Sitting of 24 January 2000

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

    Bowman Tactical Communications System
    Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: When he expects the Bowman tactical communications system to be delivered to the armed services. [104533]
    The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): We inherited not only a serious delay in the replacement for the Clansman radio, but an unsatisfactory mechanism for producing its replacement, the Bowman system.
    We will therefore deliver Bowman incrementally, using smart procurement principles. As a result, initial deliveries of the personal role radio element of Bowman should now be possible from the end of 2001. We expect the main Bowman system to enter service in late 2003 or early 2004, subject to good performance by industry.
    Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: The overall delay is a further slippage on top of what has happened in the past
    2
    and has added to a long list of slippages on such things as the beyond-visual-range anti-aircraft missile—BVRAAM—the heavy lift, and ASTOR—the airborne stand-off radar. Can the right hon. Gentleman assure the House with confidence that these slippages have nothing to do with pressure from the Chancellor of the Exchequer?
    Mr. Hoon: I can, because the right hon. Gentleman has been a Member of the House for much longer than I have, and he has watched the previous Government's performance. He mentioned slippage in relation to Bowman. I remind him that, on that project, the Government inherited slippage of 75 months—more than six years. I know that the right hon. Gentleman looks at defence matters very seriously, and I am sure that, if he had looked at the matter in the round, he would have recognised that the problems of slippage in relation to that programme did not result largely from financial concerns but, in particular, from the need to ensure that British forces had the best equipment available to them, bearing in mind the significant technological changes over the period.

    Kosovo
    Mr. Gerald Howarth: What is the additional cost to the Defence budget in 1999–2000 of British military operations in Kosovo; and if HM Treasury has agreed to increase the Defence vote to cover that cost. [104534]
    The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): As at the end of October, the Ministry of Defence had incurred net additional expenditure of £125 million on Kosovo operations during this financial year. That figure is expected to rise to just below £400 million by the end of 1999–2000. The Government have agreed that these costs will be covered by the reserve. The details are currently being discussed and will be included in the Department' s spring supplementary estimates.
    Mr. Howarth: Given the catalogue of cuts that have been inflicted on our armed services by the present

    3
    Government, including the shortage of fuel for the Royal Navy, the lack of medical treatment for our service men and women, and the defective and unreliable weaponry with which our troops were sent into Kosovo, I think that the Secretary of State will agree that he owes it to the House to confirm to us today that the shortfall that has been incurred as a result of the Kosovan war will be made good by the Treasury in this financial year and to tell us that the stock of missiles and bombs that were expended during the Kosovan war will be replenished. If, however, he merely tells us that it is all the fault of the previous Conservative Government, what has he been doing about it for the past two and a half years?
    Mr. Hoon: If the hon. Gentleman had listened more carefully to my answer, he would have found that I had already given the assurance that he asked for in relation to his supplementary question. It is important to remind the House, when the hon. Gentleman talks about the catalogue of cuts, that we are talking about a reduction in the defence budget of around 3 per cent. in real terms over three years. That compares unfavourably with the record of the Conservative party, which cut defence spending by a third from the 1980s onwards—cuts for which the hon. Gentleman enthusiastically voted.
    Ms Rachel Squire: May I very much welcome the assurances given by my right hon. Friend? They once again demonstrate that the present Government's and the previous Government's management of defence spending are like chalk and cheese. Will he once again agree that Conservative Members who were members of the Government who cut defence spending by nearly one third have no right to preach on defence spending? Will he further agree that this Labour Government, through their strategic defence review, demonstrated their clear commitment to equipping the armed forces to play a leading role in humanitarian and peacekeeping efforts in the years to come?
    Mr. Hoon: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Obviously, there is almost no limit to what could be spent under a defence budget heading, and it is the responsibility of any Government—including the previous Government—to maximise our defence capability within a reasonable share of public spending as a whole. Obviously, it was the aim of the strategic defence review to achieve that. The result is a balanced, better focused defence programme, which provides the defence capabilities required to meet this country's defence and security responsibilities now and into the future.
    Mr. Menzies Campbell: I hope the Secretary of State will forgive me, but there was a hint of complacency in that and his previous answer. The Army is short of tanks, the Royal Air Force is short of aircraft and the Navy is short of fuel and reliable medical services. All those shortages have a debilitating effect on morale and on capability. The root cause is inadequate resources, especially the so-called 3 per cent. annual efficiency saving that the Treasury exacted as its price for supporting the strategic defence review. In the light of those circumstances, how can we be confident that the Government will have the finance available to place the
    4
    order for the necessary heavy-lift aircraft and the aircraft carriers that are central to the expeditionary strategy that underpins the strategic defence review?
    Mr. Hoon: I am sorry that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has been rather carried away by some of the more lurid headlines that he has read recently in newspapers. He generally takes a very responsible attitude towards such matters, but, sadly, some of the headlines were stimulated by the right hon. and learned Gentleman himself. None of the shortages that he claims is true. In particular, the matter that he raised over the weekend about the availability of aircraft was the result of snapshot statistics that were supplied to him together with a clear explanation that aircraft can be made ready at very short notice. Most aircraft can be made ready within hours and that is not a sign that we are short of aircraft. Indeed, the Royal Air Force carried out all of its operations over Kosovo and continues to carry out operations over Iraq without the slightest difficulty.
    Mr. Ted Rowlands: I am sure that my right hon. Friend is aware of reports and assessments that the police force that was envisaged for Kosovo has not been put in place. If that is so, will not many more armed forces be required for a longer period and will they not have to play a larger role? Has my right hon. Friend included that in the assessment that he has given to the House?
    Mr. Hoon: Of course, that is strictly the responsibility of the United Nations and its administration in Kosovo. Certainly, the United Kingdom has made police officers available and will continue to do so subject to the international requirements.
    Mr. Julian Brazier: In the light of his earlier answer, can the Secretary of State confirm that we are severely short of Army manpower, severely short of RAF air crew at a time when the airlines are not recruiting and that we have cancelled—some of them for financial reasons—most of our major exercises this year?
    On Kosovo, will the Secretary of State tell us what will happen to the £110 million that has been spent on providing winter accommodation for our armed forces? In late January, much of that accommodation is still not ready, so will that money be funded by the Treasury and what will be done about the contractors who have failed to deliver on time?
    Mr. Hoon: The hon. Gentleman asks a number of different questions. First, let me disagree with the use of the word "severely". At any time in any armed forces there are vacancies. Recruitment for our armed forces has been extremely successful lately, as the hon. Gentleman knows from his experience as a member of the Defence Committee. The specific problem that successive Governments have faced with the armed forces has been not recruitment, but retention. Urgent measures have been put in place to deal with that and the latest statistics suggest that things are improving, and improving quite quickly. There is no severe shortage along the lines that the hon. Gentleman suggests.
    On accommodation in Kosovo, the hon. Gentleman, like me, will be disappointed that, as a result of, in particular, failures by the contractors and of some changes

    5
    in specifications, we have not been able to provide the winter accommodation as early as was originally planned. Great efforts are being made by the contractors and they have been put under a great deal of pressure by the Ministry of Defence to move as quickly as they can. The first accommodation will be made available before the end of this month, but other accommodation will be delayed beyond that which was originally envisaged as part of the contract. We shall look carefully at the contract to see what kind of compensation can be secured from the contractors for their late delivery.
    Mr. Tam Dalyell: What is the £400 million doing to protect the non-Albanians in Kosovo?
    Mr. Hoon: A great deal of effort has been made to secure the basic objective of our forces being deployed in Kosovo, which is to protect minorities. We went in there for humanitarian reasons and were very successful in ensuring the end to the atrocities against the Albanian community. Equally, I recognise that it is incumbent on international forces to protect the Serbian minority. They are doing that each and every day, and, in particular, the British forces are doing that very successfully.
    Mr. Richard Ottaway: Does the Secretary of State recall the anecdote of the American admiral, who signalled the British fleet, "How's the world's second largest navy", to which our man replied, "Fine; how's the second best?" Does he accept that if the British fleet is stuck in port due to fuel shortages, it will never have the chance to prove that it is the best in the world? It is no good him telling us, just to save his face, that there are 25 ships at sea this afternoon. Will he guarantee that the Navy will have enough fuel to meet both its training and its operational requirements and that he will never again cut the Navy's fuel budget by 30 per cent. just to reinstate it by 25 per cent., as he did this year?
    Mr. Hoon: I do not recognise the hon. Gentleman's description of the Royal Navy. He suggests by implication that, somehow, significant deployments can be organised in a matter of days, but, given half a minute's thought, he must know that deployments such as those of the past week take months and, sometimes, years to organise. If he gave a little thought to his observations, he would realise that much of what he has just said is nonsense.
    The Navy has not been stuck in port in the way the hon. Gentleman describes. A significant number of ships was tied up over Christmas, as happens every Christmas, reflecting the understandable concern—I hope—of those responsible for the Navy to ensure that people in the service can spend as much time as possible with their families during the holidays. That happened during this holiday period, and during every previous one. There is nothing new for him to criticise.

    Armed Forces (Women)
    Mrs. Eileen Gordon: How many women joined the armed forces in 1999. [104535]
    The Minister for the Armed Forces (Mr. John Spellar): Figures for the whole of 1999 are not yet available. In the 12 months up to 1 December 1999, 3,258 women were recruited into the armed forces from civilian life. That represents 13 per cent. of the total intake.
    Mrs. Gordon: I thank the Minister for that reply and congratulate the armed forces on that achievement. As in Parliament, we women play a valuable role and make a valuable contribution—and we need more of them. Has the increase been sustained across the three services? Are there posts still not open to women? If so, will he review those restrictions? I think particularly of ones that prevail at present in the Army.
    Mr. Spellar: I was out on an exercise on HMS Cornwall this week, where men and women were working together as a team very effectively. [Interruption.] Contrary to the slurs cast on them by Conservative Members, they were in extremely good heart and, as one would expect, very professional. Morale was extremely good. Their picture of the armed forces is totally different from Conservative Members' politically motivated slurs.
    In 1998–99, 3,431 women were recruited—the highest ever percentage. On positions in the forces, the Army is looking at the question of the front line and also the teeth arms, and is due to report in April 2001.
    Mr. Michael Fabricant: Does the Minister agree that women play an important role in the armed forces and that, despite what some people think, they play a valuable role too on board ship in close proximity to men? Does he believe that there is a lesson to be learned for those who took a particular view when the Secretary of State made his recent statement?
    Mr. Spellar: I am pleased to reinforce what the hon. Gentleman says about the very good role played by women in the armed forces. I was also pleased by the balanced response from the services to the Secretary of State's statement, in which he announced our response to the legal judgment of the European Court of Human Rights.

    Short-term Strategic Airlift Programme
    Mr. Tim Collins: If he will make an announcement on the preferred bidder for the short-term strategic airlift programme. [104538]
    The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): We are assessing proposals from three companies: Boeing, Air Foyle Ltd. and HeavyLift Cargo Airlines Ltd. We shall make an announcement as soon as possible.
    Mr. Collins: I thank the Secretary of State for that reply, but will he guarantee that the RAF will get the aircraft that it wants, not the aircraft that Downing street, for political reasons, decides is convenient? Will he guarantee that the timing will be determined according to strategic necessity, not Treasury pressure? If he is tempted to repeat his earlier allegations about the record of the previous Government,

    7
    he should recall that, during Labour's previous periods in office, his lot were all unilateralists who wanted to cut our defence budget in half.
    Mr. Hoon: Obviously, when considering such important investments, it is necessary to look at all relevant factors, including performance, cost and industrial issues.
    Mr. Barry Jones: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the matter has dragged on? He might recollect that, of the three delegations to Ministers that I have led, the first was to see Mr. Jonathan Aitken. The 4,000 airbus workers in my constituency hope that the A400M option is his Ministry's choice. If the C-17 were chosen, it would send to the British aerospace industry the wrong signal about its future. Will my right hon. Friend give the matter his careful consideration, in the knowledge that my constituents would build an extremely good wing for the A400M?
    Mr. Hoon: We certainly appreciate the significance of the decision that has to be taken. We fully appreciate the importance of making progress, which is why we are urgently examining ways of enhancing aircraft capability in the short term, as well as in the long term, to which my right hon. Friend refers.
    Mr. Keith Simpson: The Secretary of State has said that the decision is an important one. The RAF is looking forward to receiving the aircraft, but will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the RAF equipment budget is overspent? If so, how is it to afford the aircraft?
    Mr. Hoon: The RAF equipment budget is not overspent. In assessing carefully the way in which that budget will be allocated, the short-term and longer-term heavy lift requirement will be uppermost in the minds of Ministers.

    European Defence and Security Co-operation
    Mr. Mike Gapes: If he will make a statement on Britain's contribution to European defence and security co—operation. [104539]
    The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): The United Kingdom continues to play a leading role in shaping European policy on defence and security matters. The conclusions of the Helsinki European Council in December are fully in line with our European defence initiative, which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister launched just over one year ago.
    Mr. Gapes: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, at a time of growing international uncertainty and worrying signs of global unilateralism in the United States, it is ever more important that European countries co-operate in the cause of effective defence? Does he share my view that although it might be difficult for some countries to increase defence spending, we clearly do not currently obtain the capabilities we should obtain in return for the
    8
    spending we make? Is there not a strong case for better, more effective use of resources and less duplication among European allies?
    Mr. Hoon: I agree with my hon. Friend. NATO Ministers have recognised the need to improve investments in key capability areas. All European nations will need to spend their defence budgets more effectively. Indeed, many are looking to emulate Britain's success and experience with the strategic defence review.
    Mr. Nicholas Soames: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that no one is not in favour of sensible European defence co-operation, or does not agree with the point made by the hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Gapes) about not duplicating resources? However, is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the grave concern, in NATO and elsewhere, that the sort of moves recently proposed by the Prime Minister are likely to lead to some extremely difficult reactions from our NATO colleagues? Is it not far better that NATO arrangements should be left to stand as they are, under NATO command, and that alternative European defence arrangements should be drawn up that do not in any sense conflict with the NATO command structure?
    Mr. Hoon: I have made it clear on several occasions on which the issues have been discussed in the House that there will not be any sort of duplication, nor any sort of conflict between proposals made within the European Union context and our obligations under NATO. For many years, NATO Ministers have endorsed that approach because they recognise that, by strengthening the European pillar of NATO, we strengthen NATO as a whole.
    Mr. Ken Maginnis: The Secretary of State will not have failed to note that Shorts SMS, which was jointly owned by Bombardier and Thomson-CSF, is now fully owned by Thomson-CSF. That should satisfy the Europhiles, who it appears would turn their backs on our United States allies. Will the Minister take note that Shorts SMS has very good relationships with American companies such as Raytheon and that there has been a free transfer of technology to Shorts SMS from some of its American allies? Will he ensure that support for Shorts and the fine work that it is doing continues, despite the persuasion of others that only European relationships are of importance?
    Mr. Hoon: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his ingenuity in raising what I take to be if not a specific constituency interest, a more general one on behalf of his constituents. We are greatly concerned to ensure that for British industry, whether it is subcontracting for ultimately American-owned companies or for European or British-owned companies, we take fully into account all the contributions that are made in relation to each and every project. I shall take his observations into account in relation to both the generality and any specific contract that he might have had in mind.
    Mr. Denzil Davies: On the matter of European defence policy and co-operation, what role is it

    9
    envisaged that Britain's nuclear capability will play, and what discussions have Her Majesty's Government had with the French Government in that regard?
    Mr. Hoon: The co-operation that we have with our European partners will not affect in any way the use and deployment of Britain's nuclear deterrent. However, there is a long-standing process of discussion and agreement involving the two nuclear nations in Europe. France and Britain have co-operated together. If my right hon. Friend had in mind a particular article that appeared recently in The Spectator, I can assure him that the great majority of it was based on fantasy.

    Housing
    Mr. James Gray: If he will make a statement on the refurbishment of service families' housing. [104540]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Peter Kilfoyle): We are spending £ 470 million on a comprehensive programme to refurbish service families housing. Currently those families' quarters which have been upgraded total 7,958, or 14 per cent. A further 23,514, or 42 per cent., are close to this standard. The remaining families' quarters are at various stages of upgrade and it is planned that the programme will be complete by the end of 2005.
    Mr. Gray: I thank the Minister for that answer, but does he admit that about £ 11 million has been cut from the budget this year for the much-needed refurbishment of service accommodation? About 30,000 service families are currently living in substandard housing. Is he not concerned about the many vacant houses? For example, at RAF Lyneham in my constituency, there are about 80 houses vacant on a relatively small site. In that context, will he take an early opportunity to have a word with Councillor Mrs. Elizabeth Hitchens, the Liberal Democrat housing chairman on the North Wiltshire district council, who by chance is also a Ministry of Defence employee and the manager of the said 80 empty houses at RAF Lyneham?
    Mr. Kilfoyle: I try to avoid talking to Lib Dem housing spokesmen. We have one in the city which I represent in part. The Lib Dems are making a big enough mess there to compensate for everywhere else.
    The hon. Gentleman will be well aware that the plans for RAF Lyneham, in which I know he takes a tremendous interest, will include upgrading the Slessor road, Melsome road and Preston lane estates. I am sure that he will be happy about that. There is no reduction in the money that has been allocated for these purposes. The hon. Gentleman should examine the record of the Conservative party when it was in government before he came into the House, and the debacle of Annington Homes, when properties were sold off in a so-called private finance initiative, which seemed to be balanced entirely in the interests of the Nomura bank rather than those of the families housed in those properties.
    Dr. Doug Naysmith: Does the Minister agree that the previous Government's actions, especially on the sale of married quarters, were totally botched and appalling value for money for the taxpayer?
    Mr. Kilfoyle: I have to agree with my hon. Friend; the previous Government did a botched-up job. We—including the families who are forced to live in substandard accommodation—have had to pay the price for the deal that the previous Government did, which partly financed tax cuts that the country could not afford. The people who lived in those houses could not afford for money to be dissipated in that way.
    Mr. Nick Hawkins: The Minister knows that there is a great deal of service accommodation in my constituency. He will recall that in various sessions of Defence questions last year, I raised grave anxieties with the Minister for the Armed Forces about the way in which discussions were conducted between Ministry of Defence officials, especially Defence Estates officials, and officers of my local borough council. They bypassed the interests of elected representatives.
    The Minister will be as shocked as I was to hear that, in the past few weeks, Ministry of Defence officials attempted to talk in confidence to officers of the council, thus completely bypassing councillors of all three parties who have a democratic mandate. There is anxiety about married quarters accommodation, and the danger of sweetheart deals between Defence Estates officials and developers, who will ignore the interests of local people. Will the Minister and his colleagues give a further rocket to officials in Defence Estates and ensure that those of all three parties who are democratically elected are consulted first about issues that relate to Deepcut and the Royal Logistic Corps and other defence sites?
    Mr. Kilfoyle: The hon. Gentleman will know that there is a long-standing and well-established procedure of confidentiality in such discussions. I am not sure whether he is clear about the difference between Defence Estates and the Defence Housing Executive. We are firmly committed to ensuring that those who live in substandard housing will live in housing of an appropriate quality by the end of the programme in 2005.
    Many improvements are already under way. I cannot speak about specific housing in the hon. Gentleman's constituency, but the work that has been done on housing in, for example, Catterick, is of a standard that we want to achieve for all our service families.

    Asset Sales
    Mr. David Ruffley: If his Department's targets for efficiency savings and receipts from asset sales have so far been achieved. [104541]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Peter Kilfoyle): The Ministry of Defence's targets for efficiency improvements and the sale of surplus estate assets cover the period 1998 to 2002, as set out in the Department's public service agreement. The targets for 1998–99 were achieved, with efficiency savings of £594 million against a target of £505 million, and receipts from asset sales of £158 million against a target

    11
    of £150 million. The Department is on track to meet its targets in this financial year and over the remainder of the PSA period.
    Mr. Ruffley: I draw the Minister's attention to the comments of Admiral Sir John Brigstocke. He said that £1.5 million, which had been earmarked for the Surgeon General's department, is being wiped out as efficiency savings. In other words, that represents £1.5 million of budget cuts. In the light of that, does the Minister understand the contempt of serving men and women in our armed forces for a Government who are happy to send them into battle zones but do not have the decency to fund the health care that they need when they fall sick?
    Mr. Kilfoyle: That was a good try, but wholly misdirected. The claim is untrue. Such a cut has not been made. A letter from the admiral shows that our actions on resources and funding have been understood at the highest level. We are beginning a get well programme. As the hon. Gentleman knows, we are trying to rectify the cuts that we inherited. That takes time, and such action has to be balanced against other operational requirements.
    Mr. Lindsay Hoyle: The Minister has hinted at part of the problem: the Government inherited a disastrous medical service that had been cut not on the basis of need, but purely to-make savings. Does he agree that we cannot run defence medical services in such a way and that, although it will take a long time, the Government are committed to replacing those services?
    Mr. Kilfoyle: It was always anticipated that cuts would be made by the previous Government, but I fear that the real problem was their lack of both coherence and a comprehensive view of the country's defence needs. It is a constant refrain that they made ad hoc cuts in a variety of ways, which had consequences that they never imagined.
    Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: Will the Minister make it absolutely clear from the outset that the Prime Minister's press spokesman is wrong and unfair to attack senior military staff for simply leaking documents ahead of budget discussions? That is outrageous. Is not the reality that there have been cuts in housing, fuel and health? The housing programme has slipped by at least three years, the Government cut the fuel budget by 30 per cent. and then had to raise it by 25 per cent., and there was definitely a cut of £1.5 million in the get well programme in their health budget. This morning, they panicked and talked about remedial action with fast-tracking in Portsmouth. Have they talked to Portsmouth health authority, and exactly what waiting list will they damage now?
    Mr. Kilfoyle: No, I have not spoken to Portsmouth health authority; and no, I certainly would not question the probity of the Prime Minister's official spokesman—that would take a brave man on this side of the House. I also say no to the hon. Gentleman's assertions about where cuts have allegedly been made. Even if they had been made, I would ask him to say where he would find the money to make up those cuts, which are notional—he has invented them.

