853

  14,652

  49,336

  34,801

  98,789

  Lincolnshire

  12,999

  29,848

  18,661

  61,508

  13,544

  30,788

  21,852

  66,184

  Merseyside

  23,345

  112,589

  85,238

  221,172

  27,390

  113,660

  83,277

  224,327

  Metropolitan Police

  139,075

  846,762

  697,344

  1,683,181

  157,930

  900,345

  618,342

  1,676,617

  Norfolk

  11,666

  38,204

  25,677

  75,547

  13,363

  39,053

  27,806

  80,222

  Northamptonshire

  12,257

  29,321

  17,674

  59,252

  13,672

  30,218

  20,715

  64,605

  Northumbria

  18,644

  94,046

  73,720

  186,410

  21,630

  95,656

  77,806

  195,092

  North Wales

  10,695

  34,681

  22,890

  68,266

  11,240

  35,696

  23,984

  70,920

  North Yorkshire

  11,885

  34,961

  20,196

  67,042

  13,200

  35,796

  22,844

  71,840

  Nottinghamshire

  13,775

  57,777

  42,039

  113,591

  14,953

  59,070

  46,533

  120,556

  South Wales

  18,362

  75,247

  53,849

  147,458

  19,491

  77,732

  62,188

  159,411

  South Yorkshire

  16,366

  78,009

  56,574

  150,949

  19,214

  79,346

  67,467

  166,027

  Staffordshire

  15,658

  54,611

  37,563

  107,832

  18,003

  57,200

  35,061

  110,264

  Suffolk

  9,892

  31,033

  20,038

  60,963

  11,327

  31,858

  20,491

  63,676

  Surrey

  14,528

  42,090

  28,727

  85,345

  15,126

  44,808

  31,042

  90,976

  Sussex

  25,870

  75,764

  48,992

  150,626

  29,400

  78,415

  49,816

  157,631

  Thames Valley

  36,051

  101,658

  63,688

  201,397

  41,006

  104,631

  64,696

  210,333

  Warwickshire

  8,111

  24,725

  14,850

  47,686

  9,270

  25,725

  16,008

  51,003

  West Mercia

  17,397

  51,632

  33,049

  102,078

  19,958

  53,342

  34,488

  107,788

  West Midlands

  34,210

  172,343

  131,439

  337,992

  39,829

  175,339

  144,961

  360,129

  West Yorkshire

  27,479

  130,447

  107,307

  265,233

  32,458

  132,526

  116,761

  281,745

  Wiltshire

  10,442

  30,428

  19,123

  59,993

  11,778

  31,043

  15,714

  58,535

  Total

  819,256

  3,350,138

  2,420,899

  6,619,778

  931,562

  3,438,163

  2,413,070

  6,870,093

  £000

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  Council tax

  Home Office police specific grant

  Other

  Net expenditure

  Net expenditure

  Avon and Somerset

  27,680

  83,927

  51,119

  162,726

  174,424

  Bedfordshire

  10,416

  31,236

  20,126

  61,778

  64,027

  Cambridgeshire

  11,286

  36,974

  25,172

  73,432

  75,363

  Cheshire

  18,573

  53,821

  34,699

  107,093

  111,094

  City of London

  n/a

  25,909

  n/a

  60,350

  58,719

  Cleveland

  7,734

  41,731

  31,830

  81,295

  85,397

  Cumbria

  11,730

  29,360

  21,442

  62,532

  64,693

  Derbyshire

  17,238

  50,026

  32,800

  100,064

  107,035

  Devon and Cornwall

  26,352

  86,035

  53,943

  166,330

  173,649

  Dorset

  18,838

  34,838

  19,441

  73,117

  77,749

  Durham

  8,427

  40,023

  26,223

  74,673

  80,712

  Dyfed-Powys

  10,212

  26,041

  13,787

  50,040

  56,143

  Essex

  34,676

  78,591

  43,555

  156,822

  171,590

  Gloucestershire

  11,604

  30,537

  20,721

  62,862

  65,933

  Greater Manchester

  42,558

  186,858

  124,755

  354,171

  387,256

  Gwent

  9,683

  34,265

  23,707

  67,655

  71,414

  Hampshire

  31,481

  97,239

  57,941

  186,661

  196,955

  Hertfordshire

  20,331

  46,771

  27,966

  95,068

  102,361

  Humberside

  13,762

  56,629

  42,180

  112,571

  114,306

  Kent

  27,473

  91,742

  56,362

  175,577

  186,225

  Lancashire

  23,370

  89,725

  64,215

  177,310

  182,679

  Leicestershire

  17,419

  50,708

  34,663

  102,790

  106,279

  Lincolnshire

  15,645

  30,484

  20,535

  66,664

  69,970

  550W 551W

  £000

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  Council tax

  Home Office police specific grant

  Other

  Net expenditure

  Net expenditure

  Merseyside

  29,259

  119,156

  91,852

  240,267

  249,522

  Metropolitan Police

  204,132

  931,431

  580,862

  1,716,425

  1,840,245

  Norfolk

  14,236

  41,512

  24,795

  80,543

  86,870

  Northamptonshire

  13,859

  32,266

  20,932

  67,057

  70,432

  Northumbria

  20,187

  104,638

  80,445

  205,270

  213,010

  North Wales

  13,612

  37,434

  21,435

  72,481

  80,505

  North Yorkshire

  13,020

  38,764

  23,560

  75,344

  78,085

  Nottinghamshire

  16,680

  62,799

  47,539

  127,018

  130,173

  South Wales

  22,394

  82,243

  56,301

  160,938

  169,968

  South Yorkshire

  19,726

  84,510

  62,923

  167,159

  173,933

  Staffordshire

  23,861

  56,924

  35,446

  116,231

  127,472

  Suffolk

  11,786

  33,943

  20,367

  66,096

  70,538

  Surrey

  22,612

  40,650

  28,163

  91,425

  100,375

  Sussex

  29,406

  83,399

  49,042

  161,847

  165,804

  Thames Valley

  39,878

  112,357

  57,440

  209,675

  232,729

  Warwickshire

  11,080

  26,196

  14,739

  52,015

  56,157

  West Mercia

  21,382

  54,354

  38,019

  113,755

  116,490

  West Midlands

  37,194

  190,208

  141,206

  368,608

  380,971

  West Yorkshire

  32,569

  142,946

  102,479

  277,994

  288,865

  Wiltshire

  13,792

  32,481

  22,538

  68,811

  69,715

  Total

  1,027,153

  3,641,681

  2,367,265

  7,070,687

  7,485,832

  Source:

  1996–97 and 1998–99—CIPFA Police Statistics Actuals

  Departmental Smoking Policy
  Mr. Crausby
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action he is taking to reduce smoking in his Department. [105799]

  Mr. Straw
  Since 1997, smoking has not been allowed in the main central London Home Office buildings, except in designated smoking rooms. National "No Smoking" campaigns are regularly promoted by poster displays, leaflets and other publicity material. "Stop Smoking" courses and displays (organised in conjunction with QUIT) have been held to help staff who wish to give up smoking. A similar programme of events will be run this year.

  Drug-related Crimes
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many crimes were committed(a) in the last 12 months and (b) in the last three years in the UK that were drug-related. [105321]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Statistical data are collected on drug offences only, not on offences which may have been committed due to drug taking. A report published in 1998 on research carried out on behalf of the Home Office by the University of Cambridge sheds light on the links between drugs and crime. Further data are currently being analysed as part of the NEW-ADAM programme for interviewing and drug testing arrestees. It is hoped to publish the next set of full results in the first half of this year.

  The research undertaken so far on drug testing of arrestees, based in five locations, indicates that over 60 per cent. of arrestees had recently taken at least one illegal drug prior to arrest. Cannabis was found most often (46 per cent. of cases); heroin/opiates (18 per cent.) and
  552W
  cocaine/crack (10 per cent.) featured quite prominently. These findings confirm the supposition that offenders tend to be heavy consumers of drugs.

  Nearly half the arrestees who reported taking drugs within the last year said that their drug misuse was connected with their offending. Among various factors, they emphasised the need for the money to buy drugs. The illegal income of arrestees who said that they had taken heroin and/or crack during the last three days was particularly high—within a range of £10,000 to £20,000 annually. This compared with £4,000 for other arrestees. Illegal income mainly resulted from acquisitive crimes against property. An estimated 32 per cent. of all illegal income was spent on purchasing heroin and/or crack cocaine.

  While this study considerably advances knowledge of drugs-crime links, it will always be difficult to calculate a single percentage figure reflecting precisely what proportion of all crimes is drug-related.

  Figures on drug offences in 1997 were published in April 1999 in Home Office Statistical Bulletin No. 8/99 "Drug seizure and offender statistics, United Kingdom, 1997". Figures for 1998 will be published in February 2000, copies of which will be placed in the Library.

  Drug Seizures
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many(a) heroin, (b) cocaine and (c) synthetic drug seizures have been made in the (i) last and (ii) preceding 12 months; [105322]

  (2) what was the average weight of (a) heroin, (b) cocaine, (c) cannabis, (d) synthetic drugs and (e) all controlled drugs in seizures (i) in the last and (ii) in the preceding 12 months; and if he will make a statement. [105323]
  553W
  Mr. Charles Clarke
  In 1997, the last year for which published figures are available, the number and average weights of selected drugs seized by police and Her Majesty's Customs and Excise were as given in the table. It is not meaningful to calculate the average weight of all drug seizures. Further figures on drug seizures in 1997 were published in April 1999 in Home Office Statistical Bulletin No 8–99 "Drug seizure and offender statistics, United Kingdom, 1997". Figures for 1998 will be published in February 2000, copies of which will be placed in the Library.

  Number and average weight of seizures by police and Her Majesty's Customs and Excise of selected drugs in 1997

  Number of seizures

  Average quantity seized

  Drug

  Police

  Customs

  Police

  Customs

  Heroin

  12,311

  163

  40 grams

  10,719 grams

  Cocaine

  3,068

  684

  91 grams

  3,038 grams

  LSD

  831

  20

  195 doses

  86 doses

  Ecstasy-type

  4,996

  91

  93 doses

  16,056 doses

  Cannabis (herbal)

  25,703

  3,684

  323 grams

  6,197 grams

  Cannabis (resin)

  77,111

  2,135

  841 grams

  25,304 grams

  Cannabis (plants)

  3,783

  1

  30 plants

  40 plants

  Amphetamine

  18,429

  146

  128 grams

  6,405 grams

  Note:

  "Synthetic drug" has been taken to mean the following— Amphetamine, LSD, and Ecstasy-type drugs

  Source:

  Home Office Drugs Research and Statistics Section

  Drug Prices
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what were the average street prices of(a) heroin and (b) cocaine per gram in London and Glasgow in the (i) last and (ii) preceding 12 months. [105320]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The National Criminal Intelligence Service collects information on street level prices of drugs. The average prices for heroin and cocaine at the end of 1997 and at the end of 1998 were as given in the table.

  Average street prices of heroin and cocaine per gram in London and Glasgow, 1997 and 1998

  £

  London

  Glasgow

  Period

  Heroin

  Cocaine

  Heroin

  Cocaine

  December 1997

  60–100

  60–120

  60–80

  50–80

  December 1998

  80

  60–120

  60–80

  50–80

  Note:

  These prices are based on average purity levels and do not reflect the fluctuations in price which may occur within an area as the result of law enforcement action, other interruption of supply, or even over-supply. The ranges quoted for the above areas are indicative of the most typical prices paid for a one gram wrap of the drug(s). It is not possible to give wholly accurate ranges as a large number of factors come in to play. However, the prices quoted represent a reasonable average price in the areas. Drugs are frequently sold for prices outside these ranges, and prices can be inflated by cutting drugs, and by selling under measures. Prices increase when small amounts such as £10 or £20 deals are sold.

  Source:

  National Criminal Intelligence Service

  Car Theft
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what measures he is taking to combat car theft. [105155]
  554W
  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Government have announced a target to reduce vehicle crime by 30 per cent. over five years and set up a Vehicle Crime Reduction Action Team to develop a strategy for achieving it. The Action Team published a report in September 1999 which set out a comprehensive strategy for achieving the target.

  The main measure the Government have taken to date to tackle vehicle crime is to make available £150 million over three years for Closed Circuit Television. Improving car park security (where the 1998 British crime Survey suggests 22 per cent, of vehicle crime takes place) was a priority in Round 1.

  Heathrow (CS Gas)
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will request a report from the Commissioner for Police for the Metropolis on the incident in which a CS gas canister was discharged at Heathrow Airport on 18 October 1999. [105594]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Commissioner for Police for the Metropolis informs me that at 3.50 pm on 18 October, complaints were received from passengers in Terminal 1 Departures about irritation to their eyes, nose and throat. Emergency services attended and found a CS spray canister in a rubbish bin. It appears that fumes from the canister entered the air conditioning system. Nineteen people were affected by the fumes, 14 of whom were taken to Hillingdon Hospital for treatment but discharged within two hours.

  The Commissioner tells me that the canister was manufactured in the United States of America, of a type commonly used there for personal safety, and that it was probably discarded by a passenger prior to being scanned before departure. The canister was taken by the police, for disposal.

  Anti-social Behaviour
  Mr. Mudie
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what was his Department's estimate of the average cost of making and enforcing an anti-social behaviour order at the time of the passage of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998; [105557]

  (2) how many anti-social behaviour orders have been enforced since the passing of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 in (a) Birmingham, (b) Leeds, (c) Manchester, (d) Newcastle, (e) Liverpool and (f) Sheffield; [105558]

  (3) what is the cost per order of making and enforcing an anti-social behaviour order in (a) Birmingham, (b) Leeds, (c) Manchester, (d) Newcastle, (e) Liverpool and (f) Sheffield. [105556]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The costs quoted in the Financial and Explanatory Memorandum for the Bill assumed an average additional cost of £600 per anti-social behaviour order. This took account of offsetting savings.

  Records of the numbers of orders granted and their cost are not held centrally. At this stage, it is too early to say with any accuracy how much it will cost on average to make and enforce orders in these local authority areas.
  555W
  After an order is made, any breach of it will be subject to criminal proceedings. Enforcement in the form of criminal prosecution for a breach has, as far as we are aware, taken place in respect of one order, in Newcastle.

  Mr. Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much was spent on programmes to combat anti-social behaviour in each of the last 10 years. [105708]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  [holding answer 18 January 2000]: The Government provided specific powers to the police and local authorities to tackle anti-social behaviour in the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. Since 1999, agencies and partnerships have been able to bid for funding to help them tackle crime and disorder including anti-social behaviour under the Government's three year Crime Reduction Programme. An example of one which has done so is the Humberside police which has received £406,000 for a targeted policing project to reduce anti-social behaviour and low level criminal behaviour on five beats in Kingston upon Hull. The South Wales police have also received funding of almost £1 million for several targeted policing projects which aim to reduce crime and disorder by young people and public disorder.

  The Social Exclusion Unit has chaired a Policy Action Team on Anti-Social Behaviour (PAT 8) to inform the preparation of a national strategy for neighbourhood renewal. The PAT 8 report is expected to be published in March. The Home Office, in consultation with the Department for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, will be expected to issue guidance on tackling anti-social behaviour in accordance with the report's recommendations.

  Euro 2000
  Mr. Jim Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the likelihood of English football hooligans obtaining tickets for Euro 2000 via the UEFA website; and what guidance he plans to issue to English fans intending to travel on the possibility of violence resulting from such sales. [105248]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Euro 2000 organisers are satisfied that their ticketing arrangements and controls will provide spectators with a safe and secure environment in the stadia and limit the potential for a significant black market in tickets. Experience suggests that the sale of tickets to individuals is easier to control, and poses less risk than a flourishing black market. Arrangements are in place for ensuring that tickets are not sold to people who are banned from attending football matches in their home country. This includes English hooligans who are subject to a Domestic or International Football Banning Order (or Exclusion or Restriction Order prior to enactment of the Football (Offences and Disorder) Act 1999).

  The Government, police and Football Association are co-ordinating their preparations and are working closely with the host countries to minimise the risk of some English fans misbehaving during Euro 2000. Guidance will be issued to all fans prior to the tournament, but the
  556W
  message from the Dutch and Belgian authorities is clear: "fans who behave themselves will be made welcome, those who do not will be dealt with very firmly".

  DOE Building, Marsham Street
  Mr. Leigh
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the reasons are for the length of time taken by the Home Office to decide whether to use the former Department of the Environment buildings at Marsham Street, London SW1. [105499]

  Mr. Straw
  The reason is the overriding need to examine the options carefully on the basis of which provides the best value for money.

  The future of the Marsham Street site rests on the outcome of a public private partnership project to provide modern offices for Home Office and Prison Service staff. The procurement competition was restarted last October after a strategic review of overall Government Office accommodation in the Westminster area.

  Proposals from the private sector, including demolition of Marsham Street, are expected shortly. Subject to their evaluation, and the continuing demonstration of value for money, I expect to be in a position to select a Preferred Bidder by mid-year. After a period of negotiations, award of contract would follow towards the end of this year.

  As the Minister of State for the Cabinet Office, my right hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney), informed the hon. Member in his reply of 6 December 1999, Official Report, column 395W, the Home Office has assumed management responsibility for Marsham Street pending final decisions on the future of the site.

  Young Offenders
  Mr. Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress his Department has made in implementing those parts of sections 97 and 98 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 giving magistrates the power to remand juveniles to local authority secure accommodation; and what assessment he has made of the financial implications of implementation for local authorities. [105851]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The secure remand provisions in sections 97 and 98 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 were implemented on 1 June 1999. Magistrates can remand direct to local authority secure accommodation 12 to 16-year-old girls; 12 to 14-year-old boys; and 15 and 16-year-old boys who are assessed as vulnerable and for whom a place is identified in advance.

  The Home Office refunds the estimated net costs to local authorities. These were agreed with the Local Government Association last year as between £1,745 and £2,148 per placement per week depending on area.

  EU Mutual Assistance Convention
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on his policy towards liability under the Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters. [106398]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Government consider in principle that, when operating legitimately within the United Kingdom, officials from another member state
  557W
  should have the same liability for offences committed by them as United Kingdom officers. Officials from another member state would have no immunity from arrest and prosecution for an offence committed in the United Kingdom. Officials from outside the European Union or from a multi-national organisation would have the same liability for offences committed by them as a member of the public.

  The Government consider in principle that it is the responsibility of officers causing civil damage to repair that damage. Any damage would be repaired as soon as possible, in general by the member state on which the incident took place. A claim would then be made against the law enforcement authority whose officials caused the damage.

  Justice and Home Affairs Council
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the 229th Justice and Home Affairs Council, with regard to the implications for the United Kingdom of the draft provisions concerning the establishment of joint investigation teams for cross-border criminal investigations. [106386]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The draft provisions concerning the establishment of joint investigation teams for cross-border criminal investigations do not have any specific implications for the United Kingdom. The provisions are designed to provide a framework within the European Union for future joint investigation teams. The provision states explicitly that it is without prejudice to existing arrangements concerning joint investigations teams such as those currently used on a regular basis by United Kingdom law enforcement authorities such as the police service and Her Majesty's Customs and Excise.

  UN Convention on Torture
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prosecutions there have been under the United Nations Convention on Torture since it was incorporated into United Kingdom law. [106013]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Data on court proceedings collected centrally show that, to date, one defendant was proceeded against under section 134 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988. This was in 1994.

  General Pinochet
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on what dates, and from which countries, applications for General Pinochet's extradition have been received. [106016]

  Mr. Straw
  The Spanish request for Senator Pinochet's provisional arrest was received from the Central Court of Criminal Proceedings No. 5 in Madrid on 16 October 1998. Two requests for his extradition have been received from France, on 13 November 1998 and 4 February 1999. A request for extradition was received from Switzerland on 11 November 1998, and renewed on 7 October 1999. A request for extradition was received from Belgium on 15 December 1998 and renewed in amplified form on 12 October 1999.
  558W
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent requests he has received, other than from the Government of Chile, for a medical examination to be carried out on General Pinochet. [106011]

  Mr. Straw
  In the past few days I have received a number of requests for a medical examination of Senator Pinochet, in the context of representations made in response to my indication on 11 January that I was minded to take a decision that I will not extradite Senator Pinochet to Spain.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he received the medical report on the state of General Pinochet's health; and to whom he has sent copies. [106008]

  Mr. Straw
  My officials received the report on 6 January, and I received it in my weekend box on 8 January. It was sent to Senator Pinochet's legal representatives, and the Law Officers and Director of Public Prosecutions, on 11 January.

  Working Partnerships (Merseyside)
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the working of local partnerships in Merseyside. [106075]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  There is a strong tradition of good partnership working in Merseyside. We have not made any specific local assessment of it. The strategy document 'The Government's Crime Reduction Strategy', published in November, sets out plans to encourage more effective performance by local crime reduction partnerships.

  Drugs
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is able to publish the statistics for 1998 concerning drugs in Merseyside referred to in his answer of 21 October 1999,Official Report, columns 618–20W. [106105]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The information on drugs referred to in my answer of 21 October to my hon. Friend will be published during February in the Home Office bulletin on Drug Seizure and Offenders Statistics. A copy of the bulletin and its associated Area and Supplementary Tables volumes will be placed in the Library in the usual way. A set of these publications will be sent to my hon. Friend on the day of publication.

  Operation Care
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 24 November 1999,Official Report, column 119W, concerning multiple allegations covered by the Operation Care investigation, if he is in a position to provide the information requested. [106104]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  In the time available, research has been completed in respect of one scene of investigation as part of the prosecution process. The results are shown in the table which include allegations of sexual and/or physical abuse. Although the table is produced as an illustration, it should not be regarded as representative of the entire database. In most of the other
  559W
  scenes of investigation, the incidence of multiple allegations is significantly lower. I am advised that it is not the intention to produce further separate tabulations as this would divert resources from the continuing inquiries.

  Complainants with multiple allegations

  Percentage of total complainants

  Allegations against 1 person

  27.67

  Allegations against 2 persons

  27.67

  Allegations against 3 persons

  20.53

  Allegations against 4 persons

  12.5

  Allegations against 5 persons

  8.03

  Allegations against 6 persons

  1.7

  Allegations against 7 persons

  0.89

  Allegations against 8 persons

  0.89

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many individuals have been(a) charged and (b) arrested in connection with Operation Care; and how many individuals have claimed to have been abused and over what period of time. [106103]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  A total of(a) 41 individuals have been charged and (b) 72 arrested in connection with Operation Care. I am advised that the information on the number of complainants is not readily retrievable from the database.

  Charity Commission
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to extend the Charity Commission's role in advising charities on issues relating to corporate governance; and if he will make a statement. [105918]

  Mr. Boateng
  I have no plans to extend the Charity Commission's advisory role. The Commission has a statutory role to give trustees"information and advice on any matter affecting the charity".

  It gives such advice in response to trustees' requests and on its own initiative.

  If there is misconduct or mismanagement by trustees, the Commission can intervene directly in the running of the charity. It has statutory powers to remove those responsible for misconduct and to protect the charity's assets from misuse.

  Trustees who run their charity in accordance with its constitution and the law have full discretion over the charity's policies and activities, and are accountable for their decisions. The Commission may give advice and information, but it is statutorily debarred from acting in the administration of a charity.

  Criminal Justice (Mode of Trial) Bill
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has made of the annual number of convicted offenders who would receive a shorter custodial sentence than at present if the Criminal Justice (Mode of Trial) Bill [Lords] became law. [106091]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  It is estimated that about 4,300 convicted offenders would receive shorter custodial sentences because their cases would be dealt with in the magistrates' courts, as would be more appropriate.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Debt Relief
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what budget is available from her Department to monitor and measure the bilateral debt relief initiative. [105680]

  Mr. Foulkes
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply of 19 January 2000,Official Report, column 479W. No attempt is made to disaggregate the resources which the Department for International Development (DFID) spends on monitoring and assessment of its bilateral programme.

  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development when she expects each of the heavily indebted poor countries to qualify for bilateral debt relief; and what assessment has been made of the amount of extra money each country will have to spend on poverty eradication in the financial years(a) 1999–2000, (b) 2000–01 and (c) 2001–02. [105744]

  Mr. Foulkes
  Decisions have not yet been taken on the amount and timing of each country's debt relief under the enhanced Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC) Initiative. The policy announced by the Government on 21 December is to provide complete relief on the remaining debt owed to the UK, after HIPC debt relief has been granted. The specific amount of extra relief that each country will receive in any one year cannot be known until decisions have been taken on their HIPC debt relief. The Government are working with the World bank and the IMF to ensure that countries come forward for HIPC relief as soon as possible; our target is that three quarters of countries receive relief before the end of 2000.

  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development in which of the countries qualifying for bilateral debt relief her Department has a representative. [105827]

  Mr. Foulkes
  Countries that could be eligible for bilateral debt relief, if their governments are committed to poverty reduction, are Angola, Benin, Bolivia, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Democratic Republic of Congo, Republic of Congo, Cote d'Ivoire, Ethiopia, Ghana, Guinea, Guyana, Kenya, Liberia, Madagascar, Malawi, Mali, Mauritania, Mozambique, Nicaragua, Niger, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Somalia, Sudan, Tanzania, Togo, Uganda, Vietnam, Yemen and Zambia. The UK Government have representatives accredited to all these countries. DFID has offices in Kenya and Tanzania and is due to open one shortly in Uganda.

  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what recent representations she has made to HM Treasury regarding debt relief; and if she will place a copy of the documents in the Library. [105828]

  Mr. Foulkes
  My right hon. Friend has made no representations to the Treasury on debt relief. She and my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer share the strong conviction that the purpose of debt relief is to allow countries to invest in poverty reduction programmes and achieve the international development targets. They work closely on the Government's debt relief policy, and this partnership enabled us to deliver our ambitious debt relief objectives last year. In particular, they jointly and
  561W
  successfully pressed for the substantial improvement in the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC) Initiative agreed at the Annual Meetings of the World Bank and IMF in September 1999. The revised HIPC framework not only provides faster, wider and deeper debt relief, it also increases the impact which this relief has on poverty, through the development and implementation of national poverty reduction strategies. A number of joint DFID and HM Treasury papers on debt, produced for the HIPC Review, have already been placed in the Library.

  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what steps her Department takes in co-operation with other national Governments to measure the outcome of debt relief measures. [105830]

  Mr. Foulkes
  We have consistently stressed that debt relief should only be given to countries who would use it to benefit the poor. We therefore welcome the decision at the Annual Meetings of the World Bank and IMF in September 1999 to tie the debt relief provided under the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC) Initiative to the development of national poverty reduction strategies. In this way, HIPC debt relief provides an opportunity to renew and refocus all development efforts, including resources, on making the greatest possible impact on poverty.

  To allow these strategies to be developed, and for their implementation to be monitored, it is essential that greater international efforts are made to improve the availability of good quality information in HIPC countries. In November 1999, the Partnership in Statistics for Development in the 21st Century was launched. Its aims are to provide statistical assistance to HIPC countries in producing and monitoring their poverty reduction strategies and to develop sustainable statistical capacity in the longer term, to inform and support pro-poor policy making and programme design. Our Department is devoting additional resources to achieve these aims, both bilaterally and multilaterally, working particularly with the World Bank, the UN and the IMF.

  Our Department is also looking at what assistance we can provide to civil society to enable them to participate effectively in the discussions on poverty reduction strategies, and monitor their impact, for example to better understand government budgets.

  Overseas Visits
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development which countries she has visited in the past six months. [105690]

  Mr. Foulkes
  My right hon. Friend has visited the following six countries or cities in the last six months:

  Countries

  Dates

  Bolivia—Bilateral country visit

  28 August to 3 September

  Washington—Annual Meetings of IMF/World bank

  25 September to 28 September

  New York—Speech on UN Reform

  26 October

  Brussels—Development Council

  10 to 11 November

  Brussels—General Affairs Council

  15 November

  Seattle—(WTO)

  28 to 30 November

  Indonesia
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what response her Department has made to the situation of refugees from the Maluka Islands in Indonesia. [105591]

  Mr. Foulkes
  Our Department is monitoring the humanitarian situation in the Maluka Islands in Indonesia, and in particular the plight of those who have been internally displaced by the conflict (estimated at 280,000 by the Government of Indonesia). We have not yet been formally approached for assistance, but will consider any appeals put to us following the UN and Government of Indonesia's forthcoming joint humanitarian needs assessment mission to Maluka.

  EU Aid
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what plans she has to review the efficiency of the EU aid budget. [105691]

  Mr. Foulkes
  We published a strategy paper for our collaboration with the European Union in December 1998 with 18 specific objectives for improving the effectiveness of the European Community's development programmes. Several of these objectives have been achieved and we continue to review the strategy regularly. We welcome the commitment of the new European Commission to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of European Community assistance but will continue to press them to establish a coherent overall development policy, to increase the proportion of European Community development assistance directed at low income and least developed countries, and to improve the management of European Community programmes.

  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment she has made of the recent changes to the European aid programme. [105728]

  Mr. Foulkes
  We welcome the commitments made by the new European Commission to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of the European Community's development programmes. Many of these commitments reflect positions in the strategy paper on working with the European Union published by our Department in December 1998. In particular, the Development Commissioner, Poul Nielson, and the External Relations Commissioner, Chris Patten, both called for a clearer poverty focus and for a considerable improvement in the Commission's management of its programmes. In addition, negotiations on a successor to the Lomé Convention governing the EU's relation with 71 African, Caribbean and Pacific countries due to conclude next month should adopt significant improvements in the development focus of the European Development Fund.

  However, as evaluations in recent years have shown, the impact of EC programmes has been poor and major changes are needed to improve this. We are therefore continuing to press the Commission to follow through on their commitments, and notably to adopt an overall

  563W
  development policy, to increase the proportion of European Community development assistance directed at low-income and least developed countries, and to improve the management of European Community programmes.

  Renewable Energy
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on the effectiveness of partnerships in developing countries to improve access to renewable sources of energy. [105164]

  Mr. Foulkes
  As we said in the White Paper, we believe that genuine partnerships between developing countries and the donor community are needed if poverty is to be addressed in an effective and coherent way.

  With our partners in developing countries we are developing access to renewable sources of energy through our Knowledge and Research programme. As part of this process we have recently produced a guidance note on "Energy for the Rural Poor". A copy has been placed in the Library of the House.

  French Speaking Countries
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on progress made in advancing co-operation with French speaking countries. [105660]

  Mr. Foulkes
  My right hon. Friend and I, and officials in our Department, maintain close links with French speaking countries and with our French counterparts and meet regularly. As a result of a series of meetings over the last few months we are working together on a variety of development issues, including co-operation on joint evaluations of selected UK and French activities. Last year we agreed with the French and Germans a Joint Declaration on improving the efficiency and effectiveness of EU development assistance. We will continue to build on these initiatives.

  Non-governmental Organisations
  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will list the total number of non-governmental organisations supported by her Department in each year since 1 May 1997 and the amount each has received. [105729]

  Mr. Foulkes
  Two hundred and twenty three UN NGOs received a total of £172.34 million in the financial year 1997–98 from our Department and 209 UK NGOs received a total of £181.58 million in 1998–99.