    Defence Medical Services
    Mr. Peter Viggers: If he will make a statement on the reorganisation of defence medical services. [104542]
    The Minister for the Armed Forces (Mr. John Spellar): The reorganisation of defence medical services following the strategic defence review is on track. We have established a close partnership with the Department of Health and with the national health service at local level to manage the transition to new arrangements in the Portsmouth area. As I announced on 13 December 1999, the University Hospital Birmingham NHS trust has been selected as the preferred host for the new centre for defence medicine and we are very excited by the prospects for that vital new development.
    Mr. Viggers: Is the Minister aware that this is one problem that the Government cannot wriggle out of by trying to blame somebody else? He who dealt with a shortage of doctors and nurses by closing the one remaining military hospital—Haslar, in my constituency. What will be the cost of developing the new facilities at Birmingham and how do they compare with the cost of building up Haslar, as was planned in defence costs study 15 in 1994? He ought to have those numbers at his fingertips, but if he does not will he write to me in detail?
    Mr. Spellar: I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman disagrees with his Front-Bench spokesman, who said on the radio this morning:
    "You see it would be fair to blame us for cuts that happened as a result of that study".
    He went on to say:
    "Oh I think absolutely … beyond any doubt we recognise that those cuts in the Defence Medical Services had gone too far."
    I therefore think it very appropriate to blame a Government who cut £55 million out of £400 million on defence costs study 15. That led to the situation that we inherited, with the rundown of defence medical services.
    Unfortunately, the problem with the medical side is that it takes much longer to train individuals in the medical disciplines in order to repair those cuts. I have been down to our defence hospital unit at Derriford in Plymouth and talked to the staff. There was tremendous enthusiasm in the unit, which is of the same type that we shall have in Portsmouth, precisely because it is getting the sort of work, throughput and training that will enable the staff to undertake their tasks. That is the real experience, not the scare stories that the hon. Gentleman is putting about.
    Mr. Ernie Ross: The Minister will recall the report of the Select Committee on Defence in the previous Parliament, which highlighted the Conservative Government's appalling cuts in resources, manpower and equipment. What action have this Government taken and can he assure the House that those cuts will be reversed?
    Mr. Spellar: We have already allocated £140 million over four years. It was that which was behind the letter from Admiral Sir John Brigstocke when he said that the situation into which defence medical services had been allowed by the previous Administration to slip had now

    13
    been recognised at the highest level and that a get well programme was beginning. In addition, there are the other measures to which I have just drawn attention.
    Mr. Paul Keetch: Given the Minister's sympathetic response, and accepting that the defence medical services' problems were inherited from the previous Government, as was amply demonstrated by the Select Committee's report, does he agree that the problems of the defence medical services, of overstretch and of procurement, and the other problems that the armed forces now face, simply demonstrate that the world has moved on from the strategic defence review? Is it not time to revisit that review and to match the Government's aspirations with our defence ability?
    Mr. Spellar: It was as a result of the strategic defence review that we allocated the extra £140 million to defence medical services, moved towards a centre for defence medicine and, driven by the need for medical accreditation from the royal colleges, moved from Haslar into the arrangement with the Portsmouth Hospitals NHS trust. Those developments are starting to work their way through. One problem with the health service is that it takes much longer to train people and see the results of that compared with some other disciplines. That was the particular problem that resulted from the substantial cuts that were acknowledged by the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) on the radio this morning.
    Mr. Robert Key: May we now come to the nub of the matter? Can the Minister explain to the House how it was, when I asked him what had happened to the £1.5 million allocated for orthopaedic waiting lists, that he said in a written answer last Monday that there had been no cut because there had been no allocation—a point that he repeated to the Select Committee? We then discovered that, as long ago as last December, Admiral Sir John Brigstocke had written confirming that there had been an allocation and a cut of £1.5 million. I for one feel misled. Who is right—the admiral or the Minister?
    Mr. Spellar: The hon. Gentleman is becoming very excited. It would have helped not only him but the listeners and hon. Members if he had read the full answer that I gave on 17 January. I said:
    "Funding to reduce orthopaedic waiting lists … was not removed as part of my Department's efficiency programme as no funds had been allocated … At the beginning of the financial year consideration was given to the possibility of identifying funding to reduce waiting lists, primarily but not exclusively, for orthopaedic treatment. However, this did not prove to be practical, although some additional physiotherapy, provided through a separate initiative, is likely to have affected the numbers on waiting lists overall. The possibility of pursuing action to reduce orthopaedic waiting lists in the next financial year is currently under consideration."— [Official Report, 17 January 2000; Vol. 342, c. 284W.]
    That is absolutely true. I rather wish that the hon. Gentleman, along with some BBC reporters, would not be selective in quoting from such answers.

    Royal Fleet Auxiliary
    Mr. David Heath: With what frequency the inventory of materials and equipment carried by Royal Fleet Auxiliary vessels is reassessed. [104543]
    The Minister for the Armed Forces (Mr. John Spellar): The inventory of materials and equipment carried by Royal Fleet Auxiliary vessels is reassessed and tailored to each operational deployment. Key holdings are also reviewed during major maintenance periods.
    Mr. Heath: I pay tribute to the work of the Royal Fleet Auxiliary, but is it not important that the basic inventory of equipment carried by the supply ships should be kept relevant to the operational requirements? If so, and given that warships are often now required to take on a humanitarian role, is it not important that kit and equipment that cannot be carried on a fighting ship are carried on Fort George or Fort Victoria and are available for immediate use?
    Mr. Spellar: The hon. Gentleman is right. Inventory ranges carried by RAF vessels are tailored to each deployment. As a result of a number of deployments that we have recently undertaken, a detailed review of humanitarian relief stores is in hand and due for completion in April this year.

    Kosovo
    Mr. Andrew Robathan: What inquiries he has made into the effectiveness of the operation of UK and NATO forces in Kosovo. [104544]
    The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): I visited Kosovo shortly before Christmas, meeting and talking to British forces working in KFOR. They have done and continue to do an outstanding job.
    My predecessor, Lord Robertson, initiated a comprehensive study of what we learned from the Kosovo campaign. This work is continuing, and our findings will be published later this year.
    Mr. Robathan: Has the Secretary of State read the leaked and highly critical internal report produced by the commander of 5th Airborne Brigade, who suggested that, had KFOR met serious Serb opposition, it would have had big problems? Today, I have been told that Tornado aircraft have been grounded after many sorties in Kosovo and the Gulf because they have run out of spares for their engines. The leaked report says that disproportionate staff effort was expended on MOD spin-doctoring, including bringing out General Jackson to do a job that Ministers should have been doing. In the service of a better defence of this realm, and to cut through the spin-doctoring, will the Secretary of State instigate a full inquiry, so that the House and the country can work out what could have been done better and what changes need to be made?
    Mr. Hoon: General Jackson can defend himself far better than I can. I recall some of his observations, which

    15
    the hon. Gentleman may find relevant. When describing the Kosovo campaign he said that
    "to call it a close run thing, frankly, flies in the face of reality."
    The hon. Gentleman may consider whether he, himself, is flying in the face of reality. On 4 January, General Jackson also said:
    "I look back and just recall … the entry into Kosovo by KFOR and I think … the record speaks for itself. It was a considerable success."
    The House must judge whether it is prepared to trust the knowledgable and impartial account of the campaign given by General Jackson, or the account given by the official Opposition and the hon. Gentleman.
    Mrs. Alice Mahon: Did the Secretary of State see the documentary by Jonathan Dimbleby "A Kosovo Journey"? Has he had a chance to read the report by the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe entitled "Kosovo/Kosova As Seen, As Told"? If so, does he accept that, since the KFOR occupation, 200,000 non-Albanians have been ethnically cleansed? Those who remain are daily terrorised and killed by the Kosovo Liberation Army. Those are the facts. The Secretary of State's reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) was slightly complacent, given those facts. When will we have a debate on what is happening at the moment in Kosovo, and when will we have a debate on getting the refugees back to their homes?
    Mr. Hoon: I saw the television programme, and we accept that there have been difficulties in encouraging Serbs in particular to return to their homes and their jobs. The international community intervened in Kosovo to provide a multinational opportunity for Kosovo to continue. We do not want a situation to occur in which people are ethnically cleansed, whether they are Albanians or Serbs. The reason why international forces are present on the ground today is largely to protect the Serbian population. As I said, I visited British troops in Pristina, who are there to protect individual Serbs and communities of Serbs. There is absolutely no doubt that the international community is committed to the preservation of a multi-ethnic future for Kosovo.
    Mrs. Jacqui Lait: Will the right hon. Gentleman assure me that the inquiry will include details on the success and failure of some of the high-tech equipment that was used in the Kosovo campaign, and will make recommendations to ensure that such equipment does not fail in future?
    Mr. Hoon: A comprehensive account will be given of both the successes and failures of that mission. No military campaign is ever conducted entirely successfully, and we will learn the lessons. We have made it clear that a full account will be made to the House and to the country.
    Mr. David Winnick: Is it not the case that, whereas previously the Serbians were, as we all know, ethnically cleansing and murdering, the film—which was hostile to what was undertaken to liberate Kosovo—showed British and allied forces doing their utmost to protect them, although of course we would like to see more being done? Is it not also the case that, during the war itself, whenever something went wrong, the Tories used it time and again to try to discredit what was
    16
    being done? We should be proud of what we did to liberate Kosovo, and there is certainly no need to offer apologies of any kind.
    Mr. Hoon: I was not offering an apology. My hon. Friend has put his case with considerable force and passion. British troops are there day in, day out, protecting members of minority communities. They are doing a superb job, and they are there at the behest of the international community to do the work that they are performing so successfully.
    Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: As the Secretary of State will know, my colleagues and I believe that the armed forces are doing a fantastic job in Kosovo. They always deliver, as they are expected to do. That, however, is not the question. The question, surely, is whether the Government's drive for efficiency savings had a real impact on their ability to perform in Kosovo.
    It is now being said that the armoured corps, when entering Kosovo, found itself in the terrible position of being short of spares for engines, gear boxes, oil and tracks. Its representatives say that that was simply because the equipment was released late and delivered late, with the result that vehicles were damaged. Will the Secretary of State confirm that?
    Mr. Hoon: No, I will not. I remind the hon. Gentleman that British forces went into Kosovo as a peacekeeping operation. Various contingencies were planned for and prepared for, and, had it been necessary to meet armed resistance, British forces would have been equipped for such an eventuality. That, however, was not the case.
    Instead of speculating on what might have been, the hon. Gentleman should bear in mind the words of General Jackson:
    "if the matter had had to have gone to offensive ground operations it would have been a quite different force, very much larger, structured for war fighting not for peace implementation."
    That answers all the hon. Gentleman's observations. He can speculate as much as he likes, but the Kosovo operation was extraordinarily successful, and was carried out with great professionalism by British and international forces.
    Mr. Duncan Smith: Yet again, the Secretary of State avoids the answer. The question is not whether the British forces performed well, or would have been able to perform had they been asked to do something different. I have served, and those who have served know that they will do that anyway. The problem arises when a Government policy makes it more difficult for them to do so.
    Is it not a fact that members of the armoured corps knew very well at the time that the reason they did not receive the correct spares on their way into Kosovo was what they believed to be a Ministry of Defence policy to make the MOD into something like a supermarket, getting equipment to them just in time? Our armed forces are now saying "Not enough, just in time." Is that not the truth?
    Mr. Hoon: It is not the truth. I shall not repeat the various quotations that I have given about the operation in Kosovo, but the reality is that it was a considerable success.

    17
    However hard the hon. Gentleman tries to speculate and to dream up various contingencies, he cannot avoid the fact that the operation was completely successful. Had it been necessary to organise it differently, that would have been done.

    European Strategic Defence Initiative
    Mr. Denis MacShane: What progress he has made on the European strategic defence initiative; and if he will make a statement. [104546]
    The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): We continue to make excellent progress on European defence.
    At December's Helsinki European Council, European Union member states committed themselves to strengthening their military capabilities so that European nations will be better able to assemble, deploy rapidly and sustain effective forces for NATO or EU-led operations. EU member states also agreed to develop the military structures necessary for the EU to decide and, where NATO is not engaged, to act in response to crises. This work will be taken forward under the Portuguese presidency of the EU.
    Mr. MacShane: Can the Secretary of State confirm that the European security and defence identity initiative was launched in Berlin and signed by the right hon. Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Mr. Portillo), a former Conservative Secretary of State for Defence? Is not the extent to which the Conservative party has moved hard to the right demonstrated by the fact that it is opposing an important initiative, which it launched, and which strengthens European and NATO identity and defence capability?
    Will my right hon. Friend confirm that his opposite number, the hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith), travelled to the United States last year to attack Her Majesty's Government's settled policy on the armed forces in front of Congress? Is there another example in recent history of a shadow defence spokesman going to a foreign power to attack the settled defence policy of Her Majesty's Government and armed forces?
    Mr. Hoon: I confirm the factual point about the results of the Berlin summit, where all NATO states signed up to the European security and defence initiative. As for my hon. Friend's further observations, it is a matter of regret that Opposition Front-Bench Members tend to resile from decisions that they previously accepted in government. It may be an indication of their growing anti-Europeanism. Indeed, the hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith) has a knee-jerk response to anything that contains the word "European."
    Mr. Desmond Swayne: Does not the Secretary of State's answer show the divorce between appearance and reality? The reality is that all the
    18
    signatories, including the Government, are cutting defence expenditure, rather than increasing it to meet the grand objectives. Is not the whole scheme more about integration than any military objective?
    Mr. Hoon: As I have said frequently—it is something that the hon. Gentleman needs to concentrate on—the policy is about improving European nations' ability to make an effective contribution to NATO, something to which his predecessors agreed and, indeed, signed up. Making the European contribution to NATO more effective will strengthen the ability not only of European nations but of NATO to conduct defence and security activities, of which he should be in favour.

    Army Exercises
    Dr. Brian Iddon: What percentage of the Army (a) is deployed on, (b) is preparing for and (c) has returned in the last month from exercises away from their home base. [104548]
    The Minister for the Armed Forces (Mr. John Spellar): Approximately 4 per cent. of the trained Army is deployed on major exercises away from the home base, or has returned in the last month. In addition, some 30 per cent. of the trained Army is currently committed to operations. That is down from a peak of 47 per cent. at the height of the Kosovo campaign. Once the agreed force reductions in Bosnia have been implemented in full, that figure should fall to 28 per cent., which would be below that inherited from the previous Administration.
    Dr. Iddon: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer and congratulate him and his Department on the improved recruitment figures. However, the Secretary of State referred earlier to the continuing problem of retention. A £12 million package of allowances and bonuses was announced last year, but does my hon. Friend agree that it is important for the armed forces to develop better family friendly policies, bringing families together whenever possible and increasing leave if possible? May I also make a plea for better counselling services for members of the armed forces who have problems?
    Mr. Spellar: I thank my hon. Friend for that question and for identifying the problems of those who are overstretched by operations. We recognise the pressures that it puts on the individuals involved. That is why, as he has rightly identified, we have increased bonuses and provided 28 days leave at the end of six months deployment. We also recognise the importance of contact between service men and women out in the field and their families back home. That is why we have introduced 20 minutes telephone time to home, a fourfold increase from the previous figure.
    We recognise that, as my hon. Friend rightly identified, service families have additional problems. That is why, through the service families task force, we have worked with other Departments to increase access to NHS

    19
    dentistry, to doctors lists in localities when people move and to schooling. We have representation on local school admission boards. We are also examining the use of the jobseeker's allowance. Those are all real and important developments, which are both very much welcomed in the forces and are contributing to greater harmony.
    Dr. Julian Lewis: Does the Minister have any ideas to place before the House on how it might be possible to ensure that, once actions involving front-line military forces have been completed, those
    20
    front-line forces are not retained on peacekeeping duties in which the United Kingdom's investment in their skills and training is under-utilised?
    Mr. Spellar: We are very sensitive to problems of having to back-fill into various units, which is precisely why we have taken various actions both to increase recruitment and to improve retention, and to maintain the right balance. If the hon. Gentleman has a particular example in mind, I am sure that he could write to me on it. We should then be pleased to examine the matter.

Points of Order
3.31 pm
Mr. Robert Key: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Earlier, I raised the issue of the reduction in orthopaedic waiting lists for service men and women, which affects more than 5,000 members of our forces who are now unavailable for operational use. That is a matter of record, and I regret to say that the Minister's answer provided no satisfaction. The record is—
Madam Speaker: Order. A point of order has to be something for me. It is not to be used as a method whereby an hon. Member tries to correct the record. What is the point of order to me?
Mr. Key: The point of order, Madam Speaker, is that matter of record should be put right by the Minister for the Armed Forces.
Madam Speaker: Order. I can understand the hon. Gentleman's frustration, but it seems that he is seeking to extend the exchange that he had at Question Time. Although there are methods of doing that on the Order Paper, and on other occasions, it cannot be done in a point of order to me now.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order—or, more candidly, on a point of grievance that is definitely for you, Madam Speaker. On Thursday, at 1.40 pm, about half a dozen hon. Members remained standing, attempting to take part in business questions. Business questions is rather a sacred part of the House's agenda, because it is the only occasion during the week when Back Benchers can raise points that are important to them. I make not the slightest complaint that I was down the queue, but it seemed rather hard to cut it short after 40 minutes when there were four hours of gas to come. The Braithwaite report was exempted business. I wondered whether you, Madam Speaker, had anything to say about protecting business questions.
Madam Speaker: I have a great deal to say about that in terms of fact. On Thursday, there was so much business—or whatever the hon. Gentleman wishes to describe it as—that the Seven o'clock rule had to be suspended, and many of us stayed here very much later.
I shall not give the hon. Gentleman the length of time that I intend to run business questions, as that is a matter of the feel of the House. However, on Thursday, for example, questions lasted for 40 minutes, which I happen to think is quite a good amount of time. At the end of that 40 minutes, 14 hon. Members were standing; I always notice how many hon. Members are standing at the end of the time.
Two hon. Members came in after the business statement had started, and one of them was the hon. Gentleman. I always note a time when hon. Members come in late. This morning, I wrote to him about the matter, as I did not wish to mention it on Thursday and embarrass him. I am sorry to have to do so now.
Mr. Dafydd Wigley: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. In view of the controversy that has arisen in Wales this weekend, after the answer given by
22
the Secretary of State for Wales—in Hansard, 20 January 2000, column 589W—stating that not a brass farthing in objective 1 money will be coming to Wales from Brussels, have you had any request to make a statement from the Secretary of State for Wales or from a Treasury Minister on that very controversial matter?
Madam Speaker: I regret to tell the right hon. Gentleman that I cannot assist him today, as I have not been told of such a statement being made in the House.
Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You will notice that some of us become agitated during Question Time when some questions asked by colleagues ramble on and, in my view—after 20 years in this place—destroy Question Time. I believe that Question Time is being ruined by greedy Members. In that light, will you ask your Office to carry out some research into the time that Members now take to ask their questions, compared with years ago when I was younger and when, in my view, questions were much briefer? Questions were far more effective then because Ministers had less time to consider their responses, which were far sharper. It is not altogether fair to criticise Ministers for long answers. If a Minister is asked four questions by one Member, the Minister will reply to all four, so the one follows the other. If we deal with the problem of the questioner, the problem of the answerer will disappear.
Madam Speaker: I am at one with the hon. Gentleman. I am sure that he and many other Members will have seen that I become agitated when questions ramble on. Only last week, I suggested that hon. Members might sit in the Tea Room at lunch time and work out their questions so that they would be more specific and more brisk. I cannot ask my Office to do as the hon. Gentleman suggests. I have a small Office, and that task would take up a great deal of resources. However, we have records of this matter for the past few years when I have been Speaker—and for before that—and there is a deterioration every few months. I have reported those records to the Leader of the House, the Chief Whip and the Opposition Chief Whip in the hope that there might be improvements. I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's point of order today, as it allows me to reiterate my strong thoughts on this matter.
Mr. Douglas Hogg: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. I entirely understand why your Office does not have the time to do the research. However, there was an interesting article on this matter—by, I think, Mr. Parris—in The Times three weeks ago. He had a lot of figures, which may be of interest to your office.
Madam Speaker: I think that Mr. Parris must have got his figures from my Office.
Mr. Hogg: I apologise.
Madam Speaker: Not at all. I have the records.
Mr. Barry Jones: Further to the point of order raised by the right hon. Member for

23
Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley), Madam Speaker, could I persuade you that his point of order was simply parliamentary by-election balderdash?
Madam Speaker: There is no response to that.
Mr. Gerald Howarth: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Having obeyed your strictures and worked out my question in advance—
Madam Speaker: Order. This is not a question—it is a point of order. I do not answer questions.
Mr. Howarth: My point is that I have followed your advice, and I hope, therefore, that you will hear this point of order. As you will appreciate, the only way in which Members of Parliament can find out what is going on and hold Departments to account is not by calling individuals before this House, but by calling Ministers to this House. It appears that there is a discrepancy between the information given by an admiral of the Royal Navy and that given by a Minister of the Crown. If the admiral is not lying, the Minister of the Crown is misleading the House. What are we to do about it?
Madam Speaker: I responded earlier to that point of order. The hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) have been here long enough to know that the Order Paper can be used—I have to spell it out— through parliamentary questions and other means, such as early-day motions, if Members feel that an incorrect answer has been given.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Can I add to my earlier point by recommending a solution to you? It is that when Members ask more than one or two questions, you rise to intervene and make them sit down. If that were to happen repeatedly during one Question Time, I believe that the conduct of Members in this House would change dramatically, and very quickly.
Madam Speaker: I shall respond to that point, although I do not want this debate to go on. It is not just a question of the number of questions that are asked—it is the very long preambles and the points of view that are expressed. That is what takes up the time, not questions. Members always express an opinion before they get to their question. Can we proceed with today's business? From whom have I not heard a point of order?
Mr. Dalyell rose—
Madam Speaker: I am in a good mood today—carry on.
Mr. Dalyell: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Earlier, you said that I was not in the Chamber for last week's business statement. You could be forgiven for saying that, but in fact I was here for the end of the debate
24
on the millennium bug, having wafted up to my normal seat. However, I left when other hon. Members were called before me.
Madam Speaker: I saw the hon. Gentleman come into the Chamber when the Leader of the House was on her feet and two thirds of the way through the business statement.
Mr. William Ross: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Do you agree that questions that are more than about two sentences long give the person responding too much scope? Would not it be better if questions were restricted to a couple of sentences? We would get through business much more quickly.
Madam Speaker: I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. John Bercow: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. The hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) made a sound point, but if it is appropriate for erring Back Benchers to be scolded by you and subject to your strictures, should it not be so for Ministers too? Although Back Benchers can be guilty of indulging in lengthy questions and preambles, Ministers often do not have even the square root of an answer to a Back Bencher's question. However, they succeed in taking two or three minutes to demonstrate that important fact.
Madam Speaker: What Ministers say in response to questions is not a matter for me.
Mr. Ken Maginnis: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Last Wednesday, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland said that he was surprised that I chose
"to say something different in public from what he has said to me in private."—[Official Report, 19 January 2000; Vol. 342, c. 853.]
As I have never discussed the Royal Ulster Constabulary in private with the Secretary of State, am I to assume that his statement could be deemed to be misleading the House? I did meet him in the company of the Prime Minister and the leader of my party, my right hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble). Is that deemed to have been a private meeting? If my approach at that meeting and when I spoke in the House last week remained consistent, is the Secretary of State to be deemed to have misled the House?
Madam Speaker: I cannot determine or interpret what takes place at meetings involving hon. Members and Ministers. I think that the hon. Gentleman has made his point.
Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Our rules may be straightforward, but would you remind the House that Ministers should reply only on those subjects for which they have responsibility, and that, on the whole, hon. Members should not read their speeches?
Madam Speaker: That is a good rule to follow.