  Information on spending through overseas NGOs is not held separately, but is included in our bilateral country programme expenditure. Full details appear in "Statistics on International Development", a copy of which is in the Library of the House.

  Information on spending through individual NGOs is not held centrally in the format requested. A full answer to the question in that format could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Export Credits
  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment she has made of the impact that the end of export credits for military expenditure will have on developing countries. [105826]

  Mr. Foulkes
  We welcome the Chancellor's announcement of 11 January of a unilateral UK ban on export credits in respect of "unproductive expenditure" to 63 of the world's poorest countries. This extends the UK's unilateral 2-year ban on export credits for unproductive expenditure to Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (HIPCs) announced in September 1997. This is now being extended indefinitely and widened to cover all countries which are eligible to borrow from the World Bank only on highly concessional terms.

  Many of these countries are currently not on cover to receive export credits from the UK. We believe that export credit should only be granted to the poorest countries only where they are used for productive purposes which enable countries to benefit from faster economic growth and increased spending on social services. There is, therefore, a positive role for export credits in these countries. ECGD support for projects in these countries will be cleared by our Department to ensure they are not "unproductive".

  Departmental Expenditure
  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development (1) what percentage of her departmental budget was channelled directly to Governments in the developing world in the last three years; [105730]

  (2) what percentage of her departmental budget was spent through the private sector in the last 12 months; [105731]

  (3) what proportion of her departmental budget was spent through non-Governmental organisations in the last 12 months. [105732]

  Mr. Foulkes
  The latest available figures are for the 1998–99 financial year. In that year, we estimate that bilateral aid expenditure was as follows:

  Channel

  Percentage of 1998–99 bilateral expenditure

  Governments

  37

  Private sector

  47

  NGOs

  16

  Departmental Employees
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development (1) what changes there have been in full-time staff numbers in her Department in the UK and abroad in each quarter between 1 May 1997 and 13 January 1999; [105684]

  (2) what changes there have been in Civil Service staff numbers in her Department for each quarter between 1 May 1997 and 13 January 1999. [105685]
  565W
  Mr. Foulkes
  Changes in numbers of full-time posts financed from DFID' s running costs budget during the period May 1997 to January 1999 were as follows:

  Calendar year/Quarter

  Increase/decrease from the previous quarter

  1997 Q3

  -10

  1997 Q4

  +23

  1998 Q1

  +42

  1998 Q2

  +5

  1998 Q3

  +36

  1998 Q4

  +34

  1999 Q1

  -21

  Total cumulative increase/decrease over the period

  +109

  Figures are based on full time equivalents and take account of UK staff only. They exclude staff appointed in country and those contracted and paid from Programme budgets. Figures for the latter could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what percentage of her officials are registered disabled. [105741]

  Mr. Foulkes
  Since the introduction of the Disability Discrimination Act in 1995 people formerly registered as disabled are no longer registered as such. However, 2 per cent. of my officials have declared themselves to have a disability.

  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what percentage of her officials are women and how many are senior civil servants. [105740]

  Mr. Foulkes
  Forty four per cent. of the officials in our Department are women, of who 11 are in the Senior Civil Service.

  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what percentage of her officials are from ethnic minorities. [105743]

  Mr. Foulkes
  Six per cent. of the officials in our Department are from an ethnic minority background.

  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how many(a) Muslims and (b) Sikhs are employed by her Department. [105742]

  Mr. Foulkes
  We do not collect information on the religious affiliations of staff.

  British Council
  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how many of her Department's contracts has the British Council applied for since 1 May 1997; and in each case who was successful in securing the contract. [105734]

  Mr. Foulkes
  The exact number of our Department's contracts for which the British Council have bid is not readily available and could only be secured at disproportionate cost. Since 1 May 1997 the British Council have been awarded 28 contracts after a competition with other bidders.

  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on her policy towards the British Council. [105739]
  566W
  Mr. Foulkes
  The British Council is a key provider of services to the UK's effort to eliminate poverty and promote sustainable development. Our Department recognises its many strengths and breadth of experience and, as with other major suppliers, works through its commercial relationship with the Council to secure value for money.

  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development on what date the responsibility for the British Council reverted to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. [105733]

  Mr. Foulkes
  The Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) assumed full responsibility for the British Council from the start of the financial year 1998–99. From this point, the resources previously set aside in the Department for International Development's (DFID) budget for the Council's Grant-in-aid (£30 million in 1989–99) were transferred to FCO.

  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how many contracts her Department has awarded to the British Council since 1 May 1997. [105735]

  Mr. Foulkes
  Since 1 May 1997 our Department has awarded 131 contracts to the British Council.

TREASURY

  Childcare Tax Credits
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what measures the Government are taking to encourage the take-up of childcare tax credits by low income families in work. [103674]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The childcare tax credit can be received only as part of an award of the Working Families or Disabled Persons Tax Credits.

  A public information campaign to raise awareness of the new tax credits was launched on 7 September using television and press advertising, leaflets, factsheets and posters in post offices, tax and Benefits Agency offices and in Jobcentres. Also, over 21,000 adviser organisations such as Citizens Advice Bureaux, disability groups and local authorities have been provided with their own free supply of information literature.

  In addition, 9,000 community based groups were invited to nine regional roadshows in the UK, or two national roadshows in Scotland and Wales, each attended by a Minister and policy experts providing more information on WFTC and DPTC.

  Correspondence
  Sir Brian Mawhinney
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when the right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire will receive a reply to his letter of 1 December on behalf of his constituent, Mrs. White, forwarded to him by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. [105926]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  I replied on 13 January.

  Tobacco Revenue
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if real terms increases in spending on the NHS that result from real terms increases in revenues from tobacco will be in addition to the planned increases in real terms spending on the NHS that were announced in the Comprehensive Spending Review. [105465]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  Yes, within the total of managed expenditure determined by the Comprehensive Spending Review.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if spending on the NHS during the period of the second Comprehensive Spending Review, excluding any increases in spending that result from real terms increases in revenues from tobacco, will not be reduced in real terms. [105466]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The Government are committed to real terms increases in spending on the National Health Service.

  Transport Spending
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what real terms increases in spending on public transport and the road network that result from real terms increases in revenues from fuel duties will be in addition to the planned increases in spending on transport announced in the Comprehensive Spending Review. [105467]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The Pre-Budget Report stated that decisions on road fuel duties will be on a Budget-by-Budget basis and that if there are any real terms rises in road fuel duties, the revenues will go straight into a ring-fenced fund for the modernisation of roads and public transport. I cannot pre-judge my right hon. Friend's Budget decisions.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if spending on public transport and the road network during the period of the second Comprehensive Spending Review will be reduced in real terms excluding increases in spending that result from real terms increases in revenues from fuel duties. [105468]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  No decision has been taken on the level of spending on transport over the next expenditure planning period. Allocations to 2003–04 will be announced in July 2000. Further improvement of the UK's transport system will be an important consideration for the Spending Review.

  DTI Investigations
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what role his Department played in the 1998 decision to appoint DTI inspectors to investigate Hollis Industries plc; [105833]

  (2) what role his Department has played in discussions with the DTI on the cost of the current investigation into Mirror Group Newspapers plc. [105834]

  Mr. Timms
  None.

  Self-assessment
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps he has taken to ensure that no low-income and elderly pensioners are sent inappropriate self-assessment forms by the Inland Revenue in April. [105495]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  In July last year, the Paymaster General announced a change to the Self Assessment system designed to take around 200,000 pensioners—up to a quarter of those sent tax returns—out of Self Assessment. The Inland Revenue continue to monitor the Self Assessment system and are committed to keeping under review the criteria for issuing tax returns.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Pension Funds (Robert Maxwell)
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what steps he has taken to recover money paid by the Exchequer to pension funds of companies connected with the late Robert Maxwell; and what assessment he has made of whether the assets of those companies have been utilised so as to yield the maximum return to those pension funds and other creditors. [104672]

  Mr. Rooker
  The Department regularly reviews the ability of the Maxwell pension scheme trustees to repay the £ 2.5 million emergency funding made available in 1992. Emergency funding is only repayable once the position of all members of the pension scheme concerned has been secured and other scheme liabilities met. To date £223,660 has been repaid. We would expect further substantial repayments of emergency funding to be made in the course of the current calendar year. The realisation of assets in Maxwell companies that have gone into liquidation is a matter for the insolvency practitioners concerned.

  Maternity Pay
  Ms Kelly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate he has made of the cost of extending maternity pay from 18 weeks to(a) 26 weeks, (b) 39 weeks and (c) 52 weeks. [104866]

  Mr. Bayley
  The information is in the table.

  The additional full year cost in 2000–01 of extending statutory maternity pay at the flat rate

  £million

  Option

  Cost Increase

  Extending statutory maternity pay to 26 weeks

  140

  Extending statutory maternity pay to 39 weeks

  370

  Extending statutory maternity pay to 52 weeks

  590

  Note:

  These estimates are the overall costs based on the Government Actuary's Department projection of the average number of people on SMP during 2000–01 at any one time of 100,000, assume 100 per cent. take-up and the payment of £ 59.55 a week.

  Carers Allowances
  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people aged between 55 and 65 years acting as carers for relatives under the age of 50 years
  569W
  received (a) invalid care allowance and (b) carers premium in (i) 1998, (ii) 1988 and 9 (iii) 1978; and what is the projected figure for 2008. [105177]

  Mr. Bayley
  The information is not available.

  Pensioners
  Mr. Ashdown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate he has made of the number of pensioners in(a) Somerset and (b) Yeovil constituency who are entitled to, but not receiving, (i) income support, (ii) housing benefit and (iii) council tax benefit; how much money in each case is unclaimed; and if he will make a statement. [104711]

  Mr. Rooker
  The information is not available. It is not possible to produce reliable estimates of numbers not claiming their entitlement at constituency level.

  Mr. Ashdown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many pensioners there are in(a) Somerset, (b) South Somerset and (c) Yeovil constituency; and what is the age distribution of such pensioners, indicating the total number aged 80 years or over in each of those areas. [104719]

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

  Mid-1998 estimates of the number of people of pensionable age

  Age

  Somerset

  South Somerset

  60–64 (women)

  13,000

  3,900

  65–69

  25,100

  7,700

  70–74

  23,600

  7,400

  75–79

  20,700

  6,600

  80–84

  12,800

  4,100

  85 plus

  12,400

  3,800

  Total

  107,700

  33,400

  1991 Census information of the number of people of pensionable age

  Age

  Yeovil

  Pensionable age to 74

  12,200

  75–84

  6,200

  85 and over

  1,600

  Total

  20,000

  Notes:

  1. Mid-1998 population estimates of the number of people of pensionable age in Somerset and South Somerset are the latest available.

  2. Mid-year population estimates are not compiled by the Office for National Statistics (ONS) for parliamentary constituencies. The lowest level at which population estimates are available is the local authority level. 1991 Census information has therefore been used to answer part (c).

  3. The number of people of pensionable age is not necessarily the same as the number of pensioners.

  4. 'Pensionable age' represents males aged 65 and over and females aged 60 and over.

  5. Population estimates are rounded to the nearest hundred persons throughout. Age groups have been rounded independently and may not sum to the totals shown.
  570W
  Mr. Ashdown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what action he is taking to improve the take-up by pensioners of(a) income support, (b) housing benefit and (c) council tax benefit; and if he will make a statement. [104712]

  Mr. Rooker
  An announcement of our plans to encourage pensioners to take-up their entitlement to benefits will be made shortly.

  Mr. Ashdown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what assessment he has made of the advantages and disadvantages of developing a pensioner prices index; and if he will make a statement. [104713]

  Mr. Rooker
  The Office for National Statistics publish a Pensioner Price Index which reflects the spending patterns of pensioners in the lowest three income deciles. The Index shows that over the last 20 years the rate of price inflation for this group of pensioners is significantly below that of other groups and, if used as a basis for uprating, basic Retirement Pension would be £12.30 lower than it is now. Therefore we have no plans to adopt the Pensioner Price Index as part of the annual review of benefit levels.

  Benefit Payment Methods
  Mr. Ashdown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what estimate he has made of the savings to the Exchequer from the proposed payment of benefits into bank accounts rather than through post offices from 2003 onwards; what is the estimated saving in each year from 2003–04 to 2008–09; what assumptions about the amount of business which will be transferred from post offices to banks underlie these figures; and if he will make a statement; [104715]

  (2) if he will make a statement on the timescale over which it is proposed to move towards paying benefits directly into bank accounts rather than through post offices; and if he will make a statement; [104750]

  (3) if he will make it his policy to delay beyond the planned date of 2003 the proposed payment of benefits directly into bank accounts rather than through post offices; and if he will make a statement. [104714]

  Mr. Rooker
  We have decided to change the way people are paid benefit, from the current paper based methods to automated credit transfer (ACT). This reflects the fact that customers increasingly choose to be paid this way. The move is expected to generate £640 million savings per year from 2005.

  Those benefit recipients who wish to collect their benefit in cash at post offices will continue to be able to do so.

  It is planned to move to ACT as the normal method of payment for all benefit customers. The move will begin in 2003 and end in 2005.

  Pensioners (Income Support)
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer of 11 November 1999,Official Report, column 801W, what level of take-up of income support for pensioners is assumed in current forecasts of expenditure. [105316]
  571W
  Mr. Rooker
  Current forecasts assume that expenditure as a result of increased take-up by pensioners will increase by £43 million over the period 1999–00 to 2001–02. This estimate will need to be reviewed in the light of our plans for a national programme to increase pensioner take-up.

  Correspondence
  Sir Brian Mawhinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when the right hon. Member for North West Cambridgeshire will receive a reply to his letter of 2 December on behalf of his constituent, Mrs. Wilson. [105925]

  Mr. Darling
  I replied to the right hon. Member on 19 January 2000.

  Sir Brian Mawhinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when the right hon. Member for North West Cambridgeshire will receive a reply to his letter of 30 November on behalf of his constituent, Mr. Hausell. [105923]

  Mr. Darling
  A reply will be sent to the right hon. Member as soon as possible.

  Deregulation
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what orders his Department has made under the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994 in each year since 1994; and what plans it has to introduce such orders. [106083]

  Mr. Bayley
  This Department has made no orders to date to remove regulatory legislation but we will continue to look for opportunities to use such orders where we can.

  We do, however, plan to bring forward an order shortly which will enable our private and voluntary sector partners to play a full role in the delivery of the new ONE service which is currently being piloted.

  We have brought forward a range of deregulatory measures on pensions in the Welfare Reform Act 1999 and the current Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Bill.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Departmental Productivity
  Mr. Crausby
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what action he is taking to increase the productivity and reduce the running costs of his Department. [103843]

  Mr. Morley
  Delivering efficient and modern public services is a key part of the Government's agenda for improving productivity. Greater efficiency is being sought therefore within the public sector to ensure that the most effective results are obtained from available resources. The Ministry's Public Service Agreement (PSA) includes a range of measures for taking this forward, both within the Ministry itself and in other public sector bodies.
  572W
  Those measures which will help raise the Ministry's own productivity are as follows:

  (a) Better Quality Services

  The Ministry will regularly and systematically review services and activities over a five year period in line with Government policy as set out in the handbook "Better Quality Services". A review programme has been developed, setting out those services that will be reviewed each year with the intention to review at least 60 per cent. of services by March 2003.

  (b) Fraud

  The Ministry will continue to apply controls to detect and prevent fraud and other irregularities under the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) farm-based schemes. The Ministry has designated a fraud contact officer to promulgate ministry policy and to give specific advice to managers.

  (c) Sickness Absence

  In line with the central initiative to improve attendance, an internal audit of the sickness absence recording and monitoring systems has been completed and targets set for reducing absence.

  (d) Electronic Government

  The Ministry will exploit opportunities for electronic communications and will increase the proportion of business undertaken electronically to contribute to the Government's commitment to a target of at least 25 per cent. for electronic dealings with the public by 2002.

  (e) Procurement

  The Ministry will combine central responsibility for the management of procurement with devolution of operational procurement where appropriate; develop strategies for delivering best whole life cost solution, optimising operational savings and minimising the administrative costs of procurement; improve information and procedures, and education and training; and undertake benchmarking using maturity profile analysis techniques.

  (f) Asset Sales

  The Ministry will dispose of most of its surplus land and buildings by April 2000.

  (g) CAP Administration

  The Ministry aims to increase the productivity of CAP administration by developing, testing and implementing an integrated IT system for administering CAP schemes by March 2002.

  (h) Efficiency

  The Ministry will also pursue efficiency gains, and will continue to develop better measures of efficiency and extend these to cover a wide range of departmental activities and also the activities of its executive agencies.

  The Ministry's running costs provision for 1999–2000 to 2001–02 is set out in its PSA. The productivity measures listed above will enable the Ministry to increase the quantity and quality of its outputs delivered by its running costs expenditure over this period.

  Property Sales
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on what dates the properties at(a) Towy Avenue, Llandovery, Dyfed, (b) Station Road, Honeybourne Avenue, Evesham, Worcestershire, (c) New

  Property

  Current position

  Towy Avenue, Llandovery, Dyfed

  First offered for sale in June 1997. This property was sold in November 1999.

  Station Road, Honeybourne, Evesham, Worcestershire

  First offered for sale in August 1997. This property was sold in December 1997.

  New Street, Earl Shilton, Hinckley, Leicestershire

  First offered for sale in February 1996. Little interest from potential purchasers. Offer to purchase has recently been accepted and legal documentation is now being prepared.

  Station Road, South Leigh, Oxfordshire

  First offered for sale in November 1994. The property was sold in January 1998.

  Fisheries
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on what date the six and 12 mile derogations will expire. [105540]

  Mr. Morley
  Article 6 (1) of Council Regulation (EC) 3760/92 authorises member states to retain restrictions on access by foreign fishing vessels within six and twelve mile limits until 31 December 2002.

  The Commission is due to report to the Council by 31 December 2001 on the operation of the Common Fisheries Policy. The Council, acting by Qualified Majority, will then take any necessary decisions, including on the future of the Article 6 provisions, by 31 December 2002. There is clear support for the maintenance of restrictions on access within the six and twelve mile limits. I expect those restrictions to continue after 2002.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on his policy towards the encouragement of development of INFOMAR Systems Fishcast and Fishtrade, with particular reference to a possible pilot study on the United Kingdom. [105666]

  Mr. Morley
  The INFOMAR systems were developed through an EU funded research project. The work led to the development of a software package which facilitates the dissemination of information and provides an ability to trade while at sea. The Government welcome the development of methods of improving communications and the trade in fish. The use of electronic information systems is one area which is being considered for funding under the Agenda 2000 fisheries aid programme.

  Rats
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what proportion of dwellings in England with rat infestations were(a) not being treated and (b) had not been reported to the local authority on the most recent date for which figures are available. [105484]

  Mr. Morley
  Details of the treatment of rat infestations are in the recent MAFF report "Rodent infestations in domestic properties in England", a copy of which has been placed in the Library of the House. The figures 574W
  Street, East Shilton, Hinckley, Leicestershire and (d) 357 Station Road, South Leigh, Oxfordshire, were offered for sale; and what is the current position with regard to the disposal of each property. [104685]

  Mr. Morley
  The information requested is set out as follows:

  reflect the situation at a specific point in time and would not include cases where treatment was planned but had not yet started.

  Information was not collected on the proportion of rat infestations which had not been reported to the local authority.

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the findings of the(a) 1996 English House Condition Survey and (b) commensal rodent survey undertaken by his Department and the Chartered Institute of Environmental Health in 1993, on the number and proportion of dwellings in England affected by rat infestations. [105481]

  Mr. Morley
  The results of the 1996 survey show that the general level of rodent infestations in England is low. The figures are lower for both rats and mice compared to the 1993 survey, although the results are not directly comparable due to different sampling methods. Full results of the 1996 survey are in the recent MAFF report "Rodent infestations in domestic properties in England", a copy of which together with the Ministry's News Release, has been placed in the Library of the House.

  The Prevention of Damage by Pests Act 1949 requires local authorities to take such steps as may be necessary to keep, so far as is practicable, their district free of rodents and empowers them to require occupiers of land to take the necessary action to remove rodents from their land.

  Pig Sector
  Mr. Cawsey
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what estimate he has made of the additional costs to the pig sector as a result of the Welfare of Animals at Slaughter Act 1991 and the Welfare of Livestock Regulations 1994 since they came into force on 1 January 1999. [105435]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 17 January 2000]: The cost to the pig sector of the prohibition on sow stalls and tethers introduced through the 1994 Regulations will have included capital costs prior to the prohibition's entry into force on 1 January 1999 as well as ongoing management costs since. These were all covered in a Compliance Cost Assessment which was placed in the Library of the House at the time the Regulations were made: we have not assessed the costs since 1 January 1999.
  575W
  The Welfare of Animals at Slaughter Act 1991 does not contain provisions imposing costs on the pig sector.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will seek the introduction of a European ban on stall and tether rearing of pigs and the introduction of standard animal welfare regulations in the European Union. [105029]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 17 January 2000]: We shall continue to press the EU Commission to bring forward their overdue proposals for updating the existing rules on pig welfare. The Commission's expert Scientific Veterinary Committee—on whose report the Commission's proposals must be based—was published in October 1997 and confirms our view that stalls and tethers for sows are unacceptable.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will ban the import from the EU of pork reared in stalls and tethers. [105028]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 17 January 2000]: Under the Treaty of Rome it is illegal to ban imports of meat on animal welfare grounds. We are actively seeking to improve welfare standards at EU and Council of Europe level.

  Sugar
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if it is his policy that reforms of the Sugar Protocol and Lomé Convention should include measures to provide support for traditional suppliers of cane; and if he will make a statement. [105493]

  Mr. Foulkes
  I have been asked to reply.

  Negotiations on a successor to the Lomé Convention between the European Union and the 71 African, Caribbean and Pacific countries are due to conclude next month. We expect the present trade arrangements to be extended during a transition period from 2000 to 2008. After that date, new trade arrangements will enter into force. The Sugar Protocol will roll forward unchanged but will be reviewed before the end of the transition period. We would assess the need for support measures at the time of, and within the context of, the Review of the Sugar Protocol. We recognise the importance of the sugar trade to the economies of many ACP States, and our Department has commissioned research work to consider the consequences of possible reforms of the Sugar Protocol. The work is at an early stage, but it clearly indicates that some countries will face adjustment problems. In the time up to the Review it remains vitally important that the ACP continue their own efforts to improve their competitiveness.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Transport Costs (EU)
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on progress made by the European Commission's Committee of Experts on transport costs. [105608]

  Mr. Hill
  I have been asked to reply.
  576W
  As envisaged in the Commission's White Paper on fair payment for infrastructure use, a committee of Government experts on charging for the use of transport infrastructure was set up to advise the Commission. The committee has been supported by a group of independent experts. The experts have produced two reports, one on estimating transport costs, and one on options for charging users directly for transport infrastructure operating costs. These reports cover, among other things, methods of calculating and charging for transport infrastructure costs, congestion and scarcity costs, accident costs and environmental costs. The committee has also acted as a forum for the exchange between member states of research and other information on infrastructure charging issues.

  Burma
  Mr. Hilary Benn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the current situation in Burma. [105278]

  Mr. Battle
  There has been no improvement in the political and human rights situation in Burma. The UK remains committed to pressing for change and for dialogue between the regime and democratic leaders, including ethnic minorities. We take every opportunity to do so: for example, we support the EU Common Position on Burma (a package of measures against the regime) and have co-sponsored UN resolutions—most recently at the UN General Assembly in November—critical of the regime.

  Pakistan
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on Her Majesty's Government's policy toward arms sales to Pakistan. [105184]

  Mr. Hain
  There has been no change to our policy of considering export licence applications for Pakistan on a case-by-case basis against our national criteria and those in the EU Code of Conduct for Arms Exports, and in the light of the statement on 10 July 1999, made to the House by my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Lloyd) following the Pakistani and Indian Nuclear tests.

  Child Labour
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with representatives of the International Labour Organisation on child labour; and which issues were discussed during 1999. [105511]

  Mr. Hain
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary had talks with the Director General of the International Labour Organisation (ILO), Juan Somavia, in London last September. They discussed a range of issues including: measures to address child labour, modernisation of the ILO, and co-operation between the ILO, the World Trade Organisation and the International Financial Institutions.

  Mr. Somavia also had talks with my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and the then Minister for Employment, Welfare to Work and Equal Opportunities, who confirmed the Government's intention to ratify ILO Conventions 138 and 182, both relating to child labour.

  Sri Lanka
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what Ministers from his Department have visited Sri Lanka since 1 May 1997. [105597]

  Mr. Hain
  The late Minister of State, Derek Fatchett, visited Sri Lanka from 10–11 November 1998. I am planning to visit Sri Lanka later this year.

  Subcontinent (UK Entry Applications)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what was the average waiting time for interview at British High Commission offices in Pakistan, India and Sri Lanka for a person seeking(a) permanent settlement in the United Kingdom, (b) to attend further and higher education courses and (c) visits to members of their family living in the UK in the last 12 months. [105510]

  Mr. Vaz
  Waiting times for settlement and non-settlement interviews fluctuate over the year in response to seasonal pressures. The following figures were the waiting times for settlement interviews at the end of December 1999 in the countries concerned:

  Weeks

  Post

  Q1

  Q2

  Q3

  Q4

  India

  Bombay

  0

  5

  5

  5

  New Delhi

  0

  7

  20

  25

  Pakistan

  Islamabad

  9

  39

  44

  50

  See explanation of Q1-Q4 system below

  The visa sections at Calcutta, Colombo, Karachi and Madras have a standard single queue for all settlement applications. Their current waiting times are:

  Calcutta: currently no queue

  Colombo: 8 weeks

  Karachi: 14 weeks

  Madras: 5 weeks

  Queue 1–4 system:

  Queue 1—Right of Abode cases and Dependant Relatives over 65;

  Queue 2—Spouses and Children under 18;

  Queue 3—Fiance(e)s and other First Time Applicants; and

  Queue 4—Re-applicants.

  The statistics held centrally on applicants visiting the United Kingdom, either as family visitors or as students, are not held in such a way as to provide figures for parts (b) and (c) of my hon. Friend's question. A comprehensive reply could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Most visit visa applications are straightforward and are normally processed within 24 hours. Many student applications are also processed without delay. However, where a more detailed examination of the application is required, the applicant (student or visitor) will be asked to return at a later date for interview. The waiting times
  578W
  for such interviews (known as Tier 3 interviews) in the countries in question at the end of December 1999 were as follows:

  India

  Bombay: No queue

  Calcutta: No queue

  Madras: 2 days

  New Delhi: No queue

  Pakistan

  Islamabad: 5 days

  Karachi: 22 days

  Sri Lanka
  Colombo: 22 days.

  I shall be visiting the Sub-Continent shortly to view these arrangements. I have asked the Entry Clearance Manager in Islamabad to see me within the next two weeks.

  Cyprus
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent steps he has taken to encourage(a) the Greek Government, (b) the Turkish Government and (c) the Government of Cyprus to resolve the issue of Northern Cyprus. [105159]

  Mr. Vaz
  The UK is playing a leading role in support of UN efforts towards a settlement in Cyprus. We warmly welcomed the launch of UN proximity talks in New York on 3 December preparing for the negotiation of a comprehensive settlement. We strongly endorse the UN Secretary-General's intention to continue these talks early this year. We are in frequent contact with the Cypriot parties and with the Governments of Greece and Turkey and are encouraging them to co-operate with the Secretary-General constructively and flexibly.

  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the timetable for the accession of Cyprus to the European Union. [105158]

  Mr. Vaz
  Cyprus is making good progress in its EU accession negotiations, which we welcome. Twenty-three of the 31 chapters of the EU's legislation and practice have been discussed to date and 11 provisionally closed—the most of any candidate. The remaining chapters should be opened this year. It is not yet possible to predict when any of the candidates will join the EU. The faster Cyprus implements EU legislation the sooner it will be in a position to join.

  The Helsinki European Council stated that a political settlement would facilitate, but not be a precondition for, Cyprus' accession. We warmly welcomed the launch of UN proximity talks in New York in December, preparing for the negotiation of a comprehensive settlement in Cyprus, and strongly endorse the UN Secretary-General's intention to continue these talks early this year.

  Iran
  Mr. McCabe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what reports he has received on the affiliations and roles of Ghobad Mansour-Beigi, Reza Molai and Alireza Ali-Hosseini; and what assessment he has made of these reports. [105238]
  579W
  Mr. Hain
  According to Iranian press reports, the three people named in my hon. Friend's question were killed during a terrorist attack by the Mujaheddin-e-Khalq Organisation in the border town of Ilam on 9 January. I condemn this latest act of terrorism by the Mujaheddin-e-Khalq Organisation.

  Mr. McCabe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he discussed events in the province of Ilam in Iran when he met the Iranian Foreign Minister. [105237]

  Mr. Hain
  During his recent visit Foreign Minister Kharrazi mentioned an attack by the Mujahedeen-e-Khalq Organisation (MKO) in which several people were killed. Our Embassy in Tehran reported separately that the city of Ilam had been hit by a mortar attack on 8 January which killed three people and injured five. The MKO were reported locally as having claimed responsibility. The UK Government condemn this terrorist attack as we condemn all acts of terrorism, wherever they occur.

  Indonesia (Arms Embargo)
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if the current EU arms embargo on Indonesia covers(a) all arms licences and (b) all military items still awaiting delivery to Indonesia. [105899]

  Mr. Battle
  As my hon. Friend the Minister of State, the Member for Neath (Mr. Hain) told the House on 17 January 2000,Official Report, column 325W, the EU arms embargo is no longer in effect and, we will therefore consider any future applications strictly according to an agreed criteria, bearing in mind the current and future situation in Indonesia.

  General Pinochet
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will place in the Library(a) notes of meetings and (b) copies of correspondence with the Government of Chile concerning the (i) proposed extradition and (ii) medical condition of General Pinochet. [106009]

  Mr. Battle
  It is not our practice to make publicly available the contents of either notes of meetings or copies of correspondence with other Governments. The details of contacts of this nature are confidential to the Governments concerned.

  Chile
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what requests have been made to the United Nations Secretary General since September 1973 for an international judicial process on human rights in Chile; and if he will make a statement. [106012]

  Mr. Battle
  We cannot answer for other Governments, NGOs or individuals, and we are not aware of any requests from HMG. The information required to provide an accurate answer is not centrally held, and to do so would incur disproportionate costs.

  Honorary Consuls
  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the serving honorary consuls who are British citizens giving(a) the posts in which they serve, (b) the date of their appointment and (c) the honours that have been awarded to them since they took up their appointments. [105895]

  Mr. Hain
  I will write to the hon. Member shortly.

  Departmental Properties
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list those properties held by his Department and agencies responsible to him which are(a) wholly and (b) mainly unoccupied at present, giving locations and when they became so unoccupied in each case. [105302]
  Mr. Battle [pursuant to his reply, 19 January 2000, c. 478W]: An administrative error led to an omission in my answer of 19 January to the hon. Member. The correct answer should read as follows:

  FCO policy is that no property should be left vacant unless this is unavoidable in the short-term or there are good reasons for retention (such as a break in diplomatic relations, as in Tripoli, Baghdad and Kabul). Properties which are surplus to our requirements are disposed of at an appropriate time (we had the former Residence in Jakarta on the market, but withdrew it when the market collapsed).

HEALTH

  Prostate Cancer
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to publish guidelines for the treatment of prostate cancer in the NHS. [101494]

  Yvette Cooper
  We are determined to improve the prevention, detection and treatment of prostate cancer. The work programme for the National Institute for Clinical Excellence was announced on 4 November and includes the development of clinical guidelines on urological cancers—which will incorporate prostate cancer. This will be the first in the series of guidelines on cancers to look at cancers which affect mostly men. It is expected that the detailed work on this cancer guideline will take until at least the end of 2000.

  "The Widening Gap"
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the recent publication, "The Widening Gap", by Bristol University, on inequalities in health provision. [101689]

  Yvette Cooper
  I was interested to see this report which suggests that there are a number of key determinants which impact on health and health inequalities.

  The former Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson), appointed Sir Donald Acheson to carry out an inquiry into health inequalities. Sir Donald's report, published in November 1998, described the socio-economic determinants of health inequalities and made

  581W
  recommendations which contributed to the development of our health strategy, "Saving Lives: Our Healthier Nation". A key aim of our strategy is to reduce health inequalities and narrow the health gap.

  In "Reducing Health Inequalities: An action report" published with "Saving Lives" we identified some of the key actions we are taking across Government to tackle health inequalities.

  Power Lines
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of recent evidence linking radiation from power lines and cancer. [101690]

  Yvette Cooper
  The results of the first part of the United Kingdom Childhood Cancer Study were published in The Lancet in December. This is the largest UK study on childhood cancer to date. It started in 1992 and has examined a number of factors which might be implicated in childhood cancer. The present study provides no evidence that exposure to magnetic fields associated with the electricity supply in the UK increases risks for childhood leukaemia, cancers of the central nervous system, or any other childhood cancer. Also published in December were two studies in the International Journal of Radiation Biology. In these studies, scientists from Bristol University report observations of increased deposition of natural radionuclides near power lines. From these measurements it is inferred that other pollutants in the environment, such as car exhaust fumes, will behave similarly and this may be a cause of childhood leukaemia. The National Radiological Protection Board Advisory Group on Non Ionising Radiation have been reviewing the research in this area and will be reporting soon.

  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations the Government have received on Professor Henshaw's report on High Voltage Power Lines and Public Health; and if he will make a statement. [101622]

  Yvette Cooper
  Professor Henshaw's two reports on "High Voltage Power Lines and Public Health" were published in The International Journal of Radiation Biology on 2 December 1999. The Department has received a number of telephone inquiries from members of the public about the report since its publication.

  We are aware of concerns about possible health effects from electromagnetic fields and are supporting some of Professor Henshaw's research among a number of projects within the Department's Radiation Protection Research Programme.

  The Department will consider the results of this study in the context of other work in this area and has asked for views from the National Radiological Protection Board (NRPB), and its Advisory Group.

  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of(a) Professor Henshaw's report and (b) that of the Electricity Association about the health aspects of overhead line transmissions; and if he will make a statement. [102134]

  Yvette Cooper
  Two reports from Professor Henshaw were published in December in the International Journal of Radiation Biology. These studies reported observations of increased deposition of natural radionuclides near 582W
  power lines. From these measurements it is inferred that other pollutants in the environment, such as car exhaust fumes, will behave similarly and this may be a cause of childhood leukaemia. Also published in December were the results of the first part of the United Kingdom Childhood Cancer Study in The Lancet. The costs of this study were met by leukaemia charities, Government and the electricity supply industry. It is the largest UK study on childhood cancer to date. The study provides no evidence that exposure to magnetic fields associated with the electricity supply in the UK increases risks for childhood leukaemia, cancers of the central nervous system, or any other childhood cancer. The National Radiological Protection Board Advisory Group on Non Ionising Radiation have been reviewing the research in this area and will be reporting soon.

  Artificial Sweeteners
  Dr. Brand
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received in relation to(a) Aspartame and (b) other artificial sweeteners; and if he will make a statement. [102309]

  Yvette Cooper
  In the last 12 months the Department has received 32 representations in relation to Aspartame and six representations in relation to other artificial sweeteners. These raised issues about possible health effects of artificial sweeteners. The Department receives advice on these matters from the Committee on Toxicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment.

  Fluoridation
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on his policy on fluoridation of drinking water. [102351]

  Yvette Cooper
  In our White Paper, "Saving Lives: Our Healthier Nation", which was published on 6 July we announced that we have commissioned an up-to-date expert scientific review of fluoride and health. If the review confirms that there are benefits to dental health from fluoridation and that there are no significant risks, we intend to introduce an obligation on water companies to fluoridate where there is strong local support for doing so.

  NHS Direct
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of NHS Direct calls received each day between 27 December and 12 January were from people complaining of influenza symptoms; and what percentage of these callers were instructed to go to hospital. [105679]

  Ms Stuart
  NHS Direct received in total 194,521 calls between 27 December and 12 January. Indications are that between 30 per cent. and 40 per cent. of calls during this period related to influenza symptoms. During this period the overall proportion of callers who were advised to attend their accident and emergency department was 6 per cent. and 2 per cent. of callers were diverted to the 999 service.

  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if a person who has been instructed to go to hospital by NHS Direct and is found to have influenza is included in the official influenza figures. [105678]
  583W
  Ms Stuart
  Influenza activity in England is monitored through the Royal College of General Practitioners sentinel surveillance scheme. This records the number of first visits to a general practitioner with influenza-like illness. Other respiratory illnesses prevalent at this time of year are recorded separately.

  This system cannot measure the real incidence of influenza since it is restricted to those people who visit their general practitioner. Patients of the type referred to are therefore not included. This year a major campaign was run to encourage people to choose their own remedy, to consult a pharmacist and to use NHS Direct, as alternative sources of advice.

  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many nurses working for NHS Direct were, in their previous employment, working full-time in the NHS. [105672]

  Ms Stuart
  NHS Direct accounts nationally for 600 (whole-time equivalent) nurses, a small number against the overall size of the nursing workforce, which is 332,000 (whole-time equivalent) in England (as of 30 September 1998). Specific information, such as the previous employment of NHS Direct nurses is not collected centrally. NHS Direct has deliberately recruited nurses from a wide range of different backgrounds: hospitals, primary care, outside the NHS. Some will be from a hospital background but others will be from primary care or will have been working outside the NHS. NHS Direct has also provided opportunities for the disabled and those who had to stop working in the ward\hospital because of other injuries. Many staff who work for NHS Direct do so on a part time basis allowing them to combine working for NHS Direct with other clinical duties.

  Accident and Emergency Units
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many major accident and emergency units have their full complement of consultants; and how many of these units have consultants on duty 24 hours a day. [105518]

  Ms Stuart
  The information requested is not collected centrally.

  Influenza Vaccination
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will assess the benefits of introducing a programme of systematic vaccination of those health care workers working with the elderly. [105637]

  Yvette Cooper
  [holding answer 18 January 2000]: United Kingdom Health Ministers are advised on immunisation policy by the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI). JCVI reviews its recommendations, including immunisation of healthcare workers, annually.

  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health for what reasons NHS trusts were advised to vaccinate staff on the grounds of reducing absenteeism over the Millennium holiday. [105632]
  584W
  Yvette Cooper
  [holding answer 18 January 2000]: Decisions on whether to offer routine vaccinations to staff and, if so, to which groups of staff, were taken at local level by National Health Service trusts as a part of their winter planning arrangements.

  Trusts were advised through a Health Service Circular issued on 24 September 1999 to consider the possible impact of staff absence through illness at a time of exceptional pressure over the extended Millennium holiday period.

  In reaching their decisions, trusts were also reminded of the possible risks associated with immunisations.

  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the uptake of influenza vaccine has been among(a) the over 75s, (b) the over 65s, (c) the under 5s and (d) medically vulnerable groups in the last twelve months. [105634]

  Yvette Cooper
  [holding answer 18 January 2000]: The most recent estimates of vaccine uptake were published in Health Trends (1998; 30: 51–55). Copies are available in the Library.

  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health for what reason an age limit of 75 years was chosen for a pro-active campaign of influenza vaccination among the elderly. [105639]

  Yvette Cooper
  [holding answer 18 January 2000]: People aged 75 and over without underlying risk conditions and not living in residential care were added to the individuals recommended for flu immunisation in 1998. This followed advice from the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation. The rationale was set out in a letter from the Chief Medical Officer and Chief Nursing Officer (PL/CNO/98/4, PL/CNO/98/6), copies of which are available in the Library.

  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what measures he will take to increase the levels of influenza vaccination among(a) those aged over 75 years, (b) those aged under 5 years and (c) those with medical conditions making them particularly susceptible to influenza; [105640]

  (2) what plans he has to increase the public awareness about the uptake of the influenza vaccine. [105633]

  Yvette Cooper
  [holding answer 18 January 2000]: Influenza immunisation aims to reduce the morbidity and mortality due to flu by immunising those people most likely to have a severe or complicated illness due to flu. Immunisation is, therefore recommended for all those in whom the disease is more likely to be a serious illness, that is people:
  with chronic respiratory or heart disease or renal disease, diabetes and those who are immunocompromised
  living in long stay residential accommodation
  aged 75 and over.

  In advance of this year's winter season the Department was involved in a range of activities to publicise the need for flu immunisation. GPs were reminded of the importance of flu immunisation in last August's CMG Update and about ordering Department of Health leaflets and posters on influenza and influenza immunisation.

  585W
  Research has shown that the single most important factor affecting whether an individual is immunised or not is whether the doctor or nurse recommended it.

  The Chief Medical Officer launched Flu Awareness Week at a press conference in October 1999. This annual event results in widespread media coverage and gives a useful opportunity to get key messages across to the general public. Flu Awareness Week is organised by the Association for Influenza Monitoring and Surveillance (aims) who organise media based awareness work each autumn. Other organisations, such as Help the Aged, support this activity as well as producing their own leaflets for the public.

  Those in the risk groups were encouraged to come forward for immunisation through placed articles in the general and women's press and through relevant representative groups. This year's "Keep Warm, Keep Well" campaign encourages older people to keep healthy this winter and included information on influenza and immunisation. Help The Aged' s "Senior Line" was briefed on the importance of influenza immunisation. As part of the work on Flu Awareness Week, (aims) worked with various representative groups such as the British Lung Foundation, the British Heart Foundation, to promote awareness.

  The Department will review how well these activities worked to increase awareness of influenza immunisation and will plan next winter's activities to increase uptake of vaccine on the basis of the lessons learned from this winter's activity.

  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many doses of the vaccine for the flu are currently available. [105629]

  Yvette Cooper
  [holding answer 18 January 2000]: Manufacturers advise that they had over half a million doses of flu vaccine available during the week ending 16 January 2000.

  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what alternatives to the current influenza vaccine are available to those with an egg allergy. [105638]

  Yvette Cooper
  [holding answer 18 January 2000]: Flu vaccine should not be given to individuals with known anaphylactic hypersensitivity to egg products—simple allergy to egg is not a contraindication. For these small number of individuals who are also in high risk groups amantadine hydrochloride may be prescribed prophylactically by the person's doctor where it is clinically necessary.

  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the extent of regional variations in the availability of the influenza vaccine. [105630]

  Yvette Cooper
  [holding answer 18 January 2000]: None. Influenza immunisation is primarily delivered through general practice. General practitioners order vaccine direct from the manufacturers according to their requirements.

  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to increase the funding available for an influenza vaccination programme. [105631]
  586W
  Yvette Cooper
  [holding answer 20 January 2000]: The Department will be reviewing this winter's influenza immunisation programme before planning next winter's activity. We will consider any implications for funding the programme in the light of this review.

  NHS Dentistry
  Mr. Ashdown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) when he expects to announce the Government's plans to improve the availability of NHS dentistry in(a) Somerset and (b) England as a whole; [104720]

  (2) if he will make a statement on the availability of NHS dentistry in the Yeovil constituency; [104721]

  (3) what assessment he has made of the areas of England where it is most difficult to register as an adult with an NHS dentist; and if he will make a statement. [104718]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Government are aware of the current problems experienced in accessing dental services, which we inherited from the previous Government. Access problems for adults are most acute in the south and west of the country, including the Yeovil constituency. We have taken positive steps to address these problems. The Investing in Dentistry initiative saw a £10 million investment in dentistry, including eight approved bids in Somerset, one of which was in Yeovil, while the personal dental services pilots have allowed for local flexibility in service provision. £203,000 has been awarded in grants in Somerset which will allow for 18,750 additional registrations.

  We are also piloting dental access centres, providing fast and convenient access to dentistry in areas with acute access problems. Two dental access centres opened last year, and a further six will come on line this winter. On 5 January my noble Friend Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, the Under-Secretary of State, announced 34 successful expressions of interest for a third wave of dental access centre pilots. A proposal from Somerset has been successful at this stage. These potential centres must now submit a full business case, and if successful, will be operational by the end of the year.

  More will be done to address problems of access in the NHS dental strategy. The strategy, to be published shortly, will set the future pace and direction of development of dentistry in England.

  Mr. Ashdown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what percentage of(a) adults and (b) children were registered with an NHS dentist in each English county in (i) 1985–86, (ii) 1990–91, (iii) 1995–96, (iv) 1996–97, (v) 1997–98, (vi) 1998–99 and (vii) 1999–2000; and if he will make a statement; [104716]

  (2) what was the total number of (a) adults and (b) children registered with an NHS dentist in each year since 1985 in (i) Somerset and (ii) Yeovil constitutency; and if he will make a statement. [104717]

  Mr. Hutton
  The information requested has been placed in the Library.

  NHS Car Parks
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many NHS hospital trusts levy charges for visitor car parking; what is the annual income raised by such
  587W
  charges; and if he has circulated advice to trusts on the waiving of charges, including penalties, in cases of emergency or on compassionate grounds. [106015]

  Ms Stuart
  The number of National Health Service trusts charging for visitor car parking is not collected centrally. The amount raised from car park charges is not separately identified within trust financial returns. Advice issued to trusts in 1996 on car parking charges suggested that special consideration needed to be given to the needs of some categories of visitors and staff.

WALES

  EU Structural Funds (Alyn and Deeside)
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what consultations he has had with other Departments concerning the award of EU Objective 2 status to the constituency of Alyn and Deeside; and if he will make a statement. [105553]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  My Department worked closely with other Government Departments and with the National Assembly for Wales on the UK's proposed Objective 2 map for the period 2000–06. This was approved last month by the European Commission. The Welsh map was unchanged from the UK Government's proposals of 8 October, a copy of which I sent to all Welsh MPs and MEPs.

  Objective 1
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what recent discussions he has had with the(a) European Commission and (b) UK representative office in Brussels on spending on the Objective 1 programme in 2000 and the criteria for Wales taking up its full entitlement of such funding; and if he will make a statement. [106062]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I visited Brussels last month and met officials from the UK Permanent Representation to the European Union and from the European Commission to discuss a range of issues. However, the negotiations with the European Commission on the content of the Objective 1 plan, including the spending profile, are a matter for the National Assembly for Wales.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if funding for expenditure on Objective 1 in Wales in the financial year 2000–01 is additional to the budget provided for the National Assembly for Wales. [106082]
  588W
  Mr. Paul Murphy
  Funding for the European Union grant element of Objective 1 expenditure in Wales will be from within the National Assembly's budget. For the financial year 2000–01 the Assembly estimates Objective 1 expenditure of around £25 million, which I am assured can be met from within the Welsh Block.

  Wales Office Staff
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list(a) the number of staff and (b) their grades in the Wales Office in London. [106068]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  The Wales Office in London currently has the following staff:

  Grade

  Number

  Senior Civil Service

  2

  Band F

  4

  Band E

  1

  Band D

  5

  Band C

  7

  Band B

  7

  Band A

  6

  Drivers

  2

  Special Adviser

  1

  The Wales Office also employs the following staff who are based in Cardiff:

  Grade

  Number

  Special Adviser

  1

  Band G

  1

  Engagements
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the official engagements of the Under-Secretary of State in the Wales Office for the period 10 to 23 January. [106067]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  During this period, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State attended four Cabinet Committee meetings; various meetings with officials in Cardiff and officials in London and attended to other ministerial business. On 18 January he wound up the opposition debate on the Health Service, on 19 January he answered questions on the Floor of the House; and on 21 January he will meet with local councils to discuss the Local Government Bill and will meet with National Power at Deeside.

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

Prison Service: Complementary Therapies
Earl Baldwin of Bewdleyasked Her Majesty's Government:
Why homoeopathy and healing are not on the approved list of complementary therapies which may be offered within prisons.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Bassam of Brighton): My Lords, the Prison Service recognises the potential value of complementary therapies. Homoeopathy and healing can take a wide variety of forms and the Prison Service has a duty to ensure that all treatments provided to prisoners meet their health heeds and are safe and effective. The list of permitted therapies are acupuncture, osteopathy, chiropractic, yoga and meditation. Treatments not on the list of normally permitted therapies may be made available on the recommendation of a prison doctor.
Earl Baldwin of Bewdley: My Lords, lam grateful to the noble Lord for his reply. However, would he not agree that the reason given against homoeopathy in a Prison Service letter last year that it,
"involves the administration of a range of ill-defined substances [with] potential for abuse",
is curious, to say the least, in view of the usual criticism of homoeopathy that it deals in dilutions that are so minute that they cannot possibly have any effect at all, and in view of the opinion expressed by the Medicines Control Agency at a Select Committee hearing this Monday, that it is,
"very much at the safe end of the spectrum",
which is something that one could say with even more force about healing?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, homoeopathy can involve the applicational ingestion of a wide range of non-prescribed substances. I do not believe that we want to encourage too much the taking of non-prescribed substances. However, of course, we recognise the importance of homoeopathy, and requests to use homoeopathic remedies will be considered very carefully. That continues to be the case. We do not have a closed mind on homoeopathy and a number of prisoners have had access to that form of treatment within the Prison Service.

Housing Benefit
3.7 p.m.
Earl Russellasked Her Majesty's Government:
What opinion they have formed about the effect of the shared residence requirement in housing benefit for those aged under 25.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Baroness Hollis of Heigham): My Lords, we commissioned research jointly with the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions on housing benefit and on the private rented sector to gauge the effects of the rent restriction rules which were introduced in 1996. In addition, we received a number of research reports from a variety of organisations—I believe that there were 28 such reports—on the effects of the single room rent. We are studying their implications as part of our wider review of housing policy.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Will she confirm that the finding of the research was that only in a small minority of cases did landlords reduce the rent to meet the housing benefit, as the Government had hoped when they introduced the regulations? The normal effect of those regulations is that housing benefit falls short of the rent. The tenants are meeting the shortfall either out of income support or, in 20 per cent of cases, out of borrowings. In those circumstances, what useful purpose do the Government believe is served by the single room rent?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I certainly share the noble Earl's concerns and con firm that the research findings are, indeed, as he says, that landlords in particular are reluctant to rent to young people under 25 who are receiving housing benefit and that they are not reducing the rent. Therefore, there is a shortfall between the rent determined by the rent officer and what the landlords continue to charge.
Obviously, the search for a longer-term solution will form part of our review of housing benefit, which is part of a cross-governmental review of housing policy more generally. However, in the mean time, I hope that the noble Earl will help me to publicise the fact that he Government have also set up a discretionary exceptional hardship scheme of some £20 million a year. Local authorities, however, are drawing down only some £6 million of that amount a year; that is, spending only one-third of the exceptional hardship money which they could use to meet some of the circumstances which the noble Earl has outlined. In the mean time, I hope that we can at least encourage—as, indeed, we are trying to do—local authorities to be more responsive to hardship.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, I agree with what the noble Baroness has just said. Does she also recall that when the previous government introduced the shared residence requirement, they said that it should be monitored carefully? In the light of the evidence which

1237
she has now mentioned, it seems that it is time to review the whole matter. If that is to be done in the context of the broader reform of housing benefit, can the Minister be a little clearer about timing? At the moment, we have had to rely on press leaks, which appear to say that it will be revised either on a regional basis or integrated with the working families' tax credit, and so on. Then we read further leaks in the press stating that those ideas have been dropped. Can she give us some further indication of the Government's thinking on reform of housing benefit and, in particular, when we are likely to have a clear announcement by the Government?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Not really, my Lords. I do not believe that even the noble Lord would expect me to leak to the House something which has not yet been fully determined. We had hoped—the noble Lord is right on this matter—that the Green Paper on housing, including housing benefit proposals, would be released by the end of last year.
Of all the areas of social security, the most fiendishly complicated are housing policy and housing benefit, precisely because 99 per cent of the stock is already there and there are few levers which the Government can pull to make a difference. However, I am afraid that we face a huge inherited problem. In 1979, approximately £15 billion was spent on housing investment. That figure is now £5 billion. In 1979, £2 billion was spent on housing benefit; the sum spent now is £11 billion. The folly of the past decade's policy, which was to let rents rip and then to try to sustain them with housing benefit until that benefit collapsed under the strain, is one of the drivers of the need for housing reform.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, will the Minister accept that it is somewhat unfair to blame local authorities for their inaction in that area when some local authorities are demonstrating good practice through the establishment of landlord forums and rent deposit schemes to help young people with a deposit, which they often find difficult? It is the shortfall of accommodation which is the problem. One only has to look at supermarket notice boards to see the advertisements which say, "No young people under 25" and "No DSS". In particular, does the Minister agree that, because of the overbearing number of regulations, it is now much easier for landlords who have spare rooms to rent those rooms to tourists rather than young people?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Yes, my Lords. One of the criticisms which the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and I made was that that policy was not based on research. We had very real doubts about the availability of that accommodation; namely, shared rooms for young people which were affordable, decent and of adequate quality. That research has been carried out on a localised basis, but 28 research reports have confirmed
1238
our concerns. That is precisely why—and I hope that there will be party support for this—we need to review the policy.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, what is the extent of fraud these days in housing benefit and what is being done about it?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, if we knew, we would already have uncovered it and it would no longer be fraud. Our best estimate is that it is between £2 billion and £4 billion. One problem, particularly in the private rented sector, is that in nearly three-quarters of cases, housing benefit giros are paid directly to landlords who then pocket the money, even when the tenant has moved on. Since last summer we have been trying to encourage local authorities to ensure that when they send out giros, they are not redirected by the Post Office. I am afraid that, so far, only two-thirds of local authorities have responded in that way. We are urging them to tighten up on fraud, because money going to fraudulent landlords is money denied to those people who need housing benefit.

Asylum Seekers: Accommodation
3.14 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croyasked Her Majesty's Government:
What arrangements are being made between the Home Office and local authorities in Scotland for accommodating asylum seekers who have arrived in the south of England.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, from 1st April, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary will have responsibility for supporting destitute asylum seekers. As part of the new arrangements, destitute asylum seekers will be accommodated in areas around the country, including Scotland. The Home Office is currently engaged in a major procurement exercise to obtain private sector accommodation for that purpose. We also hope to secure a proportion of the accommodation through regional consortia of local authorities.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his reply. While genuine refugees from Kosovo and elsewhere have been received willingly and with sympathy in central Scotland, and vacant housing is available in the Glasgow area, has the disagreement about the amount of payment to the local authorities yet been settled before the new arrangements, which the noble Lord mentioned, start in April under the Immigration and Asylum Act?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am not aware that there are any profound disagreements. That whole process has been very carefully put together and orchestrated. My understanding is that thorough and

1239
adequate consultation arrangements are in place and that those arrangements are working well to resolve any outstanding problems as they arise.
Lord Harris of Haringey: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that there are in excess of 59,000 refugee and asylum-seeker households which are the responsibility of local authorities in the London area? There are some London boroughs where more than 2 per cent of the population now comprises refugee and asylum-seeker households. Therefore, does he not agree that it is appropriate that all local authorities, including those in central Scotland, should take their fair share of that burden?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am aware of the statistics to which my noble friend has drawn our attention. In general terms, we are extremely pleased with the progress that has been made in detailed negotiations and discussions with local authorities to ensure that the dispersal arrangements are effective when they are brought on-stream. We are extremely grateful for the co-operation which we have received. Of course, it is a national problem and there must be a national solution. That is the determination of the Government.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, will the Minister tell us whether the money that will be paid to local authorities in Scotland will be adequate to meet the costs of the asylum seekers? Is he aware that in London that is certainly not so? Each local authority is bearing a heavy additional burden. Does he believe that any of the London boroughs are having all their costs reimbursed?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the arrangements are designed to ensure that local authorities are reimbursed for all reasonable costs. We believe that we have a reasonable package in place. The Government are always open to further representations on that issue, and discussions continue about matters of costs.
Lord Laming: My Lords, will the Minister acknowledge the contribution which many social services departments are making in the care of unaccompanied refugee children, many of whom speak no English and have had very traumatic experiences?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the noble Lord is quite right to draw our attention to the profound difficulties that unaccompanied children face when they come to the United Kingdom in those circumstances. The Government are extremely grateful to local authority social services departments for the difficult and sometimes very disturbing and traumatising work which they undertake. We should all congratulate local authority social services departments on the quality of their work and give those local authorities our fullest support in those circumstances.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that it will he the Government's policy to disperse
1240
asylum applicants only to places where adequate support services, including legal services, are available and where there is a community speaking the same language as the applicants? How many centres in Scotland fulfil those criteria?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, as the noble Lord will understand from his involvement in the earlier debates on this matter, it is the Government's intention that our cluster arrangements take on board precisely the issues of which he spoke. We shall disperse asylum applicants only where we believe that the correct support and infrastructure are in place; where we can work with a well-defined refugee community; and where we can work locally with a refugee council where one is in place, operative and working well. I am sure that that will reassure the noble Lord that we are proceeding in a way which is sensitive to the problems that asylum applicants face, while being fully aware of the difficulties that we have to resolve in continuing to process asylum applications to this country.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, is not the real problem for the Government and local authorities the fact that, thanks to the kind of language talked by the party opposite before the last general election, lots of people thought that the gates of this country would be opened? In fact our problem is bogus asylum seekers who are still flooding in, despite the pathetic efforts of this Government to stop them.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, that will not do. This Government were left with an appalling shambles by the party opposite. We inherited an outrageous situation. We have put in place firm and effective measures, and further measures will be effective from 1st April.
Lord Rotherwick: My Lords, can the Minister say how many asylum seekers and immigrants came into this country last year?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I do not have the precise statistics. I am not prepared to invent numbers on my feet, but I am happy to write to the noble Lord.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, further to the Minister's first Answer to me, everyone is pleased that co-operation is going so well between the Home Office and Scottish local authorities—they normally deal with the Scottish Office and now the Scottish Parliament—but can he give a categorical assurance that the arguments in relation to finance and payments are not continuing?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, it would be unusual in government if arguments in relation to matters of finance did not continue at some length.

1241
Where problems and concerns arise, we shall address them. We are always available to listen to precise issues of detail with regard to costs and finance.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the flow of asylum seekers is closely related to international events and crises outside the control of this or any government? The flow of refugees last year was reflected in increased demands for asylum status in most of the countries of Europe, including the United Kingdom.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, as ever, the noble Baroness speaks with eminent good sense on this subject. She makes a perfectly valid and proper point. International affairs have a profound impact on the number of asylum seekers and applicants who come to this country seeking our support.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, how can the Minister come to this House without being properly briefed and without having the information to answer specific questions? How can he attack the record of the previous government without having those figures? In future, can he be properly briefed before he comes to this House?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I felt I was properly briefed. I do not want to give imprecise figures. I return to the point I made earlier. Our Government were presented with a shambles when we took control in this country. We intend to put that right. We have put firm and effective legislation in place and we intend to continue tackling the problems.

Influenza
3.23 p.m.
The Earl of Courtownasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether, in the light of the influenza epidemic, they will reconsider their decision not to allow Relenza to be prescribed on the National Health Service.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath): No, my Lords. The guidance from the National Institute for Clinical Excellence advising clinicians not to prescribe Relenza during this winter's flu season was based on a careful and thorough review of all the clinical evidence then available. The institute will be reviewing the position later this year.
The Earl of Courtown: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. However, does he agree that this drug is widely used in other countries? In the United States of America, more than 400,000 prescriptions are
1242
given out; 160,000 in Italy; and a great many in other European countries. The drug passed clinical ability tests and regulatory bodies; it alleviates the symptoms of flu. Does not the Minister agree that if it were widely available it would reduce the pressure and costs on the National Health Service?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I am not convinced of that. The noble Earl will be aware that the advice received from the National Institute for Clinical Excellence was based on the most authoritative analysis available. The purpose of establishing NICE was to ensure that in the NHS we use the best treatments possible. The advice from NICE was that if Relenza is taken within 36 hours of the symptoms appearing, the benefit is limited to reducing the average length of illness from six to five days. On that basis, and on the evidence so far that Relenza does not provide specific benefit to older people who are the most vulnerable from the effects of flu, NICE gave that advice to the National Health Service.
The US Food and Drug Agency, in giving advice to prescribers of Relenza, said that it had been shown not to be effective in high risk patients, and that it should be used with caution in patients with pre-existing respiratory diseases.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, would it help the National Health Service to overcome the problems it has endured during the present flu crisis if all flu vaccinations were free?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, just over 8 million doses of flu vaccination were made available to the NHS. We then encouraged GPs to advise members of the public who were particularly susceptible to flu to receive those vaccinations. In the high risk group—those aged 75 and over—44 per cent received flu vaccinations. Whether or not one wishes the whole country to be flu vaccinated is a much wider issue and one on which we shall clearly need to take advice. We need to be careful before taking the view that a panacea for the pressures at this time is complete vaccination across all groups in the population.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, can I come back to the Minister—
Lord Elton: My Lords, I apologise for asking a question without notice requiring figures which the Minister's brief may not include. However, in order to make it possible to evaluate his earlier answer, can he say what is the highest number of beds occupied in the National Health Service by patients diagnosed as

1243
having influenza during the current so called epidemic? What were the comparative figures in each of the last five such series of events?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I do not have that information available. I shall see whether or not it is available.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, the Minister has just shown that he is formidably well briefed. Will he please lecture the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, on how to be well briefed as opposed to being badly briefed?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Bassam answered his questions very well indeed.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, can I come back to my question?
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, what is the net cost to the taxpayer of giving a working person a flu jab, after they have paid the prescription charge? Also, what is the cost to the national economy of somebody being off work for five days? What implication is there in that comparison?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, vaccines given through the NHS are given free of charge. My understanding is that the vaccine costs around £4 a dose. The other questions will need further consideration.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, may I come back to my question?
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, what advice is the Minister giving to hospitals as to the good sense of ensuring that all their employees are vaccinated against flu? Is it not the case that a number of beds have been "lost" because there are not the nurses to staff them, they themselves being ill?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the noble Baroness raises an important point. We allowed NHS trusts to offer vaccinations to NHS staff. I am not entirely sure of the number who took up the offer. Clearly, we shall want to evaluate that information to see what effect it had on the general level of staffing within a particular hospital. It is worth making the point that influenza is not the only illness that has struck staff during the past few weeks. I am keen to share with noble Lords the point I made earlier; namely, that while the flu vaccine is one element in an approach which tries
1244
to relieve pressure on the healthcare system, one cannot use it, wave a magic wand and all the pressures will then go away. That is not the case.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, is the—
Noble Lords: This side!
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, is it my turn, or not?
Noble Lords: No!
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, if I may, I return to the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Elton, as the Question refers to the flu epidemic. Perhaps my noble friend will correct me if I am wrong, but I understand that the present rate of new, reported cases is 235 per 100,000 whereas an epidemic constitutes 400 cases per 100,000. If those figures are correct, we do not have an epidemic. Does not my noble friend agree that these loose terms cause panic and problems among the general public and for the medical profession? In future can we use these terms less loosely?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I believe that my noble friend refers to the formal definition of a flu epidemic which is 400 new patients per 100,000. In the latest week for which I have statistics the figure was 236 per 100,000. I believe that that could be termed in the range of a modest epidemic.
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: Let us start with the word "modest" as a baseline. In addition, we must consider the advice which the health service has given people; namely, to call their doctor only if necessary and to stay at home. Further, we have encouraged community pharmacists to offer advice rather than patients having necessarily to visit their general practitioner. Thousands of people have contacted NHS Direct every week. That service has permitted people to receive advice without having to visit their GP. It seems clear that the definition in terms of numbers of people consulting their GP is no longer satisfactory to describe what has been happening in the NHS. Anyone who has talked to people working on the front line in the health service will know that the pressure on them has been enormous.
Lord Blaker: My Lords, in view of the chaos that has been caused by what is, apparently, only halfway to an epidemic, what will it be like when there is an epidemic?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, what has clearly emerged over the past few weeks is that the health service has been under pressure. There is no question about that. However, we should also pay tribute to the remarkable way in which people in the NHS—doctors, nurses, ambulance crews and other

1245
staff—have responded to that pressure. I have great confidence in the future of our service because no matter what pressure arises, people respond to it. As we modernise the health service we hope that we shall be able to ease some of that pressure as well as provide always the kind of service that people want.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, what is the rate of success of the flu jab? I raise this question because years ago I used to advise GPs on their biannual application for increased pay. A consultation took place every January. On one occasion I asked why only three rather than 12 doctors were present. I was told that they were down with flu. I asked, "Don't any of you chaps get injected?" They replied, "We're not going to have some dirty great needle stuck into our arms." What is the rate of success of flu jabs?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I cannot give the precise percentage figure as regards the success rate of the flu vaccination. I suspect that it is difficult to give precise figures. Certainly, I believe that many members of the public have found it advantageous to be given the flu vaccination. Therefore the Government have encouraged the health service to give vaccinations to members of staff and to ensure that those vulnerable members of the public who need to receive the flu vaccination actually receive it.