Orders of the Day

  Disqualifications Bill
  Order for Second Reading read.
  3.43 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Mike O'Brien): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  This Bill, inter alia, changes the anomaly created by section 36(5) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, which permits a member of the Irish Senate to be a member of the Northern Ireland Assembly, but not of any other United Kingdom legislature. It replaces that provision with measures that will bring about a broader and closer relationship between the United Kingdom as a whole and the Irish Republic, by treating Northern Ireland as any other part of the United Kingdom.
  The Bill ends the prohibition against members of the Irish legislature—that is, of both the Dail and the Senate—being a member of any legislature in the United Kingdom. They will therefore be permitted to be Members of this House, the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly and the Northern Ireland Assembly. The Bill will place the Irish Republic in a position broadly similar to that of Commonwealth countries, whose legislators have been able to join legislatures here. It is a small step towards creating a closer relationship between the United Kingdom as a whole and the Irish Republic.
  Mr. Gerald Howarth: The Minister seeks to draw a parallel between the Republic of Ireland and Commonwealth countries, but Commonwealth countries have Her Majesty the Queen as their head of state.
  Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: No, that is wrong. Two thirds of them do not.
  Mr. Howarth: Most of them do. In any case, an hon. Member in this House is required to take the Oath of Allegiance. The Bill covers people who, being representatives of foreign countries, cannot take the Oath of Allegiance to the Queen. Moreover, the south of Ireland is a republic. Is not the Bill therefore creating a huge anomaly?
  Mr. O'Brien: I will deal shortly with the issue of European and Commonwealth countries, but primarily as this applies to the latter. It is true that some Commonwealth countries are republics.
  Mr. Mackinlay: The majority.
  Mr. John Bercow: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. O'Brien: I will, once more.
  Mr. Bercow: Before the Bill's publication, how many representations in its support did the hon. Gentleman receive, when, and from whom?
  Mr. O'Brien: There have been discussions on this, but we shall be listening closely to what is said in this debate
  26
  and as the Bill proceeds through the House. There have been discussions with various representatives—[HON. MEMBERS: "Who?"]. I refer to the Government, the Irish Government and others. I hope that the Bill will command a great deal of support in the House.
  Mr. Eric Forth: No.
  Mr. O'Brien: I nevertheless hope that we can convince Opposition Members that this is a worthwhile Bill.
  This country has a number of special relationships with other countries—with the United States, for example, on security, with the Commonwealth, of course, with other members of the European Union, and also with the Irish Republic, with which we are working to secure peace in Northern Ireland.
  Our relationships with the Irish Republic are special in geographical terms, given the sheer proximity of the two countries, as islands off the European mainland. We have historic links, for better or worse. Our economic links are strong. We have cultural links—millions of British people were born in the Republic, or their parents were born there, or their ancestry is Irish, whether from the north or south.
  For its own political reasons, the Republic left the Commonwealth. That did not end its special relationship, but it made it more difficult to facilitate the recognition of certain links. If the Republic had not left the Commonwealth, some of the changes in the Bill might not be necessary.
  Mr. Ken Maginnis: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. O'Brien: May I just say before I give way to the hon. Gentleman that this will be the third occasion on which I have done given way? I propose to make some progress after the hon. Gentleman has made his point, because I hope that this will not be too long a debate.
  Mr. Maginnis: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. As he predicates his argument on the relationship between the Irish Government and this Government, I wonder whether he has had any representations from the Fianna Fail party, Fine Gael, the Irish Labour party or the Democratic Left, expressing an ambition to have a dual mandate? Or is this measure purely a concession to be enamelled on the side of the Good Friday agreement and to facilitate only and exclusively Sinn Fein-IRA?
  Mr. O'Brien: I propose to discuss some of these issues as we progress. However, let me make it clear that we have had some discussions with the Irish Government, which I hope reflect some of the views of various parties in the Republic.
  The Bill is not part of the Good Friday agreement. It is not directly linked to it, but is a separate measure. The Bill, recognises, however, that there is a special relationship between the United Kingdom as a whole—

  27
  I emphasise that phrase—and the Republic. It puts members of the Irish legislature in a position similar to those of Commonwealth legislatures.
  Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. O'Brien: This will be the fourth occasion on which I have done so, and it will, I hope, be the last.
  Mrs. Dunwoody: I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. This is quite a sensitive matter, and I want to be clear in my mind. My hon. Friend says that unlike certain other countries, Ireland is not a Commonwealth member and chose not to be a one—it was not driven out. Is he saying that a special category will be created for non-Commonwealth countries enabling them to have dual mandates?
  Mr. O'Brien: I am spelling out for my hon. Friend and for the rest of the House the view that, due to various reasons that I have set out, there is a special relationship not only with the United States, the Commonwealth and other members of the EU, but with the Republic of Ireland. We need not labour that point too much; it is clear that we have geographical, economic, cultural relationships—indeed all sorts of relationship—on which we must ensure that we build. That point is fairly straightforward.
  All the measure does is put members of the Irish legislature in a position similar to that of members of Commonwealth legislatures. There is little real change in principle. Members of legislatures of the Republic of Bangladesh, the Kingdom of Brunei, the Republic of Uganda, Canada, Australia or Tonga can be members of legislatures in this country. However, at present legislators from the Irish Republic are in a different position.
  Members of the Irish Senate can be Members of the Northern Ireland Assembly, but there are restrictions on their membership of other legislatures in the United Kingdom. The Bill would end that anomaly. In future, the same rules as apply to Northern Ireland would apply to all the United Kingdom.
  For many years, Irish citizens have shared with Commonwealth citizens the right to vote in British elections. They have been able both to stand for and to vote in elections to the House of Commons, but there is one significant difference in their treatment. Under current law, members of Commonwealth legislatures—unlike members of foreign legislatures—can become Members of this House, but Members of both Houses of the Irish Parliament cannot, even though all other Irish citizens can do so.
  Section 36(5) of the 1998 Act was the unique exception; that provision can now be repealed by clause 3. The Bill does not single out Northern Ireland for special treatment; Northern Ireland is treated in the same way as the rest of the United Kingdom. As part of the process—
  Mr. Michael Mates: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Douglas Hogg: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. O'Brien: I shall not give way at the moment.
  28
  As part of the process of building on the special relationship, the restrictions on Members of the Dail—the lower Irish House—will be ended. In regularising relationships, it is difficult to argue that the Senate should be treated differently from the Dail. The measure will merely put members of the Irish legislature on the same footing as members of Commonwealth legislatures. It rightly reflects the strength of the relationship between the United Kingdom as a whole and the Irish Republic.
  The importance of keeping electoral law in good order was illustrated in 1982. The hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon), before he was elected to the House, was disqualified from the then Northern Ireland Assembly because he had been appointed to the Irish Senate by the Taoiseach. That outcome was controversial at the time. It would now be out of step with the transformed political landscape in Northern Ireland and with relationships between the two countries.
  Mr. Mates: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. O'Brien: I will give way to the hon. Gentleman towards the end of my speech. I have given way on many occasions and I want to make some progress. I want to make several points.
  Mr. Hogg: Would the hon. Gentleman care to give way?
  Mr. O'Brien: In particular, the establishment of the new institutions provided for in the Good Friday agreement makes the measure timely. The agreement gave a new shape to all these relationships, and created a new architecture of institutional links throughout these islands. Those links respect the position of Northern Ireland in the United Kingdom, but provide a framework for practical co-operation between the United Kingdom, the devolved bodies and Ireland.
  When devolution and the new institutions came into force on 2 December last year, the Irish Government repealed the longstanding territorial claim over Northern Ireland in articles 2 and 3 of the Irish constitution. That makes it clear that a united Ireland can be achieved only with the consent of a majority in Northern Ireland. With the principle of consent at the heart of the new constitutional settlement, there is a solid basis for a closer relationship between our two countries.
  Mr. Hogg: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. O'Brien: The Bill is just one example of that closer relationship. However, it is built on the firm foundation of the principle of consent that is central to the Good Friday agreement, and which was enshrined in law through the Northern Ireland Act 1998 and reinforced by international treaty. It cannot be undermined. There is no question of the Bill being the means to achieving Irish unification by the back door; that is not its objective, nor will it be its consequence.
  The Bill is not part of the Good Friday agreement, but it is consistent with it. Separate development of direct interparliamentary links between the various legislatures was envisaged at the time of the Good Friday agreement.
  As a further positive—if relatively minor—measure which can help to improve relationships between our two countries, I welcome the Bill, and hope that hon. Members will feel that they can do so too.

  29
  I shall now give way to the hon. Member for East Hampshire (Mr. Mates). Then I shall give way to the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg), who has been asking me to give way, and then I shall give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay). Then I shall make progress.
  Mr. Mates: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I have to take him back a bit, because I wanted to question him on a specific point that he made. He said that he was putting the Northern Ireland Assembly on the same basis as all the other institutions of the United Kingdom, but that is fundamentally to miss a point. There are only two sovereign institutions in these islands—the Parliament here and the Parliament in Dublin. The others are subordinate to one of those sovereign Parliaments. By changing that rule, the hon. Gentleman is allowing people to join two different sovereign Parliaments with two different aims in mind, so there is a major conflict of loyalty.
  Mr. O'Brien: One of the issues that I proposed to discuss in due course was the issue of conflict of loyalties, but the hon. Gentleman will be aware that at the moment it is possible for a person who is a member of a legislature in Brunei or Bangladesh to be a member of this legislature, so it is already, in a sense, within our law; but perhaps I may discuss that in due course.
  Mr. Hogg: The hon. Gentleman has given us an account of the precedents and legal background, and the House is grateful for that, but he has not told us the motive behind the Bill. I believe that hon. Members would like to know why we are being asked to address this matter now. Where does the pressure come from? Why are we being asked to do it?
  Mr. O'Brien: With respect to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, I think that I have indicated that we have now, as a result of the changes that have taken place and the relationship that has developed over recent years, been able to put behind us, to some extent, some of the difficulties that had arisen between the Irish Republic and the United Kingdom. It is time to build a sounder basis to our institutional relationships and to provide a basis on which we can proceed, as two islands just off the mainland of Europe, with many common links, historical and otherwise, between the United Kingdom and the Irish Republic—a basis for ensuring that those closer links are given some institutional background. I believe that that explains this fairly modest Bill, and I hope that hon. Members will find it satisfactory.
  Mr. Michael Howard: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. O'Brien: I will not give way to the right hon. and learned Gentleman. I promised to give way next to my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock.
  Mr. Mackinlay: I do not know whether the Minister's notes encompass this point, but is he mindful of the fact that, between the founding of the Irish Free State in 1922 and the passage by the Attlee Government of legislation consequent upon the Costello Government's declaring the
  30
  Irish Republic in the late 1940s, it was wholly possible for people to sit in two legislatures? Indeed, Eamon de Valera was elected to the Northern Irish House of Commons after the establishment of the Irish Free State; that was perfectly acceptable then.
  Surely the Minister should rely on the argument that the 1949 legislation created a new inconsistency, in that it extended and continued the right of Irish Republic citizens to vote in our elections and to stand for election to Westminster, but drew a distinction between Ireland and most citizens of the emerging Commonwealth. Coincidentally, as Ireland left the Commonwealth, India came in as its first republic. We should bear it in mind that the majority of states in the Commonwealth are now republics, so the arguments used by the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) are wholly bogus.
  Mr. O'Brien: Most of my hon. Friend's points are quite right. There are a number of historical reasons why we created what is, in effect, an anomaly. The anomaly is that we have a special and unique institutional arrangement whereby Members of the Irish Senate can become Members of the Northern Ireland Assembly. We are best placed to ensure that we regularise the relationship between the Irish Republic and the United Kingdom by providing that members of the Irish legislature can be members of any legislature in the United Kingdom. That is the view that the Government have taken, but those Members who wish to take a different view can do so.
  Mr. Maginnis rose—
  Mr. Howard rose—
  Mr. O'Brien: I shall give way to the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard).
  Mr. Howard: The Minister told the House that, although the Bill was not part of the Good Friday agreement, it was envisaged at the time of the agreement that it would be introduced. Can he point to any on-the-record statement to support that view? Was anything ever said at the time of the Good Friday agreement to the effect that this measure would be taken?
  Mr. O'Brien: The right hon. and learned Gentleman obviously misheard me. I did not say that the Bill's introduction was envisaged at the time of the Good Friday agreement—I did not say that at all. Let me make it clear that the Bill arose after the Good Friday agreement. It is not directly linked to the agreement except in the sense that, following a number of changes that took place both before and after the agreement, relations between the Irish Republic and the United Kingdom as a whole developed and got stronger, closer and better. We now need to ensure that we deal with anomalies in our legislation. The Bill happens to relate to one of them and we are proceeding to deal with it.
  Mr. Maginnis: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. O'Brien: I have already given way to the hon. Gentleman, so this is the last time I propose to do so.
  Mr. Maginnis: I am grateful to the Minister but—if I dare—may I try to persuade him not to cease to give way? He may learn from those of us who are slightly closer to the coalface than he is.

  31
  Will the Minister clarify one point? He says that he wants to remove anomalies. Will a Member of the Irish Dail be able to be a Member of the two other subordinate Assemblies—those in Scotland and in Wales? That point is not yet clear.
  Mr. O'Brien: The hon. Gentleman will forgive me, but I said at the start of my speech—I have the note in front of me so I can quote it—that the Bill would cover the House, the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly and the Northern Ireland Assembly. I know that the hon. Gentleman has—to use his own phrase—been close to the coalface for a long time and that he has dealt with many difficult issues. I always listen to him with great care, but it is important to create a situation in which, as far as possible, we consider the United Kingdom as a whole— which we are doing—and remove the unique position in respect of the north alone.
  We should also deal with another anomaly whereby the Senate has been treated differently from the Dail. Once we recognise that they are anomalies and deal with them, we will be better placed. Much as I respect the hon. Gentleman's views on many of these issues, I hope that we shall be able to convince him not only that the proposal is the right thing to do, but that this is the right time to do it.
  Some would argue, for example, that the Bill's timing is wrong and that it should perhaps be linked to decommissioning. May I deal with that argument? We are at one on the importance of decommissioning. All parties are now agreed that decommissioning is an essential part of the process, that it should begin as soon as possible and that it is for the de Chastelain commission to deal with precisely how and when. The commission has said that it will issue a report in January. That will be of great importance. The future of the Good Friday agreement is obviously linked to its performance, which includes issues of decommissioning. However, the Bill is not part of the Good Friday agreement and should be seen and treated separately. We agree on the objective of decommissioning, but frankly, I do not think that the Bill provides the means for advancing it.
  I recognise, for example, that Sinn Fein should not benefit politically if the IRA defaults on decommissioning, but the benefit conferred by this Bill falls to all Members of the Dail. As a result of the Bill, any member could also stand for election to this House. There are 130 Members of the Dail, of whom just one is a Sinn Fein TD. We should not assume that Sinn Fein members are the only ones with an interest in pursuing politics both north and south of the border.
  In the past, a number of individuals from the broad nationalist tradition have pursued such an interest. For example, Austin Currie, a founding member of the Social Democratic and Labour party, is now a Fine Gael TD, and John Cushnahan, a former member of the Alliance party of Northern Ireland, is also now a Fine Gael TD. As we know, the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh, before being elected to this House, was a member of the Irish Senate, and Conor Cruise O'Brien, a distinguished former Irish Minister, chose to stand in 1996 in Northern Ireland as a member of the party of the hon. and learned Member for North Down (Mr. McCartney)—the United Kingdom Unionist party.
  32
  I quote those examples to demonstrate that the pool of individuals who might have an interest in benefiting from the Bill goes far wider than Sinn Fein, and we must be clear about that. We must also remember that Sinn Fein is the minority nationalist party in the north and that, in the south, at the last general election, it secured just 1 per cent. of the vote. To suggest, therefore, that the wide pool of potential beneficiaries should be denied the sensible treatment that is already available to members of Commonwealth legislatures, simply because Sinn Fein members would be such beneficiaries, is unfair and out of proportion.
  If the issue is to be linked with something else, the right and better link is with the resolution of the overall constitutional issues between our countries. Until those were resolved, there was always, understandably, a question mark over whether it was truly possible to have the closest of relationships with the Irish Republic, as symbolised by this type of measure.
  That issue has, to some extent, been resolved by the Good Friday agreement—negotiated between all parties and the two Governments—and the referendum that followed, in which the people of the Irish Republic overwhelmingly endorsed changes to the Irish constitution to place consent at the heart of their aspiration for a united Ireland. Most importantly, on 2 December, those constitutional changes, along with corresponding changes in British constitutional law, were brought into effect, in parallel with the devolution of power and the establishment of the Good Friday institutions.
  With the agreement on consent now in force and new articles 2 and 3 of the Irish constitution in effect and capable of being changed again only by another referendum, regardless of developments under the rest of the Good Friday agreement, the Government believe that the way is clear for this Bill. Over many years, we have developed close working relationships with the Irish Government, but with agreement now in force between us on constitutional issues, the way is clear for the formalisation of that relationship. To some extent, the Bill provides some basis for that.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. O'Brien: I shall give way first to the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) and then to my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick).
  Mr. Simon Hughes: The Minister has been full in his explanation, but will he deal with two matters that have not been dealt with? First, is it right to conclude that the Bill has a purely Irish genesis and is not part of any wider review of whether there should be a dual mandate between other legislatures and ours, or of whether one should have to be qualified by residence to stand for a legislature? Secondly, if the Bill does have only an Irish background in recent history, when did the matter first come to Ministers' attention as a proposal for legislative consideration?
  Mr. O'Brien: The relationship between the Irish Republic and the United Kingdom is in many ways special. I think that I have outlined the reasons for that, so I shall not rehearse those points.
  Mr. Maginnis: Go on, give us the reasons again.
  Mr. O'Brien: I thought that I had already described them. If the hon. Gentleman wants me to go through my

  33
  whole speech again, I suppose that, notwithstanding the time and the nature of the debate, I could oblige him—although I do not think it necessary.
  The issue arose after the Good Friday agreement was made, during further discussions between the two Governments. It was one of the issues on which we felt helpful progress could be made. I shall, as agreed, give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North and then deal with the other point raised by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey.
  Mr. David Winnick: Does my hon. Friend accept that one of the most encouraging features of the past 15 years has been the better relationship at ministerial and parliamentary level between Britain and the Republic of Ireland—in spite of the opposition of a few, although not the majority of, Opposition Members? Does not the Bill strengthen that relationship and remove one or two anomalies, and is it not therefore to be warmly welcomed?
  Mr. O'Brien: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's support. I agree that the Bill will remove some of the anomalies and that it is to be welcomed.
  I did not respond to one point raised by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey: whether the Bill is part of a wider process. It is part of the development of a special relationship between the United Kingdom as a whole and the Republic of Ireland. We do not therefore envisage extending its provisions to other countries that are not members of the Commonwealth. The Bill signals a recognition that, on certain issues, we have particular relationships with other countries and international organisations, including the United States, the European Union, the Commonwealth and the Republic of Ireland. It is right that we should ensure that we properly recognise such relationships.
  Dr. Nick Palmer: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. O'Brien: No—I must conclude my speech.
  I recognise that there are concerns about conflicts of interest, but the holding of dual mandates does not, in itself, represent a conflict of interest or make it impossible for such elected representatives to carry out their duties effectively. Several hon. Members here today are also members of devolved legislatures in the United Kingdom.
  The position of Ministers who take Executive decisions differs from that of Back Benchers who participate and press points in two different legislatures. Ministers must be in a position to take into account the best interests of people in the jurisdiction they govern. That might not be possible if a Minister is also a Minister in another sovereign country. Conflicts of interest might arise, or be thought to arise. That is why clause 2 prohibits Ministers of the Irish Government from taking up ministerial positions in the Northern Ireland Assembly. In addition, the clause states that a junior Minister, First Minister or
  34
  Deputy First Minister of the Assembly would have to resign his or her position in the Assembly Executive before becoming a Minister in the Irish Government.
  Mr. William Ross: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. O'Brien: Yes, because the hon. Gentleman has not yet intervened. However, it will be the last time I give way.
  Mr. Ross: The Minister said earlier that Members of Parliament could also be elected to the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly. However, the Bill does not bar them from becoming Ministers in those devolved Administrations. Why not?
  Mr. O'Brien: That is one of the issues that can be discussed in Committee. Following representations of which the hon. Gentleman is, no doubt, aware, it was argued that, because it might give rise to concern in Northern Ireland, that issue should be specifically addressed in legislation. It has been addressed in clause 2. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is satisfied that we are listening to representations from all parties.
  Mr. Peter Viggers: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. O'Brien: The Bill is modest, but worth while. It makes no dramatic changes, but simply extends to the Irish legislature existing provisions that permit members of Commonwealth legislatures to become Members of Parliament. That is in line with a wide range of special provisions in electoral law covering Ireland and Commonwealth countries. The Bill builds on the existing provision allowing Members of the Irish Senate to sit in the Northern Ireland Assembly, and extends it to other UK legislatures and to Members of the Irish Dail.
  The Bill provides a further example of the development of mutually beneficial relationships between our two countries and throughout these islands—relationships that are now based firmly on the principle of consent. I commend it to the House.
  Mr. Viggers: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I apologise for raising the matter in this way, but I think that I am justified in so doing because the Minister failed to give way to me. Have you received any representations from the Government to suggest that they are contemplating a change in the Oath that is taken by hon. Members?
  Madam Speaker: No, I have received no such indication from the Government at any time.
  4.15 pm
  Miss Ann Widdecombe: As we recognise that the aim of the Bill is to build on what has already been achieved in Northern Ireland, we will not oppose its Second Reading. However, there are issues that the Opposition hope the Minister will help to resolve, either today or during succeeding stages of the Bill's consideration. We are in no doubt that the Bill has serious implications. That is why we have tabled an