Trustee Bill [H.L.]
3.36 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Irvine of Lairg): My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to amend the law relating to trustees and persons having the investment powers of trustees; and for connected purposes. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Copyright and Trade Marks Bill [H.L.]
Lord McNally: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to amend the law relating to copyright and trade marks; to impose a duty not to imitate features of goods or services; and to extend the powers of certain courts to make orders for preserving evidence. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(Lord McNally.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Local Government Bill [H.L.]
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing on the Order Paper in the name of my noble friend Lord Whitty.
Moved, That it be an instruction to the Committee of the Whole House to whom the Local Government Bill [H.L.] has been committed that they consider the Bill in the following order:

Clauses 1 to 16,

Schedule 1,

Clauses 17 to 27,

Schedule 2,

Clauses 28 to 33,

Clauses 66 and 67,

Clauses 34 to 40,

Schedule 3,

Clauses 41 to 55,

Clauses 62 and 63,

Clauses 56 to 61,

Clauses 64 and 65,

Clauses 68 to 71,

Schedules 4 and 5,

Clauses 72 and 73.—(Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Criminal Justice (Mode of Trial) Bill [H.L.]
3.38 p.m.
The Attorney-General (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Williams of Mostyn.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES IN THE CHAIR.]
Clause 1 [Determination of mode of trial]:
Lord Cope of Berkeley Lord Cope of Berkeley moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 9, at end insert ("and on the application of the accused, shall order that he be tried on indictment").
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 1 stands in my name and those of the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, and the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws. The amendments grouped with Amendment No. 1 are consequential.
As the Committee will be aware, this amendment concerns the key issue of the Bill. It concerns whether the accused is still to have the choice of a jury trial in so-called "either-way" cases. Murder and serious crimes of that kind are always tried in the Crown Court. Motoring offences and small crimes are always tried by magistrates, but in the middle are the so-called "either-way" cases, such as grievous bodily harm, forgery, violent disorder, affray, drugs offences, theft, burglary and a whole list of other offences. We believe that removing the long-standing right I have mentioned will damage confidence in the criminal justice system, particularly among young people and our ethnic minorities who cannot so readily identify with a bench of magistrates as they can with a jury.
The Government's argument that it will cut delays does not stand up to examination. Professor Lee Bridges, a noted authority, called this Bill a "delayer's charter". If the new absolute rights of appeal against both venue and conviction are used by a defendant who wants to defend his or her innocence to the very end—or, for that matter, by a defendant who seeks to abuse the system—the delay will be at least as long, and the strain on victims and other witnesses will be greater from more appearances in court, not less.
The argument about cash savings from the change seems much less powerful when one realises that approximately two-thirds of the claimed savings are supposed to be in the Prison Service as a result of an expectation that fewer and shorter prison sentences will result from the Bill.
Later amendments deal with some of the consequences of the change and matters such as whether a housewife, a retired person or a casual worker with poor job prospects should, for that reason alone, have a different trial from someone who is employed with a steady job; and whether—and if so, how—magistrates and judges should, for the first time, consider how important is someone's reputation in deciding whether he or she should have a different mode of trial. There are other amendments to clarify the new appeals system and so on.
Some supporters of the proposed change think that the present system is wrong in principle. The Government do not argue that. Until recently Ministers were vehemently arguing in the opposite direction. Others say that the defendant should never have the choice of venue. If that is so, then we have been wrong since 1855, when broadly the present provisions replaced the automatic trial by jury for offences of the kinds that I have mentioned. I do not accept that we have been wrong.
Ministers say that they do not rely on the cost argument either—but it has become part of the rhetoric. It is a measure of what they expect the effects will be. The Explanatory Notes state that the total cost saving is expected to be £105 million. It is inevitable—I do not complain about it—that that is a highly speculative figure. It is essentially a heap of guesses. It does not appear to allow for legal aid costs, which we understand are to be allowed for appeals against both venue and conviction, and against sentence.
Since Second Reading, the Government have said that £39 million of the £105 million is, taking into account the various pluses and minuses, the net saving in the courts, etc; and £66 million is the expected saving in the costs of the Prison Service, as it is thought that magistrates will pass lighter sentences on those who might otherwise have opted for the Crown Court. In other words, the Government argue that the Bill will mainly save money not on court costs or lawyers' fees but in the prisons. At the same time it is claimed that it will help victims.
However, the costs argument hinges on the delay argument. The claimed reductions in delay have—so far at any rate—been the Minister's main argument. Under the present system there is the preliminary
1248
stage, where the magistrate or the defendant can decide whether the case will go to the Crown Court; and then, if the Crown Court is chosen, the case is tried there and guilt or innocence is decided by a jury. Under the proposed new system there will be potentially four stages: first, a hearing before the magistrates, with legal argument about where the case should be heard; secondly, if the magistrates decide to keep the case, the defendant has the right to appeal to the Crown Court and the matter of venue will be argued out there; if the judge agrees with the magistrate, there is, thirdly, the hearing of the case by different magistrates from the first hearing in order to avoid bias; and, if the magistrates decide the defendant is guilty, he or she has the right to appeal and to have a full re-hearing in the Crown Court, before a judge, with all the witnesses called again. So that is four stages to replace the existing system in cases where the defendant protests his or her innocence to the end—or for that matter where someone wishes to spin the procedure out. As far as I can see, there is plenty of work for lawyers there, even if the Bill were passed exactly as it stands.
It is the addition of the extra appeal against venue which has persuaded the Attorney-General that the proposal which he called "madness" is now sanity. The extra appeal weakens the delay argument, and hence the court costs argument, to vanishing point.
So what about the misuse of the existing procedure? The mischief is said to be twofold: first, that old lags heading for prison who intend to plead guilty wish to spend time in custody on remand instead of after conviction; and, secondly, that some guilty people who would be convicted by the magistrates are able to secure not guilty verdicts from gullible juries.
When my right honourable friend Michael Howard was Home Secretary he was concerned about abuse and he considered the proposal now included in the Bill to end the option. But he listened to the clamour against it—including that from the present Home Secretary and the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General—and did not proceed with the
abolition of that option.
Instead he introduced what is known as "plea before venue". Under that system, defendants can indicate a guilty plea at the start. If they do, they forfeit the option to go to the Crown Court. But there is a discount on the sentence for those who save the courts and the prosecution service time and money by pleading guilty at an early stage in the process, rather than dragging the matter out until the very last minute. The discount reduces the time spent in prison—which is why, of course, the main savings are expected to he in the area of prison expenditure—and we are expected to believe that experienced old lags will delay a plea of guilty in order to spend more time in gaol in total—£66 million-worth of more time in prison.
So far, of course, we do not know the full result of Michael Howard's changes—they have not been in place long enough—but we do know that at the time of the Royal Commission more than 30,000 cases per year elected to go to the Crown Court and that the

1249
numbers have fallen progressively to 18,500. It seems, therefore, that the Howard reforms and the discount have gone some way towards dealing with abuse. At the very least it is premature to stop the option and risk damaging confidence in the criminal justice system by abolishing this long-standing right.
So what about the abuse of some criminals being able to escape conviction before a jury—with the help, no doubt, of liberal lawyers. The Home Secretary has been waxing lyrical about them. If the jury system is so fallible, it seems to me that it could be said that we should not use it for important cases such as murder. I do not think that anyone argues that—certainly I do not-but the Home Secretary seems to think that this abuse argument is an argument in favour of the Bill.
He urges us to think more about victims. I am all for greater consideration for victims, but they will not be helped by criminals spending £66 million-worth of less time in prison; nor will they be relieved of strain by having to give their evidence twice over—once to the magistrates and again at the re-hearing in the Crown Court on appeal.
The Attorney-General has produced an argument which effectively says that we ought to pass the Bill unamended in the interests of guilty criminals who delay their trials and therefore receive the longer sentences that they would have avoided had they been forced to stay in the magistrates' court. I do not think that is consistent with sympathy for victims either.
I realise that some magistrates are in favour of ending the option. They see the idea that a better trial can be had in the Crown Court as a slur on the magistrates' courts. I do not think that. The Crown Court has a more elaborate procedure—for discovery of documents, for example. Of course, that more elaborate discovery procedure could be reproduced in the magistrates' court, but only at the expense of increasing even further the delays. In fact, it is Ministers who think that magistrates cannot be trusted. Indeed, they were strongly—or to borrow another phrase from the Home Secretary in a different context, violently and aggressively—opposed to this proposal when Michael Howard was Home Secretary and the matter was raised.
The noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General thinks that madness is turned into sanity because magistrates are not to be trusted to have the final say in the trial venue, but a sane judge is. Incidentally, the appeal against venue is not a novel idea of current Ministers, but one that was around long before this Bill was discussed at an earlier stage. As I pointed out at Second Reading, the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General chose to use the description "madness", not in the middle of a heated exchange, but in an article in a newspaper.
More recently, the right honourable gentleman the Home Secretary has been ranting against some of those who support this amendment. He roundly attacked liberal lawyers, particularly, if I may say so, those who live in the constituency of Miss Glenda Jackson, one of the candidates for mayor of London
1250
whom the Labour Party apparently wants defeated. In any case, I can plead not guilty on all three counts: I am not a lawyer, nor a liberal, nor from Hampstead. However, I think that the approach and the language used by the Home Secretary in this matter casts doubt on the validity of his case. Insults are no argument. He is a lawyer and no doubt learned when he trained that it was Cicero who first said, "If you have a weak case, abuse the plaintiff", or words to that effect, in Latin.
The Home Secretary has given no valid reason for his own complete change of view, but he has accused others, who have stuck to their opinion, of hypocrisy. That is interesting. Many different people have stuck to their opposition. If the charge were valid, it would apply not only to lawyers, but also to the ethnic minorities and to groups primarily concerned with justice. I want our criminal justice system to have as much support and acceptance as possible from the whole of our population. In particular, I want to improve support and acceptance of the system among our ethnic minorities. All those who read the Macpherson report on the shocking Lawrence case must want that.
The noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General may say that those who oppose the proposal are wrong in their view that juries are fairer than magistrates, but the fact is that they are not persuaded. In the matter of confidence, it is that which counts. This option, which we are seeking to preserve with this amendment, is an important element in the acceptability of the criminal justice system in England and Wales. If one of us, or for that matter, our children, happened to be accused of a serious crime we did not commit, we should want to have at least the choice of a jury trial. Of course, with our reputations confirmed by membership of this House, we would almost certainly be given that choice under the Bill's reputation clause. However, others would be denied it, and that is the fundamental argument for this amendment.
I should like to make one last point. It may be that because of the coincidence of the timing of this debate and the Wakeham commission's report some people think that we in the House of Lords should not pass this amendment because it is too important a matter. We have been told that we should stand back, hold our noses and leave the decision to another place; that the elected House, with its vast government majority, fiercely controlled, should alone decide. But no one in another place was elected on the basis of the proposition in this Bill. It formed no part of the Labour manifesto. Indeed, at that stage the Labour Party was strongly against the whole idea. So if the matter was even considered by any electors during the last election, Labour was elected to oppose this Bill.
The composition of this House for the time being has been chosen by the Government and by the House during the past year. Every one of us here now is in his place because he has been personally chosen either by a Prime Minister or by the election of fellow hereditary Peers. In due course, perhaps there will be a different second Chamber in the United Kingdom. In the mean

1251
time, we must do the duty for which we were selected. Each of us must decide the issue and vote accordingly. I beg to move.
Lord Jenkins of Hillhead: I doubt if I would have taken the time of the Chamber to take part in this debate had not the Home Secretary, in his much publicised "woolly liberal" speech last week, called in aid my action on the 1967 Criminal Justice Bill—a long time ago now—to bring in majority verdicts in criminal trials.
I suppose I should be flattered by the attempt of the Home Secretary to enlist me, because I thought that previously he had regarded me as the epitome of a woolly Hampstead liberal, even though I have never inhabited those salubrious heights and have never been particularly addicted to woolly clothing. However, I am proud to be a liberal, with both a small "1" and a capital "L".
I am, however, afraid that I cannot allow the Home Secretary to claim my endorsement for this ill-conceived little Bill, so directly contrary to everything that he and his spokesmen said in opposition.
The 1967 Act brought in the change to majority verdicts—to 11 to one or at least 10 t o two—without removing anyone's right to trial by jury. It was designed to meet a specific evil for which convincing evidence was accumulating. That evidence showed that in major criminal trials—in particular, but not exclusively, in London—a practice was building up of successfully either corrupting or intimidating one or occasionally two of the most vulnerable or amenable jurors. That resulted in a number of notorious frustrations of justice.
Nor, if I may say so, does this fit in with my general approach to crime during my two periods as Home Secretary. That approach was, and still is, that a strong likelihood of detection and conviction is a better deterrent than the theoretical piling up of horrific punishments.
Even then I did not propose the change without a good deal of careful consultation with those whom I thought had both keen liberal consciences and a closer knowledge of the functioning of the courts than I had myself. I had the firm support of one of the most liberal Lord Chancellors who has ever sat upon the Woolsack, Lord Gardiner. I also consulted my noble friend Lord Hutchinson of Lullington, not then a Member of your Lordships' House, but strongly emerging as the leading defence lawyer in the country. I also tested out the proposition on Mr Michael Foot—to get another angle, as it were. My noble friend Lord Hutchinson was, on balance, in favour. Mr Foot took no strong objection. Perhaps as a result of that careful presentation of the case and those consultations, when the proposal came to be voted upon in your Lordships' House, no more than eight Peers voted against.
The Home Secretary cannot, alas, now consult Lord Gardiner. Indeed, Mr Michael Foot has had other sad preoccupations recently. But if he were able to convert my noble friend Lord Hutchinson of Lullington, if he
1252
were able to achieve a position—let us not set it at eight or even 18—where only 80 Members of your Lordships' House were disposed to vote against him, I might consider giving him the benefit of the doubt; but until then, not.
I utterly reject the view that this proposal is in any way the equivalent of my majority verdicts proposal. There is another difference. The Home Secretary called in aid, in a way that I think was intended to be friendly, my willingness to risk for majority verdicts a mounting liberal reputation, as it was put, as Home Secretary. I must say to the Home Secretary. I hope with equal friendliness, that I do not think he is in equal danger. He has not as yet much of a liberal reputation to lose. But there must always be hope for the future. If he will accept the defeat of this measure—if that is the wish of your Lordships—with a good grace, if he will be less grudging on freedom of information, and if he will take less of a knee-jerk Daily Mail attitude to the whole complex question of crime and punishment, then maybe, by the end of this Parliament, his reputation for humane sagacity might begin to gleam a little more brightly.
4 p.m.
Lord Bingham of Cornhill: I owe your Lordships an apology for my absence at the Second Reading of the Bill. I do not flatter myself that I would have stemmed the tide of opinion on that occasion, and I hope it is some mitigation for my offence that I was engaged in the country experiencing the realities of jury trial. But I am very sorry not to have been present. I hope that your Lordships will bear with me for perhaps slightly longer than would ordinarily be acceptable on this occasion.
The procedure of the criminal courts at all levels should be such as will promote the fair disposal of cases, minimise the risk of miscarriages of justice, achieve such expedition and efficiency as is consistent with fairness and command public confidence in the administration of criminal justice. So far, I suspect, there is little argument. The present procedure, which allows a defendant to elect trial by judge and jury on an either-way offence, does not lead to unfairness; it does not lead to miscarriages of justice; and it does not undermine public confidence. There is therefore no imperative need to change the existing procedure on the ground that it fails those important tests. If it did, no doubt the rule would have been changed long ago. But the existing procedure is, I suggest, subject to other weaknesses.
There is a very broad band of offences triable either-way—some very serious, others relatively trivial; some eminently suitable for trial by judge and jury, others, as I would suggest, not. The inevitable result of the present procedure is that some cases, at the election of the defendant, end up before a judge and jury in the Crown Court when they do not merit that mode of trial. This leads to delay, exacerbated, of course, when the defendants plead guilty having reached the Crown Court; it increases congestion in the Crown Courts, which is a very serious problem at a time when serious offenders are having to be released because trials

1253
cannot be accommodated before their custody time limits have expired; and it causes considerable expense to the public purse.
I hope that your Lordships will not regard it as unduly anecdotal if I mention one personal experience. On a relatively recent visit to a court outside London, 17 defendants lined up for me to try pleaded guilty on hearing of my impending visit—I think under the impression that I was Lord Goddard. I found myself trying for shoplifting an elderly man, of weak intellect, in poor health, who had more than 60 convictions for that offence. He had really no defence, as the jury concluded. The cost to the public purse of that trial would have run into some thousands of pounds at least. It is open to question whether that is a useful way of spending taxpayers' money and a juror summoned to try such a case might wonder whether his or her time was being sensibly used.
It is clear that any new procedure introduced to remedy these weaknesses must satisfy the tests already mentioned. It must promote the fair disposal of cases; it must minimise the risk of miscarriages; it must achieve such expedition and efficiency as is consistent with fairness; and it must command public confidence. Many of your Lordships are apprehensive that the procedure in the Bill will not meet those criteria. That is not an opinion I share and I hope that the Committee will allow me to say why not.
I take as my starting point two very familiar but indisputable facts. First, over 90 per cent of criminal cases begin and end in the magistrates' courts. Secondly, the summary offences over which magistrates have exclusive jurisdiction—there is no question of a judge and jury—include offences of considerable seriousness. A number were mentioned at the Second Reading debate: keeping a brothel; assaulting a police constable in the execution of his duty; criminal damage up to £5,000; taking a car without authority—offences which may well merit a term of imprisonment or detention. Magistrates have exclusive jurisdiction also over offences such as driving while unfit or breathalyser offences, conviction for which would in all probability spell professional death to most of us in this House. The magistrates' exercise of exclusive jurisdiction in these cases, deciding questions of guilt and sentence, does not arouse anxiety because we have confidence that the magistrates bring to their task the qualities of fairness, open-mindedness, human insight and common sense which commended them for appointment in the first place.
If we are willing, as we are and have been for centuries, to entrust these great responsibilities to magistrates up and down the country—lay and stipendiary, I draw no distinction—it seems to me strange to balk at entrusting to them the power to decide whether, subject to appeal, a case is more fitted for summary trial or trial by judge and jury. I would confidently expect magistrates to decide that question with the same fairness, open-mindedness, human insight and common sense as every other issue which they resolve.
1254
If I should declare an interest as the 29,000th member of the Magistrates' Association—albeit an honorary member—I proudly do so. Members of the Committee who have apprehensions concerning the new proposal no doubt fear that magistrates will seize jurisdiction over cases which ought, in all fairness, to be tried by judge and jury. I suggest that that fear is misplaced. Of the either-way offences now tried in the Crown Court, a majority are there because the magistrates declined jurisdiction. Of those committed to the Crown Court for sentence, a majority receive a sentence which the magistrates themselves could have imposed.
The truth is that magistrates have shown themselves to be respectful, even deferential towards the Crown Court, readily recognising that there are cases which more properly belong there.
However, throughout discussion of the matter I have thought it essential that there should be a right of appeal for any defendant denied trial by judge and jury in an either-way case. My reasons may be obvious; they are certainly simple. The possibility of review concentrates the mind and improves the quality of decision-making. It is a safeguard against arbitrariness. It will enable the occasional aberrant decision to be corrected. It will cater for borderline cases in which different people can reasonably take different views. As in any other criminal context, I would expect any doubt to be resolved in favour of the defendant.
I attach great importance to the fact that the appeal will lie to nominated circuit judges, all of whom will be strong adherents of jury trial in appropriate cases because I, for my part, have never met a judge who was not.
I am not greatly enamoured of the criteria set out in new Section 19(3)(d) and (e). I respectfully think that it is better to give magistrates and circuit judges a wide and almost undirected discretion. But I see no reason to doubt that if a magistrates' court fails to recognise a case which deserves, for whatever reason, to be tried in the Crown Court before judge and jury, an experienced circuit judge will fail to recognise it too.
I hope that the Committee will bear with me a moment longer. The Committee is entitled to know whether I express a maverick view of my own or whether it represents a wider body of judicial opinion. The question of mode of trial was considered on 22nd October 1998 by the Rose committee, a small group of senior judges concerned with criminal law and practice. Those attending included Lord Justice Rose, the Vice President of the Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, the then senior presiding judge, his successor as senior presiding judge and myself. Mr Justice Mitchell, another member whose knowledge of criminal law and practice is unrivalled in our day, was absent but has expressed full concurrence with the view that we took. It was that the proposed change could be supported if, but only if, the magistrates' decision on jurisdiction were subject to an appeal to a circuit judge, which was not then part of the proposal although since accepted by the Government.

1255
On the basis of that acceptance, I commended the proposal at a dinner given by the Lord Mayor of London for Her Majesty's judges last July. My remarks were heard by some dozens of judges of differing rank, none of whom indicated dissent to me. At a meeting of almost the whole High Court Bench last week—nearly 100 judges, including some former circuit judges—the history was summarised and the issue ventilated. The judges were invited to express views; no one expressed disagreement. I invited any judge who took a different view to write to me if, on reflection, they had doubts or reservations. One judge wrote and one further judge indicated dissent orally. No doubt, in the nature of things, there will be other judges who have unexpressed doubts and reservations. But there seems to be a considerable unanimity of opinion on the topic. I would not be so presumptuous or so arrogant or so unhistorical as to suggest that a large body of judges cannot be wrong. Of course they can and we have no monopoly of wisdom. We fully respect the views of those who disagree.
I hope, however, that the Committee may attach some weight to a body of people with a close and current knowledge of the administration of criminal justice who are, to the last man and woman, very strong supporters of jury trial in appropriate cases. There have been many occasions in the past when the judges have been united or almost so in resisting change. It is difficult to think of cases where they have been as much of one mind in approving it.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: Before the noble and learned Lord sits down, will he help the Committee on this matter? The general view of the Government which appears in the Bill is that if a person's reputation or employment is in danger, they should be entitled to trial by jury. If that is so, does it not me an that the view is that they will have a fairer trial before a judge and jury than before the magistrates? There will be less chance of a miscarriage of justice when the matter is of such serious import.
The noble and learned Lord's predecessor was against that suggestion on the ground that the implication would necessarily be that there would be two tiers of justice. That would be against the fundamental principle of equality before the law.
Lord Bingham of Cornhill: I respond in three ways. First, the suggestion which was criticised by my noble and learned predecessor contained no right of appeal. I hope I have made it plain that I attach some importance to that ingredient. Secondly, I hope that anyone who heard what I said will be left in no doubt whatever that I draw no distinction between the fairness of trial at the two levels.
However, I recognise that perceptions matter in these cases. There are instances where it will be important, from the defendant's perception of such matters, that he should be entitled to challenge the evidence of the policeman, or whatever it is, before a jury. That is the kind of consideration to which magistrates and circuit judges will pay attention. I
1256
hope that the noble Lord will recall that I expressed a lack of affection for the criteria set out in the proposed Clause 19.
Lord Lipsey: I cannot begin to match the depth of expertise with which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bingham of Cornhill, addressed the Committee. In part I rise for that reason. I am not a lawyer. I became interested in this subject only when I read the Second Reading debate and noted the degree to which it had been dominated by the perspective of the lawyer. Lawyers are enormously wise, learned and important people and bring a huge amount of expertise to the deliberations of this Chamber. However, theirs is not the only perspective in these matters. When I decided to become involved I amassed the largest pile of papers on the subject and went into my room at home. I asked myself what view I would take if, with a towel round my head, I sought to write a leader for a serious newspaper, assuming any still exist. Would I believe that the Government were right or wrong in this matter? As far as I could, I dismissed from my mind the fact that I supported the Government. When I have written leaders in the past I have found the ratio to be 51:49. However, in this case I believe that the case for the Government's proposal is overwhelming, not from the perspective of loyalty but from the wider perspective which I intend to place before the Committee.
I spent many hours of joyful discussion with the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, in his Royal Commission on Electoral Reform. Following his wise lead, we were in agreement perhaps 95 per cent of time. I agree with the noble Lord that there is no exact analogy between the changes to the jury system under this Bill and those made in the past, particularly those related to majority verdicts. But the point goes wider than that. We all agree that jury trial is the jewel in the crown of the British judicial system, but like all jewels it can become battered and require repolishing from time to time. There have been changes. The introduction of this right in 1855 was itself a change. In addition, there were changes to remove the right to peremptory challenge and to allow majority verdicts. Once upon a time, if one was prosecuted under the breathalyser law one would go off to court and, with any luck, find other boozers on the jury who would acquit. We stopped the right to jury trial on that charge. Therefore, while this is the jewel in the crown, can we make it shine still more brightly?
The second perspective that I bring to the debate is that I am an economist. The noble Lord, Lord Roll. may agree that economists do not tend to see life in terms of absolute good and absolute bad. We tend to look at trade-offs, for better or for ill. Justice is an extraordinarily important matter but it is not the only one to be embraced at any price. We could quite easily spend the whole of our national income on justice. Everybody could have the right to trial by jury for anything. Everybody's reputation is affected. For some reason I have never committed a parking offence, and I should be deeply disturbed by the effect on my reputation if I found myself in that position. I

1257
am proud of that record. However, there is no right to jury trial for that matter. We could all have George Carman to represent us. We could reward the noble Lord, Lord Alexander, and his learned friends more richly for their skills; we could provide legal aid to everyone, irrespective of wealth, so that people who were unfairly charged did not take a hit in their pocket, rather than, as now, provide it just to poor people like the Maxwell brothers. We could spend the whole of our national income on justice. But the money comes from somewhere and a balance must be struck. Whether we think it is better to spend more on other things is a matter of judgment.
The savings that we would forgo by this amendment—I have studied the matter in some detail—are not small beer. The Government's estimate is £100 million. The noble Lord, Lord Cope, believes that that is an over-estimate. I believe it is more likely that the Government's figure is an under-estimate because it leaves out a number of matters; for example, the cost to jurors. Jurors have to sit round for days and are not properly paid or compensated for their loss of earnings. There is also the cost to witnesses who turn up for hearings. Their product is lost thereby. The estimate takes no account of private expenditure and so is a very partial figure. Most importantly, the figure takes no account of non-monetary costs. A rape victim waiting for the hearing of a case may be forced to sit about because other cases have been put down for hearing in that court and may have to spend extra months anxiously wondering about going through the ordeal of giving evidence. That is also a cost.
If we did not have this right would we invent it? It costs us as much as 4,000 nurses or 4,000 teachers. What happens in reality? Ninety per cent of those who take up this option already have a criminal record. They are assumed to be not guilty but they already have a criminal record. Sixty per cent plead guilty at the door of the court. It is striking that after the event one-third say that they regret having done it. It may be that in some cases they are put up to it by their lawyers, who obviously enjoy the process of preparing for the case and no doubt believe that they are doing the best for their clients. However, afterwards some of their clients wish that they had not gone down that path. Obviously, they do not think much of the right either.
Finally, I should like to make a point about the black community. It seems to me that that is the basis of the most powerful argument put forward by opponents of the Bill. It is said that black people do not trust magistrates and that if they cannot opt for jury trial, they will lose confidence in justice. I make two points. First, at least some of them may opt for jury trial in the hope that they will get an "O J Simpson". They hope that there will be enough black jurors who are fundamentally hostile to the criminal justice system.
Noble Lords: No!
Lord Lipsey: If noble Lords opposite do not believe that to be true, they are living in a rather different
1258
world from the reality as described to me by the many criminal lawyers with whom I have discussed this matter.
Lord Mishcon: It is not only noble Lords opposite who object; noble Lords on these Benches also object.
Lord Lipsey: The noble Lord was not growling at me at the time and therefore I did not include him. However, I take the point that he makes. I believe that there are people who do that, though they end up gravely disappointed by it. I believe that all black jurors are as fair as white jurors. However, there is a tendency to do that and I do not think that we should encourage it.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: I yield to no one on the basis of the noble Lord's expertise in economics, but what is the basis of his knowledge of what black people think about the right to trial by jury?
Lord Lipsey: I have many friends in professions such as social work, and others who defend black defendants. I have tried to gather as many sources of information as I can. I bow to the expertise of the noble Lord in this matter. I do not know in how many criminal cases the noble Lord has defended black people in recent times; no doubt he will tell the Committee when he speaks.
More fundamentally, if there is a lack of trust in the magistrates' courts among black people—that may be so—we should change those courts. The Government are now beginning to recruit more black magistrates, and that is the way to tackle the problem. Earlier today the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, said that those who were against the Bill were totally illiberal. I shall make a totally liberal point. I am not a Hampstead liberal; I live in Streatham. I should like consideration to be given to the law on soft drugs. Many in the black community believe that it is designed to penalise them and their culture and if it was removed their faith in the criminal justice system would be increased. So that appears to me to be the strongest case for the Bill, but it does not seem to me to be strong enough to carry the day because the savings under this Bill are enormous. They would be forgone if the amendment were passed. Any governing party responsibly looking at delays in the justice system—the party opposite did so when in government, and we are doing so in government—would be bound to introduce a measure of this kind.
4.30 p.m.
The Earl of Onslow: I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, for adding votes to those who disagree with the Government on the issue. His remarks about "blacks" were disgraceful. I have never previously used that word in this House, and I hope that I never have to use it again.
With immense trepidation, I turn to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice. I speak as someone who gained only five O-levels in, I think,