  35
  amendment for the Committee stage, which my right hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay) will move. We shall also support two amendments in the name of the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble).
  Before turning to our reservations, I want to join the Minister in welcoming the progress that has been made in Northern Ireland over the past few years. It represents a real step forward in its sadly troubled history. After all the horrors of the past 30 years of the troubles, marked as they have been by truly wicked and vile atrocities, we all hope that, at long last, Northern Ireland is looking forward to a new era of peace and stability. It should be one in which political differences are resolved by dialogue rather than by violence, and in which everybody accepts that the future of Northern Ireland must be determined by democracy and consent, not by gun and bomb.
  No one on either side of the House should underestimate the leadership, courage and vision that has been shown by many politicians from Northern Ireland, including the right hon. Member for Upper Bann and the hon. Members for Foyle (Mr. Hume) and for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon), in negotiating the Good Friday agreement and in bringing us to the current position. I pay particular tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) and to Lord Mayhew of Twysden for their contributions.
  As the Minister said, we accept that there is a seeming discrepancy: although both Irish and Commonwealth citizens may vote in United Kingdom elections, provided that they fulfil the relevant residency requirements, members of Commonwealth legislatures may sit in the House but members of the Irish legislature may not. However, we must be careful that in resolving that seeming anomaly we do not create others.
  Although members of Commonwealth legislatures are entitled to sit in the House, there are obvious difficulties for members with an allegiance to one country sitting in a Parliament where they are required to declare an allegiance to another country. Our safeguard is the Oath, which has always applied. Every Member of the House, regardless of origin, must take the Oath. No Member taking the Oath should put the interests of another country first.
  Mr. Hogg: My right hon. Friend is relying on the precedent created in favour of members of Commonwealth legislatures. Does she understand and agree that many of us, if we were considering this matter afresh, would not wish to give those members a right to sit in this place because of the conflict of interest?
  Miss Widdecombe: I recognise that. My right hon. and learned Friend makes an important point. However, we cannot rewrite history; we must start from where we are. I am trying to address the issue in the context of where we are.
  Mr. Mackinlay: I invite the House, including the right hon. Lady, to pause for a moment. I have no difficulty with the Oath, but others clearly do. It appears that we forget that mandates come from the people. I have always thought it odd that we should decide who should be eligible to represent people. Surely it is a fundamental
  36
  point of democracy that people are entitled to choose the good, the bad, the indifferent, the republican or the monarchist—it is a matter for the people. If someone receives a mandate from the electorate, in my view he is entitled to serve in this legislature or any other to which his mandate sends him.
  Miss Widdecombe: I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman. When hon. Members participate in running a country or in scrutinising its running, they must, first and foremost, have allegiance to that country. The Oath has solved the problem of serving two masters and the attendant conflict of interest.
  Mr. Mike O'Brien: The Bill does not affect the Oath and the Government have no plans to change it.
  Miss Widdecombe: I recognise the phrase "have no plans"; I know it of old. I ask the Minister to go a little further. Will he give a cast iron, on-the-record guarantee that the Government will never, under any circumstances, propose or support a move to abandon or amend the Oath of Allegiance to Her Majesty the Queen?
  Mr. O'Brien: The right hon. Lady knows perfectly well that no Parliament can bind another. That is constitutional basics.
  Miss Widdecombe: I shall be happy to accept an assurance that merely binds the current Government.
  Mr. O'Brien: The right hon. Lady will have to accept the assurance that has been given. I have clearly indicated the Government's view. The right hon. Lady may use phrases such as "have no plans" in a disingenuous or misleading way, but the Government do not.
  Miss Widdecombe: The Minister has given a wonderful hostage to fortune, which we have all heard. I take it that he is not prepared to give a cast iron, on-the-record guarantee that the Government will never, under any circumstances, propose or support a move to abandon or amend the Oath of Allegiance to Her Majesty the Queen. Hon. Members should note that carefully in the context of this measure and, perhaps, in others that we may consider.
  Mr. Desmond Swayne: I have noted the Minister's reluctance to give such a guarantee. However, given the stress that my right hon. Friend placed on the importance of the Oath as a guarantee, is she not developing a powerful case for voting against the measure on Second Reading?
  Miss Widdecombe: No. My hon. Friend has been here long enough to know that Second Reading is a means of moving to further, detailed discussions of the Bill, including probing matters further and debating amendments. It would be odd to rule out further stages of the Bill.
  Mr. Simon Hughes rose—
  Mr. Forth rose—
  Miss Widdecombe: I shall give way first to the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) and then to my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth).
  Mr. Hughes: The right hon. Lady's comments imply that the Conservative party believes that the rewording of the Oath should never be considered. A Member of Parliament who is not from Northern Ireland said to me the other day that the current Oath does not accommodate hon. Members who have been properly elected, but have republican views or sympathies. Does the right hon. Lady claim that those who are properly elected should be prevented from taking their places because they did not agree to, or stand on a platform of allegiance to a monarch? Such people respect monarchs, but believe that their allegiance is not to them, but to the people who elected them, and to the Parliament of the country where they were elected.
  Miss Widdecombe: When we talk about "Her Majesty's Government" and "Her Majesty's Opposition", we do not use the terms lightly. They have a clear constitutional implication. I hope that all Opposition Members would oppose any suggestion of watering down the Oath of Allegiance.
  Mr. Forth: Will my right hon. Friend reconsider the extraordinary parliamentary philosophy that she outlined a moment ago? Apparently, we no longer oppose Bills on Second Reading because we want to consider them later in detail. Surely it is possible—and in the case of this measure, proper—to oppose a Bill in principle when it would affect so significantly the relationship between this legislature and others.
  Miss Widdecombe: I was not setting out a general principle that Second Readings should never be opposed. If a principle is overriding, Second Readings will be opposed. I am anxious to build on the developments in Northern Ireland, although not at any price—I shall discuss that in a moment—and therefore we shall not oppose Second Reading. Perhaps I can make progress with the reservations that we have about the Bill.
  The Minister will be aware of the deep unease in Northern Ireland and elsewhere, which Conservative Members share, that despite moves that have been made—not least the early release of more than 300 terrorist prisoners—there has as yet been no decommissioning of illegally held arms and explosives by those paramilitary organisations that signed up to the Good Friday agreement. Our view, therefore, is that the Bill should not take effect unless there has been substantial and verifiable decommissioning. Our amendment—which, if selected, we shall press to a vote in Committee tomorrow—reflects that.
  As part of the Mitchell review, General de Chastelain must report on progress by the end of this month. Of course, we hope and pray that he will be able to report that decommissioning by the paramilitaries has begun, but if not, and if that process is stalled, nobody should be in any doubt as to where the responsibility lies—not with the
  38
  right hon. Member for Upper Bann or other constitutional politicians, who have done everything that has been asked of them, but with the paramilitaries and their political representatives, who have not.
  Without a start to credible decommissioning, the Bill will be seen as yet another example of all take and no give by the paramilitaries. That is why my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition has tabled an amendment that would ensure that the Bill, if enacted, would not come into force until there was substantial progress on decommissioning, verified by the de Chastelain commission.
  Although the Republic of Ireland has not been a member of the Commonwealth since 1949, we accept that that does not detract from the fact that it has a unique historical relationship with the United Kingdom, which has been set out across the years and is explicitly recognised in legislation. Section 2(1) of the Ireland Act 1949, which was passed when the then Irish Free State declared itself a republic outside the Commonwealth, clearly says that
  "notwithstanding that the Republic of Ireland is not part of His Majesty's dominions, the Republic of Ireland is not a foreign country".
  That has been manifested in many different ways over the years, not least the co-operation between the British and Irish Governments on Northern Ireland in recent years.
  Many of the old antagonisms that used to cloud British-Irish relations have given way to a more constructive partnership. A great advantage of the Good Friday agreement is the opportunity it creates to build on that, especially now that the offensive territorial claim over Northern Ireland in the Irish constitution has at long last gone. The British-Irish agreement, which came into force last month, introduced new and closer ties throughout these islands through the British-Irish Council. Like the right hon. Member for Upper Bann, we view it as a significant development that should facilitate closer co-operation on a range of issues, without in any way undermining sovereignty.
  The Northern Ireland Act 1998 enabled Members of the Irish Senate to sit in the Northern Ireland Assembly, as the Minister pointed out. That dealt effectively with the situation that occurred in 1982 when the current Deputy First Minister of Northern Ireland was disqualified from the then Assembly because he was serving in the Senate. That Act did not include Members of the Dail. Clause 2 of the Bill rectifies that and removes the prohibition on sitting in the Assembly that applies to members of one half of the Irish legislature. The Opposition do not oppose that, but we recognise that it is important that there is a prohibition on the appointment of Ministers in the Northern Ireland Executive who are also Ministers in the Government of the Irish Republic, as there clearly could be conflict of interest in the exercise of Executive power. I am grateful that the Government recognise that, too.
  We believe that the Bill should go further, however, and also state that a Member of the Irish Parliament, should he be appointed a Minister, should at that point be disqualified from the Assembly and from Westminster. Therefore, we shall support the amendment to that effect in the name of the right hon. Member for Upper Bann.
  The Opposition are committed to the establishment of a lasting peace in Northern Ireland. The Good Friday agreement and the devolution of power to the

  39
  Northern Ireland Assembly and Executive have provided a real basis for such a lasting peace. Therefore, we shall not divide the House on Second Reading. However, I urge the Minister and his colleagues in the Government to take into account the progress made on decommissioning before bringing the Bill into force, to guarantee the continuation of the Oath in its present form and to accept that Ministers of other Governments should not sit in this House.
  We strongly support the Good Friday agreement, but that agreement must be implemented in full—in all its parts and by everyone. It is our strong view that all parties must fulfil all their obligations. Only when that happens can we really start to believe that the paramilitaries are truly committed to democratic and peaceful means and that a lasting peace can be established.
  We shall therefore give the Bill a fair passage to its next stages, but I hope that, between now and tomorrow, when those stages commence in the House, the Minister will carefully consider what I have asked for and will respond positively.
  4.31 pm
  Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: I am somewhat bemused. I had hoped that, in the discussion of the reasons for Her Majesty's Government proposing what is a constitutional change, there would be a clear explanation of the situation, not only as it exists, but as it will exist after the passing of the law. I regret to say that I am more confused now than I was when I entered the Chamber.
  I do not intend to detain the House for long, but I would say this to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary: constitutional change needs to be carefully thought out, and its implications carefully examined. I understand the desire to normalise relationships with Ireland, particularly in the light of the advances that are being made and the desire to have stability and change in Northern Ireland. However, to deal with one anomaly by creating a dozen others does not seem altogether an admirable solution. I would have been happier had my hon. Friend, whom I know to be not only a sterling member of the Front Bench, but an honest and straightforward one, been able to assure me that various qualifications would have been automatically written in at this point—not later, but at this point.
  Will it be necessary to have the same qualifications of residency? Are the same responsibilities to be put upon the people who are involved and who could benefit from the legislation? Will the constraints that we have in relation to this Chamber be the same after the Bill has been passed?
  Because of the historical accident that Irish citizens can not only vote but take part in local government and in our system of elections, I understand why it is felt that Ireland has a different relationship. But the reality is that it is outwith the Commonwealth; it is not on a par with Commonwealth countries. I must ask my hon. Friend whether this will not be used as a precedent for other non-Commonwealth countries in the future. I could understand if, in seeking to tidy up legislation, one came here and said that it was no longer sensible for other Commonwealth representatives to have the right to sit here, but that does not seem to be the case. What we are
  40
  doing today seems, if well intentioned, ill-researched. It may even be somewhat wider in its context and somewhat more immediate in its results than Her Majesty's Government may have considered.
  These days, I suppose that I could be said to represent the forces of conservatism, although I discover that my position within the Labour party seems to sway from side to side—not because of anything that I do, but because others take a different view of where I stand. However, I am really rather discomfited by the suggestions that have been made today, and even more discomfited by the fact that I see no one on the Government Benches questioning them. We may discuss constitutional change, but I believe that the right to sit in the sovereign Parliament of the United Kingdom is one of the most important rights of a citizen. It carries with it responsibilities and duties. The Oath of Allegiance is not to a particular person: it is to our head of state. We must never lose sight of that fact, whatever people may think about our system.
  I have difficulty with the measure; we have not been given a full explanation of the need for it. Its implications are much more wide ranging than my hon. Friend suggested, and I could not support it in the Lobby.
  4.35 pm
  Mr. Michael Howard: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), especially as, on this occasion, I agree with much of what she said. I seek the indulgence of the House for my absence during the wind-up speeches, depending on when they take place. I have a long-standing speaking engagement in Cambridge this evening, which I am honour bound to keep.
  Mr. Mackinlay: The right hon. and learned Gentleman will be back to vote, I hope.
  Mr. Howard: I hope so, but it depends on when the vote takes place.
  I believe that the Bill is wrong in principle. Underlying the Disqualification Act 1975, which this Bill amends, and all previous disqualification legislation is the principle that an hon. Member should be free from possible conflicts of interest that might distract his behaviour as an independent member of the legislature and his freedom to represent the best interests of his constituents. As the Library note puts it, this House-based objective has been historically the basis of the great majority of disqualifications. It is a principle previously accepted as self-evident.
  Dr. Palmer: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that, in that case, it would be necessary to abolish the right of members of one European Union state to stand for the European Parliament in another, as Lord Steel did a few years ago when he stood in Italy as a candidate for the European Parliament?
  Mr. Howard: It is possible to have more than one view on that, but I do not think that that follows from what I have argued because the European Parliament is not a sovereign Parliament. The essence of my argument has to do with the sovereignty of this Parliament and that of the Republic of Ireland.

  41
  The principle to which I have referred is reinforced by the Oath of Allegiance. I, for one, do not understand how it is possible to be loyal to that Oath and to serve loyally in another sovereign Parliament. No one should expect that to be possible. We are not concerned with a problem of terminological inconvenience. At the very core of the responsibility of a Member of Parliament is his duty to promote the interests of the country of whose Parliament he is a Member. No two countries have interests that are always identical. Whenever those interests diverge, a member of the legislature in both countries is faced with precisely the type of conflict of interest that it is the purpose of the Disqualification Act 1975 to prevent.
  Mr. Hogg: Although, unlike my right hon. and learned Friend, I should like the Oath to be changed, it none the less focuses on the nature of the duty owed. The duty owed by any hon. Member in this House is a duty to the interests of this country.
  Mr. Howard: My right hon. and learned Friend is entirely correct. That is precisely the point.
  The divergence of interests between the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland has been and remains conspicuous. In this country's hour of greatest peril 60 years ago, the Irish state stood apart. To this day, the Republic of Ireland continues to stand apart from the military alliance that has done so much to preserve peace over the past 50 years. It is not a member of NATO; it is neutral.
  The Irish Republic is part of European economic and monetary union. No one can seriously doubt that the interests of a country that is a member of that union and those of a country that is not cannot be identical. To state those differences is merely to set out a series of facts. They are indisputable.
  We have before us legislation that is wrong in principle. Indeed, the error of that principle seems to be recognised in the legislation itself. Clause 2 provides that no one should be a Minister in the Northern Ireland Executive
  "if he is a Minister of the Government of Ireland."
  That can be only because the Government themselves recognise that to hold ministerial office in both Administrations would be to fall foul of the very conflict of interests to which I have referred.
  Ministers nod, but this was the thinnest part of the justification advanced by the Under-Secretary of State. The responsibilities and loyalties of a Minister to the country that he serves are in every material respect identical to those of a member of the legislature. The fact that in one case the responsibility is Executive, while in the other it is legislative, is utterly immaterial in relation to the principle that is involved
  Mr. Hogg: The Oath is precisely the same.
  Mr. Howard: Indeed it is.
  The only argument that has been advanced in support of the Bill, either explicitly or implicitly, is that it would further the peace process; but it has been acknowledged that nothing in the Good Friday agreement requires this step to be taken. Indeed, it has been forcefully argued that pressing on with the measure in the absence of a consensus for it is itself a breach of the Good Friday
  42
  agreement. In any event, it can hardly be argued that those who are most likely to benefit from the legislation—I agree that they are not the only ones—have been so punctilious in their observance of the provisions of the agreement as to justify these further concessions.
  Finally, I want to deal briefly with the claim that all that the legislation achieves is the putting of the Republic of Ireland on the same footing as member states of the Commonwealth. I do not regard that as a convincing argument. It is easy to see why in 1957, just a dozen years after the end of the second world war, special provision was made in the House of Commons Disqualification Act of that year for Commonwealth member states. At that time, there was indeed a greater identity of interest between those countries and the United Kingdom than existed between the United Kingdom and almost every other country, or than exists now between the United Kingdom and other countries of the Commonwealth.
  I personally greatly value our Commonwealth links and want them to be strengthened, but I believe that, for the reasons of principle that I have given, the Commonwealth exemption from the provisions of the 1957 Act can no longer be justified. It is that exemption that is the anomaly. Far from being extended, as the legislation would provide, it should be removed.
  Mr. Mike O'Brien: Let me see if I have understood the right hon. and learned Gentleman's argument. He does not believe that the Commonwealth should have the rights that it had throughout 18 years of Conservative Government, including the period during which he was responsible for these constitutional issues as Home Secretary and did nothing about them. He believes that this is a fundamental matter of principle, but he cannot be bothered to be here this evening to vote against it.
  Mr. Howard: The Minister may yet be disappointed in his expectation—it rather depends when the vote takes place. Perhaps he should not take too much comfort from what I said.
  Rev. Martin Smyth: I appreciate the right hon. and learned Gentleman's argument. I also believe that no one can serve two masters. Is it possible to be elected to this Parliament from any part of the United Kingdom, or from anywhere else, without being on the electoral register within the UK?
  Mr. Howard: That question raises different points and considerations. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I do not follow him down that path.
  If we in the House are careless of principle, we will forfeit our right to the confidence of our constituents. The Bill is wrong in principle, it is not justified by any worthwhile practical consideration and it should be rejected by the House.
  4.45 pm
  Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: Most of us can unite on one thing: it is bewildering that people could even contemplate having two mandates, but there are plenty of precedents for that. I notice that no one has advanced the view that, as a general principle, the right to two mandates should not exist. Indeed, two hon. Members whom I greatly respect—they are almost universally

  43
  respected in the House—the hon. Members for Foyle (Mr. Hume) and for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley), have three mandates each. They are supermen. They have seats in the Northern Ireland Assembly, the House of Commons and the European Parliament.
  Why do I refer to that? It comes back to my intervention. It is for the electorate to decide whether having more than one mandate is appropriate; it is not a matter for us.
  Mr. Hogg rose—
  Mr. Mates rose—
  Mr. Mackinlay: I give way to Grantham and then Hampshire.
  Mr. Hogg: It is Sleaford and North Hykeham, but no matter.
  On disqualification, there are two points. One is time: whether a person has the time to be in two or three places. I agree that that depends on the constituency in question. The other is conflict of interest, which is a matter not for the association or constituency, but for the House.
  Mr. Mackinlay: I promise to come to that point because it is important. I am just into my speech and I do not want to detain the House, but I will come to that.
  Mr. Mates: I defer to the hon. Gentleman when he says that it is all right for a Member to serve in any number of Assemblies so long as it is all right with the constituents, provided that national conflict of interest does not arise. That is the point that the Minister did not deal with. To be a Member of the House of Commons and the Northern Ireland Assembly is fine as it is part of the UK. To be a Member also of the European Parliament is fine, too: that is just a supranational assembly. It is when we come to this sovereign Parliament and the one in Dublin that a conflict arises. That is what the Bill allows for, which is wrong in principle.
  Mr. Mackinlay: It might surprise the two Members who have intervened on me, but I listen to colleagues' speeches. That was precisely the point that was raised by the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard). I intend to come to that, if they could be patient for a moment. I am speaking without notes, which I know many hon. Members do, as I want to develop a certain thought process.
  Having made the point that it is for the people to decide who their Members of Parliament, MEPs, Deputies and Members of the Northern Ireland Assembly should be, I want to move to another point—
  Mr. Forth: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Mackinlay: I will for the last time.
  Mr. Forth: Will the hon. Gentleman cast his mind back to when his Government, his party and, I guess, he himself supported the closed-list approach to the
  44
  European elections? In what sense does he think the electorate had a choice in who represented them in those elections?
  Mr. Mackinlay: I am surprised by the right hon. Gentleman. I should have thought that he would have known that, as a democrat, I very much opposed the closed-list system.
  Mr. Forth: How did the hon. Gentleman vote?
  Mr. Mackinlay: I will have to look it up in Hansard, but, for the record, I think that the system is wrong. It is a big digression from the Bill, but I say unashamedly that the electoral system chosen for the European Parliament was perverse. It was not democratic in the way that I would have liked it to have been when it reached the statute book. I hope that we shall revisit the issue before the next European elections.
  The second point that I want to make has not been touched on yet in the debate, but is an underlying theme. It is time that the Irish Republic came back into the Commonwealth. If one paused to think about it, one would realise that, in 1948–49, one reason why the Costello Government left the Commonwealth was that the Commonwealth had not yet accepted, as a general principle, the idea of accepting republics as members.
  The irony was that, as the Irish Republic formally left the Commonwealth, almost simultaneously, the first departure from the principle that the United Kingdom monarch should automatically be the head of state of a Commonwealth country occurred with the entry of India, as a republic, to the Commonwealth. As I have already said, an overwhelming majority of Commonwealth countries are republics. Had that been the case in the 1940s, I am sure that the Irish Republic would not have left the Commonwealth.
  Legislation in the late 1940s was intended to recognise that there was something very special about Ireland—our close cultural bonds with it, the fact that many citizens of the Irish Republic fought on behalf of the United Kingdom in the second world war and that, in the first world war, many gave gallant service on the western front. In the late 1940s, people were very much alive to those issues, and Parliament's intention was demonstrably to recognise our special historical, cultural and geographical ties with the Republic. Consequently, special provisions were made to give citizens of the Republic voting rights and the right to stand for the United Kingdom Parliament.
  I think and hope that, at some stage, the Republic will think about rejoining the Commonwealth. Although I appreciate that it is probably not best for this place to prompt it, I hope that countries such as South Africa, Canada and New Zealand will take the initiative of inviting the Irish Republic back into the Commonwealth. We should also bear in mind—I hope that our debate might be read elsewhere—that it is no longer the British Commonwealth, but the Commonwealth. It is a mutual and shared organisation.
  The Irish Republic has a very great tradition and proud record of peacekeeping and humanitarian work, and it would be a natural leading member of the Commonwealth. I hope that, in the coming months, the issue of rejoining will be considered by the Dail and the Government of the Irish Republic.

  45
  In earlier interventions, hon. Members raised the issue of members of a legislature who are not loyal to the state in which the legislature of which they are members is located. I ask them to pause and think about the troubled parts of Europe and the representatives of national minorities and communities who are not happy about serving in the geographical jurisdiction of the country in which they are located, but who are none the less prepared to serve in those countries' legislatures. They are not terrorists. Those representatives will also have to accept the terms of their legislatures' oath of office, although it is unlikely that such an oath would be offensive to them.
  Surely all hon. Members would encourage those representatives to serve in those legislatures. It is odd that we do not encourage people to serve in our legislatures, even if those people might find unpalatable the constitutional arrangements in which the legislatures operate. If the arguments propounded by the right hon. and learned Members for Folkestone and Hythe and for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) and by the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) were adopted elsewhere in Europe, it would intensify the unhappy situation in so many European countries.
  Mr. Hogg: I am following the hon. Gentleman's argument, and there is some substance to it. However, does he agree that, in many of the countries of Europe, the difficulty of concentrating on loyalty has been recognised and that, very often, the result is much greater devolution and federal constitutions that are designed to deal with the concept of divided loyalty?
  Mr. Mackinlay: Yes. However, the situation in the United Kingdom is dynamic, and—although the British isles are not a federation—there have been many recent developments. We should not consider the provisions in isolation. We now have, for example, the Council of the Isles.
  In many parts of Europe, there are not adequate federal arrangements. In their speeches, the right hon. and learned Members for Sleaford and North Hykeham and for Folkestone and Hythe and the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst made the point that people might serve in a legislature although all their beliefs run counter to the principle of doing so. I regret that the people who wrote the Minister's brief were not astute on Irish history. Otherwise, Eamon de Valera would have been mentioned, as he was elected to the House of Commons in Northern Ireland after the constitution of the Irish Free State, and was also elected to the Dail. He could have been elected to the British House of Commons until the Costello Government declared the Republic in the late 1940s.
  When the Irish Free State was set up in 1922, the Irish Senate had Members of the British Parliament sitting in it. They were Unionists who did not like the creation of the Irish Free State. Admittedly, they were not elected Members of the House of Commons, but they were Members of the House of Lords. They carried on their mandate to sit in the House of Lords in the British Parliament until they died. The Irish peerage carried on until they expired, so there was a dual mandate in reverse. Those people were there because they had resisted the creation of the Irish Free State and because, quite rightly, it was a way of representing Unionist interests in the 26 counties. They did that very well.
  Rev. Martin Smyth: I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman is refreshing our memory of history, and I
  46
  recognise his point about South Down. However, how long were those people kept in the Irish Senate thereafter? The hon. Gentleman referred to them as dying here. Am I right that the understanding that there would be Unionist representatives in Dail Eireann was not maintained?
  Mr. Mackinlay: In those days, it was possible for a Unionist to get elected to Dail Eireann because there was not separate citizenship. I stress that those concerned did serve in the Senate. I regret the impact of the constitutional amendments in the 1930s, which abolished the Irish Senate as set up under legislation in the 1920s. However, the principle was there.
  I draw the House's attention to that point in response to the right hon. and learned Members for Folkestone and Hythe and for Sleaford and North Hykeham, and the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst. In fairness, they were unaware that this Parliament had provided for that matter in those circumstances.
  A colleague told me not to dwell on the Oath. The Oath does not present difficulties to me personally. However, we should facilitate people in taking their place within a legislature. If they are disbarred solely on a formulation of words that is very important to those who consider the Oath important but not to those who do not, that will contravene the European convention on human rights.
  In looking at the tragedy of Ireland and the missed opportunities, one must look at the Oath, which kept the Republican party out of the Dail for 10 to 12 years after the creation of the Free State. That was a great tragedy. How did they overcome it? Those who value the Oath must think that the formulation whereby the problem was overcome was the worst possible scenario. De Valera led his deputies into Dail Eireann after they had been disbarred having consistently refused to take the Oath. Eventually he said, "This is a formula", and signed the register. That was seen as the way round the problem. I happen to know that some hon. Members here have mentally poached that formula when they have signed after our general elections. Openly, some people elected to the Scottish Parliament used the same formulation.
  That debases the Oath. An oath should be something with which everyone is comfortable. Perhaps we all do not even need to take the same oath—there could be a degree of choice. For the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) to challenge the Minister to say that he will never contemplate a change in the wording of the Oath seems to reinforce some of the great mistakes that were made in the previous century in relation to Ireland. There must be fresh thinking: members of one United Kingdom legislature should not be disbarred from serving because of a formulation of words.
  Only exceptional people will want to take advantage of this Bill when it is enacted. However, its presence on the statute book could benefit the United Kingdom and all its people. After all, Margaret Thatcher, when she was Prime Minister, appointed Dame Lydia Dunn, a member of the Hong Kong legislature, to the House of Lords. That appointment was a recognition of the lady's work, but it was also expeditious for the United Kingdom to send a signal to the people of Hong Kong that they had not been forgotten. The appointment was therefore an important shibboleth and was expedient at the time.
  Mrs. Dunwoody: I have the greatest admiration for my hon. Friend, but does he accept that the Hong Kong

  47
  Executive could not in any way be said to be the sovereign Government of the people of the Republic of China? Although it might have been possible to argue that Hong Kong, as the only democracy in the state of China, could and should have been that sovereign Government, it was not.
  Mr. Mackinlay: No, but my point is that it was expedient for the United Kingdom to have that facility on the statute book.
  Mrs. Dunwoody: That is not comparable with the Bill.
  Mr. Mackinlay: My hon. and very good Friend and I will have to disagree. I believe that the two sets of circumstances are parallel. There are good reasons why the same facility should exist for the electorates of Northern Ireland—to whom the Bill primarily relates—and for those of the rest of the United Kingdom and of the Republic of Ireland.
  5.2 pm
  Mr. Simon Hughes: When I take constituents on tours of the House, I am often asked about the early days of women's suffrage. One of the bits of history that I tell them as a matter of interest is that the first woman to be elected to this Parliament was a Sinn Fein representative from the St. Patrick's area in Dublin. She never took her seat in the United Kingdom Parliament, but the story disabuses people of the conventional, history-book belief that Lady Astor was the first woman to be elected to this place.
  Although this Bill is small in size, it opens a set of big related issues. The Liberal Democrat party is a United Kingdom party, but more in practice a Great Britain party, so it is especially sensitive to the needs of people in Northern Ireland, to whom the Bill has most relevance.
  Mr. Maginnis: No.
  Mr. Hughes: If the hon. Gentleman will bear with me, he may go quite a long way towards agreeing with what I say.
  The Bill is about the rights of the people of Ireland—particularly the rights of a small group of those people—in the United Kingdom and its Parliament. Essentially, it is about the rights of representation, in the United Kingdom Parliament and other UK Assemblies, of representatives elected to the Parliament of Ireland. This is something of a paradox.
  Mr. Swayne: Will the hon. Gentleman give way on that point?
  Mr. Hughes: I shall give way in a moment.
  Mr. Swayne: What the hon. Gentleman says applies the other way around, too.
  Mr. Hughes: I shall come to that in a second.
  48
  The question of reciprocity arises from the basic proposition.
  Mr. Forth: Yes, that is a big issue.
  Mr. Hughes: The Bill rests on two narrow proposals. Liberal Democrat Members support the Bill's Second Reading, as do the Conservatives, but we are worried about how the Government have introduced it to Parliament. The approach adopted by the Government does not seem to be the most appropriate.
  The relationship that the United Kingdom has with Ireland is different from any other that it has. It is not the same as our relationship with Commonwealth countries, any other European Union country or any other country—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but there are far too many sedentary comments in the House this afternoon, and they do not assist the debate.
  Mr. Hughes: It is noteworthy that, in our legislation, Ireland is not categorised as an alien country. That is because of our strong historical connections. As we see whenever we are in Central Lobby, Ireland is one country within the United Kingdom until the independence of Ireland; it then became a Republic after the war, at the end of the 1940s. The relationship between the United Kingdom and Ireland is unique, and legislation that affects it will, and should, be considered separately from legislation in relation to every other country.
  Sir Patrick Cormack: The hon. Gentleman said that Ireland's position is to do with our long historic relationship. In a sense, that is right, but it is also a result of Acts of this Parliament. That is the point.
  Mr. Hughes: The hon. Gentleman is right: the historical relationship has resulted in particular Acts of Parliament that have governed our relationship.
  The Government have chosen—that is why I asked the Minister the question—to come to the House with a proposal that is specific to the United Kingdom-Irish relationship. I want to make a few comments on that, although I shall shortly be discussing the fact that we have missed an opportunity. There is a wider set of issues to do not just with disqualification from being elected to Parliament, but with the links between Members of Parliament and other Assemblies—the hon. Member for East Hampshire (Mr. Mates) rightly called them subordinate Assemblies—including the European Parliament, which is not a full sovereign Parliament in that sense of the word. In addition, dual mandates and conflicts of interest have not been addressed. It is also a pity to have this debate before having the even wider debate, which is particularly topical given last week's report by the Wakeham commission on the House of Lords, and the opportunities that that presents.
  Let me deal first with the Bill and the two narrow points that it contains. Let me say to the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe), who is no longer in her place, that if we accept that the Bill presents to our Parliament an issue on the rights of the Irish people and people elected to the Irish Parliament—the Senate and

  49
  the Dail—it is wrong to tie the Bill to issues of decommissioning, however much we share the view expressed most frequently by Members on the Ulster Unionist and the other Northern Ireland Benches that we desperately want decommissioning to take place and to be seen to be taking place. I advanced that case in a question to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland only last week. The rights of citizens should not depend on other processes that will be arbitrated on by an independent body. It muddies the water to link those issues.
  Although the Minister did not say it directly, the obvious conclusion is that the Bill arises from discussions after the Good Friday agreement. The point must have been raised—perhaps someone in the Government said it to someone in the Irish Government, or vice versa, or perhaps it came from the Northern Ireland Office—about correcting this one constitutional anomaly, and the Government must have decided to legislate.
  It would have taken some of the heat out of the issue if the Bill had awaited the conclusion of the commission in Ireland, which is inquiring into the composition of the Irish Parliament. I gather, from prior knowledge and from the Library's briefing note, that it is due to report early this year.
  It would have been logical, and would have been good as cement for relations in the UK-Irish axis, for there to have been simultaneous consideration—as simultaneous as it can ever be—in this Parliament and the Irish Parliament of proposals that might have ensured that there were no anomalies. We should have preferred that and we regret that it has not happened.
  Mr. Bercow: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Hughes: I will on this occasion, but I do not want to do so too often. I have not forgotten my promise to give way to the hon. Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne).
  Mr. Bercow: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way; he made a highly pertinent point. Does he agree that, despite the Government's disavowal of a linkage between the Bill and the process of decommissioning, it is not outwith the bounds of possibility that they are fervently hoping that the passage of the Bill—to which some Members object—will itself facilitate the decommissioning for which we all hope?
  Mr. Hughes: I am sure that there is a hope that the Bill will act as a bit of an encouragement to—let us be direct—Sinn Fein to be more co-operative. That is a perfectly reasonable interpretation. However, we should not legislate to change constitutional arrangements by considering only the foreground, without thinking about the hinterland. The Bill has a hinterland—of Irish and United Kingdom constitutional change and of UK constitutional reform—and our criticism is that both should have been considered before we reached this stage.
  I have no inside information, but I take it as read that the Bill would not have been presented, had the Irish Parliament not changed the Irish constitution to remove Ireland's claim to the six counties.
  Mr. Mackinlay: That was in the 1948 legislation.
  Mr. Hughes: Indeed. The legislation dated from the 1940s. The Government would not have been able to
  50
  sustain the proposition in the measure if the right remained for people in the Irish Senate and the Dail to make a claim for the six counties. I assume that that change was a precondition. The matter shows the link between the constitutional settlements in each country, which is why we think that the wider issues should have been considered.
  I have some further constitutional points to make. The first is that the measure raises an issue that is relevant to all constitutional debate, and was referred to by the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard). Whatever we think about the dual mandate—a live issue on which we should hold a debate, because although electors can choose, we may want to reconsider the matter in the light of the number of opportunities that there are to do so—the Bill raises a separate issue, which has rightly been described as the conflict of interests.
  For example, if a citizen of Ireland represents Northern Ireland in the Northern Ireland Assembly or, more important, in the UK Parliament, but also represents in the Irish Parliament another place in Ireland from which he or she comes, there may be times when there is a conflict of interest. The two parties, the groupings or the two legislatures to which that person would belong would be institutions of different sovereign countries and they could take different positions. That cannot be avoided. To say that there will not be a conflict of interests seems to be a naive denial of reality. Of course, people would have views on which they stood for election and would take those views into each Parliament, but there is bound to be—between each forum—some conflict of interest.
  In the light of that point, it is right that the Bill includes a provision that one cannot serve as a Minister in both Irish and Northern Ireland Governments—that goes at least half way. The logic is that people would probably realise that they also should not serve as any sort of Minister in either country's national Government—in any of its Assemblies or Parliaments—but that point should also be provided for in the measure.
  The second issue is whether—
  Mr. William Ross: The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point, which has not escaped the notice of Ulster Unionist Members. During the Falklands war, there were very different opinions in the House and the Dail. What would happen to a Member who was sitting in both places in such circumstances?
  Mr. Hughes: The hon. Gentleman is right to raise the question. Logically, the same person would express the same view in both places—
  Mr. Bercow: Not if he is a Liberal.
  Mr. Hughes: The hon. Gentleman is sometimes astute, but that remark is neither astute nor helpful in a debate such as this. I am always willing to defend the Liberal Democrats, but this is a debate about serious matters, and party political sniping is not appropriate.

  51
  Logically, the same person would adopt the same position in both legislatures, but it is true that a person cannot possibly serve in two Administrations with differing views where, by definition, that person will be one among many.
  Mr. Mates: The logic of that is that the Bill should be amended now, so that, if one takes office in either sovereign Parliament, one is disqualified even from membership of the other one.
  Mr. Hughes: I would go along with the hon. Gentleman that far: we should have been given a proposition that holding office in government, in either Ireland or the United Kingdom, disqualifies a person from holding office in the other Government at the same time. We could debate whether it is proper to be in both legislatures and a member of the Administration in one. I believe that it could be justified, because the conflict of interests is less. I have just flagged that up. I have gone a long way with the hon. Gentleman. By definition, different interests are served by the Parliament of Ireland and the Parliament of the United Kingdom. Let us not be dishonest when we legislate in this way.
  That leads me to my last constitutional points. It would have been better if we had approached the issue by considering whether, in 1999, when the Bill was introduced, or 2000, when it is being debated by Parliament, it is still sensible to argue that someone who is a member of one sovereign country's legislature should be allowed to be a member of another sovereign country's legislature. I am the most ardent fan of the Commonwealth, but it seems to me that it is perfectly proper for Commonwealth heads of government to hold a debate at their conference on whether it is reasonable for people to be entitled to be in two legislatures at once. I do not believe that it is. It is no longer logical, even if it was; I know that it dates back several decades.
  Another question that cries out for ministerial consideration—which is why I raised the question with the Minister—is whether it is logical for there to be no residence requirements to stand for election to a legislature, even though there are such requirements to vote. Under the Bill, as under existing law, a Commonwealth legislative member and a Member of the Senate of Ireland can stand for election, in the first case to the United Kingdom Parliament and in the second case to the Northern Ireland Assembly, without having a residential qualification in the United Kingdom. We should address that question. I believe that most of us, and most of the electorate, would say that, whatever one's citizenship and nationality, residency should be a precondition for standing for the Parliament of a sovereign country.
  Mr. Mike O'Brien: When we consider the issue of people representing electorates in different sovereign countries, presumably the key question is, would there be a conflict of loyalty between supporting the rights of one set of electors and supporting those of another set of electors? To take an example, although not on all fours with this, a former right hon. Member of the House, Sir David Steel, sought to represent a French constituency—[Interruption.]—an Italian constituency, in
  52
  a different sovereign country, representing electors in that country, yet also sought to represent persons in Scotland. How does the hon. Gentleman resolve that issue?
  Mr. Hughes: I shall give the Minister the answer, but it raises another constitutional question. Elections to the European Parliament are fought by parties that operate across the European Union. I remember the debates, and Lord Steel wanted to show that he was standing not for an Italian party, but for a European-wide party that represented the Liberal view across Europe. The Minister may or may not agree with the decision, but that was the reason. The question of whether and in what circumstances citizens of one country should be able to stand for the sovereign legislature of another should be considered. I exempt the European Parliament from that consideration, because it is not a sovereign legislature in the same sense as the Dail or the United Kingdom Parliament.
  Mr. Bercow: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Hughes: No, because the hon. Gentleman has been rude. Therefore, he does not deserve an intervention.
  It is right for the Bill to correct the anomaly of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, which gave Members of the Irish Senate, but not Members of the Dail, the right to sit in the Northern Ireland Assembly. Although I know that each group is elected differently and has a different role and composition, it is proper for the Bill to remove that anomaly.
  Whatever the merit of its two individual proposals, the Bill is sadly the latest example of the Government not thinking constitutional reform through wholesale, but coming at it piecemeal. They legislated for a Scottish Parliament and we welcomed that. However, that was done separately from the Welsh Assembly and the Northern Ireland Assembly. The Government then legislated for London government, and they may or may not legislate for regional government in England. They think about electoral reform for the House of Commons, but they do not think at the same time about what they will do for the Lords, and when they think about what to do with the Lords, they do not consider how it relates to the House of Commons. The whole thing is a muddle. Although people sometimes criticise Liberal Democrats for having an over-excessive interest in constitutional reform, we can never be criticised for not having at least thought through a coherent package.
  Sir Patrick Cormack: They are generally wrong.
  Mr. Hughes: Whatever colleagues think about our conclusions, we at least have a coherent view of the whole. For example, we have long argued that the existence of a Scottish Parliament means that there should be fewer Members from Scotland in the House. That view is taken by my Scottish colleagues, as well as by the others. However, the Government have not thought things through and that is why they are in difficulty today.
  The Oath was mentioned. Although this Bill is not about the Oath, it is wrong to think that an oath issue does not exist. However, the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald should recognise that some Members of the House, who are not from Northern Ireland, take the

  53
  view—it is not a party view—that reform of the constitution should involve a reconsideration of the Oath. For example, we might change the Oath so that it is one of allegiance to the country, the constitution and the rights of our citizens and not to the person of the monarch, however much we respect her or her successors.
  Mr. Mackinlay: The Bradlaugh point.
  Mr. Hughes: This is, indeed, the Bradlaugh point. No matter what part of the United Kingdom they come from, republicans may stand for and be elected to Parliament. If the electors want them here, they should be able to attend and should not be precluded from taking their places because they cannot take an oath.
  We shall vote for the Bill's Second Reading because it is clearly right to correct the anomalies on two narrow points. We must resolve the discrepancy between Members of the Senate and the Dail and properly consider the issue of the United Kingdom's special relationship with Ireland. We have reciprocal voting rights and, by tradition, Members from Ireland and the Commonwealth have had certain rights in some of our legislatures. This correction must be taken forward. However, we regret that the Bill was not introduced more in parallel with the proposals of the Government of Ireland and with greater constitutional thought about disqualification, the arrangements for the United Kingdom Parliament and its subsidiary Parliaments and Assemblies and the better governance of all the Parliaments in the United Kingdom and in Ireland.
  5.25 pm
  Mr. William Ross: I listened carefully to the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), for he made a very interesting speech. Indeed, he made a number of interesting points last week on the Representation of the People Bill. However, if he gets round to writing anything into the Oath about the constitution, he will find that not only Irish nationalists but Scottish and Welsh nationalists will not sign up to it. He better get that through his head before he goes down that dangerous road.
  The Minister was asked to whom the Government talked, but we did not get many sensible words out of him or any hard information in reply. He cannot rely on the matter being forgotten on Report. Given what has been said so far on both sides of the House, it is foolish and quite wrong to go ahead with the Bill's remaining stages tomorrow. Comments have already shown how much is hidden in this tiny Bill. People need more time to consider it, what has been said and what amendments should be tabled. The more that folk in this House look at the Bill, the more questions will be actively raised in their heads.
  The Minister said that, as a result of the Bill, persons could be elected to the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly. Be that as it may, there is nothing, so far as I can see—he was not able to answer the point when I put it to him—that will bar persons from the Irish Republic who are elected to the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly from assuming ministerial posts in such bodies. I do not think that the Scots and the Welsh would be very happy about that. Perhaps he has made a mistake and it is not possible for such people to stand for those institutions. I have no doubt that that issue will be explored tomorrow.
  54
  It has become perfectly clear to me as the debate has developed that the Bill is not the product of long and careful thought. It is nothing more than a hasty cobbling together—a product more or less out of the blue. We are therefore entitled to ask serious questions about why it has been introduced at this stage and in such a form. Its implications have not been thought through.
  The hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) made an excellent speech, raising the sort of questions that the late Enoch Powell used to raise. We shall hear much more of that because such questions underlie an awful lot of what this nation is and how we perceive ourselves and our place in the world.
  The hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay), who has left the Chamber, talked about the interim arrangements that were made for Unionist representation in the Dail Eireann. He did not seem to be aware that it was possible at that time for a Unionist to get elected in a number of areas in the border counties, and even in Dublin—not under the Unionist name, although everybody in the Irish Republic knew who such candidates were. Through border changes and the redrawing of boundaries, Unionists or anyone of that political complexion were very soon prevented from being elected. I think that the last place to fall was Donegal. In fact, the last Protestant councillor in Donegal had his electorate cut in half by the last boundary change. So, if the hon. Gentleman expects good will just because of pious hopes expressed in this House, he had better think again.
  The hon. Gentleman also drew attention to the fact that people could be elected to the Dail, yet that is plainly an empty symbol. There are enough people of nationalist Irish descent, or who were born in the Irish Republic but live on this side of the Irish sea, to elect a member of Dail Eireann to this House, the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly or the Northern Ireland Assembly. However, there is not a snowball's chance of any Member of Parliament, other than a well-known Irish nationalist or Irish republican, ever being elected to the Dail.
  Mr. Hogg: Is there not a legal impediment as well? My understanding is that it is a condition of being elected to the Dail that the person in question is an Irish citizen.
  Mr. Ross: There is that legal impediment, but one need only look at its football team to see how widely the definition of a citizen of the Republic of Ireland can be spread.
  Mr. Hogg: Does that not include me?
  Mr. Ross: No, it would not include the right hon. and learned Gentleman. He is a generation—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) must not make his arguments from a sedentary position.
  Mr. Ross: I repent in sackcloth and ashes, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for having been carried away by an interesting side issue.
  In many ways, this House of representatives of the people of the United Kingdom is the very heart and soul of the nation. As such, its duty is to preserve the national interest and to provide for the welfare of all its citizens.