1259
1953. Therefore, to argue with the Lord Chief Justice is a somewhat foolhardy venture but, nevertheless, I shall seek to do so.
The noble and learned Lord opened his remarks by saying that the present system works perfectly well. I think that we all agree with that. The argument is over cost and delay, with some people acting as what used to be called barrack-room lawyers or playing the old soldier. The one appalling fault of the Bill is that it separates justice from one class of person to another. If we say all murder cases should be tried by the head of the Esher Boy Scouts troop, we are making it fair for all murder cases. What we cannot say is that some murder cases may be tried by the head of the Esher Boy Scouts troop and others may not. That is the core fault of the Bill. It is essential that justice is not only seen to be done for all, but is equal for all.
In his maiden speech, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, told the story of his wife walking out of a shop with a sack of groceries and forgetting to pay for them. Had she been from a different background and caught, it is possible that the store detective would have said, "We've heard that before; there's no way we're going to let you off". It is equally certain that the magistrate would have said, "She's the sort of person we'll not allow to go down for that".
In the recent case of Jeremy Guscott, it seemed right for that to go to trial by jury. I do not know what the magistrates would have decided in that case, but it had all the characteristics of everything going wrong.
Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate: Does the noble Earl suggest that, in t he case cited, the wife of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, would have received a lesser degree of justice in the magistrates' courts as opposed to a jury trial in the Crown Courts?
The Earl of Onslow: I do not suggest that. I suggest that there is a choice of who goes to the Crown Court and who goes to the magistrates' court. That is the core factor that is wrong with the Bill.
The interesting point about the Government is this. I digress briefly. A Roman emperor went by the name of Romanus Lecapenus. Little was known of his father, except that he was referred to as Theophilact the Unbearable. In Wales, individuals are called Jones the smithy, and so on. Therefore I am almost tempted to call the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General "Gareth the Procurer" because he has managed to put the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, to bed with my noble and learned friend Lord Mayhew. It is impossible to have a broader coalition than that. Because my mind is mischievous, I suggest that had the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General been in opposition, it would have been three in a bed.
Baroness Mallallieu: I have no doubt that the motives of the Government in introducing the Bill in its present form are good. To try to save money in the criminal justice system is laudable, provided, of course, that it is not at the expense of the quality of justice which the system can deliver. It is also desirable,
1260
from everyone's point of view, that delay is reduced to the minimum for both witnesses and the accused. It is also right to try to reduce the prison population for those on remand in custody and those sentenced to longer terms than are necessary. Yet I cannot support the Government over this measure and I shall support the amendment.
As a criminal lawyer of 30 years, my day job is the conduct of criminal trials, mainly in the Crown Court, but occasionally still before magistrates. Magistrates have changed immensely for the better over the years in which I have practised. They are better trained. They are drawn from a wider range of backgrounds. They are no longer all middle class, middle aged and white. Gone, indeed, are the glaring examples of bias and unfairness which I remember from my early years, such as the chairman of one of the West London Benches who was heard to say to a defendant, "We think there is a doubt in this case but you're not having the benefit of it".
Most of those who appear before our courts today are young men. There are very few young men on the Bench. Despite every encouragement there are still relatively few representatives of the ethnic minorities on the Bench, and still fewer from poor or depraved backgrounds. Most magistrates inhabit a different world from those who appear before them. It is not surprising, therefore, that, given the choice, a defendant will say, "I want my case to be tried by people like me; people who will understand my language; people who will understand the situation I was in because they, or their families, have had similar experiences"—and that means a jury, not a stipendiary magistrate, a trained lawyer, or even lay justices.
The truth is that the jury system has the confidence of ordinary people because they believe that it is the fairest system of trial. If I were accused of an offence which I had not committed I would want to be tried by a jury if at all possible, and I would know that I would have a substantially higher chance of being found not guilty. I would want 12 minds to look at the evidence and 12 fresh minds, not one, two or three people who had already heard many similar cases. As a lawyer, that is the advice I would give in almost every case where I considered my client had a good defence.
There is also the strong public perception—I accept that it may not be true—that you are likely to get a fairer trial before a jury than before magistrates; and public perception cannot be disregarded in relation to public confidence in the judicial system.
The fundamental flaw in the Bill, as the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, said, is that it proposes to seek to award trial by jury as a prize only to those who the court decides are persons of standing, reputation, substance and in employment—in other words, only those who the court considers have a lifestyle, a history or prospects which justify it, and to award them one system of justice, and to the others, to those whom the court regards as of little or no account, a second, lesser system.
Equality before the law is a principle which I believe should never be sacrificed if we can possibly avoid it. We would all, I think, agree that one law for the rich

1261
and one for the poor is wrong. But so, surely, is one mode of trial for the deserving and another for those of little consequence. That is just as wrong.
A distinction as to the mode of trial is properly made by Parliament in accordance with the nature of the offence. Parliament has already decided that many offences—some of them, as the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice said, with serious consequences for the convicted—should not qualify for jury trial. But the Bill proposes to make that distinction, not according to the type of offence to apply equally to all those charged with it, but according to the nature of the accused person; who or what he is. That is my fundamental objection, but it is not my only concern.
Concern has rightly been expressed for witnesses, but I am troubled that witnesses, far from benefiting from the changes, may find that quite the reverse is true. At present, a witness goes to the Crown Court to give evidence only once unless there are exceptional circumstances. If the Bill became law, it would see an increase in witnesses having to go through the whole process twice because there is an automatic right of appeal by way of a complete re-hearing in the Crown Court afterwards with no leave being required, as it is on appeal from the Crown Court. As the noble Lord, Lord Cope, said, it replaces two steps, one of them a short and simple one, with four steps, two of which will undoubtedly require argument and possibly evidence, and two of which will involve a complete hearing.
A reduction in the prison population could be far more effectively brought about by strong guidelines to magistrates in relation to discounts in sentencing for those with whom they deal and, possibly, by consideration of some restrictions on the right of magistrates to commit for trial those who have either pleaded or been tried before them. It seems to me a great pity that just at a time when Lord Justice Auld is about to start on a review of the whole system of criminal justice, that matter has not as yet been included. I hope that it will be.
My noble and learned friend Lord Williams may be right in saying—as may be my noble friend Lord Lipsey—that that measure would result in a reduction in costs, but I believe that such a reduction would be at a cost to the quality of justice and public confidence in it, which is a far greater price to pay. I was sent to the House specifically that I might speak on criminal justice matters. Had I not spoken as I have today—it gives me no pleasure to speak in opposition to my Government—I feel that I should not have fulfilled the terms of the oath that I took when I came here.
4.45 p.m.
Earl Russell: I listened with interested to the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey. I take the point that he makes about absolutes. I take the point the point that he makes about considering costs. Those are real questions, but when they are posed, I listen with care to hear what overwhelming argument is put into the other side of the scale; to hear what reason is given for
1262
sacrificing things to which—I believe that it is common ground—many noble Lords on all sides of the House are attached.
It is precisely on the ground of the overwhelming justification of the measure that I found the Government's arguments so far wanting. I heard an argument about cost, which is conjectural. The noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley, has said many things about it which I find persuasive. I should be interested, if we are to hear more of it, to hear exactly how those costings are put together. How much is assumed to be the cost of each Crown Court case? How much is assumed to be the cost of each magistrates' court case? Like the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, I speak as one who is not a lawyer; as one who is interested only in the conduct of justice.
I heard also an argument about delay, which again is a real argument although it is not an insuperable argument. Again, having listened to the noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley, I believe that the argument about delay is at best conjectural. I have not heard in any clear form an argument that the Bill will in any way improve the quality of justice. We can make that assumption only if we assume that an increased rate of conviction involves better justice. I find that argument extremely difficult to reconcile with the presumption of innocence. I understand that many of those who at present elect for trial by jury have previous convictions. The question is on what side of the argument that evidence points. I accept that people with previous convictions may be more likely to be guilty, but they are also more likely to be wrongly accused. They too have rights and their rights must rest in a presumption of innocence until their case is heard.
The noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, touched on the point—which we have heard before—that 60 per cent of defendants who elect for trial in the Crown Court plead guilty. First, the statistical base of that study is flawed. It rests on the study of those convicted in Crown Courts—not of those tried in Crown Courts, but those convicted. Therefore, it immediately takes the 40 per cent of acquittals out of the equation. That alone changes the evidence very considerably indeed. Secondly, it leaves out all those who plead guilty on a lesser charge than that of which they were originally accused. It has been argued by many people who know much more about the criminal justice system than I do that there is, especially in relation to ethnic minorities, a consistent overcharging at many stages of the judicial process. The process of putting that right may well lead to pleas of guilty on a lesser charge, but that may actually be the doing of justice which, without the possibility of a full hearing at the Crown Court, might not have been done.
The noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, touched also on the question of whether black defendants are more likely to be convicted than white. I recently listened to Mr Imran Khan, solicitor to the Lawrence family, discussing precisely that question on "Newsnight". He was entirely certain that black defendants face a greater prospect of conviction unless they have the chance of hearing by a jury. First, Mr Imran Khan's livelihood depends on giving correct advice to his clients on

1263
precisely that question. Secondly, many of those who have disbelieved Mr Imran Khan have lived to regret it. Here we reach the point most vitally conceded by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bingham of Cornhill, in reply to my noble friend Lord Hutchinson of Lullington. The noble and learned Lord conceded that there may be a perception that jury trial is the fairer, even if that perception may not be justified by the facts.
That was a vital concession, because we are concerned here rot only with the actual doing of justice, but with what is perhaps of equal importance: the reputation of the criminal justice system itself. It is not only defendants who enjoy a reputation. If the public do not believe that most of those convicted in court are guilty, the force of the condemnation in court itself is greatly diminished. As the Earl of Strafford remarked in 1637,
"A prince that loseth the force and example of his punishments loseth withal the greatest part of his dominion".
Here I return to the point about black defendants. A great many black defendants believe that where they are heard by a jury, their own community is involved in the process. It is precisely that sense of being involved in the process which the jury system gives us. It is that which leads, in a great many cases, to a consent being given to a condemnation by a jury which would not have been given to a condemnation by a magistrate, even if that condemnation were in fact justified.
What we are dealing with in this Bill is more than simply justice, big though that is. It is the interaction between government and the governed. Since Second Reading I have received a paper prepared under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Warner. It is the paper of a committee appointed by the Government and reporting on the need to involve citizens in the activities of their community. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Warner. The paper is extremely impressive. I go along with the whole of its argument. The need for interaction between government and citizen and the need for involvement in the sense of community by participation are vital to government by consent. I agree with all that the noble Lord says about the need to encourage it.
But if these are our priorities, why throw away, or even diminish, an involvement of the citizen in a process of justice which is perhaps the longest lasting such form of participation we have? I shall not go on about Magna Carta. The noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General is right in saying that it has nothing to do with the present argument. But the participation of subjects in juries is a great deal older than Magna Carta; it has gone on for over a thousand years. To have continued for that length of time and to have aroused the enthusiasm shown for it by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, and the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, there must be something to be said for such a system.
Lord Shore of Stepney: Perhaps I may also say a word about what my noble friend described as the jewel in the crown of our legal system. Trial by jury is indeed just that. Because it is so, we need very powerful
1264
arguments indeed to persuade us that we should diminish access to trial by jury to our fellow citizens. I do not say that my mind is wholly made up even now. I wish to ask a question or two of my noble and learned friend who is to reply to help me and perhaps others in the Committee to reach a decision.
In our history, trial by jury has contributed enormously to securing justice for our fellow citizens. It has also been a powerful agent leading to law reform. Bad laws have been exposed by jury trial and because juries refused to convict, even against the summing up of learned judges. In the case of stealing sheep and being hanged for it, the law was changed to the great benefit of this country.
Some of the proposed changes are entirely marginal. I do not wish to be over-rigid about this but we are not including possible categories of offence which, although small in themselves, nevertheless carry heavy political weight. To make the issue more urgent and contemporary than it might otherwise be, I say this. There is a flood of legislation coming, not from this House and this Parliament, but from authorities across the Channel in Brussels that affects the rights of our citizens and in respect of which they incur penalties if the legislation is disobeyed.
An almost classic case of what I consider to be abuse of legislative power by Brussels is the compulsory change of units of measurement of goods sold by fruit and vegetable retailers and butchers. They are compelled to show and sell units in metric measures from 1st January this year. Whatever the merit of that may be, it is not a proper subject for penalty and law enforcement in this country. It seems to me that the splendid butcher who has already announced that he will contest it must be assured of the right of jury trial so that the attention of the media, Parliament and everyone can be focused on this outrage to our system of self-government in this country.
Lord Alexander of Weedon: I do not see any part of this Bill as marginal. It is not only the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, who has described it as "illiberal." No less than an editorial in the Financial Times, in measured terms, said last week:
"Jack Straw's Bill to remove the right to a trial by jury is a thoroughly illiberal measure that should be thrown out by both Houses of Parliament".
I indicated at Second Reading that I would have been prepared to reject it then had there been a Division. The Bill is flawed in principle. I do not see that it is capable of being sensibly amended. In saying that I speak also as chairman of Justice, the all-party law reform group, which has been consistently against this measure whether floated by the previous government or actively introduced by this Government.
At Second Reading, government spokesmen were keen to point out the expense and anomaly involved if someone, say, with 10 previous convictions, was charged with stealing a Mars bar or a banana from a supermarket and elected trial by jury. But my noble and learned friend Lord Mayhew of Twysden, reminded us of a different position by drawing attention to the range of quite serious charges where

1265
the right of election exists. They include serious assaults such as grievous bodily harm, indecent assault, burglary, theft, false accounting, forgery, serious drugs offences and so forth. This Bill would represent a marked and clear interference with the right of the defendant—I emphasise the word "right"—to elect trial by jury in cases of that kind.
Nor am I impressed by the suggestion that there is widespread abuse that needs to be cured when we bear in mind that the defendant elects trial by jury in rather less than 5 per cent of cases triable either way. I have looked carefully at the arguments since Second Reading. The noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General, with his typical courtesy, wrote to my noble friend Lord Cope and put forward arguments in rebuttal, he suggests, of those advanced at Second Reading. He said that there would be no change to the way in which serious cases were handled. They would be directed to the Crown Court. How do we know? There is no such mandatory requirement in the Bill. Who is to judge what is serious, and what is not, to the defendant? I would prefer the present position where it is the defendant, on advice, and not magistrates, who decides whether an issue is serious enough for him or her to undergo what is the traumatic and anxious experience of a jury trial.
Since Second Reading the Government have sought to bolster their argument in a somewhat astonishing way to which my noble friend Lord Cope drew attention in moving the amendment. They point out that those who elect Crown Court trial are three times more likely to receive a custodial sentence if convicted than those tried by magistrates.
They also point out that custodial sentences imposed by the Crown Courts are two-and-a-half times as long.
In a letter from the noble Lord, Lord Bassam of Brighton, to my noble friend Lord Windlesham on 14th January, it was stated that of the resource saving of £105 million—which, it seems, is estimated with some precision—to flow from the Bill, no less than £66 million will apparently be savings in prison costs. That is because it is said that magistrates will pass less severe sentences than the Crown Courts.
If that disparity in sentencing between the magistrates' courts and the Crown Courts exists, the matter should be addressed, but in quite another way than by taking away the fundamental right of a defendant to elect trial by jury. The Government, in consultation with the judiciary, should analyse whether this, at first sight, concerning disparity is in any way justifiable and, if not, reduce apparent over-sentencing in the Crown Courts. Alternatively, perhaps with the help of their spin doctors, they could advertise the extent of the disparity as a deterrent to defendants exercising their right to trial by jury.
I return to the fundamental point. The Home Secretary is widely respected by many of us for his part, together with the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, in introducing to this country the Human Rights Act. He does himself no service by the way he
1266
argues the Bill. He argues that the opposition comes from lawyers hunting for their fees and from those apparently living in north London and pejoratively labelled "liberal."
My noble friend Lord Cope cited Cicero's axiom as to how one conducted one's case when one had no defence. The Home Secretary is a barrister. When he and I were young and at the Bar, it was not uncommon to be told, "If you have no case, have a dip at your opponent." I suggest that that is what the Home Secretary is doing in this case and that the arguments in support of the Bill are unconvincing. I agree entirely with the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, that it is socially and racially divisive. I agree entirely that the right place for it to be considered is along with criminal justice issues in a wide-ranging study being conducted by Lord Justice Auld. In the meantime, as the Financial Times says and as has been said across this House, this is a thoroughly illiberal measure which should be put out of its misery today.
5 p.m.
Viscount Tenby: I did not speak at Second Reading, bowing to the, alas, increasingly rarely observed convention in this House that one does not speak in a debate if one cannot attend for the duration of the proceedings. Accordingly, with the exception of two noble Lords from the Government Benches and, of course, the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General, there was no counter at that time to the attacks on the Bill. Fortunately, today, with the distinguished intervention of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice, matters have been redressed slightly. There is no way that I could mistake him for the late Lord Goddard. However, from where I stand, he bears a remarkable resemblance to the US Seventh Cavalry!
A good deal of heat was generated at Second Reading, sometimes, one might think on reading Hansard, without the common sense and fairness which characterises debates in this House. I have to say that some of the speeches also displayed a certain lack of perception about what goes on in the lower courts. I do not doubt for one minute the genuine view of those, particularly on the Liberal Democrat Benches, who have been consistent in their opposition to this measure since it was first mooted by a Conservative government and for whom this is a step too far. However, some of the arguments advanced are scarcely sustainable. And since this is a wrecking amendment, which, if successful, may prevent the Bill being discussed in the other place—not a very democratic concept, one might think—I feel that it is only right to put another point of view.
Here, I must declare an interest, both as a magistrate, now on the supplementary list, and as a member of the Magistrates' Association, perhaps number 17,000. In other words, as was said at Second Reading, I would formerly have represented the landowning, mine-owning, brewery-owning class. How things have changed today. Now I can speak for the white, middle-aged, middle-class tendency. Of course, our participation in this debate, which is

1267
perhaps permissible on the grounds that we deal with well over 90 per cent of criminal cases tried in this country, seems to have disturbed some noble Lords at Second Reading. For example, the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford—I hope that he will not mind my mentioning this; we have worked together in the past, and happily so—said in that debate:
"If the Magistrates' Association wants to get involved in this argument on the side of the promoters of the Bill, I believe that the spotlight should be turned on that system … It is … an enclosed system with which magistrates on the whole are very pleased. But it is not the envy of the world".—[Official Report, 2/12/99; col. 932.]
unlike, presumably, the rest of the British legal system. Well, aficionados of the annual criminal justice Bills over the past 10 years may well have formed a view that others in the legal profession qualify for that assessment as well.
However, I feel that I should correct for the record the noble Lord's assertion, at col. 933:
"Advice is given in retirement and not in open court".
I can testify from personal experience that that assertion is mistaken. In fact, if it had happened in any court with which I had been associated, all hell would have been let loose.
The noble Lord will probably now recall a practice direction from the Lord Chief Justice as long ago as 1981 expressing displeasure at that practice, which admittedly took place in the bad old days chronicled so colourfully by the noble Lord. In any event, the Human Rights Act 1998 will ensure that such practice will be illegal from 1st October this year, and, indeed, that such conduct will be dealt with retrospectively.
Throughout this debate has run the underlying theme that defendants get a better deal in the Crown Courts after a jury trial. However, that is not supported in any meaningful way by the facts, which, in any event, are very difficult to assemble. That is particularly true of defendants from ethnic minorities. Of course, I can speak only for myself, although I suspect that others would admit to similar feelings. One tended to take particular care with ethnic defendants, not only to ensure that they did not feel that the dice were loaded unfairly against them, but also, rather more shamingly from the legal point of view, one was aware that in the world outside people were waiting to pounce on the slightest slip on the part of the court.
It was also said at Second Reacting that because magistrates were largely white, middle-aged and middle-class, they were unable to relate to young people, ethnic minorities and the gay community. We had representatives of all those groups on my Bench. All made, and make, substantial contributions to the work of that Bench.
I turn briefly to the substance of the Bill. In one respect at least agree with its opponents; namely, what the Government no doubt saw as a sop—but a not very successful sop, it must be said—to stifle opposition to it. I believe to be unfortunate the right of appeal to a judge against the decision of magistrates on the grounds of reputation and livelihood. Indeed, if the
1268
amendments are unsuccessful today, I have tabled an amendment which will seek to remove those considerations from the magistrates' responsibilities. However, I shall refer to that matter on an if-and-when basis. On the central plank of the Bill, I remain convinced that it is entirely proper and long overdue to remove the right of defendants to be able to choose the trial venue in so-called "each-way" cases.
At Second Reading there was much talk of the effect of the proposal on the reputation of a defendant found guilty in a magistrates' court. But, as the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General asked so compellingly, what about the effect on the reputation of someone not permitted that choice now, as the law stands? For example, what about a bank manager accused of indecent exposure or fiddling a car tax disc? Those are both summary offences. Is it seriously to be said that the damage to his reputation would be any less grave than if he were to be accused of the theft of a packet of elastic bands from a stationery store? I think not.
Why do those who seek to block this reform not go the logical way about it and include those so-called damaging offences in the each-way net? I shall tell the Committee why not. It is because it would cost a great deal of money, drag out the legal process even more and, in the long run, prove unworkable. So they prefer to preserve an anomaly which has existed only since Victorian times. They cloak that illogicality with scaremongering about the threat to that jewel in the crown of the English legal system—the jury.
There is no doubt that there are a number of persistent offenders who manipulate the system for all it is worth. Mention has been made of the costs involved in that malpractice, but in the totality of government expenditure it is a drop in the ocean. I suggest that far more important is the abuse of time engendered by those dishonourable practices and tactics. The phrase "Justice delayed is justice denied" has been flogged to death. But that does not make it any less of a fact. Those people clog up the system and the wait before trial becomes ever longer. The longer the postponement, the frailer the memory, the less reliable the witness. In this House at least that truth was acknowledged during our discussions on the War Crimes Bill.
What about the victims of the crime and all associated with it in one way or another? Is their anxiety to be prolonged too all because of a knee-jerk reaction to sensible change? I strongly urge Members of the Committee to think very carefully before voting against this Bill. I doubt whether those promoting it can expect much support from the serried ranks of barristers, apart from some notable exceptions among my noble friends.
Earl Russell: Can the noble Viscount tell us how we know which defendants are wasting time before their cases are heard?
Viscount Tenby: It is true that some of them may have been before the courts before and have previously adopted those particular tactics. One finds out from

1269
what happens at the end. People are frequently sent to the Crown Court and then one is told that they have changed their plea on the eve of the trial.
Perhaps I may conclude my remarks. The promoters of this Bill cannot expect any support from the serried ranks of barristers, apart from some notable exceptions among my noble friends. But then, as we have been told repeatedly during these discussions, the legal profession has not, in the past, been noted for its eager acceptance of change. So it is down to the rest of us to remove that highly questionable anomaly as we enter the 21st century and roundly defeat these amendments this afternoon.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate: I rise to oppose this amendment not as a lawyer, liberal or otherwise, and certainly not from Hampstead, as the Committee will tell from my accent.
The majority of cases are tried in the magistrates' courts, as we have heard. Some criminal cases must be tried locally. Those to which I wish to draw attention are the quite serious offences for the victim which would be tried in the lower courts—some assaults, taking without consent high-value cars, and serious drinking and driving offences, as we heard from the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice. Those are not minor offences and they may have a very serious effect on the reputation of the accused if he is convicted. For example, a police officer who is charged with a drink-driving offence would lose his job, and quite rightly so. David Beckham recently lost his driving licence. That was extremely serious for him. Of course, it was restored to him on appeal. Had the policeman accused of careless driving in the accident involving Sheena McDonald been convicted, that would have had serious consequences for him. So let us not run away with the idea that minor offences only are dealt with in the lower courts.
A small minority of cases must be tried by judge and jury, and we have heard the examples of murder, manslaughter, rape and robbery.
This Bill is concerned with those middle-ranking offences, either-way offences. We have heard examples of a bar of chocolate valued at £1 or, indeed, a fraud involving several thousands of pounds from a pension fund. The idea that there is some absolute principle that both cases must be dealt with in the same way because they are offences against Section 1 of the Theft Act in my view is fanciful.
I have not changed my mind. I have always been of the view that there was a good case for reducing the right to trial by jury in those either-way cases. We provide a justice system as a service for the victims of crime. If we focus on victims and on the witnesses—the innocent parties—involved in the criminal justice system, then we shall be persuaded of the correctness of these provisions.
It is right that we should reform the justice system in order to speed up justice, provided—and noble Lords have already addressed this—it maintains the perfectly
1270
proper safeguards for those who are wrongly accused. Efficiency and effectiveness should be radically improved so as to enable magistrates and judges to deal with those accused in a more timely fashion. I am sure that no one would disagree with that.
Certainly it is in the interests of victims to speed up justice. I declare an interest as a patron of the North East Victims Association and also as a patron of Kidscape, the children's charity which looks after the interests of abused children.
To castigate these modest proposals as a fundamental attack on civil liberties is totally wrong. Some of the misinformation I have heard on this subject would have done justice to Goebbels. Opponents of these moderate measures are chanting slogans such as, "Jury trial is good but magistrates' trial is bad", which are totally erroneous. Let us kill that fallacy from the outset. The magistrates' system has been with us for some 700 years. As far as I am aware there has been no case before the European Court alleging that it is not a fair tribunal. There is certainly no lack of possible cases because 1.8 million cases are heard annually before magistrates' courts. Only a small proportion of those exercise the right to a rehearing in the Crown Court.
The jury as we know it today does not go back to Magna Carta. It was handed down by that ancient and much-loved British leader Edward Heath in 1972. It was then that the ancient property qualification for sitting on a jury was abolished so that it no longer confined those eligible to sit on a jury to one-quarter of the population who held land above a certain value. Even the modern jury is not a cross-section of society. For example, it is unlikely to include the judiciary, lawyers, CPS staff, court staff, prison staff, police staff, forensic scientists, the clergy, Members and staff of both Houses of Parliament, devolved assemblies as in Wales, members of the Armed Forces, doctors, dentists, nurses, midwives, vets and chemists. All those are examples of good citizens who are either ineligible or may be excused from sitting on a jury as of right. By contrast, a large number of criminal convictions is no bar in many cases.
The jury does have potential disadvantages. Findings of fact cannot be appealed by the Crown, however perverse. Juries never give reasons for their decisions, unlike magistrates. Rulings in favour of the accused, however wrong in law, cannot be appealed by the prosecution. I remind the Committee that it was a jury of his peers who acquitted O. J. Simpson of murder.
Magistrates' courts are doubtless far from perfect. Every sensible Member of this Committee would agree with that. But at least the magistrates are checked for good character and undergo initial training and refresher courses. It is an illusion that magistrates are prosecution-minded. It is a myth; an absurd calumny that no objective observer sitting in a court would conceivably support. Magistrates are justice minded.
Several appeals from the magistrates' court can be made. One can have a complete re-hearing in the Crown Court. There is also an appeal against sentence.

1271
One can state a case to the High Court on a point of law, and of course reasons must be given before decisions. I hope I am never mistakenly charged with an offence, but if it was an either- way case, then I would choose a speedy hearing before a local bench, with all the safeguards outlined.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: Before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps I can ask him a simple question. He says that the jury system has disadvantages; he took some pains to explain that. But does he accept that the people of this country trust the juries? Does he accept the point made by his noble friend Lady Mallalieu that it is the public perception of this matter which is of crucial consequence?
Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate: I agree; that is an important point. The people of this country trust the justice system. To divide it, as the amendment does, and suggest that the magistrates do not provide justice is a dangerous step when 95 per cent of all defendants are dealt with in magistrates' courts.
There is no evidence, as we will hear from the Attorney-General, that there is any discrimination against black defendants. There has been Home Office research which satisfies people on this side of the Chamber of that fact. Often statistics are used in this House rather like a drunk uses a lamp post—more for support than illumination—and I will not go into the range of statistics on the criminal justice system. But for far too long the system has been skewed in favour of guilty defendants, career criminals and repeat offenders and against victims, their relatives, future victims and the law-abiding public.
It is an interesting fact that in the Crown Court there is a risk of receiving a sentence two-and-a-half times longer than in the magistrates' court. That makes one wonder why defendants elect for trial by jury. There must be some other reason. That reason, in my experience as a police officer, is that the longer they can delay the trial, the more likely it is that elderly witnesses will forget evidence or be frightened to give evidence, and it gives them more opportunity to intimidate witnesses. It is not unheard of for jury members to be intimidated. That is something we should certainly bear in mind; juries are "got at".
The truth is that this was a recommendation of the Royal Commission in 1993, with the amendment that there is now a right of appeal, which satisfies most of us that it will provide justice. It is not the magistrates who decide. It can be the Crown Court in the end. It prevents the accused from dictating the venue, as in Scotland and in most other democratic countries. Sixty per cent of defendants, once they arrive at the Crown Court, plead guilty—an absurd waste of money in my judgment. And it is 17 times cheaper to try a case in the magistrates' court.
This provision is backed by the whole of the police service: the Lord Chief Justice supports it, as does the Magistrates' Association and Customs and Excise. Sir kin Glidewell, who reviewed the CPS, was in little doubt that the right to elect trial was being abused. In my judgment this measure is a sensible, moderate
1272
modernisation of the criminal justice system, with fair and proper safeguards for those wrongly accused.. The denigration of the magistrates' courts is not in the interests of justice and I ask the Committee to reject the amendment.
Lord Windlesham: Perhaps it is in order to have a voice from these Benches. We have just heard a powerful speech from a government supporter and before that one from the Cross-Benches. It might be equitable for me to speak at this stage, and I hope the noble Lord on the Cross-Benches will allow me to do so.
This is a significant moment in the short life of the reformed House. We should see it in a wider context before we turn to the details of the Bill itself. No one will doubt that the decision we take today is the most important in this Session of Parliament, and in the life of the House as it is now composed. Many thoughtful people, whatever the extent of their participation in politics, will be waiting with some interest to see what the Committee decides on this issue. Will it be a straightforward vote on party lines—the adversarial system which has proved to be so weak a restraint on government policies and actions—or will it be on the merits of an issue that bears so directly on the preservation of individual liberty and the administration of justice?
We have heard several fine speeches, notably that by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bingham of Cornhill, who speaks with all the authority of the present holder of the high office of Lord Chief Justice of England. But to my mind the issues are not finely balanced. It is not necessary to reject the arguments put forward on the importance of reducing delays, saving money, and eliminating what has been described as the manipulation of the system by seasoned offenders, in order to identify and give priority to the interests of justice.
Ever since the introduction of either-way offences—a classification which has brought about all the present difficulties—it has been a fundamental principle that an accused person should consent to having his case tried summarily by magistrates, provided the magistrates decide that it is a suitable case for their disposal. It is quite wrong, and the Government should neither use the description nor allow their spokesmen to do so, to describe the exercise of such a well-established right as an automatic "veto". That is the term now being used; a veto on the ability of the magistrates to try a case.
The argument that many of those who exercise their right to trial by jury in the Crown Court subsequently plead guilty takes no account of the fact that often charges against them have been reduced before the trial in the Crown Court begins. The noble Earl, Lord Russell, referred to that fact in his own speech. Although the official statistics are subject to qualification, they show that in as many as 26 per cent of assault cases in the Crown Court the charge has been reduced. There are lower figures for the reduction in charges of public order and burglary offences.