  55
  That welfare is not merely economic; it extends both to the freedoms that all want to enjoy and to the responsibilities that many do not want to acknowledge but that we as citizens accept and enjoy. All nations have a unique perception of themselves and of the values that are commonly accepted by the citizens of the state as underpinning our entire attitude to life.
  Although we can understand the desires and hopes of the people of other nations, we in this House are in no way bound to accept or promote their vision of the world, especially when it impinges on our economic and constitutional interests. In other words, our objective must be to ensure that the Queen's writ runs, that the Queen's law is observed and that the Queen's peace is kept throughout the United Kingdom. That is a large part of what it means to be a citizen of the United Kingdom.
  That means that, at the end of the day, Members of Parliament have to decide whether they serve the people and interests of the United Kingdom or whether they have another vision that serves the people and interests of another state. Attempting to serve both will result in the exclusion of at least some constituents, not in all being served comprehensively and wholeheartedly.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: In the spirit of inquiry, may I ask whether I am right in assuming that one who enters the Dail has to take an oath—that there is some declaration or requirement that means that election in Ireland carries certain obligations, just as the Oath taken by representatives in this country entails some obligation?
  Mr. Ross: I shall address that point later in another context. However, I can tell the hon. Gentleman that any Minister in the Dail and the President of the Republic of Ireland must take an oath to uphold the constitution of that state. That is their first duty. If a person who had taken that oath were to be asked to serve in another legislature, there would be an immediate and deep conflict of interest. As my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) said, it is not possible for a man to serve two masters, for, as the good book puts it, either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will cleave to the one and despise the other. That was true 2000 years ago, when the words were first uttered, and it is true today in terms of national loyalties.
  We have recognised that some nations and their nationals have, as it were, a family relationship with us in a shared history and a shared view of some or all of our constitutional standards and of our legal framework, which we gave to countries that were outwith the old British or Anglo-European context. That relationship still subsists via the Commonwealth, so Commonwealth citizens can be elected to this place. That privilege has been extended to citizens of the Irish Republic despite the fact that it decided of its own volition to part from this nation and follow another course.
  It is clear beyond any doubt that when committed Irish nationalists decided to take their place in a United Kingdom legislature, they did not do so on the same basis as I did. One of them, whose name has already been mentioned, has reached a position of some prominence in the Irish Republic. When asked about taking the Oath when he was a member of the Stormont Parliament, he
  56
  replied that he had taken the Oath with a mental reservation. That reservation was not spelled out but his response could mean only that he had uttered the words of the Oath without the slightest intention of abiding by their plain meaning. He was prepared to work to a different agenda from that implied by the commitment that the Oath contained.
  Hitherto, the Sinn Fein-IRA organisation has flatly refused even to follow that course of action in regard to United Kingdom institutions, with the exception of the Northern Ireland Assembly. Its members will not take the Oath or make the affirmation in this place. They stand outside but still claim, perhaps for financial reasons or to rub the House's nose in it, the benefits that flow from being elected here, without accepting any of the responsibilities that attach to the position that they occupy.
  These people have entered the Northern Ireland Assembly. They have said that they can abide by the wording of that Oath and that they can justify their position. I believe that they do that as a means to an end. Hence their insistence that the Belfast agreement is not the final settlement but only a means to their final objective. I assume that they are even more comfortable with the undertaking that is required in the Dail, given that they now sit in that legislature as well.
  It is against that background that the Bill must be viewed. In it, we are opening the way to those who sit in the governing legislature of an avowedly foreign and different state also to sit in our legislature and to legislate for the people of the United Kingdom. The Minister's position is very different. However, what applies to the Minister applies to the newest Back-Bench Member as well. Back Benchers also legislate by their support for or opposition to a legislature. Therefore, the conflict of interest, which is real and deep, remains. It cannot be avoided.
  Until recently, the Irish Republic claimed the territory of Northern Ireland, a part of this kingdom. Its High Court said that that objective was a constitutional imperative. I am referring to the outcome of the McGimpsey case. I cannot say what the recent changes have done to that court's ruling in that instance. However, it is plain to me that the territorial claim has been superseded by a claim to rule over people.
  As I have already said, in addition the Bill will allow Members of the Dail, if elected, to rule over the citizens of Northern Ireland. Does anyone think that in such circumstances they will do anything other than pursue their objective of a united Ireland? One of the parties whose members will be able to take advantage of a dual mandate will be Sinn Fein-IRA. It is plain that these people have not the slightest intention of becoming a normal political party. They cling to their weapons and to their military wing like a clam to a rock. There is no display of good faith. The Government are introducing the Bill because they see it as another inducement to the IRA to become democrats and abandon violence. That is the real reason for it. Anything else that has been said amounts to a thin smokescreen.
  The idea of changing the rules relating to the facilities of the House for the two Sinn Fein persons elected falls into the same category. The change in regard to the Irish Senate and Members of it was made purely and simply for the benefit of the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon).

  57
  I am not clear about whether a candidate for the House of Commons has to be on the electoral register here. We are told that one can sit in the legislature of Australia, New Zealand, Canada and heaven knows where and be a Member of Parliament here. However, when we find how far a legislator from one of those countries would have to travel home for the weekend, the physical obstacles render it impossible.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. George Howarth): The hon. Gentleman expressed anxiety in both an intervention and his speech about a residential qualification for standing for the House. There is no residential qualification, but hon. Members must be United Kingdom, Commonwealth or Irish citizens, or have been born here.
  Mr. Ross: Members do not even have to be electors here. That point was made earlier. I am not sure whether their sponsors have to be electors—
  Mr. Howarth indicated assent.
  Mr. Ross: The Minister indicates that the sponsors have to be electors, but not the candidates, who can come from anywhere. That is somewhat daft.
  A litany of similar great and small concessions have been made to the IRA in recent weeks, to try to persuade it to divest itself of its weaponry and become a normal political party. Such actions are to no avail, because the IRA's overriding imperative is to dismember the United Kingdom.
  Mr. Maginnis: The Government provide a disincentive.
  Mr. Ross: My hon. Friend is right. The Government's actions convince us that no matter what the IRA says or does, its demands will be met and it will have to pay nothing in return.
  The Belfast agreement was supposed to bury old arguments about the constitutional position of Northern Ireland. I never believed that that would happen. However, those who believed that will find that the Bill will reignite the flames. No Government have been behind in their willingness to listen to and act upon the opinions of the IRA and its fellow travellers, but the current Government, more than most, have been willing to listen to those whose views are congenial to them. I have been a Member of Parliament since February 1974, and have witnessed a consistent refusal to listen to voices that proclaim a different message. Given that the consequences have so often proved those voices correct, why do the Government refuse to learn?
  When hard questions were asked last week—including one by the hon. and learned Member for North Down (Mr. McCartney), who is not a member of my party—they were not answered. Instead of a reasoned reply, he received an attempt at abuse. That is not good enough. What will happen when the current raft of concessions to Sinn Fein-IRA have been pocketed? What will be the next step? It will not be giving up weapons or acceptance of United Kingdom institutions, but further demands, which will be backed by the unspoken threat of violence. Having paid danegeld for so many years, and having strengthened the IRA's power and influence by their previous actions,
  58
  the Government are perceived as the softest of soft touches. One cannot get rid of violence by encouraging it. It is time that not only the Government but all parties in the House learned that.
  The Bill is a foolish little measure, from which evil consequences will flow. It should be rejected, and I shall vote against it this evening.
  5.44 pm
  Mr. Michael Mates: My remarks will be much shorter than intended because, in a thoughtful contribution, the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), made many of the points that I wanted to make, as did my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard). I shall not repeat them, or dance any longer on the head of the constitutional pin around which we have been revolving. However, when I intervened in the Minister's speech, he did not answer my question about acknowledging the difference between a sovereign and a subordinate Parliament.
  I have no difficulty with the concept that one can sit in the Irish Senate and the Northern Ireland Assembly. If one can do that, one should also be allowed to sit in the Dail and the Northern Ireland Assembly. The inability to do so is an obvious anomaly, which should be put right. That is a different proposition from having a seat in a sovereign Parliament with one set of allegiances, one set of priorities and one constitution and having a seat in another that has demonstrably different ones. That is the point.
  The Minister said that all the United Kingdom Parliaments and Assemblies were to be treated the same. With respect, they are not the same. There is one sovereign Parliament in the United Kingdom, and it is not in Edinburgh, Cardiff or Belfast—it is here. That is a fundamental difference and a fundamental change that the Government are seeking to make in the Bill. In a Second Reading debate one has to ask oneself, "Why this Bill now?" Have there been demands for it from the House? None that I have heard. Have there been demands from Dublin? Not that I have heard. Have there been demands from our Unionist friends? Not that we have heard. The demands have come from one source, and one source only: Sinn Fein. It has asked that that change be made and been granted the concession. It was not in the Good Friday agreement and not offered, but asked for.
  Why has Sinn Fein done this? It has had all the concessions that were in the Good Friday agreement. We have already acted not only to the letter of that agreement, but in the spirit of it. We have given way again and again and again, but still Sinn Fein asks for more because it has a card that it steadfastly refuses to play—the decommissioning card. I would not want the Bill to be linked to decommissioning because that would not make any sense. It is either right or not right to make the change. My view is that it is not right and that it should not be a condition, but that is another matter and no doubt I shall find myself in a minority. The concession should not have been offered until Sinn Fein had shown itself ready to sit in either Parliament, never mind both. That is what has gone wrong.
  I acknowledge that current Home Office and Northern Ireland Office Ministers were not in their jobs when the process started; they leapt on to a moving train. Two years

  59
  ago the view was, "Let's get on with it. Let's give them everything they want so that if it goes wrong we cannot be held to blame." I can understand that, although I do not agree with it, but there should have come a time at which someone said, "Hang on. We have taken part in what they call demilitarisation and we call reduction, taken three battalions of troops out of the place and cut patrolling by two thirds, all within the letter and the spirit of the Good Friday agreement. We have done more. We have closed down Castlereagh and demolished the security institutions, but not one response has come from them—just more demands." Surely we in the House, above all places, have learned that meeting demands from such people simply feeds their desire to increase those demands.
  Mr. Mike O'Brien: The hon. Gentleman's argument is based on the premise that those who will benefit from the change are exclusively members of Sinn Fein. I made it clear in my opening speech that others—perhaps some in the nationalist community and others, and I identified some—who are not members of Sinn Fein have already said that they might want to have a standing in the Irish Republic and perhaps also in Northern Ireland. He has not dealt with that point.
  Mr. Mates: I thought that I had dealt with that at the beginning of my speech by saying that I have no objection whatever to any interrelationship between the Northern Ireland Assembly and any part of the Irish Government—be it the Oireachtas, local government or anything else—but I have a principled objection to a person sitting in two sovereign Parliaments.
  Mr. William Thompson: If the hon. Gentleman is prepared to allow people from the Irish Republic to sit in the Northern Ireland Assembly, is he equally prepared to allow them to sit in the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly?
  Mr. Mates: That is an interesting point, which involves the lesson about legislating in haste. I imagine that the Home Office is beavering away hard to try to put that right before tomorrow, when the Bill is in Committee. It appears that that is not allowed. If so, that goes against what the Under-Secretary says. However, I do not want to follow that point.
  The point that I want to make, which is why it is offensive for the Government to have brought forward the Bill at this time, regardless of its principles, is that it is there at the demand of two individuals who have been elected to the House—the hon. Members for Mid-Ulster (Mr. McGuinness) and for Belfast, West (Mr. Adams)—but who clearly have no allegiance to this place or its institutions, the sovereign Parliament of the United Kingdom, or Her Majesty the Queen to whom they refuse to swear an Oath. They have said all along, so I am not libelling them by saying this, that they wanted this part of the United Kingdom destroyed; they wanted themselves taken out of it—aspirations, yes, but aspirations backed by force, no. They are the people who still decline to remove the one obstacle to a proper democratic process—the decommissioning of arms. They are now trying to wash their hands of it. They say that they do not belong
  60
  to the IRA. What I want to know is when they left. They never told us that. I have tried to persuade journalists to ask them the question, but they seem reluctant to do so because they want to obtain more interviews.
  We are talking about two leaders of a political party in Northern Ireland who have been elected to the House who owe loyalty to neither the House nor the country, and who now want to retain their membership of the House and to have membership of another sovereign Parliament to which they would owe some form of allegiance, although I imagine that the Irish Government are not entirely happy about having Sinn Fein infiltration from wherever it comes. The Government are doing this, and this is the perverse part, not because a majority of the people in Northern Ireland want this to happen, not even because the minority want it to happen—Sinn Fein represents a minority of the minority community, 15 per cent., yet all their demands are being met—so that the killing stops.
  When the Minister replies will he say why—I ask with tongue slightly in cheek—he has not put 1p on income tax and devoted that to education? That is what a minority of 15 per cent. in Britain voted for at the last election. The Liberal Democrat's policy was to put 1p on tax for education. Have the Government done that? Of course not. A minority asked for it and that is not the way in which one governs in a democracy. But everything that this minority has asked for has been given to it on the basis that perhaps it will stop the killing, and it has it in its power to do so. I would only say, as I have said to the Government before, that the more they appease these people the greater will be their demands. At some stage the Government will have to stop the appeasement.
  5.53 pm
  Mr. Douglas Hogg: If the House be divided, I shall vote against the Bill because it is wrong in principle. The hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) and others have identified the inevitability of there being a conflict of interest. The Bill entrenches that dilemma in legislation and is flawed on that basis alone.
  When hon. Members come to this House they take an Oath. I, unlike my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe), would be willing to see the Oath changed because it does not accurately express our duties. The duties of a Member of Parliament include a duty to one's conscience, to God if one be Christian, and to one's country. It may be that to focus on the person of the monarch is a way of expressing that to some hon. Members, and I am content with that. But I recognise that for many hon. Members the Oath does not accurately reflect their sense of obligation, and that strains the language. If one has an Oath which inevitably strains the language, one tends to deprive it of its meaning. I should therefore like to see the Oath changed.
  Whatever the form of the Oath, the substance is the same—namely, that our obligation is to our country, our conscience, God and our constituents. The plain fact is that if one represents a constituency in another country as well as a constituency in this country, one has a divided loyalty and cannot properly fulfil one's obligations to both. That is a conclusive argument.

  61
  I am well aware—the Minister made the point fairly—that there is a precedent: the legislatures of the Commonwealth. I suspect that the reasons for that exemption are entirely historical. Were we to start again, we would not give such an exemption. In truth, those countries frequently have interests which are diverse from our own. One merely has to think of the agriculture of Australia and New Zealand to see that, or their differing defence concepts, or, in the case of the Caribbean countries, trade, debt and aid. If one wants to be more precise, one thinks in terms of the Indian subcontinent and Kashmir, where there is a clear difference between, for example, the attitudes of the peoples of India and our own. So it is difficult, even within the Commonwealth, for people to serve two masters if they are members of a legislature.
  That can be tested in another way. What if we were to propose that members of the EU legislatures were to be Members of the House. I would not be described as a Europhobe, but it would be bizarre if a member of the French, German or Spanish Parliaments was also a member of this Parliament. In the case of Spain, there is the disagreement over Gibraltar. In the case of Germany and France there are serious differences of opinion on agriculture, enlargement, monetary union and the concept of the EU. In the case of Italy, there is the difference of opinion on structural funds. It would be impossible for a member of one of those Parliaments faithfully and properly to discharge his or her obligations to the domestic legislature and to this one.
  Mr. Mackinlay: I have listened carefully to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, but the difference between members of EU parliamentary legislatures being elected to this House and members of Dail Eireann also being Members of the House if Commons is that the first scenario just will not happen because it is inconceivable that anyone could be so elected, while the second is highly probable. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has been very fair and he has said some sensible things about the Oath, but if constituents desire to sit in both places, which the right hon. and learned Gentleman might consider perverse, that is nevertheless their desire, and that should be paramount.
  Mr. Hogg: I agree in part with the hon. Gentleman, but not entirely. A number of objections can be raised in the context of a conflict of interest, which are properly left to the constituency or to the association—for example, whether an individual Member of Parliament will have sufficient time fully to perform the functions of a Member in this House and somewhere else as well. But a different point arises when one comes to matters of principle, because that is something on which this House should decide.
  The hon. Gentleman made the perfectly fair point that, while it may be likely that persons from Ireland would wish to be Members of this House, it is unlikely that people from countries far away would wish to be so, for practical reasons—
  Mr. Mackinlay: Or to be elected.
  Mr. Hogg: Or to be elected. But we run the risk of creating a precedent. In the course of this debate we have referred to precedent. The Minister will forgive me,
  62
  but the only argument that he has really advanced is one of precedent—the Commonwealth countries. But if we pass the Bill, we shall create a new precedent, and it is one that EU countries will be able to assert against us. If we say of Irish citizens that they are entitled to be a Member of both Houses, how can we in conscience deny that to members of the French Parliament, or wherever? There is no distinction of principle. We are creating a precedent that is capable of further extension.
  Mr. Bercow: Does my right hon. and learned Friend think that there is any difference in principle between representing two constituencies in different Parliaments and representing two constituencies in the same Parliament?
  Mr. Hogg: That thought had not occurred to me: my hon. Friend is ingenious. It is difficult to draw a distinction, but I should like to reflect on the point further before being asked to give a conclusive view.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: The right hon. and learned Gentleman was asked by his hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) about someone representing two constituencies. The practical and most immediate issue is someone standing in the same place for the legislatures of two countries, so as to represent a part of Northern Ireland in this Parliament and in the Irish Parliament. Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give his views on that, because it is the central issue addressed by the Bill?
  Mr. Hogg: I shall decline that invitation, but I will go back to my hon. Friend's question. There is a difference between the scenarios that he outlined. It would be offensive for a Member of Parliament to represent two constituencies in one country.
  Sir Patrick Cormack: That is not allowed.
  Mr. Hogg: I know that it is not allowed, but it would be offensive. We are talking about principle, not law. It would be difficult to do, but I wonder how offensive it would be, because there would not be a conflict of loyalty to the state. There would be a conflict of loyalty as between constituents, but the obligation to the state would be the same. If that MP represented two constituencies in different countries, he would have a conflict of loyalty as between the states.
  With Ireland—as with every other country, whether in the Commonwealth, the European Union or elsewhere—we have major differences of policy objective. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe reminded us, serious constitutional and defence issues have separated us and Ireland in the past. Let us hope that they do not occur again in the future, but we cannot exclude that possibility. However, there are still differences: Ireland has special interests on agriculture and fishery policy, and it is committed to the single currency.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. The right hon. and learned Gentleman should not turn away from the Chair.
  Mr. Hogg: I am sorry, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

  63
  All those differences of interest are on matters of some importance. There is a difference of attitude between the Government, the Parliament and the people of Ireland and ourselves, and we should keep that in mind.
  I listened carefully to the Minister's speech. I asked myself—and, indeed, him—what the motive behind the Bill was, and I could not identify it. I am sure that it has to do with the wishes of Sinn Fein. I suspect that it has to do with the wishes of Sinn Fein to build up a representation both in the Dail and in Westminster.
  Like my hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Mr. Mates), I do not think the time is right—it may never be right—for us to accommodate the wishes of Sinn Fein. If it were fully involved in decommissioning, and if we could be certain of a settled peace in Northern Ireland, one might be willing to consider the matter further, but now is not the time. I have heard no arguments from the Minister as to why we should consider this matter today and urgently again tomorrow.
  In the end, we are dealing with a matter of principle, and I think the principle is conclusive. I hope that the House will divide on this matter, and I shall vote against the Bill.
  6.4 pm
  Mr. Eric Forth: I am more than usually pleased to follow my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) because, as in so many areas, I agree with him completely. I shall join him in the Lobby if I have the opportunity to vote against the Bill.
  The Bill has already been described as offensive and dangerous. I agree with both descriptions. I want to follow the argument of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), but in a slightly different way, and expand it.
  To my mind, the Bill is, as much as anything, about the concept of nationhood, which many people feel is old-fashioned and even redundant, and to which the Government pay increasingly scant regard. However, the Bill, small and limited in scope though it may be, makes an important statement about nationhood and its irrelevance, and we would be irresponsible to ignore that.
  In a democratic political system, surely the legislature, the process of election to that legislature and the people who have the honour to serve in it are as much a statement of nationhood, national identity and loyalty as anything else. Hon. Members need not believe me about that: they merely have to ask the Irish. The Irish have the good sense to have written into their law the requirement that to be a Member of their legislature one has to be an Irish citizen. That strikes me as admirable, sensible, correct and reasonable.
  We are saying—it has been said many times in the debate and is partly a result of history—that membership of this national legislature should be open to different people, many of whom have no loyalty to or identity with this country of ours. That is a serious decision for us to make, and it is one of the decisions that we are being asked to make in the Bill. That is why I oppose it.
  I agree with the Irish. They are right and entitled to say that, as a matter of national identity, only their citizens should serve in their legislature. I believe that the same
  64
  should apply to our legislature, because I value our national identity and nationhood and believe that it is of great importance. We are talking here about no less than an absolute principle.
  Then we have the matter of the conflict of loyalty. Many right hon. and hon. Members have raised the issue of whether it is likely or possible that someone could serve at one and the same time in the legislatures of two separate sovereign nations, such as the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland. That is a matter of belief, experience and observation. I want to say a few words about my own observations.
  I am in the slightly unusual position of having had the honour to serve in the European Parliament, when I had the opportunity to work alongside Irish MEPs. I was also for many years a member of the Council of Ministers of the European Union, when I was able to observe members of the Irish Government and their attitude to matters European and to the United Kingdom. I was also able to observe at fairly close quarters—closer than I would have liked—Irish Commissioners discharging their duties in the European Union, particularly with regard to the United Kingdom. I rarely saw much identity of interest or loyalty on the part of Irish citizens—be they MEPs, members of the Council of Ministers, or Irish Commissioners—with regard to the United Kingdom. I venture to say that I consistently saw the opposite.
  I have no complaint about that. Irish politicians, be they elected to the European Parliament, Ministers in the Council of Ministers or Commissioners for the time being, have the right to represent the loyalties that are important to them.
  Mr. Hogg: And the duty.
  Mr. Forth: And the duty, as my right hon. and learned Friend says. I admire and respect that, but let no one tell me that there would not be serious conflicts of loyalty and interest were those Irish politicians ever to be allowed to come to this legislature. It is in the nature of things that different countries and nations have, from time to time, different interests that give rise to conflicting loyalties. That is the way the world has developed.
  Mrs. Dunwoody: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will be careful when drawing distinctions such as this. I had an honoured father-in-law who served in the British Army in the first world war, who was trained by British citizens as a doctor, and who lived in London throughout his career as an Irish citizen. There was no doubt about his loyalty to the people whom he served, or about the idea that he would give up any understanding of his Irish status. There is a strong distinction to be drawn; however, it should be drawn not between Irish citizenship and the commitment of Irish citizens to the places where they live and work, but between Irish citizenship and being elected to this place.
  Mr. Forth: The hon. Lady is of course right.
  I speak as I find, and I deliberately said at the outset that these were the results of my own experience, over the past 20 years or so, of working in close proximity with Irish politicians in very different political contexts. My experience leads me to conclude that it is extremely unlikely that such people would find it difficult to

  65
  reconcile their natural and, in many ways, admirable loyalty to their Irish connections with any connections that they might have in the United Kingdom, were the Bill—wrongly, in my view—to be become law.
  Let me add in passing that the same might well be said to apply to many, if not most, Commonwealth countries. When I had the honour to visit Australia recently, I was able to hear some of its debate about the possibility of a republic there. It is obvious, and very natural, that Commonwealth countries, in their maturity, see the world in a very different way from how they might have seen it when the Commonwealth was at its strongest, 50 or more years ago.
  The other matter that has been mentioned—although not as often as might have been expected in a debate such as this—is reciprocity. As I have said, I oppose the Bill in principle, but it could just possibly be argued that the case might be advanced if various nations—sovereign states—agreed that there should be a reciprocal arrangement whereby people elected to one Parliament could simultaneously be elected to another. Some people might well accept that, although I would not. Yet again, however—as has emerged during the debate—our Irish friends have had the good sense not to offer reciprocity.
  This is a one-way process. What we are expected to do—expected by the Government to do—is agree to make an enormous concession, in allowing the possibility that people from another country, with very different interests, will be able to serve in our legislature, while no reciprocal arrangement exists for us to serve in the Irish legislature. I think that on this occasion the Irish have got it right, and the Government have got it completely wrong. We find ourselves in a bizarre position: it appears that another Government—the Government of another country—see this legislature much more clearly than do our own Government. I consider that unacceptable.
  Mr. Bercow: Would it not have been considerate and, arguably, helpful to our deliberations if the Government had given some indication this afternoon that they had vigorously and consistently, over a period, pressed the Irish Government to offer reciprocity? Should we not take it that, as the Government have given no such indication, there has been no such pressure?
  Mr. Forth: I think that the murkiest aspect of today's debate has been the Government's motivation. Time and again, Members have pressed Ministers on why they have presented the Bill to us now; but, having sat through the entire debate, I have heard no satisfactory answer. It is most peculiar that a Government should present such a controversial measure—a measure that will alter our constitutional arrangements—and fail to offer not just a convincing argument, but any argument at all.
  Mr. Hogg: My right hon. Friend's argument is reinforced by the fact that we are debating Second Reading today and will complete the Committee stage tomorrow. The Government are trekking through the Bill with remarkable speed.
  Mr. Forth: I deprecate that, and I think that it leads us to feel yet more suspicion about what on earth is going on. I suspect, sadly, that this is part of the recent
  66
  development in which we as a nation, and the Government, are being taken for a ride and being made to look like mugs.
  Mr. Christopher Gill: I apologise for arriving late.
  Given the history of the Irish question, is it not perverse that Parliament should now be invited to enable politicians from the Irish Republic to regain the opportunity to take seats here? Irish republicans fought hard to break away from Great Britain, thus severing their relationship with it in this context, and depriving themselves of that opportunity and that right. It could be said, of course, that at that time many parliamentarians were quite pleased that Irish representation had ended.
  Mr. Forth: It has been pointed out today that it was the Irish who opted no longer to be members of the Commonwealth. It could be said that, if the Irish decided to reapply for membership of the Commonwealth, they would automatically be given this privilege as long as we continued to extend it to Commonwealth members. I have my doubts about that, but at the very least, such a gesture on the part of the Irish would be important. I suspect, however, that it will not be forthcoming.
  Rev. Martin Smyth: I proposed a return to the United Kingdom in Dublin in the early 1970s, because I believed that there was a federation and a relationship. The right hon. Gentleman, however, may be unfair to Ministers in saying that they have not said what lies behind the Bill. Last week, there was an exchange between Lord Mayhew and Lord Molyneaux in the other place. We talk of mountain climbers; it seems that some folk have been negotiating behind the Government's back.
  Mr. Forth: That is always a distinct possibility. In normal circumstances, we are told about transparency, accountability and open government, but it appears that the opposite phenomenon is operating in this case. We are being told nothing of what is going on, which, regrettably, means that we shall become even more suspicious about the motivation.
  As has been said, so far we have seen the release of a large number of extraordinarily unpleasant and violent prisoners into the community, all in the name of the peace process. We have seen supporters of terrorism being invited into our institutions of government in part of the United Kingdom. We have seen no moves whatever towards decommissioning. It would appear that now, as part of the further process, we are being asked to see a subversion of our legislature. I wonder where this process will end.
  Mr. Andrew Hunter: Is not the Bill just the latest obscene landmark in a process that ostensibly began as a peace process, but long ago became, in reality, a sordid, shabby process of appeasement that should therefore be rejected?
  Mr. Forth: My hon. Friend gives his own powerful description of the process. I am saying that, to date, it appears that all the concessions have been made on one side. As far as I am aware, the terrorists and their friends have done nothing to reciprocate.

  67
  This is another example of something that is not being held back—something that could not be used as a bargaining counter, if that is the nature of the process—but is being given freely, unless we are told otherwise by the Government. Perhaps the Minister will put our minds at rest. Perhaps, in the interests of open government, he will be able to reassure us that none of this is the case. However, I can only speak as I have been able to find so far.
  Having sat through the debate and listened carefully to every word, I have not yet heard why the Government are trying to push through a controversial Bill with such indecent haste—trying to push it through the House of Commons in two days—despite the many flaws that have been identified today. Most Members would normally consider that unacceptable, but on this occasion it seems to be happening with very little protest.
  At every level, therefore, the Bill is unacceptable. It is unacceptable in principle. Its provisions are unacceptable and the way it is being pushed through the House of Commons is unacceptable. I hope that, when we come to the end of the debate, we will have a chance to vote on it because I am keen to be able to express my vote in the Lobby.
  6.20 pm
  Mr. Ken Maginnis: I hope that the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) will not think me patronising if I say that her contribution should be read by every Member before deciding how to vote on Second Reading and throughout the Bill's passage through the House. Having heard the sound argument that has been advanced again and again against the Bill, with all its flaws, I cannot for the life of me understand why everyone who feels like that is not prepared to vote on Second Reading to halt what is an obscenity. It has been helpful that hon. Members have spoken out, because, when I share their views, it will not be seen as xenophobia on the part of Ulster Unionists.
  I have spent my political life seeking reconciliation and accommodation between the major traditions in Northern Ireland and hoping against hope that we could have the sort of respect between the two political entities on the island of Ireland—Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic—that would allow us to co-operate at every level: social, economic and political. However, it is utter and complete nonsense to create difficulty and conflict by expecting people to have primary loyalty to two separate sovereign Parliaments
  Even after listening to the Minister, we do not know what the Bill is about. Everything that he has stated has been in generic terms. We have been told nothing specific that will help us to decide what the Government are getting at. Therefore, it is right that we should put our own interpretation on the Bill. We had no answers from the Minister; I certainly had no answer when I asked him about the discussions that he mentioned, when they took place, and who they involved. One might have thought that as the Bill deals with the relationship between the devolved Parliament in Stormont and the sovereign Parliament in Dublin my party would have been consulted and alerted to the Government's thinking, yet no mention was made of it until the decision was complete, the water was over the dam and the Bill was ready for debate.
  68
  In fact, it is worse than that. For years, there has been a feeling that the major parties in Great Britain—the Labour party, for example—should consider organising and fighting elections in Northern Ireland. The opportunity has been there all that time, but what has the Labour party done? It has eschewed the concept of being a party of the United Kingdom, putting responsibility—directly, in Northern Ireland's case—into the hands of a republican party, the Social Democratic and Labour party. Having eschewed the right to stand in Northern Ireland, where is the logic in the Labour party seeking, through its huge majority in this place, to impose a situation in which republican parties can sit in our devolved Assembly at Stormont?
  Of course, we have to ask—again, without much hope of a response—whether there has been any indication that Fianna Fail, the largest party in the republic, Fine Gael, the Democratic Left or the Irish Labour party want to field candidates in Northern Ireland or here? I have no doubt about the matter. On Thursday and Friday last week, I was in Dublin and I discussed the Bill with journalists, with business and professional people of considerable repute, with senior Back-Bench politicians—including those who have the task of looking at constitutional issues—and with the most senior members of political parties there. Not one of them was familiar with the implications of what is being visited on us today. There was surprise.
  I put my case to those people. Right hon. and hon. Members know that I am not a Member of the Northern Ireland Assembly, but I said to those people, "If I were a Member of the Northern Ireland Assembly and the Minister for Economic Development, but also the Teachda Dala for, say, County Meath and sat in the Dail, and an overseas company was coming to Ireland with 500 high-tech jobs, as Minister I would obviously have a responsibility to seek to site that development in a Northern Ireland constituency—but as TD for County Meath, would I not have a responsibility to ensure that the development was sited in that constituency, if that was the alternative site looked at by the investors?"
  Each and every one of the people to whom I put that scenario agreed that it was nonsense and that there was a huge conflict of interest that should be considered not only in constitutional terms —constitutional issues are important—but in practical terms. They agreed that there were issues that could not be reconciled within the Bill.
  It appears that the vast majority of hon. Members have no stomach for the Bill. It also appears from my 48 hours in Dublin last week that people there have neither interest in nor stomach for it—so why are the Government introducing it? That has been defined clearly tonight—it is being done, and in haste, because the Government do not properly recognise the view of those who came to an agreement more than a year ago and who had that agreement endorsed north and south, or the attitude of those who voted for our view.
  Two people in particular—members of a minority party, Messrs Adams and McGuinness—are holding the Government and the Northern Ireland Office to ransom. The task that is being undertaken in this place is to find a way to placate them within a time scale that will not allow anyone to say, "The poor Secretary of State for Northern Ireland is responsible for the fact that guns and bombs have not been decommissioned." That is the terror that is being visited upon the Secretary of State. Am I

  69
  right to fear that the Prime Minister has not only created this Bill, but visited on us other aberrations that have no basis in common sense or national interest?
  Mr. Forth: Does my colleague the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) believe that if this dreadful Bill were passed—which, with the Government's majority, it may well be—there would be any stomach in Ireland for offering a reciprocal arrangement so that hon. Members could offer themselves for election to its legislature?
  Mr. Maginnis: The right hon. Gentleman knows that—although it is not, and will not be my choice—as a British citizen living in Northern Ireland I am eligible to sit in the Dail.
  Mr. Forth: I am not.
  Mr. Maginnis: Certainly, the right hon. Gentleman is not so entitled. Also, there certainly would be no stomach for permitting him to sit in the Dail. He misses my point if he does not recognise that, even if the opportunity to stand for election to the Irish legislature were available, there would be no possibility of him or me being elected to it. The Irish know one thing—and I admire them for it—and that is national interest.
  The House of Commons is considering the Terrorism Bill in Committee. I shall not digress and deal with that Bill, except to say that it is a hotch-potch. The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) knows all about that Bill. It has been designed not in the national interest, but to serve as a catch-all. It does not define "terrorist" in terms of our constitution and government, as it should do. That Bill is all over the place, which is exactly what is happening in the Disqualifications Bill. Someone has examined the situation in Northern Ireland and noticed that Sinn Fein is still dissatisfied with and reluctant to accept the accommodation and opportunity that many hon. Members—who are subject to great criticism from some their supporters—have provided for its members, which would allow them to move from violence to a democratic mode. Dublin knows very little or nothing about the Disqualifications Bill. It is surprised by it. As I said, Ministers cannot tell me whom they consulted on the Bill.
  I am pleased that some hon. Members, other than Ulster Unionists, are alert to the problem that may arise with the Oath. They are wise to be alert to the issue—not that the Oath seems to matter a great deal. The Oath, which is supposed to be taken by every elected Member, was not taken by two Members who represent Sinn Fein. What did the Government decide to do about that? They decided to turn tradition on its head. Rather than saying, "If you take the Oath and become Members of Parliament, you will be entitled to the privileges of the House", Ministers accepted the Sinn Fein argument that one has a mandate if one is elected to the House.
  On being elected to the House, most hon. Members do not say that they have a mandate. After our election to this place, we say that we have not a mandate, but a massive responsibility, which we meet from the moment we enter the House by taking the Oath or affirming. Thereafter, the privileges of this place are accorded to us. It was quite scandalous that the Government considered usurping the traditional right of Madam Speaker to protect the interests
  70
  of all hon. Members, and using their 170 majority to do so. I am only pleased that the weight of private opinion reverberating through this place caused the Government to delay a decision on whether to table such a motion.
  Today, the House again has the opportunity to make the Government realise that the interests of those whom we represent must dominate—not the interests of those who have no time for, loyalty to, or sense of responsibility towards whatever part of the United Kingdom they represent.
  6.37 pm
  Sir Patrick Cormack: We have had a very interesting, serious and thoughtful debate. I hope that the Minister will have taken very firmly on board the remarks of the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) on the Oath and the granting of facilities to those who have not taken the Oath. I make it absolutely plain, beyond any equivocation or doubt, that the Opposition could not support such a move unless and until the peace process had been totally honoured—and I mean that totally honoured—by those who are rather holding us to ransom.
  I tell the Under-Secretary of State—who, like me, has heard every speech in the debate—that it is a pity—and this is meant in no critical sense of the two Ministers—that today's debate on the Disqualifications Bill was not introduced by the Home Secretary and defended in reply by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. The Bill proposes taking extremely serious action. Although, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) made clear, our intention is not to vote against the Government in the Lobby today, it is certainly our intention to seek to have the Bill suitably amended before it is enacted.
  I also hope that the Minister—who has heard not a single enthusiastic speech in favour of the Bill from either side of the House—
  Mr. Mike O'Brien: What about the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay)?
  Sir Patrick Cormack: That speech was tempered by the statement of the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) that he thought that Ireland should again become a member of the Commonwealth. His speech was not an unthinking endorsement of the Government's Bill; indeed, there has been no such speech by any hon. Member on either side of the House.
  Even at this late stage, I hope that the Minister will think carefully about coming back to the House tomorrow with this Bill. It would be better if we had a little longer to reflect, to table amendments and to deal with the remaining stages a few days later than tomorrow. The Minister may say that agreements have been entered into, but the debate has been listened to by Opposition Members who have made extremely thoughtful and serious speeches.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: I want to endorse the hon. Gentleman's view. Others, as well as his colleagues, have made representations that, given the controversial nature of the Bill, it would be quite wrong to have its Second Reading on one day, followed by the remaining stages the next day. We associate ourselves strongly with that view.
  Sir Patrick Cormack: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who made a thoughtful and constructive

  71
  speech. What has come out of the debate, from all speakers, is that this is not the easy issue that the Minister claimed it to be when he opened the debate.
  We accept that there are anomalies within any constitution. We accept, for instance, that in the British Nationality Act 1981 we specifically reiterated the right of members of Commonwealth legislatures to sit here as well. All of my hon. Friends who have spoken and were in the House at the time will have done as I am certain I did, and voted in support of that Act. Today's debate has shown the deep unease—voiced briefly, but most eloquently, by the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody)—about conflicting loyalties and how one can be a member of two Assemblies.
  The other message that has come across clearly and forcefully has been that if we are to move as proposed, reciprocity ought to be a requirement. If we have a little longer before the remaining stages, amendments could be tabled to underline that point, so that our friends in the Republic of Ireland—and they are our friends—would understand that that is the feeling of the House. The hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) said that constitutional amendments might be needed, and perhaps that should be seriously contemplated.
  The other point that has come out of almost every speech is why now? The Bill is premature. Although the Minister will doubtless repudiate what I am about to say, many Opposition Members feel that there is a great deal in what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Mr. Mates) and the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone. They said that it would appear that this place is acting at the behest of two people who have been elected to it, but have never been prepared to act responsibly as Members of Parliament. They have never been prepared to take the Oath or to affirm. They have never urged their friends, allies and colleagues in the IRA to begin the decommissioning process.
  It perturbs many Opposition Members to see people being released from jail who are guilty of the most heinous crimes. It made me feel a little uneasy—to put it extremely mildly—to see Mr. Adams delivering the eulogy and carrying the coffin at an IRA funeral this weekend. All of those things are very much taken to heart by Opposition Members—and, I am sure, by the Minister and many Labour Members.
  We are not happy that to move the Bill quickly towards the statute book before decommissioning has begun and before we have had the first report from General de Chastelain to tell us that it is properly under way. However, the Opposition are so committed to the peace process and to the work done by the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble), by my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major), by my noble Friend Lord Mayhew and by the Prime Minister and other Labour Ministers, that we will not oppose Second Reading.
  It would be in the interests of everyone who truly wants a peaceful Northern Ireland and proper constitutional arrangements to be developed between the Republic of Ireland and this country if the Bill were to be put on the back burner for a little while. There is no reason why that
  72
  should not happen. There is no reason why we should not have more time to table amendments. There is no reason why there should not be some detailed consultation.
  I was somewhat concerned to learn from the speeches of Ulster Unionist Members that there had not been a great deal of consultation with them before the Bill was introduced. There should have been. There has not been the cross-party accord that should lie behind the Bill if it is to have the cross-party support that the Government, understandably, want it to have and which we really want to give it because of our commitment to a peace process that has been developed on an all-party basis.
  I know that the Under-Secretary is anxious to answer all the questions raised in the debate. I promised to cut short my remarks so that he would have longer to reply. I hope that he will deal with every question and that he will face them all fairly and squarely. Above all, I hope that he will give two undertakings to this House. The first was given equivocally by the Minister—that is, that we believe in the paramount importance of the Oath and we are not prepared to connive at any arrangement that would circumvent it. The other is that Ministers will go away, talk to the Government's business managers and consider putting off the remaining stages beyond tomorrow.
  6.46 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. George Howarth): This has been a good debate, in which strongly held views have been put strongly and any doubts that people may have have been covered.
  The hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack) should not labour under the delusion that the Bill is the product of some arrangement between Ministers and Sinn Fein. Representations were made by the Irish Government—whether they communicated with the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) is another matter. [Interruption.] I can assure the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone that I will refer to him later. Certainly there were discussions between this Government and the Irish Government.
  Another point is that there was consultation about the Bill. I do not know how far down the chain of command of the Ulster Unionist party that consultation went, but it is precisely as a result of that consultation that clause 2 is now in the Bill. Clause 2 would not have figured in the Bill as originally envisaged.
  Rev. Martin Smyth: I appreciate the point that the Minister has just made, and I understand that there might have been consultations a fortnight ago. However, a fortnight ago in this place, I asked why we were rushing the Committee the day after the Second Reading of this important Bill. I regret that minority rights have not always been defended, even in this House.
  Mr. Howarth: It was precisely because there was consultation that we felt it not unreasonable to have a tight timetable. Although individual members of different parties have expressed strong reservations, there has been an agreement that Second Reading would be uncontested by the Opposition. Normally, that gives reason to believe that it is reasonable to have a fairly short time scale.

  73
  On the question of whether the Bill is being hurried, it was published before Christmas. Anyone with concerns or reservations has had plenty of time to consider the Bill in detail and table appropriate amendments.
  I shall cover first the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody). One reason for that is that, as many hon. Members noted, she set the tone of the debate. However, a second reason is that I hold my hon. Friend in very high regard indeed, for reasons that are known only to her and to me. Had it not been for her, I should not have become a Member of the House.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich asked a prescient question when she asked why the Bill was being introduced. As she rightly noted, the circumstances are not precisely the same as those involving the Commonwealth. However, a variety of arrangements exist between the Republic of Ireland, the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland as a result of the Good Friday agreement. Those arrangements include the implementation bodies covering issues such as inland waterways, food safety, trade and business developments, special European Union programmes, the Irish language and Ulster Scots, and aquaculture.
  Mr. Maginnis: The Under-Secretary of State was at pains to tell us that the proposal had nothing to do with the Anglo-Irish Agreement. Is the Minister now agreeing with my earlier suggestion that the Bill has been enamelled on to the agreement?
  Mr. Howarth: I shall come to that precise point, if the hon. Gentleman will bear with me. Not for one moment am I saying that the Bill arises out of the Good Friday agreement. It does not, but as my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary explained, the arrangements between Northern Ireland, the Republic of Ireland and this House—and the Government—are unique and different. Our response to the agreement must reflect that. The argument is about context rather than precise linkage.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) raised the issue of whether the Republic of Ireland should be invited to join the Commonwealth. It would be foolhardy of me to get involved in that debate today. In the long term, it is a matter for the Irish people and Government to decide. However, I am sure that the House will agree with my hon. Friend that, regardless of the links between southern Ireland and Northern Ireland, very strong ties of kinship exist between people from Ireland in general. I speak for my own family in that regard: our ties to Ireland go back a long way, but they exist none the less. That makes a difference to the relationship between our countries.
  The right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) is no longer in the Chamber. That is unfortunate, as I wanted to address her directly. She made a helpful and responsible speech, and raised a couple of issues that should be answered. First, she spoke about the need to consider the link between the Bill and decommissioning. The hon. Member for East Hampshire (Mr. Mates) said that that linkage should not be made, and I strongly agree. It would be inappropriate to make that link, as I hope the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald and her supporters will understand. Decommissioning is an important element in the Good Friday agreement, but the agreement must stand as a separate issue.
  74
  The Good Friday agreement makes the link, and the matter should be viewed in that context. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has stated that any default on decommissioning reported by General de Chastelain would have serious consequences. It is important to keep that uppermost in our minds when we consider the various linkages with the Good Friday agreement.
  I shall deal with the second point made by the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald in my response to the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone. He and others—including the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald and the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) —asked about the conflicts of interest that would be incurred by a person who sat in two legislatures and who was a Minister in the Government attached to one of those legislatures. That is an important point and I listened to the argument very carefully.
  I have not had the opportunity of studying the amendment on that subject tabled by the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble). However, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary and I will study it overnight with my right hon. Friends the Home Secretary and the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. I cannot give a firm commitment on the amendment, especially as I have not seen it, but we shall reflect carefully on the issues raised in this debate.
  Sir Patrick Cormack: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Howarth: No, as I have still to respond to some participants in the debate.
  The hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone also asked about the Oath. That is an important matter, and one that has been raised repeatedly. The Bill does not change the Oath of Allegiance. The Government do not intend to change it; we are not talking to anyone or consulting with anyone about the possibility of changing it.
  The right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald asked for a absolute commitment on the issue. She served with some distinction in the previous Government, and she knows that no Government can give cast-iron guarantees of that kind. However, it would be wrong for anyone to think that a change in the Oath is in prospect. It is not around the corner, nor around any corner that I can foresee.
  The hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone knows that I hold him in high regard, as do many of my colleagues. We should not forget that matters of identity, allegiance and loyalty have been at the heart of divisions in Northern Ireland for a long time. I know that the hon. Gentleman will agree with that. That history has been discussed many times in this debate already, so I shall not rehearse it. However, I merely observe that, in Northern Ireland, there is no such thing as a yes-no, black-and-white issue. We are dealing with complex matters that have to be discussed.
  Many people in Northern Ireland think of themselves as British, as they are, but many also think of themselves as Irish. By reason of their birth in Northern Ireland, they are entitled to Irish citizenship. Asked—in relation to sports, culture or politics, for instance—whether they

  75
  think of themselves as Irish or British, people will give many different answers. I am pleased at the arrival in the Chamber of the right hon. Member for Upper Bann, as he will know exactly what I mean.
  The Government take such matters very seriously, and I have given a clear undertaking that we will reflect overnight on the amendment tabled by the right hon. Member for Upper Bann.
  Question put, That the Bill be now read a Second time:—
  The House divided: Ayes 300, Noes 17.