1273
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, and Home Office officials, for the rapid way in which they responded to inquiries from myself and others. I accept that there are qualifications to the statistics. Nevertheless, the fact that in a substantial number of criminal cases in the Crown Court the charge is not the same as the one originally laid in the magistrates' court is of central relevance.
I should like to refer to two other matters, without speaking any longer than necessary. This debate, valuable though it is, has already continued for a length of time. The first concerns the ethnic dimensions to the mode of trial decision. Here again, some statistics have been produced, and we all look forward to hearing the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, who spoke on this aspect at Second Reading. He has special knowledge, and is listened to with respect on this, as on other, aspects. As has already been accepted in the speech of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bingham, it is perceptions that matter in considering the views of ethnic minorities. The crucial perception is how the institutions of justice are seen. If policies are formulated that overlook that reality, the result is bound to be flawed.
The second point is that the figures are already going down. The number of accused persons electing to go for trial in the Crown Court declined from 53 per cent in 1987 to 28 per cent in each of the two years, 1997 and 1998— nearly half. So there is already a steady, downward path. The numbers are decreasing, and are likely to decrease still further as the impact of the plea before venue changes becomes more widespread.
I suggest to your Lordships that what we are considering today is a profound issue. It is one that cannot be resolved by differing interpretations of the statistics, or by rival calculations of cost or delay. Running through the Bill there is an undeclared assumption that bad people—meaning those who have previous convictions—should be faced by what will seem to many of them, whatever the realities may be, as a less fair and less thorough form of trial than the virtuous; namely, persons with an established reputation or livelihood. Those terms appear in the Bill, and are crucial to the proposed changes. To my mind, although there are other reasons too, that is the fundamental reason why the Bill is objectionable, and why this amendment should be accepted.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps I may put a question to him. At the beginning of his contribution, the noble Lord said that he thought that this was a defining moment for this reformed House. I thought he was about to develop that argument more fully. When he said in the rest of his speech that this matter is of profound importance to our democracy, was the noble Lord contending that this Chamber should take a decision
1274
today which so destroys the Bill that the democratic voice of our representatives in the other place will not be heard on this issue at all?
Lord Windlesham: My Lords, it surprises me to hear the objection raised that the voice of the House of Commons would be stilled. What a remarkable comment to make! The Government are perfectly entitled to raise this issue, and individual private Members are perfectly entitled to do so in another place. Motions can be tabled, or new Bills introduced. The idea that the voice of the other place will not be heard is laughable.
Lord Dholakia: I am—
Lord Donaldson of Lymington: I start—
Lord Carter: I think it would be appropriate for us to hear the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, and then the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia.
Lord Donaldson of Lymington: My Lords, I am sorry if I have caused any inconvenience. I start by making a point which may not seem directly relevant, but which I believe to be so. I welcome the Bill's re-enactment or production of completely new clauses from a large section of the 1980 Act. For those who have to work with the revised form, if it is passed, it is very much easier than the more customary method of tabling amendments saying, "Insert the following words on page 5, line so and so." However, there is one great disadvantage, which I believe to be relevant. The impression is given of far wider change than is actually contemplated by the supporters of the Bill. I wish therefore to mention the respects in which there is no change.
The fundamental basis until now for choosing a particular mode of trial has been its relative suitability, taking account of the seriousness of the offence and the consequences of possible conviction for the accused. No one, apparently, is criticising that approach. It certainly does not involve the proposition that Crown Court justice is better than that of the magistrates' court. All it says is that there are relatively less serious offences for which a less elaborate mode of trial is appropriate and that there are somewhat more serious offences for which the more elaborate Crown Court trial is more appropriate. So there is no change there.
Until now, it has been the law—and if the Bill is passed the situation will not change—that magistrates should reach a conclusion as to the relative suitability of the mode of trial. If one looks at the way it is laid out in the statute, they have to form that view before the accused is asked whether he consents. In fact, under the present system, he can get up and say, "I don't consent at all", and much time would be saved. But it was the intention of Parliament and it is the intention of Parliament, even if the Bill is passed, that the magistrates shall, first, form a view.
Then we come to the matters to be taken into account by the magistrates under the 1980 Act and under the proposed amendment in the Bill. They are,

1275
first, the nature of the case; secondly, the seriousness of the case, taking into account all the circumstances; thirdly, the adequacy of the powers of magistrates; and, finally—and this really complicates everything—any other circumstances appearing to the court to be relevant. There is no change there; indeed, it is exactly the same in the Bill.
Two paragraphs in the Bill are new. They provide that the magistrates should take account of the possible effects upon the accused of conviction in relation to his continuing livelihood and damage to his reputation. I do not know whether that is what my noble and learned friend the Lord Chief Justice had in mind when he said that he was not entirely happy with all the formulations in the Bill. Having listened to noble Lords today, I join him in that respect if he was referring to those two paragraphs. They are absolutely right, let us make no mistake about that. They are a major factor in determining the seriousness of the offence and arranging how it should be tried accordingly. But they are not new; they are new only because someone has written them down.
It has always been a legitimate argument to put to magistrates that there will be exceptional damage to reputation. I shall not give Members of the Committee any examples because, when doing so, it is extremely difficult to be comprehensive. Everyone knows that there are people with certain jobs and certain positions, such as one-man traders. If they are sentenced to imprisonment, it has a devastating effect on their business. Indeed, there are all sorts of different conditions that have to be taken into account, and are taken into account, by magistrates. I do not think that the two paragraphs provide any justification for saying that the law will no longer be treating everyone equally.
I support the Government's objection to the amendment in principle rather than on empirical grounds. It seems quite inconsistent with the main approach underlying the Bill and the 1980 Act that the mode of trial should be determined according to the degree of seriousness. Some people today have criticised accused people—I have heard this before—who decide that they will postpone the evil day by refusing consent to summary trial. I have even heard it suggested that accused people may do that as they would rather go to prison after Christmas, or because they would like to get their holidays in first. That is not a criticism of them; it is a criticism of the law. They are fully entitled to take advantage of their absolute right at present to refuse trial by magistrate. If I were counsel advising them, I would find out what they were really getting at arid say to them, "It is up to you. You can achieve that result by objecting to trial by magistrate. You need not worry so much about the serious consequences of being fully tried by a Crown Court because if you express your regret that you have taken the wrong course and plead guilty in the Crown Court many people will take that at its face value". Therefore I do not criticise those people at all but I criticise a system which enables them to do that.
1276
It is said that if they do not have the right to refuse trial by magistrate some people will be disadvantaged. Certainly my client who wanted to spend Christmas at home would be disadvantaged. However, ethnic minorities and young people are a different matter altogether. I would hope—and I believe this to be the case—that magistrates are open-minded and fair-minded in these cases. If a member of an ethnic minority, or counsel on his behalf, said in court, "My client genuinely has a fear that his defence will not receive the same careful consideration by magistrates as by the Crown Court and it is not only my client who believes that, but also many others in his ethnic group", I would expect magistrates to say, "That is a good reason for sending the case to the Crown Court because from your point of view the offence has greater seriousness than it might have for others". As regards young people, magistrates undoubtedly would think that their views were ill-founded, but the perception of the accused matters. I am sure that magistrates would take account of that.
There are advantages in—
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws: I hope that the noble and learned Lord will give way so that I may ask him the following question. Does he not consider it a risk that if magistrates were to take his advice and decide that if young black persons before them asked for a trial and said that they thought that they would be unfairly treated by magistrates, and that one got from that an increase in the number of black people having trials, that would set up the very thing that one would also not want, which is a feeling among white people that there was a privileged position for ethnic minorities? I should have thought one would find that ethnic minorities do not want that because they know that it would backfire on their communities. Therefore there are inherent risks in what the noble and learned Lord is suggesting. What he is pointing up is the very problem which those of us who are concerned about this Bill have sought to address.
Lord Donaldson of Lymington: Discrimination in any form always constitutes a great difficulty and a great danger. If particular ethnic minorities have equal faith in magistrate as in Crown Court trial, the problem will not arise. However, if the fear of discrimination arises in the mind of an accused, he ought to have no fear of expressing that and the magistrates ought to weigh that carefully and also take account of the matters that have just been raised.
I conclude by saying two things. It is said that jury trials give the opportunity for a representative group of people to express their abhorrence of the law as it stands. That is true. It is suggested that that may be the case as regards various parts of European law. That may well be true. I regard that as a perfectly good ground for asking for jury trial. It should not be given automatically but it should be given if some substance can be demonstrated.
I wish to make it absolutely clear that I have the greatest possible faith in the general body of the magistracy to enforce and carry out the law as expressed by this Parliament.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Dholakia: I am delighted to support the amendment. I assure the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, that I am not a lawyer, but I have been involved in race and community relations for over 30 years. If I may say so, I found some of his comments inappropriate. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Mackenzie, that to equate the view with which he disagrees with the propaganda of Goebbels is also unacceptable.
The noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General and I have seldom disagreed during the passage of much criminal justice legislation through this Chamber. However, there is one issue on which I part company with him; namely, this Bill. Many of the arguments against the Bill have already been advanced and I shall not repeat them. However, there is one area which cannot be allowed to go unchallenged. I wish therefore to concentrate on one specific but crucial area of the argument—whether ending the right to elect jury trial will particularly disadvantage black and Asian defendants.
During the Second Reading of the Bill I commented at some length—I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, for pointing that out—on the inadequacy of research in this area. The Minister and some other noble Lords have relied on the Home Office research published under Section 95 of the Criminal Justice Act 1991. I should have thought that there were ample arguments against using those statistics. I am surprised that those briefing notes have been further circulated by the noble Lord, Lord Bassam. That gives me further opportunity to say how inadequate that research is.
There is an admission in the Section 95 publication that in many of the Crown Courts and magistrates' courts covered in the pilot studies the level of missing data is at least one-quarter, thus making it impossible to identify any ethnic differences in court decisions at local level. Therefore we have information from just four pilot areas. None of those included Greater London where at least half of the ethnic minority population live.
There is a further admission that even in these areas the depth of analyses possible is limited because of the small number of cases from each ethnic group. It has not been possible to produce data by offence or age group which are known to vary among ethnic groups. In addition, other factors such as previous convictions cannot be taken into account. Therefore the figures in the briefing paper do not have much relevance to the argument. The results on which the Home Office places such emphasis are merely the outcomes and do not compare like with like. It is like clutching a straw to justify one's conclusions. No pun is intended here!
In a major study on sentencing undertaken by Dr Roger Hood of the Centre for Criminological Research at Oxford more than 80 variables were considered in the analyses and 15 were finally selected to calculate a probability of custody score. Using those variables it was demonstrated that, even when relevant factors were allowed for, there were still differences between sentencing of differing ethnic groups. The
1278
Home Office will have to go back to the drawing board and come out with better research. That is what it used to tell me when I produced simply the outcomes of cases without necessarily identifying the bases on which those conclusions were reached.
Even if in our wildest imagination we were to accept the Home Office conclusions, there are still further arguments that we need to consider. There are two important issues here: first, whether this change will be to the disadvantage of racial minorities; and, secondly, whether black or Asian people will perceive the change to be biased against them, thereby further denting their confidence in the fairness of the criminal justice system.
There appears to be no disputing that black and Asian defendants who appear at the Crown Court are more likely to be acquitted than white defendants. Home Office figures, figures supplied to the Royal Commission on Criminal Justice and data from Crown Courts in 11 pilot areas included in the Home Office's recent Section 95 publication, Statistics on Race and the Criminal Justice System, showed that 19 per cent of black defendants and 24 per cent of Asian defendants, as compared with 16 per cent of white defendants, were acquitted. There were similar findings in the recent study Race and Crown Prosecution Decisions by Dr Bonny Mhlanga. Many black and Asian defendants feel that if their cases stay in the magistrates' court they are more likely to be convicted by what in most cases would be an all-white group of magistrates.
The Government respond by claiming that figures for sentencing in magistrates' courts show no apparent bias between different racial groups. Having been a magistrate of long standing, I am pleased to hear that. But being sentenced in an unbiased way is of limited comfort to someone who would have not been convicted at all by a jury. In any event, as I explained, when we examine the sentencing statistics closely they do not inspire us with confidence in their reliability.
It is dangerous to reach conclusions about ethnic minorities with the flimsy evidence that the Home Office has produced. Are we really expected to rely on information as partial and as unreliable as this when we are considering such a fundamental change to our criminal justice system?
When detailed studies of individual court areas have been carried out in the past, they have in some cases produced disturbing findings. For example, a study by Dr. Barbara Hudson of the Middlesex Probation Service published in 1989, Discrimination and Disparity: The Influence of Race and Sentencing, New Community. Vol. 16 No. 1, surveyed sentencing in magistrates' courts and Crown Courts in the eight Greater London boroughs. What does it show? The study was carried out over a three-year period and covered 8,000 sentencing decisions. A significantly higher proportion of Afro-Caribbean offenders received custodial sentences than did white offenders for common types of offences. For example, 50 per cent of white offenders and 75 per cent of Afro-Caribbean offenders convicted for assault causing actual bodily harm received custodial sentences; for

1279
burglary the proportion was 49 per cent and 64 per cent respectively. Factors related to the nature of the offences and characteristics of the offenders explain part of the difference, but Dr Hudson found that some discriminatory effects remained even after all those factors were taken into account.
Local studies of magistrates' courts in the late 1980s by the West Midlands and West Yorkshire Probation Services reached similar conclusions, indicating that black offenders were more likely than white offenders to receive custodial sentences.
We require similar thorough up-to-date studies of magistrates' courts sentencing to be sure that claims of lack of racial bias are reliable—not incomplete bits and pieces of statistical data which raise more questions than they answer.
One final point. It is true that the Royal Commission on Criminal Justice recommended that defendants should not be able to elect for jury trial. However, the Royal Commission's report contained no discussion of the impact of the proposed changes on defendants from racial minorities. There is no evidence from its report that it even thought about this issue. In contrast, when the Royal Commission considered the selection of jurors, it recommended that in a case with a racial dimension the defence should be able to argue that it required a multi-racial jury containing up to three people from ethnic minority groups. If the Royal Commission could see that some black or Asian defendants might believe that they would get a fairer trial from a multi-racial jury than from an all-white jury, why is it so difficult to understand that many defendants believe that they will get a fairer trial from a multi-racial jury than from an al]-white bench of magistrates?
At a time when the criminal justice system needs to take every step that it can to repair the confidence of racial minorities, abolishing the right to elect jury trial is a step in precisely the opposite direction.
A more fundamental point is that many ethnic minorities—even if it is not the reality—still perceive that there is unfairness in the criminal justice system because the law is inevitably, for reasons of history, in the hands of predominantly white people—and magistrates' courts are no exception.
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws: My Lords, perhaps I may start by saying that I support the Government. I am sure that that surprised your Lordships. That is to say, I support the Government's intentions. I think it is right that the criminal justice system should not be set in stone and that the Government should seek to make it more efficient, cost effective and more sensitive to the position of victims while protecting the rights of defendants. Those are things that I have argued for over the many long years of my practice within that system.
I also accept that steps should be taken to prevent abuse. As other noble Lords have said, there are people who delay the evil day and play the system. I do not accept that they do so in anything like the numbers that have been suggested. Some people plead guilty in
1280
the Crown Court because they have been over-charged in the first place, and it is only by then that the Crown have had the opportunity of considering all the evidence and accepting a reduced plea.
I agree that the aims of the Bill are laudable. The reason I oppose it and the reason I support the amendment—which I do with some pain in my heart— is an issue of principle. I believe that the impact of the Bill will be socially divisive and discriminatory. Other noble Lords have spoken to this and I do not intend repeating what I have said on previous occasions in the House. The Bill removes an important citizen's right.
We have not discussed today the important way in which the number of jury trials will be reduced by the Bill. Jury trials operate as a very awe-inspiring act of citizen participation. We should not underestimate how important is that engagement in the system by citizens in maintaining faith and in strengthening our society.
On 4th January I took my children to the Dome. For those of your Lordships who have not yet been there, I can inform you that there is a zone in it called "Self Portrait". It contains wonderful sculptures by Gerald Scarfe and lauds the great strength of the British people. It speaks about our creativity, our sense of humour, our inventiveness and our tolerance. It speaks about our sense of fair play; about how we invented the jury system and how that is the finest way of determining the guilt or innocence of an accused person. It also lauds the fact that we exported it to rather a large part of the world. So it is with a sad heart that I see any encroachment on that, particularly in the form taken in the Bill.
I should emphasise that this is not a denigration of magistrates. Many noble Lords have been, or are magistrates, who fulfil that role with the greatest of care and commitment. But the Bill puts magistrates into an invidious position where they, rather than the citizen, pick and choose those who are deserving of trial. Trial then becomes a privilege—and those who come before the courts have to be deemed worthy or unworthy of that privilege. It allows for subjective assessments. As soon as we have those, we know that there is a potential for prejudice to creep in and the possibility—even if it is not real—of concern by persons that they are being discriminated against
That is the worrying aspect of this piece of legislation. That is what makes it different from every other change to the jury system which has taken place. Rich or poor, black or white, everyone was treated in the same way, not as we have here.
I wish to add two things which have not been mentioned in the debate: first, the race issue and the concern about minorities. These subjects excite much concern when I discuss them with the general public—not only with lawyers but with people in community groups and in gatherings where concerns about racism are very real. They feel that, although the research has been published, there has not been adequate consideration of other research which could be examined. For example, a long-term study is being conducted in Leicester. I am told that Leicester

1281
Magistrates' Court has completed that report. It has not been published because of a lack of resources, but the Home Office has been given the results of that work, which addresses specifically whether there are any discrepancies in the way in which black and white people are dealt with. However, we have not seen anything of that work to help us in our considerations tonight.
Work has also been done by the Commission for Racial Equality on discrimination in the Irish community. I wish to mention that because I have raised the matter in the past and I had to search for support for my concern that if you looked at Irish people, who considered that they too might be discriminated against in the system, out of the white component, you might find that the difference between black and white was much more marked. In the report published in 1997 on discrimination in the Irish community, reference was made to various different pieces of research which indicate that there might well be similar discrimination against the Irish community in relation to stop and search, search of vehicles, charges following a stop and search, bail, remand and on ultimate sentencing. If we examined that kind of research and conducted more of it, we would be better assisted in knowing whether there is no discrimination at all within the system. I should like to ask the Home Office to undertake further research before it makes a decision and puts this kind of proposal before the House.
My noble friend Lord Lipsey mentioned reform of the magistrates' court and others have mentioned discrepancies in sentencing. An important review of the criminal justice system is currently being conducted by Lord Justice Auld, a fine judge. It is likely to report later this year. The inquiry is examining both the Crown Court and the magistrates' court. Would it not be useful to wait and see the results of his inquiry before leaping to this legislation?
Other things could be done here. After the Royal Commission reported and expressed concern about the issue of hybrid offences, an administrative change was introduced which meant that there would be plea before venue. I shall explain. In the past you were asked where you wanted to be tried before you were asked whether you were pleading guilty or not guilty. As a result, people would often say, "I want to go to the Crown Court". So off they went to the Crown Court, not having been asked the second question on their plea. By simply inverting those questions, it has been found that the number of people going to the Crown Court and electing for trial by jury has halved. A very simple administrative change has brought about an extraordinary reduction. I suggest that other administrative changes could be made that would bring about the same effect for the Government.
If some people are abusing the system because they want to spend Christmas at home before going off to serve their sentences, it should be made clear to them in the magistrates' court, at the point of electing, that
1282
they will be penalised if they are found to be abusing the system. Ways can be found of creating sticks and carrots here that would achieve the same ends.
If we want to ensure that victims are well treated within the system, for which I have argued for many years, we could create a system of fast-tracking that would provide a much more effective way of having such cases heard. Soon after coming to this House, I suggested to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor that it might be worth considering the introduction of a national courts administrator—an inspector of courts—who could look at the failings of the system in the administration of justice and find ways of making it more effective. That would achieve the same end as the Government are seeking in this legislation.
Finally, speaking as a Scot, we have seen the ultimate sleight of hand in the suggestion that because Scotland has this system, why should not England? That is a strange position to take when we have just completed devolution and the Scots are proudly celebrating their distinctive cultural and legal systems. Should we not take pride in the systems practised south of the Border? Law is cultural. That is why I am concerned when discussions turn to harmonisation across the board in Europe. I would say that our system is very much our own system and we cannot cherry-pick those elements that we like of another system because each system fits together in a holistic way. In Scotland, the procurator fiscal decides whether someone will have a trial by jury, and so to look at that system and merely to say that that is how it is done there is to fail properly to examine the whole of the Scottish system and how it works. In Scotland the trial is always held before the judge—the sheriff—on these hybrid offences. He sits with or without a jury as determined by the procurator fiscal, who has full knowledge of the person's convictions. However, the judge has only limited powers when dealing with a case in a summary fashion. There is no committal for sentence and the maximum penalty for one set of complaints is three months. That is a very different system and does not compare like with like. Simply cherry-picking is not acceptable, and if we suggested such a course in Europe, it would be bitterly resented.
This is an issue of principle. It is not about trading off. The amendment has been put in this form because, although we would have wanted to find another way, there is no alternative course. The Bill is wrong in principle and that is why it is opposed even by those who are friends of the Government.
6 p.m.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: The matter that has most struck me in the debate this afternoon was the anecdote of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Bingham. He referred to his experience of going to a Crown Court and being faced with a long list of defendants who had elected for trial. He told us that most of them pleaded guilty in the face of the Lord Chief Justice. However, there was one who was, as the noble and learned Lord described, of the weakest intellect and elderly, who, in the face of the Lord Chief

1283
Justice, wanted to have his trial. What we object to in the Bill is that that is the kind of person—60 convictions before him—who the magistrate would have insisted, under the provisions of the Bill, should have his case heard before magistrates. That man, perhaps the weakest. person in our society, will be the person for whom the justice of a trial will be denied.
I do not accept it, but there may be some merit in declaring that all shoplifting cases are too expensive for jury trials and so should be abolished for everyone. However, it is wrong to abolish them for the elderly person who is weak of intellect. That is not the way in which the system of justice in our country should be conducted.
The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice and the Attorney-General have entirely misconceived our fundamental objection to the Bill. Indeed, the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, struck the target absolutely accurately. The objection is not that a magistrate will make the determinative choice of venue. It makes no difference whether that is undertaken by a magistrate or a Crown Court judge. The objection is to the abolition of the right of a defendant to choose whether his case is heard before a jury, a bench of magistrates or a single stipendiary, based upon a value judgment as to his worth. The question being asked is: what kind of position in life does he need to protect? This Bill creates a new privilege to go along with the mortgage, the house, the car and the job. We should not divide our society in that way.
The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice and the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General tell us that they have changed their minds on this issue for one reason—that there will be a right of appeal to a Crown Court judge. That makes absolutely no difference to the principle to which we are referring. The same criteria are to be applied. During the Second Reading debate, in answer to a question that I put to him, the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General anticipated,
"something not dissimilar to the bail appeal to the Crown Court, where it is normally substantially a paper appeal, but oral representation is allowed where appropriate".—[Official Report, 2/12/99; col. 999.]
What that means, to those of us who have some experience of appeals to the Crown Court in bail applications, is that the two representatives of either side go into the judge's chambers, in private, with a file each. The defendant is not there. He does not hear what is said about his reputation and about his livelihood. It is all done away from him. It is a five minute hearing. The door then opens, the decision is made, and no doubt, in the vast majority of cases, the Government will expect that the Crown Court judge, using those same criteria of reputation and livelihood, will rubber stamp the decision previously taken by the magistrates.
So many points have been covered by your Lordships that perhaps the Committee will forgive me if I mention only one or two. Reference was made to the question of cost. The alleged savings in the Home Office flows and costs model operate on an assumption that the magistrates will take to
1284
themselves three-quarters of the 18,500 cases where the defendant currently elects to go to the Crown Court. That is the basis on which the Government say there will be a net saving of £39.5 million to the courts' budget.
It is a complete assumption. Who knows whether the magistrates will decide in three-quarters of the cases or in 95 per cent of the cases that the matter should be dealt with by magistrates and not in the Crown Court, or vice versa? One cannot compare the average cost of Crown Court trials, which reflect the costs of murder cases, fraud and conspiracy—all long cases—with the cost of average magistrates' court cases where so many cases go through that the average cost is far lower. What is happening is that the most expensive cases in the magistrates' court will be the each-way cases that are sent to them.
The second assumption is that the magistrate's decision at trial will be accepted; that is to say, if he finds the defendant guilty, that is the end of it. There will be no further appeal. But that is not the case. It may be that the defendant will be committed for sentence; it may be that he will exercise his unbounded right to have a completely new hearing in front of a Crown Court judge with two magistrates. So, as has been said in the debate, the savings are based on assumptions which simply will not be carried out.
The third assumption is that £66 million will be saved from prison costs as a result of shorter custodial sentences passed in the magistrates' court. That figure is based on research which is now 10 years out of date. I agree entirely with what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Alexander of Weedon. How can it be right in principle that there is such a disparity in sentencing between the Crown Court and the magistrates? A person should not in principle receive a higher sentence through the exercise of his right—his right—to jury trial.
If this Bill or anything like it becomes law, I cart see the following happening. Just as there is pressure on magistrates to refuse applications for jury trial to come within the projected guidelines for cost savings, so there will be pressure on Parliament within a very short time to increase the sentencing powers of magistrates to avoid the expense of committing a convicted person to the Crown Court for sentencing. Within a couple of years I guarantee that the powers of the magistrates will be increased from six months to two years, or perhaps even three years in a situation like that.
Much has been made during the debate of the right to election first arising under the Criminal Justice Act 1855. That is a complete misunderstanding. Prior to that Act, all felonies were tried before a jury at assizes. The purpose of that Act may have been to ensure that magistrates dealt with the bulk of cases, but the age-old right to be tried by a jury was preserved by the requirement that the accused's consent was required to a hearing before the magistrates. The legislation did not give him the right to elect for trial by jury; he already had that right. It simply gave him the protection of consenting to a trial before magistrates where the sentence would be less. It is ironic that a

1285
provision introduced in order to give a defendant the chance of a disposal before the magistrates with a lesser sentence is now being used as a precedent for reducing costs.
It is said that defendants abuse their rights. I do not see how one can abuse a right simply by exercising it. That is a novel concept. Nor can one start from the basis that all those who choose to go for trial are guilty. That seems to be behind so much of what has been said by those who are in favour of the Bill. More abuse of lawyers comes from Mr Straw. Comments have already been made about that. I tried to think, "Am I a Hampstead liberal?" For two months in 1961, when I was studying to be a solicitor, I did live in Belsize Park. I had aspirations even there—the foothills of Hampstead. Then I wondered, "'Woolly liberals', was that in some way a reference to my Welsh ancestry?" I thought, "Surely the Home Secretary cannot mean that because he would have very much a woolly New Labour Attorney-General", who may be replying to the debate.
Those of us who have practical, hands-on, daily experience of the courts see defendants not as outcomes, not as disposals, not as statistics, but as people, sometimes with families, with very human problems in a society which so often let them down, laid them open to abuse and to deprivation, and failed to give them the skills, the training and the jobs that would enable them to survive and make something of their lives. I once thought that the Labour Party was concerned about those people. I once thought that that was what it had as a principle. But New Labour is a very different proposition. It accepts a total reverse of principle; it accepts the creation and not the abolition of privilege which we on these Benches have fought all our lives; and it accepts money before justice and the substitution of abuse for argument. It really is very sad.
Lord Hardie: I hesitate to—
Lord Mishcon: Perhaps I may—
Lord Carter: I think it would be appropriate if we heard from my noble and learned friend Lord Hardie.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Hardie: I hesitate to intervene in this matter, being from a foreign jurisdiction. I apologise to the Committee for not being present at Second Reading, but I have read the report of the proceedings. I note that during the debate reference was made to Scotland. My noble friend Lady Kennedy of The Shaws did so again today. I wish to speak as head of the system of investigation and prosecution of crime in a legal system where the concept of an accused electing the mode of his trial has no place and never has.
In any system where there is either way prosecution, there are three options: the prosecutor decides; the accused decides; or the court decides. I understand some of the concerns which have been expressed by the
1286
Committee today. I recognise that whatever system is chosen, we must ensure that it is fair. There must be checks and balances to protect an accused person against injustice. It may assist the Committee if I briefly explain what happens in Scotland, not to suggest that the same system should be imported into England, as some have suggested, or even to suggest that there should be "cherry-picking", as my noble friend said. Rather, the purpose is to ascertain whether any issues of principle may be applied where the accused does not have the right of election of mode of trial.
I acknowledge that there are fundamental differences between the two jurisdictions, not least because the Lord Advocate is the master of the instance for all prosecutions in the public interest. That in effect means that the Crown alone decides not only whether to initiate criminal proceedings and upon what charges but also, in the absence of any legal provision to the contrary, the court in which an accused shall be prosecuted. The decision whether to take proceedings and the nature of those proceedings is made on an independent and objective assessment of the evidence available and on the Crown's assessment of the public interest.
As to the mode of trial in Scotland, as in England and Wales there are certain offences specified by statute in which the High Court has exclusive jurisdiction and which must be heard by a jury. In addition, there are some statutory offences in which solemn procedure has been expressly excluded. However, apart from such cases, the procurator fiscal, and in jury cases Crown counsel, decides what is the appropriate forum, and they have a wide discretion in making that decision.
In choosing the appropriate forum, the fiscal or Crown counsel will have regard to the gravity of the offence and whether the powers of the court are appropriate to impose an adequate sentence in the event of a conviction. The Committee will recognise the similarity with England, at least in that regard.
Regard will also be had at that stage to the criminal record of the accused. The accused has no rights at all in the decision as to which forum he should be tried in. There is no right of appeal against the decision of the Crown, although if there were oppression the court would clearly intervene.
In Scotland, it will be obvious that we have opted for the prosecution as the appropriate organ to make the decision. I accept that that would not be appropriate in England, where there is not a unified prosecution system. So in England and Wales the choice is between the accused and the court.
I venture to suggest to the Committee that in determining the appropriate forum for trial, an objective assessment founded on relevant and specified criteria would appear to be more just and equitable than one dependent on the subjective views and considerations of an accused. The objective approach balances the interests of the accused against the interests of society in general and victims and witnesses in particular.

1287
What is essential in any system is that the various interests are balanced; that society's interests, as represented by victims and witnesses, are balanced against the interests of the accused. But what must be ensured is that the accused is protected from the effect of arbitrary decisions. Who better to perform such a task than an independent judiciary?
In the Bill, the appropriate balance, is achieved while ensuring that there are sufficient safeguards for the accused. The magistrates are obliged to have regard to the matters specified in new Section 19(3). New Section 20(4) provides the further safeguard of a right of appeal to the Crown Court against the decision of the magistrates to try the case summarily. There is thus judicial scrutiny to afford an aggrieved accused person further protection.
I invite the Committee to accept that the Bill will achieve the correct balance. By reducing delays in trial, the Bill will secure a more efficient system of justice, to the benefit of victims and witnesses alike, while at the same time protecting the interests of an accused.
Lord Taylor of Warwick: There have been a number of references to black defendants during our debate. I do not put myself forward as an expert witness on the issue simply because I have a black skin, but I have represented a number of black clients in the criminal courts over the years. What I have found is that, rather than seeking an O. J. Simpson verdict, what they seek is simply a fair trial. So I totally support the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, and the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy.
Diamonds are made under pressure. Having created this jewel in the criminal justice crown, I believe it would be wrong to replace it with something which is perceived to be inferior. That is why I support the amendment Rat forward by the noble Lord, Lord Cope.
The moment we stop listening we stop learning. But it is difficult to gather what genuine arguments the Home Secretary has heard now to propose something which he denounced in opposition. I have tried to keep an open mind about it. Yes, of course it would be unrealistic to claim that no defendant ever chose jury trial simply to delay proceedings. In one of my earliest cases at a Crown Court I had to represent a chap accused of the burglary of a grocer's shop. It was alleged that he had stolen a crate of oranges which he dropped during the police chase after the alarm went off. You could say it was one of my first "juicy" cases. Apparently, he believed that the oranges would go rotten and perish while he awaited jury trial, so destroying the crucial evidence against him. I explained to him that exhibit A was a bundle of colour photographs of the said oranges that the prosecution were perfectly entitled to rely upon. He pleaded guilty.
However, that is not my common experience. The serious point I make is that the number of defendants electing to be tried at the Crown Court is falling—we have already heard the figures—from 52 per cent in 1987 to just under:30 per cent this year. The trend continues to fall.
1288
There have been a number of excellent speeches, so the remarks I make will be much briefer than would otherwise have been the case. It is claimed that the Bill will save money, and there is some dispute about that. In my opinion, the better way to save expense is to make the legal process from police to the courts more efficient. Of those charged with either-way offences, 25 per cent never get to court or are discontinued, as the prosecution offers no evidence. Most of the defendants will already have got legal aid by that time, at the taxpayer's expense. So again I totally endorse the views expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, on improving the efficiency of the system. In my opinion that is the better way forward.
Confidence in the criminal justice system is vital. Some black and Asian defendants choose jury trial because they fear that they will not get a fair hearing by magistrates. That is not the same as saying that they seek an O. J. Simpson verdict. It is a very different point.
To have the right to elect jury trial removed from them will only further reduce their faith in the system. At a time when the Macpherson report highlighted ways of improving race relations, the Bill could cast a shadow once more. Once the right to elect trial is lost, it will be difficult to win it back. The Government must not sail out further than they can row back. So many organisations are against this, including the Bar Council, the Law Society, the Black Lawyers Association, Liberty, Justice and the Legal Action Group. It is time the Government faced the music, even though they do not like the tune.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Mishcon: Following so many eloquent speeches, I would not dream of addressing the Committee at this hour unless I had something to say which had not been said so far. It may be that it has not been said because it is not very sensible. Nevertheless, I wish to place my dilemma before the Committee.
The matter to be decided this evening can be put in simple terms. For many years defendants in certain cases have had the right, which has been regarded as precious, to choose which court is to try him. Before a right is removed, surely the onus is upon those who seek to remove it to prove—I almost said "beyond all reasonable doubt"—certainly on the balance of probabilities, that the change should be made and that they are not perpetrating any injustice. Broadly, tonight we must decide whether this Bill justifies the withdrawal of a right. One can go on talking in parentheses. One can explain what happens in the Crown Court: for example that, unlike in the magistrates' court, one is served with copies of statements of witnesses to be called by the prosecution, which are frightfully useful. I do not go into those details. Given that there is a right vested in a number of our citizens, have we proved the need to remove it, and are there advantages in so doing?
I tried to do a little research into the claimed advantages of the Bill. I pay sincere tribute to my noble and learned friend the Attorney-General who said at

1289
Second Reading that he had nought but respect for those who happened to differ from the case that he then put forward. I do not believe that I am being disloyal in what I say. I am being honest when I try to examine some of the supposed advantages. First, we are told that time will be saved. Time is very valuable. I sought to discover from the Law Society the average time for cases in which there is a not guilty plea to be tried in a magistrates' court and a Crown Court in a metropolitan area. I understand that the average time is four months for both a magistrates' court and Crown Court, so it is a dead heat.
We are told that it will save costs. I do not believe that the reduction of cost is a very justifiable excuse for a Bill of any kind. However, I considered that matter in the context of this Bill. One point that has not been mentioned is that the Bill suddenly places a burden on the courts. In every case where the option arises a magistrates' court must be convened to decide which court is to try the case. That does not apply simply to those cases where the defendant wants to be tried in the Crown Court; in every case the court must judge which is the appropriate court. It must listen to any observations that may be made on behalf of the prosecution and defendant and undertake various extensive exercises, to which reference has been made—I do not repeat them—following which there is a right of appeal.
Last weekend I spoke to a very experienced Crown Court judge and asked him what he thought. He said, "Please do not add to our labours in the Crown Court. We already have enough to deal with. Do we have to hear these appeals as well?" The objector to my point will say that it is the same as a bail application. Anybody who knows anything about bail applications will be aware that they can be extremely brief or lengthy. I have sufficient confidence in my colleagues at the Bar to know that if they are allowed to go through all the matters to be dealt with under Clause 1 of the Bill they will be extremely eloquent. I am sure that that will last a long time and that, with those added burdens, costs will not be saved. Which fund is to meet those costs?
At Second Reading I took the liberty to intervene in the Attorney-General's speech. With his usual courtesy he allowed me to do so. I asked whether legal aid would be available for these exercises, and he confirmed that it would be. To be frank, I can think of better uses for legal aid funds. Nevertheless, I cannot see anything happening in regard to costs.
Next, we are told that this is a good way to deal with the situation and for that reason we should withdraw the right. The Committee will not be surprised to hear that I examined my conscience. I bear in mind the beautiful phrase "the jewel in the crown". I do not want that jewel to be scratched or to give anyone the chance to destroy it completely. Once one starts to interfere with the right to jury trial one runs the great risk that some other less just and progressive government will start to knock off other bits of that right.
1290
The Committee will not be surprised to learn that when I finished my deliberations—which I assure noble Lords were sincere—I came to the conclusion that in all honesty and conscience I could not support the Bill as it stood. Here comes my dilemma.
What does the amendment say? Put simply, the amendment says that there should be an absolute right vested in the defendant to election in what are called either-way cases. My noble friend Lady Kennedy made, as usual, a jolly good speech in which she admitted, as at Second Reading, that there were a number of cases—not the majority—in which people took advantage of the system. If one looks at legislation at all one must deal with that fault. People should not be allowed to make a mockery of the system. If one looks at the amendment, the absolute right is there and, with great respect to those who drafted it, no one has tried to deal with that difficulty. It can be dealt with. I say this to my noble and learned friend the Attorney-General as much as to the movers of the amendment. It may be sensible that we do not vote on the issue tonight but on Report or possibly at a later stage after consideration. I am amazed to find that my sentence has caused laughter. Dissent I can stand; mockery I cannot!
I say this sincerely. One has only to add to the amendment that the defendant has the absolute right to elect subject to the objection that may be made by the prosecutor. Then all the procedures set out in the Bill can be gone through. That is an absolute right given to the accused. The prosecutor will not interfere unless he has extremely good grounds and is able to say to the magistrate or judge on appeal, "Look at the way this defendant is behaving. It is ridiculous that the case should be transferred to the Crown Court".
I have uttered, I hope truthfully and sincerely, the dilemma in which I find myself. It is a matter for consideration—I say this most humbly and respectfully—by both the Government and those who oppose the Bill as to whether we might find some compromise of that kind which does not extend to the abolition of a right but enables us to proceed sensibly. It is a matter of grave concern to our people.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I hope that I am not being disagreeable in suggesting that every speech this evening has been a Second Reading speech. I do not criticise that because I recognise that there are honourable differences between honourable views differently held. I remind the Committee that on no occasion have I ever impugned the motives of anyone. I recognise that people may come to different conclusions.
Much that has been said today has been a recitation, perhaps at somewhat greater length, of what was put forward at Second Reading; and I do not criticise that. There are two significant critical additions of which I respectfully remind the Committee. The first was a masterly exposition by the Lord Chief Justice. He is not speaking of time past when he or I might have been pupils and accepted with our mother's milk the received wisdom of an entrenched legal profession.

1291
The second extremely important contribution—if I may say so with out appearing invidious—was that from the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate. He pointed out that, in the jurisdiction of which he has specific control in this area, recognising, of course, that there are cultural, historical, traditional differences, the right to decide on place of trial is entirely vested in the prosecutor. We could have gone that way with our reform. We did not. I emphasise that. It was not because we were ignorant of what goes on north of the Border. The noble and learned Lord and I have been colleagues and friends for far too long for that to have occurred. We wanted to look at a proportionate balance to get a proportionate outcome to these difficult problems.
It is notoriously well known, I think, that I should not myself have been able to support the Bill had there not been the critical right of appeal. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice has said that that was his view, too. The overwhelming, virtually unanimous, view of his judicial colleagues, who, if I may respectfully suggest it, do know what they are talking about, is that this is a proportionate outcome in difficult circumstances.
Perhaps I may make one or two observations of fact. If offences are appropriate for either-way treatment, inevitably by definition the magistrates are appropriate to try them in some cases. The span of offences we are considering is very wide indeed. Not all thefts are of equal seriousness. Not all burglaries are. I take the simplistic example. If a man puts his hand through the neighbour's back window and takes the loaf or pint of milk because he is hungry, I submit, and I will never resile from this position, that that is qualitatively, deeply, fundamentally different from the burglarious attack on an old woman who lives alone. There is that difference. It is no good pretending that there is not.
What we suggest—I am not interested in abuse; I am not myself interested in anyone's postal code—is that we need to look at the matter in a way which is wholly unencumbered by professional historical or traditional baggage. What we have suggested is that the right to make the choice should be subject to two judicial filters. The first is the filter of the magistrates' court. I take up one assertion made by my long-standing professional colleague and friend, the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford. He said that if there were to be the determination that trial by jury was not to be available even in a trivial case of theft, that would be the justice, of a trial denied. No, unless he proceeds upon the unspoken, insidious basis that there is no justice in a trial in the magistrates' court.
I cite briefly one or two figures. We shall not see the collapse of civilisation as we formerly knew it if this reform goes through.. Every year 1.8 million cases are tried by the magistrates. Very few miscarriages of justice—I think that there has been only one—from the magistrates have ever been referred to the criminal cases review body. There is in any event the automatic right of appeal to the Crown Court, as of right, for anyone who is convicted in the magistrates' court. Last year, 400,000 either-way cases were tried by
1292
magistrates. If magistrates are so inept, incompetent, biased, why should that occur? Of the 65,000 cases that went to the Crown Court, 47,000 were sent there by the magistrates because they took the considered decision that it was not appropriate or proper for them to try those cases. Do they do that in a judicial, intellectual or social vacuum? They do not, because since 1995 the Lord Chief Justice's guidelines have been available for them; and, if it were thought appropriate, there is no reason why those guidelines could not be further fine tuned if the Bill becomes law.
In 18,500 cases there was automatic election to the Crown Court irrespective of whether it was the first class of burglary—the loaf taken because the man is hungry, causing no alarm to anyone—or the second class, which, I repeat, is wholly different, of the elderly woman living alone whose life is devastated. Of those 18,500, 60 per cent pleaded guilty. It is said that that may have been because charges were reduced. I have not seen the empirical evidence; that might be a little too much to be looking into. Of course, charges sometimes are reduced. Everyone who has ever practised at the criminal Bar knows that sometimes in automatic jury trial cases such as murder, the charge is reduced to manslaughter. But that does not go to the point at issue. If, in fact, that is such a fundamental right and the Bill is such a wicked attack on what everyone has always known, why is it that 60 per cent of people elect and thereafter plead guilty?
If over-charging is a problem, there is an answer; it is available in the Bill which I have already put before your Lordships and which has been through Committee stage—the Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate Bill. For the first time, there will be an independent inspectorate with lay membership and I shall be entitled, if I wish—and, if your Lordships brought it to my attention, obviously I should consider it—to invite the inspector to conduct a thematic review of the allegations of over-charging in the circumstances which we are discussing.
I shall continue for a moment or two. This is not really a wrecking amendment; it is a torpedo amendment, and there will be nothing left of the Bill if it is accepted—that is the one sentence that I have uttered tonight which will meet with universal agreement from all Members of the Committee. If the amendment is passed, there is nothing left at all at this stage.
What is the consequence of 60 per cent electing to plead guilty? Not all that long ago, although it seems a long time ago now because it was before the election, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice and I were together on an occasion—he as Lord Chief Justice, I as a trustee of the NSPCC—presenting a video on how children, as complainants, victims and witnesses, are so badly treated in the criminal justice system. The constant theme there, I repeat, was that delay in the criminal justice system is sometimes more damaging to that sort of complainant than the original offence itself. That is a monstrous slur on our way of dealing with things, and it is true.

1293
Your Lordships, being more inventive than I, will be able to say to the female complainant in a rape case, "Your case is not going to come on for nine months". That is nine months of agony and indecision and frequent adjournments—brought about why? Because the system is clogged up with matter that, on any objective assessment, does not really need to be there. I should not myself have wanted to take on the burden, with the Director of Public Prosecutions or any chief prosecutor or any chief branch prosecutor, of the decision on venue of trial. I do not believe that that is for us in our particular system. It is not just for the defendant either. It should be subject to the judicial scrutiny of magistrates who are experienced and whose composition is not so monochrome as it once was. If they come to a conclusion which is not coherent or consistent and is perhaps irrational or bizarre, there is the automatic, immediate right of appeal to the Crown Court as specified by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice, who indicated that he would be looking to designated judges to carry out those appeals or to their designated deputy, so that there would be a coherent, consistent approach.
Many other points have been raised. My noble friend Lord Shore asked about European problems and the butcher and his pound of meat. I should probably expect such cases, as weights and measures matters, to be triable by the magistrates in any event. There would not be a right of election, but I deal with that query in courtesy to the great care and politeness with which my noble friend raised his point.
I have a feeling that positions have been taken up and have become entrenched. I have the further feeling that any argument, however perfectly rational and otherwise apparently persuasive, is not likely to succeed in raising the number of those who will joyfully join me in the Lobby.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General for giving way. Would he just deal with one point on the effect of what is proposed on racial minorities? Is he aware of the letter of 17th January from Sir Herman Ouseley, the Chairman of the Commission for Racial Equality, to the Home Secretary, in which, among other things, he wrote that,
"It is the clear view of black community organisations that black defendants believe that they are more likely to get a fair hearing from a jury than in a magistrates' court. There is nothing in the statistical data or the arguments put forward that demonstrates that the removal of the right to elect trial by jury will lead to greater fairness or better justice".
Is the noble and learned Lord aware of that? How can he give the kind of reassurance in the Bill that the black community would need before we took the step of making such a change?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: The noble Lord will know that I have a particular personal interest in that matter in any event, for reasons that he knows perfectly well. I suggest that we look at the figures for a moment or two. The figures show that, if one
1294
is black, one is 6 per cent more likely to be found not guilty in the magistrates' court than if one is white and that the same 6 per cent differential obtains in the Crown Court. I agree that perception is important, but I submit that it must never be determinative. Otherwise, people who have the perception that the world remains flat will find great difficulty about their everyday occasions.
I was about to conclude—hear, hear!
A noble Lord: Hear, hear!
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I suppose I should not have attempted to be the ventriloquist.
These are serious issues. I have never put the matter before your Lordships on the basis of cash savings being fundamental. I adhere to what I said at Second Reading. I am talking about resource. The resource of which I am speaking is the delivery of justice. The delivery of justice is not a personal interest of the defendant alone. It is an interest of the prosecutor and of the complainant. It is a fundamental interest to the whole of our community. Our community is entitled to say to us, "Of course the defendant has his personal interest", which I recognize—I have defended year in and year out, as well as prosecuted. If we delay trials because of material in the system which does not need to be there at all—I am not being dismissive when I say "material in the system"; I am using that term statistically—we are fundamentally derelict in the duty that we should be discharging in the general public interest. That is the resource I have in mind and that is the justice to which I am referring.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: We have had a long and most serious debate. I shall not abuse the right I have to delay matters at this point. I commend the amendment.
6.57 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 1) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 222; Not-Contents, 126.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Bell, L.

Ackner, L.

Belstead, L.

Addington, L.

Biffen, L.

Alderdice, L.

Blatch, B.

Alexander of Weedon, L.

Boardman, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Bowness, L.

Alton of Liverpool, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Anelay of St.Johns, B.

Bradshaw, L.

Arran, E.

Bridgeman, V.

Astor, V.

Brightman, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Attlee, E.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Avebury, L.

Burnham, L.

Baker of Dorking, L.

Buscombe, B.

Barber, L.

Byford, B.

Barker, B.

Caithness, E.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L

1295

Campbell of Cray, L.

Lester of Herne Hill, L.

Carlile of Berriew, L.

Linklater of Butterstone, B.

Carnarvon, E.

Liverpool, E;.

Carr of Hadley, L.

Longford, E.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Lucas, L.

Chadlington, L.

Ludford, B.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Luke, L.

Chichester, Bp.

Lyell, L

Chilver, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Clement-Jones, L.

Macfarlane of Bearsden, L.

Colwyn, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Cope of Berkeley, L.

Mackay of Drumadoon, L.

Courtown, E.

MacLaurin of Knebworth, L.

Cowdrey of Tonbridge, L.

McNally, L.

Cox, B.

Maddock, B.

Craig of Radley, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Crathorne, L.

Mancroft, L.

Crickhowell, L.

Mayhew of Twysden, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Methuen, L

Dahrendorf, L.

Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B.

Deedes, L.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Denham, L.

Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

Desai, L.

Montrose, D.

Dholakia, L.

Moore of Lower Marsh, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Dundee, E.

Moynihan, L.

Eccles of Moulton, B.

Murton of Lindisfame, L.

Elles, B.

Naseby, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Newby, L.

Elton, L.

Newton of Braintree, L.

Ezra, L.

Nicholson of Winterbourne, B.

Falkland, V.

Norfolk, D.

Feldman, L.

Northbrook, L.

Ferrers, E.

Northesk, E.

Flather, B.

Norton of Louth, L.

Fookes, B.

Oliver of Aylmerton, L.

Forsyth of Drumlean, L.

Onslow, E.

Freeman, L.

Onslow of Woking, L.

Geddes, L.

Oxford, Bp.

Geraint, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Gilmour of Craigmillar, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Goodhart, L.

Parkinson, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Patten, L.

Hambro, L.

Peel, E.

Hamwee, B.

Perry of Southwark, B.

Hanham, B

Phillips of Sudbury, L.

Hanningfield, L.

Pilkington of Oxenford, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.[Teller]

Plumb, L.

Harris of Peckham, L.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Harris of Richmond, B

Prior, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Pym, L.

Henley, L.[Teller]

Quinton, L.

Higgins, L.

Rawlings, B.

Hogg, B.

Rawlinson of Ewell, L.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Razzall, L.

Hooson, L.

Reay, L.

Howe, E.

Rees, L.

Howe of Aberavon, L.

Rees-Mogg, L.

Howell of Guildford, L.

Rennard, L

Hunt of Wirral, L.

Renton, L.

Hutchinson of Lullington, L.

Renton of Mount Harry, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Roberts of Conwy, L.

Inglewood, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

James of Holland Park, B.

Rotherwick, L.

Jeger, B.

Russell, E.

Jellicoe, E.

Ryder of Wensum, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Saatchi, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

St. John of Fawsley, L.

Jopling, L.

Sandberg, L.

Kennedy of The Shaws, B.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Kimball, L.

Selsdon, L.

Kingsland, L.

Sharman, L

Kirkham, L.

Sharp of Guildford, B.

Lamont of Lerwick, L.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Lane, L.

Shrewsbury, E.

Lane of Horsell, L.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

1296

Skelmersdale, L.

Tope, L.

Smith of Clifton, L.

Tordoff, L.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Stallard, L.

Trumpington, B.

Steel of Aikwood, L.

Vivian, L.

Stern, B.

Waldegrave of North Hill, L

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Wallace of Saltaire, L.

Strathdyde, L.

Warnock, B.

Swinfen, L.

Watson of Richmond, L.

Taverne, L.

Wigoder, L.

Taylor of Warwick, L.

Wilberforce, L.

Tebbit, L.

Wilcox, B.

Thatcher, B.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Thomas of Gresford, L.

Williamson of Horton, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Willoughby de Broke, L.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Windlesham, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Wolfson, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Young, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ahmed, L.

Hayman, B.

Amos, B.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Ashton of Upholland, B.

Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

Bach, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Baldwin of Bewdley, E.

Howells of St Davids, B.

Barnett, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Hoyle, L.

Blackstone, B.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Bledisloe, V.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Borrie, L.

Islwyn, L.

Bragg, L.

Jay of Paddington, B. (Lord Privy Seal)

Brett, L.

Bridges, L.

King of West Bromwich, L.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Brookman, L.

Levy, L.

Burlison, L.

Lipsey, L.

Burns, L.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Butler of Brockwell, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Carter, L.[Teller]

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Christopher, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller]

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

McIntosh of Hudnall, B.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L

Crawley, B.

Massey of Darwen, B.

David, B.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Davies of Coity, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Molloy, L.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Monson, L.

Diamond, L.

Morris of Manchester, L.

Donaldson of Lymington, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Donoughue, L.

Nicol, B.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Orme, L.

Dubs, L.

Owen, L.

Elder, L.

Parry, L.

Evans of Watford, L.

Peston, L.

Falconer of Thoroton, L.

Pitkeathley, B.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Puttnam, L.

Filkin, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Fitt, L.

Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

Gale, B.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Gavron, L.

Renwick of Clifton, L.

Gilbert, L.

Richardson of Calow, B.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Sainsbury of Turville, L.

Goldsmith, L.

Sandwich, E.

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Sawyer, L.

Goudie, B.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Serota, B.

Grabiner, L.

Sewel, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Shepherd, L.

Hardie, L.

Simon, V.

Harris of Haringey, L.

Simon of Highbury, L.

Harrison, L.

Skidelsky, L.

Haskel, L.

Strabolgi, L.

1297

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Wharton, B.

Tenby, V.

Whitaker, B.

Thornton, B.

Whitty, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Wilkins, B.

Varley, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Walpole, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Warner, L.

Woolmer of Leeds, L.

Weatherill, L.

Young of Old Scone, B.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
Lord Strathclyde: A few moments ago the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General said that if this amendment were passed, it would torpedo the heart of the Bill. I see that the noble Baroness the Leader of the House is in her place. Given that situation, perhaps I may ask her what are now the Government's intentions on the Bill. Given that this is the first time that this new House has defeated the Government on such an important matter and in such an overwhelming way, is it not right that the Government should now withdraw the Bill and not bring it back, considering the voice of this House?
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Jay of Paddington): I am grateful to the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition for giving me the opportunity to make clear the Government's intentions. As he said, and as my noble and learned friend said in winding up the debate, Amendment No. 1 torpedoes the Bill. The passing of that amendment effectively has killed the Bill. As amended, it no longer represents government policy. Of course, the original Bill remains an important element in the Government's programme to modernise criminal justice and to reduce the unnecessary delay which causes such distress and inconvenience to the victims of crime.
Shortly, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary will make the Government's position clear, but I am now in a position to tell the House that we shall not proceed with the Bill. We shall introduce a No. 2 Bill in another place this Session.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Baroness Jay of Paddington: Therefore, I propose that we suspend the Committee stage of this Bill today. I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved, that the House do now resume—(Baroness Jay of Paddington.)
Lord Strathclyde: I shall, of course, agree with the Motion that has been put. However, does the noble Baroness recognise that what she has just said will be met with a great deal of horror up and down the country? The noble Baroness herself said that, under the rules that now exist in this House, when there is a combined majority against the Government they will accept that and listen. She has just said that this Government, with their overwhelming majority in another place, will seek to push through another Bill under the Parliament Act against the voice and the wishes of this House. That in itself is a great pity.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: In responding to the noble Lord's final point—and, of course, I respect the opportunity to speak of the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank—I say simply that the overwhelming majority in another place is the democratically elected majority on which the programme will proceed.
Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank: I believe that that is an inadequate reply. Given that the debate has taken place, I put it to the noble Baroness and particularly, through her, to the Home Secretary, that in the course of his winding-up speech the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General said very reasonably that he believed that he should not continue for too long because of the entrenched views that existed. Of course, in that respect he is right. However, should it not be recognised that if the Home Secretary proceeds without further thought and reflection, that will show that he has precisely the kind of entrenched views which, I understand, the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General was regretting?
There are occasions when this situation occurs. Therefore, would it not be wise for the Government to pause for a moment, to put up with the obvious comments about their defeat, and not to regard this matter as a humiliation but something from which they might learn? If they so wish, on the next occasion they could include a commitment to such a Bill in their manifesto. If they do that, it might pass much more readily.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: I have no wish to prolong the debate. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, that I am sure my noble and learned friend in no way suggested that entrenched views persuaded him of a different argument. He has said publicly on many occasions that on this particular debate the Government have won the argument, and I, of course, agree with that.
Noble Lords: Oh!
Baroness Jay of Paddington: The fact that we are still in a minority in this particular House is something on which we have reflected many times.
On the question of whether or not the Home Secretary will reflect, I have said only that the Government intend to introduce a No. 2 Bill and to do so in this Session.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Turner of Camden): The Question is that the House do now resume.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

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

Children's Refuges
7.15 p.m.
Lord Carter: My Lords, as proceedings on the Criminal Justice (Mode of Trial) Bill have been curtailed, the time available for this evening's Unstarred Question increases from one hour to one-and-a-half hours. The time limits -indicated on the published speakers' list no longer apply. However, all noble Lords taking part in the debate should limit their speech to 15 minutes, as recommended in The Companion to the Standing Orders.
Earl Russellrose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will set up a nationwide network of children's refuges as recommended in the Children's Society study, Still Running.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, as the saying goes:
"The tumult and the shouting dies,
The captains and the kings depart,
And we are left with large supplies
Of cold blancmange and rhubarb tart".
We have just been discussing those who may receive an inadequate defence. I now try to direct the attention of such of your Lordships as remain to some who are without any defence at all: children under the age of 16 who run away from home. My occasion for drawing attention to this problem is the report published by the Children's Society, Still Running—a piece of research carried out by the Children's Society in conjunction with the Social Policy Department of the University of York. It is a major piece of research with a very large sample. It has been carried out extremely thoroughly and, as far as I can see, with exemplary care.
A great deal of attention has already been given to the problem of children who run away. Although a number of small studies have not done so, this report has brought out the scale of the problem. I have been well aware of the problem for many years but I had no idea that it was on the scale that this sample has found. The calculations show that in one year at least 129,000 children under the age of 16 run away. Of those, at least 77,000 are running away for the first time. From that, one quickly derives that 42,000 in a year are running away for the second or subsequent time. The authors say that 46 per cent of their sample have done so more than once and 12 per cent more than three times. That is why the report is entitled Still Running.
Those occurrences are not, as we used to believe, single episodes of a childish tantrum. At least, if some of them are, it is in the minority of the cases. These are continuous underlying problems to which a return home does not produce a solution. It is estimated that 11 per cent of the whole age group run away at least once. That is an awful lot of children.
The other significant finding of the report is that of the sample of children who run way, 19 per cent do not leave home voluntarily; they do so because they are thrown out by their parents. The estimate is that some 14,000 children a year are forced to leave home before the age of 16. That is one in every 50 children.
1300
Perhaps I may, for a moment, step a little outside the immediate context of the report. That is why I have felt for some time a considerable sense of misgiving about the Home Secretary's parenting orders, because I fear that the process of subjecting parents to those orders may lead to an increase in that number. That would not be good.
The research method of this study is basically one of self-reporting. The children were asked for their own accounts of why they did what they did and what happened. Probably the biggest single category reported by the children was cases of violence inflicted on the children by both parents, not just by their fathers, and of violence between the parents themselves.
In general, those problems are not just about parent-child relationships but problems of the functioning of families as a whole. There were controls over the self-reporting by checking what general problems the children were aware of in the household and seeing what correlations there were; by checking questions about situations and seeing what correlations there were. It was found that 10 per cent of the sample had step-parents—that is, the whole sample, including runners and non-runners—but 20 per cent of those who ran away had step-parents. Clearly there are difficulties in the job of running a step-family, as has been known to literature for many centuries. One does not gather where the responsibility lies within the family but there are clearly stresses which have not been dealt with.
A number of the children felt that they had been used, as sometimes happens within a family structure, as scapegoats. One of them said to the survey, "Why do they want me to be someone else?"
However, certain matters are clearly under-reported. The survey itself believes to have under-reported problems of children forced to leave home either because they are gay or because they take drugs. All of us, whatever our inclination on the matter, should take pause from the child who said he was thrown out for "ordinary things like cannabis".
What does emerge from that is that returning the children back home does not solve the problem. The instinctive assumption has been that if there is an under-16 run-away, he should be returned back home to live happily ever after. It does not seem to work.
One of the questions in the survey was the open-ended question, "What happens in the end?" One child gave the bleak reply, "Nothing changed; it just got worse. So I took an overdose. Unfortunately, it did not work". So clearly we need to think beyond simply returning the children home.
There are very severe legal problems in the way of helping any run-away child under 16. If you take them in, you are guilty of harbouring them. That is a crime. That means that the children avoid advice centres, social workers and any responsible adult who may be in a position to help them. Typically they tend to go in for what the report describes as "sofa searching". But of those who are away for more than

1301
two nights, 16 per cent used what the report describes as "risky survival strategies"—stealing, begging, taking food out of dustbins and selling sex or drugs.
Some of those are probably quite significantly under-reported by the survey's method. It is an interesting comment on our present values that the children seemed to be far readier to report stealing, when it was the only way they could get food, than they were to report either selling drugs or sex. That is not the first study which has found that sort of thing happening but it is the clearest and the largest. It reaches the point where it compels attention.
There is a legal remedy on the statute book for handling this sort of problem. It is in Section 51 of the Children Act 1989. For that I must pay tribute both to the Children's Society, which did a great deal of the work which placed it there, and to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern. Under that Act, it is lawful to set up refuges where the children can be taken in for up to two weeks without anyone facing any penalties for harbouring them which allows thought about what should be done for them. Of course, in some cases where it is appropriate to return them home, some negotiation with the parents is necessary before they are returned home, where there is a problem with the whole family function which needs to be addressed before they can be safe.
But at present there are only two such refuges in the whole country. In 1996, when my party first committed itself to a policy of increasing the number, there were three. Now there are two. So it is not true that things can only get better.
We do not need new powers. The powers in the Children Act are right. But we need more money. The cost involved is not overwhelming. We were advised that we could make a significant difference to that problem, if not solve it, for £5 million per year. I am extremely grateful to Centrepoint, which runs one of the refuges, for a great deal of detailed advice on the costings.
There is always a cost in doing nothing. A great many of those children started taking drugs while away. As one of them said, "I took drugs in order to stay awake for the burglaries", which were necessary to get him something to eat. Others become involved in crime because there is no visible legal means of support. They need to get something to eat somehow. Others who do not complete their education do not acquire skills for the labour market and end up on benefits, which, of course, cost a great deal. A few who sell sex will end up contracting AIDS, and the cost of one case of AIDS goes a very long way compared with the cost of providing the emergency help which is needed. A great many others, simply because they become dysfunctional, depressed, upset and withdrawn do not become earners.
Humanity is not only the right thing; it is also the best policy. Among many other reasons it is the best policy because I believe that at the end of the day it is cheaper.
7.27 p.m.
Baroness Stern: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Earl, Lord Russell, on instigating this debate on a very important subject. It is an important subject but it is often as neglected as the children about whom we are speaking.
I remember, on my first visit to Rio de Janeiro, driving to the hotel from the airport. We encountered a minibus full of children who were being let out of the bus by the woman in charge of them near the Copacabana beach. I was informed that they were some of the thousands of street children in Rio. They attend a refuge run by a charitable organisation in the evenings but refuse to stay during the day for education and other worthwhile activities because life on the beach is so much more exciting for them so long as they do not get shot. There are shadowy elements allegedly connected with the law enforcement agencies who are involved in the shooting of street children.
It is a great blessing that the sort of things that happen in Rio do not happen here and that we are more caring towards children who fall through the safety nets. Certainly, we do not shoot them! However, the evidence of the excellent report from the Children's Society and other organisations is that we do not care nearly enough. In relation to our wealth and highly developed social provisions, we are not doing at all well in caring for our street children.
Some years ago, in connection with my work at the time, I met in a hostel for homeless young people in Coventry a young man. His stepfather said, "On your 16th birthday you leave this house"; he meant it. As a birthday present to his stepson, he threw him out. With his mother's connivance, for a few nights he climbed back in and slept at home, escaping before everyone was up. But eventually he was discovered and had to go. He slept for quite a few nights in the park before being found by the social services and accommodated very well at the hostel where I met him. He was lucky; many are not so lucky.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, told us of the 100,000 children who run away every year, 18,000 under the age of 11 running away for the first time. Another 18,000 are thrown out, as was that young man, by their parents. Some keep running away. So we must assume that when they go back things do not get better for them. It is important therefore to take note of the recommendations in the report not just for a network of refuges but an interview by an independent person for each returning runaway and a coherent response across government departments.
The proposals in the report should be considered on grounds of common humanity for the sake of the individuals and the common good. We must also take note of them because, by ignoring them, we are in danger of ignoring our international obligations. The Convention on the Rights of the Child, which defines a child as anyone under the age of 18, states that,
"children's rights require special protection and call for continuous improvement of the situation of children all over the world".

1303
The convention commits the Government to,
"ensure the child such protection and care as is necessary for his or her well-being".
Any child, it continues,
"temporarily or permanently deprived of his or her family environment … shall be entitled to special protection and assistance by the State".
The convention requires the Government also to take,
"all appropriate legislative, administrative, social and educational measures to protect the child from all forms of physical or mental violence, injury or abuse, neglect or negligent treatment, maltreatment or exploitation, including sexual abuse, while in the care of parent(s), legal guardian(s) or any other person who has the care of the child"
I apologise for those rather long extracts, but they serve to remind us what our international commitments are. It is not clear that those obligations are always in the forefront of the Government's thinking when policies on children are being developed. It is therefore in accordance with the obligations to take this report very seriously.
The recommendations the report makes are the minimum we should be doing. It might be said that we cannot afford to implement the recommendations; that £5 million is a lot of money; and that the recommendations must take their turn in the queue with other demands on social spending. I suggest that that is a false economy; we cannot afford not to. The costs of not doing what the report recommends are greater than the costs of implementing it. The costs will come in the future from the consequences of neglect.
It is clear that not all young runaways will get into trouble and end up in prison. Far from it. Some, like the young man I met in Coventry, will go on and do very well. But we know that those young people who do get into trouble and who end up in prison and in mental hospitals, living lives that engender enormous social costs, come from backgrounds exactly like the ones described in the report. The links have been well established. The backgrounds of the young people who run away are the backgrounds that lead to prison. Four out of the five runaways who left home, so the report says, did so to escape family conflict, violence or abuse.
NACRO research on imprisoned young offenders published last November found that 60 per cent of those questioned had come from unstable living conditions. In 1997 the chief inspector of prisons in a survey of young people in prison, found that one quarter of them were homeless or had come from an unstable background. A more detailed report prepared by NACRO in 1998 looked at the backgrounds of a sample of young people in prison. It found that the young prisoners came from a background of family instability and disruption, which included violence, harsh physical punishment and other abuse, imprisonment of other family members, and alcohol abuse by parents. It identified 11 risk factors which made it more likely that crime and prison would be the young person's destination. Those included missing school, friends involved in
1304
crime, family conflicts and not having a stable home. The majority had a history of care or social services contact.
The NACRO report was prepared with the involvement of KPMG. It showed that spending money on earlier and better intervention would have been cost effective. An intensive programme to support a family and improve relationships can cost as little as £3,000; when successful, it can save, according to the estimates, £62,000. The Rand Corporation in the United States carried out a similar study in California. It looked at whether it was more cost effective to bring in a harsher sentencing law or spend the money that that would cost on prevention. The study concluded that,
"investments in some interventions for high-risk youth may be several times more cost-effective in reducing serious crime than long mandatory sentences for repeat offenders".
That is, it is better to spend the money on the problem when it starts rather than on the consequences of it much later.
This is hard research by a hard-nosed think tank. It supports the point made by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and the point I am making here; namely, that the costs of setting up a network of refuges may seem great, but those costs are bound to be less than the costs of not doing so.
I thank the noble Earl for instigating a valuable opportunity to discuss this issue and look forward to the Minister's reply.
7.38 p.m.
The Earl of Rosslyn: My Lords, I too begin by thanking the noble Earl, Lord Russell, for giving us the opportunity to discuss this important report. We also have reason to be grateful to the Children's Society, whose work in developing services for vulnerable children and for promoting understanding through research is so much valued by policy-makers and practitioners alike.
I should like to make one or two observations from a policing perspective. In so doing, I should declare an interest as a serving officer in the Thames Valley, where I currently lead on youth justice issues for the force.
The report's estimate of the scale and prevalence of young people being away from home is, even in the context of what is known from previous studies, disturbing. The associated risks, both physical and psychological, are plainly set out in the report, so I shall not repeat all of them. Although the majority of young people relied on informal support networks to survive while away—not in themselves risk free—for others altogether more hazardous strategies were required. As the noble Earl mentioned, these included begging, stealing, selling drugs and selling sex. One in seven of young people who ran away overnight were either physically or sexually assaulted.
While the report reflects on the more positive consequences of being away, with five out of six young people feeling that it had given them time to think and

1305
over half saying that it had helped them to sort out their problems, four words from the report stay in my mind; namely, hungry, thirsty, lonely and frightened.
The vulnerability of such young people while they are away is underscored by a recent Police Research series paper entitled Missing Presumed. This reveals the scale of the links between going missing and prostitution in a study where one in seven of young runaways coming into contact with streetwork projects had traded money for sex in order to survive. In a local survey of young missing persons undertaken in Manchester, 20 per cent reported an involvement in prostitution. The paper also refers to the Street and Lanes project in Bradford, whose initial work confirmed the strong link between incidents of sexual exploitation and going missing. In its first year of operation 84 per cent of project users had been reported missing at some stage.
If we are to minimise the risks and build on the positive opportunities to which the young people interviewed referred, some expansion of refuges, street-based outreach work and drop-in centres seems to me to be highly desirable. That such provision is required nationally is surely established by the finding of the report that there is a significant prevalence of running away in all parts of the United Kingdom, however categorised.
In recent years we have heard much about justice by geography and of healthcare standards relative to where one lives. Can it be right that sources of support for young people who run away should be available other than on a national basis? I have heard it suggested that the provision of a national network of refuges might actually encourage young people to leave home. But I find that a somewhat fanciful notion in the light of the experiences of young people that are described in the report. Young people largely run away from harmful situations rather than to the bright lights of the city centre. The report conclusively disproves the idea that they do so for trivial reasons or for fun.
So what of the role of the police? Stereotypically the police service is associated with activity after a young person has run away. This is indeed important, as the longer they are away the more likely young people are to resort to dangerous means of survival and the more likely they are to be hurt. But there are, I believe, opportunities for police officers to be involved in strengthening the protective factors that militate against a young person running away in the first place.
The report identifies that being in trouble with the police can act both as a trigger for running away and form part of the broader context in which such events take place. The way in which the police approach such offending may, therefore, influence quite powerfully a young person's subsequent actions.
Since 1997 our force has been applying the principles of restorative justice in addressing early offending by young people and, in particular, when cautioning young offenders as an alternative to court proceedings. Many such cautions are delivered as part of a community conference in which the victim,
1306
offender and others affected by the offending behaviour are brought together with a trained police facilitator guiding them through a discussion of how the crime occurred, how it has affected their lives and how the harm caused can be repaired.
The emphasis is on reparation, restoration and taking responsibility rather than punishment and blame. The conference will also agree with the young person what interventions and support are needed to address the underlying causes of the offending behaviour. It seems to me very likely that some of those interventions will also address the sort of problems in the home, which four-fifths of young people identified as the reasons for running away.
We have also used such conferencing techniques in schools both to deal with incidents of bullying and to help schools address disciplinary issues, using the conference process as an alternative to excluding a pupil. The report highlights the significant link between persistent bullying and running away and a similar link with exclusion where one quarter of children excluded were found to have run away overnight on at least one occasion.
In ways such as these, I believe that the police service can play a role rather more complex than its search and rescue stereotype. But in the end, for those who do leave home and become detached from their families after running away, it is a refuge that may provide the essential shelter, safety and support.
7.45 p.m.
The Earl of Listowel: My Lords, I believe that the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and my noble friends have made very clear the deep seriousness of this problem. In my own experience I have talked with young people of about the age of 16 who have run away. They have told me about their problems; for example, distant fathers, mothers who are drunk and who find only fault with all their actions. Obviously, over many years it is a life-sapping experience and one can hardly be surprised when they eventually try to escape. When they do, there should be someone to listen to them and to give an appropriate response to their needs.
I have visited the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children and Centrepoint refuge in north London. It is a four-storey semi-detached house with a back garden. It is Victorian and its age is comforting. The interior is light and welcoming. The offices are situated in the basement and the next three storeys contain bedrooms, some of which are shared. There is also a television room and an activity room, together with a kitchen. Although there are locks on the bedroom doors, the children are allowed to spend as much time in their rooms as they wish. They are allowed privacy and a space to think, as far as is possible.
The refuge caters for approximately 300 children each year. These are referred by the police, or outreach workers from the homelessness agencies. Each child's arrival is notified to the police who can then inform his or her carer. The refuge can then hold the child for a maximum of 14 days at its secret address.

1307
The primary purpose of the refuge is to ensure that the child moves on to a place of safety. It achieves this by assessing the child's needs. First, the staff interview the runaway. This is followed by consultation with the child's carers, the school, the police and other involved adults. Finally, an assessment report is drawn up. Social services have no duty to act upon this. However, the refuge can directly refer the children on to other services, such as counselling services, without consultation with carers or social services.
The staff are qualified social workers with experience elsewhere, or supervised social work students. Currently, three of the staff are accredited social work teachers. Their work is very tightly regulated by the Children Act. This rightly demanding regulation makes the service particularly expensive for the charities to run, as we heard earlier.
Relations with the social services are generally good. It is often essential to have the child interviewed by a local authority social worker sometime before his or her 14 days have expired. It may only be then that a child can receive the services that he or she will need. However, social services are often under great financial and time pressures. Social workers' decisions can be based on expediency rather than on what is best for the child's safety. They may not be available for interview early enough in the process. How will the Minister ensure that the safety of these children is always the foremost consideration?
In addition, local authorities more often than not refuse to pay for the children's stay at the refuge. Much of the manager's time is spent chasing local authorities. Unpaid accommodation is a further strain on the charities involved. Can the Minister say how local authorities are to be encouraged to meet these costs?
The refuge provides a service to improve relations between runaways and their families. This mediation is provided by Safe in the City and NCH Action for Children through their "Turnaround" project. Its manager and two project workers offer a course of six sessions to work with families on the causes of the child's flight. The service's aim is to prevent further running and street homelessness when the child is an adult.
A service to help young women out of prostitution, Breaking Free, is also provided with funding from the NSPCC. The three-person team advises young women at risk of sexual exploitation on issues of safety. It can also provide an escape route, should the woman want one.
I hope that this description of one refuge has been helpful to this debate. The Centrepoint report Nowhere to Hide drew attention to the fact that many children call Childline each day and those who get through are enthusiastic about the support they receive. However, many young children cannot get through to an operator. The service is much overburdened. Is there anything the Government can do further to support Childline? We must all think that it is terrible for a child to reach out for help only to be frustrated, as they report. They feel angry about that.
1308
I return to the topic in hand. When will this necessary service—the provision of refuges—be extended to all children nationally? Should children anywhere in Britain feel that they have no one to turn to and nowhere to go but the streets?
7. 52 p.m.
Lord Mayhew of Twysden: My Lords, I agree with every word of the noble Earl who initiated the debate and the three subsequent speakers. They speak with vastly more experience of this matter than I possess. I intervene only to say how glad I am that the Children's Society has produced the report we are discussing and how little it surprises me that the need for more refuge accommodation is at the forefront of the opinions of the children interviewed in the surveys. One sees that at pages 165 and 179 of the report.
I am moved to speak in the debate by a recent experience of my wife. I realise that I may be acquiring something of a reputation for reciting my wife's experiences in debates in this House. I promise not to do so again for quite a time.
Recently, my wife was passing through one of the major Underground stations in London at night. She saw an obviously destitute young man who appeared to her to be sitting in a state of complete hopelessness. He was not begging. She approached him and asked how old he was. He said that he was 16, but she thought that he was rather younger. He had nowhere to go and appeared to have no idea what to do. There was no notice or advertisement of any kind to indicate where someone in these circumstances might seek help.
My wife made one or two inquiries. She tried to ring Centrepoint—I have the greatest admiration for that organisation—but received only a recorded message. The noble Earl, Lord Listowel, made the point about children not being able to get through to an organisation on the telephone. She tried to phone another organisation and by the time she had finished the young man had gone. My wife considers it important—I share her view—that whatever accommodation is available should be advertised on notices or advertisements in such public places as railway and Underground stations. I hope that the Minister will bear that point in mind and comment on it, either now or in writing. That would be valuable.
Whatever our backgrounds and experiences of happy or unhappy homes—fortunately, my homelife was enormously happy—we can all still be aware that as regards the children in the age groups with which the report deals, and especially as regards younger children, their horizon is about six inches in front of their nose. If something goes wrong at home—the place, above all, where security is most important and most needed—there is nothing beyond that in the hopes, expectations, beliefs and consciousness of the child concerned. It is therefore far from surprising to note that page 165 of the report states:
"The most common need identified for under-16s … was more accessible emergency accommodation".

1309
The report states that the accommodation,
"could provide a safe space to collect thoughts, staff who listen carefully and do not judge … possibly have a mediation service attached … Young people felt that short-term accommodation of this kind would be a better option than going immediately into substitute care".
That must be right. At page 179 of the report, much the same points are made by 16 and 17 year-olds and the professionals involved in these matters. The report is extremely shrewdly targeted in that regard. I share the hope expressed by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, who initiated this short debate, that the Government will find resources to enlarge the number of refuges which, as the noble Earl said, is at the moment pathetically low.
7.57 p.m.
Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Russell, for initiating this important debate and for raising the issue of children's refuges.
I have read, thoroughly, Still Running. Like the noble Earl, one cannot fail to be impressed by the depth and breadth of the research undertaken or by the complexity of the problems involved. We welcome the initiatives mentioned in the report. We on these Benches wish to congratulate the three charities on an excellent report which will certainly help to improve the current situation.
As the noble Earl said, it is a startling and worrying fact that each year in the United Kingdom 77,000 children run away for the first time, and around a quarter of children first ran away before the age of 11. Indeed, Childline staff have seen children as young as eight coming to their refuge. These statistics must be of serious concern to all those who place the family, and the welfare of children, as important to a civilised society.
As a parent myself I was extremely disturbed to hear the noble Earl say that 14,000 children—that is a fifth of all runaways—are thrown out of their homes by their parents each year. The noble Earl mentioned "gay" and drugs problems. I believe that there is also a problem as regards children with special needs which needs to be addressed. I was also shocked to read in the report that a small but significant number of children had been completely detached from any form of support—the children whom no one notices when they disappear.
A report produced this year by the charity Safe in the City, paints a picture of young people who are struggling with a multiplicity of risk factors. These include acute poverty, family relationships under strain or fragmented—particularly if arguments lead to hitting—and other experiences of exclusion, such as moving house frequently and being excluded from school.
Although it is only one of a number of recommendations made in Still Running, the noble Earl has identified the most common need for under 16s—safe houses. Some 25 per cent of the 200 young
1310
people who were interviewed wanted accessible emergency accommodation on a homely scale, as my noble and learned friend Lord Mayhew said, to collect their thoughts and where they would be listened to and offered mediation to return home.
Like the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, I draw the attention of the House to the work of the only registered refuge for child runaways in London and the South East, and one of only two nationally. The Centrepoint/NSPCC refuge was established in 1993 as a result of the Children Act 1989. As the noble Earl mentioned, it provides a safe environment for up to eight children and young people in which to tackle the problems that made them leave their parental home or care placement. With staff who listen and do not judge, it helps them to find an appropriate solution to those problems.
The refuge address is never given out. As the noble Earl said, most children are referred by Childline, the police or another agency, and are normally collected by taxi from an arranged pick-up point.
The Department of Health is contributing £50,000 per year for the next three years to help support the refuge, but the Children's Society currently receives no statutory funding for its runaway programme, which costs £1.8 million per year. Can the Minister say whether the Government are proposing to support refuges in any other part of the country?
The Minister will be aware that two years ago Sir William Utting, in his Government-commissioned report, People like us, recommended the development of a national network of refuges and street-work services for young runaways, and that such a development must receive financial support from both local and central government.
The Opposition feel very strongly that we should be dealing primarily with the root causes of why children run away, rather than simply looking at how to deal with the effects after the event. Prevention is better than cure. We need a more co-ordinated national response to children running away from home or from care.
Centrepoint is working to try to intervene at an earlier stage in young people's lives. I should like to mention two specific examples of its preventive work. First, Centrepoint encourages homeless young people to go in to schools to warn others of the dangers of running away. I was told by Centrepoint on the telephone this morning that this has been very successful. Secondly, its national development unit works in 12 areas around the country to bring local agencies, and housing and social services together. They then draw up strategic plans for reducing and preventing youth homelessness.
To prioritise prevention, Centrepoint would like to see more investment in family support and schools-based services at a local level. The schools service is particularly important, as 23 per cent of the children interviewed in Still Running had been persistently bullied at school, a point mentioned by the noble Earl,

1311
Lord Rosslyn. In the same report, children have suggested confidential counselling services to deal with bullying and abuse.
I understand that different departments and agencies overlap on this specific matter. However, I should be grateful if the Minister can confirm whether the Government are considering implementing this suggestion.
Finally, in order that a coherent response can be made to the other pressing problems highlighted in Still Running, will the Minister confirm that the Government will consider as a matter of urgency—this is an important point—how different departments and local authorities can co-ordinate their efforts to prevent vulnerable children running away?
I very much look forward to the Minister's reply.
8.5 p.m.
Lord Burlison: My Lords, the noble Earl, Lord Russell, deserves credit for raising the subject of children's refuges. I know that it is one which deeply concerns him. He has a lot of experience in this area and demonstrates a great commitment to adding his strength and assistance to it. I should like to join with other noble Lords and thank him for giving us the opportunity to discuss the many important issues that the consideration of children running away from home raises.
This is a most distressing and upsetting feature of our society. We are greatly indebted to the Children's Society for the research it has commissioned and we welcome the publication of the report Still Running.
We continue to consider carefully whether a national network of children's refuges is the right answer. At the moment we are not persuaded that it is the best way to tackle this dreadful problem. Leaving the safety of home must be seen as a last, desperate resort of a child. It is one that no child should feel compelled to take.
I should like to describe to your Lordships the comprehensive package of measures that we are implementing to try to prevent children getting into a state where they want to run away. We must be careful to ensure that our response is holistic—running away should not be regarded in isolation. The Government's Supporting Families programme, the wider agenda for all government action in the UK to strengthen family life and improve opportunities for children, together with the Quality Protects programme to transform social services for children in need and their families should help to ensure that services are put in place which will prevent children feeling the need to run away.
The Supporting Families agenda includes ensuring that all parents have access to the advice and support they need, including parenting support, education programmes and family mentoring schemes. It also addresses the need for better support for families facing more serious family problems and for early intervention programmes to tackle problems before they escalate into crises. These services—which might include family mediation —will be complemented by
1312
our broader strategies on social exclusion to address the underlying problems of poverty, poor housing and lack of opportunity. This should help to reduce the pressures felt by families, both from outside and within the family, which can lead to family conflict and breakdown of relationships, a point mentioned particularly by the noble Earl, Lord Russell.
Other developments should also contribute to the prevention of children running away. A child's behaviour at school, or indeed absence from school, can offer indicators of problems elsewhere. It is important that schools are aware of a child's home circumstances and of liaising with other agencies, including social services, and where necessary to identify and ensure a joined-up response to the child's needs. It also includes the introduction of pastoral support programmes for children who appear to have problems or difficulties. The new youth support service for 13 to 19 year-olds will also have a significant effect in this area.
The youth support service will be a unified, integrated and identifiable service for young people. Its function will be to arrange or provide a comprehensive range of services for all 13 to 19 year-olds. It will ensure that young people with problems are identified and given appropriate support.
By making improvements in the care system we hope to reduce the number of children who run away from care. One way we intend to do this is by giving children more of a say in the decisions taken about their care. Children's participation is an important part of the whole Quality Protects programme. Within this context, our main aim is,
"To actively involve users and carers in planning services and in tailoring packages of care; and to ensure effective mechanisms are in place to handle complaints".
Refuges can provide runaway children with a temporary breathing space to talk about and attempt to resolve the problems that caused them to run away. Refuge workers can also undertake rehabilitative work with isolated and distressed children who have become alienated from either their parents or the local authorities looking after them.
The Government do not intend to provide a national network of children's refuges. It is not the role of the Department of Health to provide direct care to children through funding refuges but to provide guidance and assistance to local authorities. Local authorities already provide children's homes and foster homes for children who are looked after. Local authorities may wish to consider whether there is a need for refuges in their areas.
There are two refuges operating which have been mentioned by a number of noble Lords: the Centrepoint refuge in London and another in Leeds, run by the Children's Society. We welcome the work they are doing. I understand that the Children's Society will be using the money it receives from the Millennium Children's Promise final hour appeal to help runaways and to establish more refuges.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister. Were the Government to decide that the

1313
responsibility lay properly on local authorities, would the Government then agree to vary their standard spending assessments accordingly?
Lord Burlison: My Lords, I note the point made by the noble Earl. I am certain that this debate will be studied and any meaningful recommendations that may come from it will be considered in due course. I hope that I may be able to cover that a little more as I progress through the comments I wish to make.
The Department of Health will consider such applications carefully. That point was made by the noble Lord, Lord Astor of Hever, as regards whether progress can be made in the area of establishing refuges in the future.
We are greatly encouraged by the developments the Children's Society is seeking to bring about. Refuges are one of the services, together with drop-in centres, advocacy for young people, emergency foster care placements and night-stop accommodation, which go to make up street-work services and, of course, they need to be developed in close collaboration with the statutory services; namely, social services, the police, education and health, within the strategic framework of the local authority's children's services plan.
In January 1998 the Local Government Association and the Association of Chief Police Officers issued guidance to local authorities on procedures and good practice when children go missing. My department was on the working party which produced this excellent guidance and we will be developing it further with the publication this spring of practice guidance.
The Children's Society wants each child who runs away to be offered an interview to assess their reasons for doing so. The joint guidance produced by the Local Government Association and the Association of Chief Police Officers advises that children who run away should be given the opportunity to explain their reasons for doing so. In this way their needs can be identified and met to ensure that they do not feel so desperate as to run away again.
The Government's response to the Children's Safeguards Review made it clear that accurate records must be maintained of every incident and senior managers should examine the reasons why children have gone missing and any variation in the rate at which they run from different children's homes and foster carers. This data will help us all—both local and central government—to gain a clearer picture of the extent of this problem in order to provide a more strategic response.
For a minority of runaways a pattern of sleeping rough may follow. As my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment said recently:
"…education is key in alerting young people to the consequences of sleeping rough. We are already funding a project run by Centrepoint which allows people to hear first hand from their peers about the realities of rough sleeping. We are currently looking into expanding this to other areas around the country".
1314
Our measures to support families and carers should help prevent problems escalate to the point where a child or young person runs away. However, I think we need to look at ensuring that where necessary there is an appropriate multi-agency response. A major improvement may well be the setting up of the new youth support service. It may provide the key because of its close involvement with individual young people and the way in which it will be working with other agencies, including social services, where there are serious concerns.
I welcome the Children's Society's research, which greatly improves our understanding of this problem. We are anxious to do all we can to prevent children feeling the need to run away. To this end I can tell noble Lords that department officials will shortly be meeting Ian Sparks, Chief Executive of the Children's Society, to consider this pressing and complex issue.
I shall now respond to one or two points that have been made in the debate. If I am not able to cover them all, then—as was suggested by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew—I shall study Hansard and write in response to any matters that I may have missed tonight.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, made the point that Home Office parenting orders may be dangerous as they could lead to more runaways. I hope that I have made it clear in my comments that the Government are determined to work with families to break the cycle of youth offending and social exclusion. Parenting orders are only one part of the package to reduce offending. They have their place in ensuring that parents face up to their responsibilities.
The noble Baroness, Lady Stern, spoke of the consequences for the future. The Government are well aware that some children and young people who run away may establish a pattern that leads to social exclusion. It is for those reasons that we are taking forward a whole raft of measures aimed at preventing social exclusion.
The noble Earl, Lord Rosslyn, pointed out the role of the police in this area. I know that he has considerable experience and first-hand knowledge of the events of which he spoke. I should like to thank the noble Earl for pointing out the important role played by the police in this area and the assistance they give to tackling the problem. Not only do they receive reports of missing children and return them, but they can play a role in identifying the problems which may lead to a young person running away. It is vital that the police and social services work together for the child. I welcome the work of the Association of Chief Police Officers and indeed local government.
The noble Earl, Lord Rosslyn, asked what is being done to tackle the problem of those involved in prostitution. The guidance, which was published at the end of last year, includes a new section which draws on the Home Office and Department of Health draft guidance on children involved in prostitution. It states

1315
that local agencies should develop inter-agency protocols to guide action when there are concerns that a child is involved in prostitution, including guidance on sharing concerns about the child's safety and the identification of a child involved in prostitution or at risk of being drawn into prostitution. This should always trigger agreed local procedures to ensure the child's safety and welfare and enable the police to gather evidence about abusers and coercers.
The noble Earl, Lord Listowel, asked about government support for Childline. The Government have supported Childline and the invaluable work that Childline undoubtedly does. They are committed to developing systems for children to make their voices heard. One example is the priority being given to children's participation in the £375 million Quality Protects programme. The noble Earl also asked about encouraging funding for local authorities. There is a specific reference in the children's services guidance to the need to plan services for runaways on a collaborative basis with other agencies and to institute effective monitoring arrangements. That is designed to provide major inputs for better financed, targeted and supported services. The Department of Health will reiterate the importance of this issue in its good practice guide to local authorities in the spring.
1316
I have tried to deal with as many points as possible. I realise that I may not have covered one or two. Indeed, the noble Earl, Lord Russell, asked whether the Government will adjust the standard spending assessment. I have an answer in front of me, much to my surprise. The Government are investing an additional £375 million in local authority services for children. We will be encouraging local authorities to consider the development of refuges.
This has been an excellent debate. Considerable thought and good intentions lay behind the speeches of all those involved. Perhaps we will see the day when the kind of progress which we should all like to see will come about.
Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, will he look at my question about bullying in schools? I do not expect an answer now, but I should be grateful for a letter. Perhaps the noble Lord could also put a copy in the Library.
Lord Burlison: My Lords, I apologise to the noble Lord. I missed his point. I asked my noble friend Lady Amos whether she had caught it, but she, like myself, had had her attention diverted. I shall of course respond
House adjourned at twenty-four minutes past eight o'clock.

  Iraq: Military List Equipment Exports
  Iraq: Military List Equipment Exports
  River Danube: Clearance
  River Danube: Clearance
  10 Downing Street: Staff Numbers and Costs
  10 Downing Street: Staff Numbers and Costs
  Political Honours Scrutiny Committee
  Political Honours Scrutiny Committee
  Media Monitoring Unit
  Media Monitoring Unit
  House of Lords Reform: Royal Commission Report
  House of Lords Reform: Royal Commission Report
  Residential Care Home Standards: Consultation
  Residential Care Home Standards: Consultation
  Mentally-ill Prisoners: Hospital Secure Beds
  Mentally-ill Prisoners: Hospital Secure Beds
  NHS Trusts: Waiting List Reduction Incentives
  NHS Trusts: Waiting List Reduction Incentives
  Road Traffic Reduction Measures
  Road Traffic Reduction Measures
  Wembley Stadium
  Wembley Stadium
  Young People without Visible Means of Support
  Young People without Visible Means of Support
  Mothers Disentitled to Benefit
  Mothers Disentitled to Benefit
  Child Support Legislation: Interaction
  Child Support Legislation: Interaction
  Young People Living Independently and Claiming Benefit
  Young People Living Independently and Claiming Benefit
  People Disentitled to Benefit
  People Disentitled to Benefit
  Income Support
  Income Support