  Division No. 34]

  [6.59 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Clelland, David

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Clwyd, Ann

  Alexander, Douglas

  Coaker, Vernon

  Allen, Graham

  Cohen, Harry

  Ashton, Joe

  Colman, Tony

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Austin, John

  Cooper, Yvette

  Ballard, Jackie

  Corbett, Robin

  Banks, Tony

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Barnes, Harry

  Corston, Jean

  Battle, John

  Cotter, Brian

  Bayley, Hugh

  Cousins, Jim

  Beard, Nigel

  Cranston, Ross

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Crausby, David

  Bell, Martin (Tatton)

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

  Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Darvill, Keith

  Benton, Joe

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Berry, Roger

  Davidson, Ian

  Best, Harold

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Betts, Clive

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Dawson, Hilton

  Blizzard, Bob

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

  Dismore, Andrew

  Borrow, David

  Dobbin, Jim

  Bradley, Keith (Withington)

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Doran, Frank

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Dowd, Jim

  Breed, Colin

  Drew, David

  Brinton, Mrs Helen

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Browne, Desmond

  Efford, Clive

  Burden, Richard

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Burgon, Colin

  Ennis, Jeff

  Butler, Mrs Christine

  Fearn, Ronnie

  Caborn, Rt Hon Richard

  Field, Rt Hon Frank

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Fisher, Mark

  Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Flint, Caroline

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Follett, Barbara

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Casale, Roger

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Cawsey, Ian

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

  Chaytor, David

  Foulkes, George

  Chidgey, David

  Galloway, George

  Clapham, Michael

  Gapes, Mike

  Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

  George, Andrew (St Ives)

  Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  George, Bruce (Walsall S)

  Gerrard, Neil

  Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Gilroy, Mrs Linda

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Godsiff, Roger

  76

  Goggins, Paul

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  Gordon, Mrs Eileen

  Martlew, Eric

  Grant, Bernie

  Maxton, John

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

  Grocott, Bruce

  Meale, Alan

  Grogan, John

  Merron, Gillian

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

  Heal, Mrs Sylvia

  Miller, Andrew

  Healey, John

  Mitchell, Austin

  Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

  Moffatt, Laura

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Moran, Ms Margaret

  Heppell, John

  Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)

  Hill, Keith

  Morley, Elliot

  Hinchliffe, David

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

  Hood, Jimmy

  Hope, Phil

  Mountford, Kali

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Mudie, George

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Mullin, Chris

  Howells, Dr Kim

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Oaten, Mark

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Hurst, Alan

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Hutton, John

  Olner, Bill

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  O'Neill, Martin

  Illsley, Eric

  Palmer, Dr Nick

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Pearson, Ian

  Jenkins, Brian

  Pendry, Tom

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

  Perham, Ms Linda

  Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Pickthall, Colin

  Pike, Peter L

  Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

  Plaskitt, James

  Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

  Pollard, Kerry

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Pond, Chris

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Pope, Greg

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Powell, Sir Raymond

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Kelly, Ms Ruth

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Kemp, Fraser

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Purchase, Ken

  Kidney, David

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Radice, Rt Hon Giles

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Raynsford, Nick

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

  Kumar, Dr Ashok

  Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

  Laxton, Bob

  Rendel, David

  Lepper, David

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Leslie, Christopher

  Rogers, Allan

  Levitt, Tom

  Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Rooney, Terry

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

  Rowlands, Ted

  Linton, Martin

  Roy, Frank

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Ruddock, Joan

  McCabe, Steve

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  Sanders, Adrian

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Macdonald, Calum

  Sawford, Phil

  McDonnell, John

  Sedgemore, Brian

  McIsaac, Shona

  Shaw, Jonathan

  McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

  Sheerman, Barry

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  McNulty, Tony

  Short, Rt Hon Clare

  MacShane, Denis

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Singh, Marsha

  McWalter, Tony

  Skinner, Dennis

  McWilliam, John

  Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Mallaber, Judy

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

  Snape, Peter

  77

  Southworth, Ms Helen

  Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

  Spellar, John

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Squire, Ms Rachel

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Stevenson, George

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Stewart, David (Inverness E)

  Ward, Ms Claire

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Wareing, Robert N

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Watts, David

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  White, Brian

  Straw, Rt Hon Jack

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Stunell, Andrew

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Wills, Michael

  Winnick, David

  Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

  Wise, Audrey

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Wood, Mike

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  Woodward, Shaun

  Timms, Stephen

  Worthington, Tony

  Todd, Mark

  Wright Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Trickett, Jon

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Mrs. Anne McGuire and

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  Mr. David Jamieson.

  NOES

  Cash, William

  Ross, William (E Lond'y)

  Donaldson, Jeffrey

  Swayne, Desmond

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Thompson, William

  Gill, Christopher

  Trimble, Rt Hon David

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Viggers, Peter

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Hunter, Andrew

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Maginnis, Ken

  Rev. Martin Smyth and

  Mates, Michael

  Mr. Eric Forth.

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Bill read a Second time.
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 63 (Committal of Bills),
  That the Bill be committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. George Howarth.]
  Question agreed to.
  Committee tomorrow.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As you will have heard during the debate, concerns were expressed that the Committee will sit tomorrow when Second Reading was only today. Can you advise us whether there are procedures whereby we might adjourn the Committee stage beyond tomorrow, so that colleagues inside and outside the Chamber have a chance to read the Second Reading debate?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): In the House, we take one day at a time. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman could consider that matter tomorrow. The Bill is committed to Committee tomorrow.

  City of London (Ward Elections) Bill
  As amended, considered.
  7.16 pm
  Mr. John McDonnell: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As you are aware, I gave notice of several points of order that I want to raise before we proceed.
  On at least two—possibly three—previous occasions, I have raised the application of the Human Rights Act 1998 to the process of the Bill. Under section 19 of that Act, when a Bill is introduced by the Government, with a Minister in charge, there must be a declaration that it complies with the European convention on human rights.
  When I raised that issue with Madam Speaker, she advised me that that was not the case for private Bills, but suggested that there might be a way in which the matter could be remedied. The Chairman of Ways and Means, or others, might, informally, by a change in Standing Orders allow that provision also to be applied to private legislation. I would welcome your advice, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as to whether any procedure has been invoked to enable that to occur. I strongly hold the view that the House should be advised independently by its Officers as to whether such measures comply with the ECHR. It is a dereliction of our duty if we do not secure that compliance for all legislation, whether public or private.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): The hon. Gentleman was courteous enough to write to Madam Speaker to inform her that he wanted to raise points of order. On the point that he raised, the Chairman of Ways and Means has ruled on the matter on previous occasions; there is no change. A new clause on the subject has been selected for debate, so the hon. Gentleman will have an opportunity to make his points.
  Mr. McDonnell: On a further point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I want to raise the issue of our ability to amend the titles and preambles of Bills. I have tabled several such amendments to the Bill. At present, the title is the City of London (Ward Elections) Bill. As you are aware, the Bill does not allow for elections but for appointments. I want to amend its title to "City of London (Ward Elections and the Appointment of Voters) Bill", because some of the electors are appointed by businesses.
  Secondly, the preamble states:
  "It is expedient to alter the qualification for which that Act provides better to reflect the present nature of commercial occupation of premises in the city of London".
  It continues:
  "It is expedient that the other connected matters dealt with in this Act should be enacted."
  The matter is not expedient—it is open to debate; that is what these proceedings are all about. However, we do not have the opportunity to amend the preamble or the title. We are passing over a major element of the measure without proper debate and with no allocation of time to amend it. I would welcome your views—and, possibly, your further consideration—Mr. Deputy Speaker, of the right of Members to amend titles and preambles of Bills, if not on this occasion, in the future.
  Mr Deputy Speaker: It is not the practice of the Chair to give reasons for the selection of amendments. Page 922

  79
  of "Erskine May" sets out some of the limitations on amendments at this stage in the passage of a private Bill. The hon. Gentleman can always go to the Officers of the House—the Clerks—for advice when he is drawing up amendments.
  Mr. McDonnell: I would not want it to appear that I had not approached the Officers of the House. I did approach them, and they very kindly quoted me the relevant section of the Standing Orders that dealt with this matter, but I did not understand the rationale for not allowing the title or the preamble of a Bill to be amended.
  Mr. Harry Cohen: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. McDonnell) has given notice of four points of order. If I may deal with them, I will take the hon. Gentleman's point of order afterwards. We do not want to commence with a debate on points of order.
  Mr. McDonnell: I have five points of order. I apologise for the lack of notification of the fifth.
  You have partially dealt with my third point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, which is about the selection of amendments. I am advised by the Officers of the House—and you have so advised me tonight—that there is no debate about the selection of amendments. There is no publication of the rationale for selection, so there is, in my view, a breakdown of accountability with regard to the processes of the House: the accountability of decision making by Officers of the House and others to the House. I would welcome the opportunity to discuss with the Speaker, yourself and the Chairman of Ways and Means what mechanism there is to ensure that there is a debate in the Chamber on the selection of amendments in each case. This is not to delay matters, but to ensure accountability of the Officers of the House in the procedures of the House.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman will know that the Chair is aided by the Standing Orders of the House. The selection is made by Madam Speaker, and it is not a debatable matter.
  Mr. McDonnell: In that case, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I would welcome your advice at a later date about how to go about amending the Standing Orders of the House to allow future debate on these matters. I do so with the utmost courtesy and respect for the procedures of the House.
  Fourthly, when the Bill was brought before the House on the carry-over, we were advised by the City of London Corporation and the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr. Hill), the Minister responsible for the Bill—although I will not use the words "in charge of the Bill" because, as we all know, this is an unwhipped Bill—that a wider package of reforms that was proposed to the House by the City corporation would be implemented. That wider package of reforms influenced
  80
  the debate on the Bill. There has been no report back from the City corporation to the House on the implementation of those reforms, and to my knowledge none of them has yet been implemented. In that case, I believe that we debated the Bill on the basis of information provided to us by the promoters of the Bill that was inaccurate and deceptive, and I believe that at some stage a statement should be required of the promoters on the issue of the implementation of the wider package before we proceed with the Bill.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I understand that a statement on the wider implementation of the package appears in paragraph 9 of a statement on behalf of the promoters, which is available from the Vote Office. Those matters do not form part of the Bill and are not formally before the House tonight. To the extent that those changes are relevant to the amendments before the House, they may be alluded to in the debate; otherwise, it may be possible for them to be referred to in the debate on Third Reading.
  Mr. McDonnell: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The final point of order, for which I apologise for not having giving notice, is that I and my colleagues, my hon. Friends the Members for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) and for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr. Cohen) and others, placed a motion before the House that the Bill should not be considered until "this day six months". That motion has never been debated, and yet the Bill has been brought forward for debate. I would welcome the opportunity to debate that motion and would ask for a time to be set aside to enable us to debate a motion that has been properly laid before the House.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: That was an amendment that was not selected, and therefore it is not for debate at the moment.
  Mr. McDonnell: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In my view, that reinforces the argument that there must be a debate on the selection of amendments in this House if the decisions of the Speaker are to be held accountable to the House. I say that with all courtesy.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: But it is not a matter that should be taking up the time of the House at the moment. There are procedures that the hon. Gentleman can pursue.
  Mr. Cohen: Further to my hon. Friend's point of order about being unable to amend the title of the Bill, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have served on Committees that considered public Bills. Amendments have been tabled to their titles and changes made. I hear what you say about its perhaps being in "Erskine May", but it is pretty unusual that Members do not get the opportunity to alter or consider the title of a Bill just because it is a private Bill. I would ask that that aspect of the procedure at least be referred to the Procedure Committee. However, that is not the main point of order that I wish to raise.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman must understand that the Deputy Speaker cannot grasp all the points that he is putting because he is getting us involved in a debate, but what I told him and his colleague is that

  81
  the selection of amendments is not a matter for debate. The Procedure Committee does not deal with private business.
  Mr. Cohen: I hear what you are saying. [Interruption.] I hear from a sedentary position—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman has heard what I am saying, but I cannot spend the time taking points of order. Some of the points—
  Mr. Cohen rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Some of the points are really matters for debate.
  Mr. Cohen rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Does Mr. Cohen have another point of order?
  Mr. Cohen: Yes, I do—a specific point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I apologise for not giving you prior notice, as my colleague did. It was remiss of me, but it was a simple point of order. Clause 1 says:
  "This Act may be cited as the City of London (Ward Elections) Act 1999."
  It might have escaped the promoters' recollection, but we are actually in the year 2000. I submitted an amendment, altering 1999 to 2000, which I thought was helpful and sensible. Obviously, there was a carry-over period and it—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is debating an amendment that was not selected. If the Bill goes for Royal Assent, that matter will be dealt with at that stage, but that is not a matter for debate now. I must proceed with the business before us.

  City of London (Ward Elections) Bill
    New Clause 1

      STATEMENT OF COMPATIBILITY WITH THE EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS
      '().—(1) Section 3 of the Act shall not have force until the Secretary of State has made a statement to the effect that in his view the provisions of the Act are compatible with the Convention rights.'.—[Mr. Mackinlay.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 22, in clause 2, page 2, line 24, at end insert—
      '"the Convention rights" has the same meaning as in the Human Rights Act 1998.'.
      Mr. Mackinlay: I am pleased to be the opening bat in the debate. I am pleased that my new clause has been selected for debate, in view of the ingenuity and diligence of my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. McDonnell) and his twin, my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr. Cohen), whose many amendments appear on the amendment paper. I am grateful to whoever makes the selections. Nevertheless,
      82
      I take the opportunity to pay tribute to the diligence of my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington for his assiduous, unrelenting opposition to a rather grubby Bill.
      New clause 1, with consequential amendment No. 22, would in essence meet one of the points that were raised on a point of order by my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington—that the Bill is, in our view, deficient because it does not carry a certificate. It does not have an endorsement that it complies with our obligations under the European convention on human rights. I believe that we have stumbled across a flaw in our law-making process in this place. Private Bills do not have such an endorsement automatically, and it has not been volunteered by the Bill's promoters at the outset.
      7.30 pm
      I remind the House that, when we passed the Human Rights Act 1998, it was made explicit under section 19(1)(a) that Government and public Bills had to have an endorsement on the green paper of the Bill itself that the Secretary of State in charge of it confirmed that, in his or her view, it met the provisions of the European convention. For some reason that I have been unable to ascertain, that provision was not made to cover private legislation. Whatever hon. Members' views of the merits of this Bill, it is surely perverse that our legislative process has a rule that requires one, but not another, category of Bill to receive certification that it is compatible with the European convention.
      That is perverse and foolhardy. If this or another private Bill reaches the statute book and is challenged in the courts of the United Kingdom or even in Strasbourg, the Attorney-General, not the Bill's promoters, will be required to defend its provisions. He would have to defend something to which he was not originally a party and to defend it at enormous public expense. That would be at the expense not of the taxpayers of the City of London, but of the public purse as a whole.
      The House should accept new clause 1 on the basis of prudence and good housekeeping. Until such time as the House revisits the Human Rights Act 1998 and it becomes a requirement for a private Bill to have the same endorsement as public Bills, it would be prudent for the House or another place to adopt the wording in the new clause for every private Bill that comes before them.
      Mr. McDonnell: My hon. Friend said that his new clause addresses our earlier concerns, but I do not think that it does. However, I shall come to that point if I catch your eye later, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
      My hon. Friend suggested that the Bill's promoters would not be liable under the Human Rights Act if anyone sought a future remedy. He said that the Attorney-General would be the defendant. In my view, we are all responsible for the Bill; the localised immunity that we think we have as Members of Parliament does not exist. That has been adequately demonstrated in other cases recently and I shall elaborate—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. This an extremely long intervention. The hon. Gentleman may have an opportunity to participate later in the debate if he catches my eye.
      Mr. Mackinlay: I follow my hon. Friend's drift, but I look forward to his amplifying his point a little later.

      83
      I want to emphasise the point that the obligation to defend the United Kingdom statute book in the courts would lie with the Attorney-General. So far as I am aware, he has not even been asked about this matter. When a Secretary of State presents a public Bill, he does not say glibly that the Bill of which he is the architect complies with the European convention. A memorandum is exchanged between him and the Law Officers, and the Law Officers, not as politicians but as lawyers, express a view. In a sense, the Secretary of State who is piloting the Bill acts as conduit of that information and he reports back to the House. He says that he has consulted the Law Officers, who confirm that a Bill meets the requirements of the convention.
      This is not a Government Bill. However, I hope that the Minister will—this evening or subsequently—write to the Attorney-General asking him formally whether the Bill meets the requirements of the convention. He should do that because, if for no other reason, he has an obligation to the public purse. I also presume that he does not want the United Kingdom to be embarrassed in the courts when our legislation is scrutinised. I therefore hope that, when the Minister winds up, he will take account of that point and will, whatever happens, undertake to ask the Attorney-General explicitly for his view on the matter.
      May I through you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, address the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke)? Quite naturally and rightly, he is the principal steward of the Bill for one of the local authorities in his constituency. The right hon. Gentleman could and should stand up tonight on behalf of the promoters and say, "I accept this new clause." If he does not or is unable to, that suggests that the promoters think the Bill is flawed and deficient in this regard. Why otherwise would they not accept this prudent new clause? When the right hon. Gentleman addresses the House, I hope that he will suggest that he will accept the new clause or commend it to the Bill's promoters so that the Bill could be tidied up.
      I have already said the Human Rights Act explicitly requires that a Government Bill be consistent with the European convention. However, the Act is silent about private legislation, and that reflects a failure by the House. We do not make good law because scrutiny is inadequate. However, the Act does not say that such an undertaking cannot be given for private Bills. In a written answer, the Home Secretary pointed out the obligation for a public Bill to have such certification, and also referred to private Bills. He said:
      "Where the Bill is directly assisted by the Government"—
      I stress those words—
      "…the Minister responsible for the policy should, as a matter of practice, express the Government's views on compatibility with convention rights during the Second Reading debate." — [Official Report, 5 May 1999; Vol. 330, c. 377W.]
      While we have given this Bill a Second Reading, I read into that reply that the Home Secretary was getting the message that the Government could not ignore the fact that the courts in this country or the European Court in Strasbourg may consider it a flaw if the Government do not counsel Parliament on the obligations under the convention.
      Mr. Tony Benn: The term "private Bill" refers to the procedure for passing it. However, when it is
      84
      passed, it becomes an Act of Parliament. Indeed, in that respect there is no distinction between a private Member's Bill and a Government Bill. Once enacted, it changes the law of Britain either in the City of London or elsewhere. The Minister should give the assurance that Bills that are likely to become Acts will be clear with regard to the convention, and automatically so. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Minister cannot use the excuse that the matter has nothing to do with him because it is a private Bill? He is assisting it and it will end up as an Act of Parliament passed by the House.
      Mr. Mackinlay: Absolutely. That is why I return to the point that, if the proposed Act were ever the subject of scrutiny in the courts, the Attorney-General would have to defend the veracity of an Act of Parliament in United Kingdom statute. We surely have a vested interest in avoiding such embarrassment.
      The Government cannot say in this debate or subsequently—I am sure that the point will be picked up in another place if the Government continue to ignore it—that they do not have a moral obligation, or one of prudence, to ask the Attorney-General to consider the matter and to report formally to the House on it. The Home Secretary was obviously getting wind of that in his written answer, which created a new category of Bill—one directly assisted by the Government.
      When I first became interested in this Bill—on Second Reading, I think—I was amazed that the Government were not only acquiescing in its provisions but directly assisting it. It seems that the Home Secretary's criteria are being met. I see my hon. Friend the Minister looking at me as if butter would not melt in his mouth, yet Government Whips pressurised us not to resist the Bill. Indeed, I remember that they carefully arranged debate on part of it between two pieces of public business. On that occasion, I was told by a Whip that I was a wretched person for keeping other hon. Members in the House late by debating the Bill at some length.
      You might like tomorrow, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to scrutinise the Official Report. You would find that no payroll Member had exercised their discretion to join myself, my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington and others in the Ayes Lobby. That is because the payroll vote is whipped and hon. Members on it are directly assisting the passage of the Bill. I do not want to labour the point; suffice it to say that such behaviour meets the Home Secretary's criteria.
      Mr. Martin Bell: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is strange that the Government are not only acquiescing in but encouraging a piece of legislation that is profoundly undemocratic, anti-democratic and belongs not to the 21st century but to the 18th?
      Mr. Mackinlay: Indeed; I was truly amazed by that. There might not be many common denominators among members of the parliamentary Labour party, but I thought that one was a belief in universal adult suffrage. Even if we cannot always persuade our party managers of that for the purposes of our own discussions, I thought that constitutionally we believed in one person, one vote.
      That brings me to an important point, which I was going to save for later. I was trying to concentrate on the legal and professional issues, but the intervention of

      85
      my hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Mr. Bell) has reminded me of it. If the Bill is passed without certification of compliance with the human rights convention—I, like many others, do not think that it will receive such certification because it does not so comply—what signals will be sent around the world from what we pride as the mother of Parliaments?
      I remember debates in the 1960s and 1970s when the Prime Minister of South Africa used to pray in aid comparisons with the Northern Ireland special powers legislation to legitimise some of his statutes. People who argue that this Bill, as it stands, complies with article 3 of the European convention could therefore also have argued that the constitution of Ian Smith's Rhodesia met such criteria—save for the fact that the country was not in Europe. The criteria would have matched.
      I raise that because people around the world look for excuses for legitimising undemocratic legislation. Despots and people with very shady legislative practices will of course say that their legislation mirrors that passed in 2000 in the mother of Parliaments. I wanted to advance that argument in explaining why the Bill does not comply with European convention obligations.
      7.45 pm
      Mr. John Cryer: The relevant article of the European convention is article 3 of the 1952 protocol, which specifies:
      "The High Contracting Parties undertake to hold free elections … under conditions which will ensure the free expression of the opinion of the people in the choice of the legislature".
      If this Bill becomes law, it seems that it will contravene article 3. Will my hon. Friend comment on that?
      Mr. Mackinlay: The Bill does contravene the convention. If my hon. Friend had read those words to Ian Smith, he would have said that his electoral law complied with it. Although he might have asserted that, those in this place and elsewhere would almost unanimously have known differently.
      We must look into the words of the article to find out what it means. It clearly and inexorably leads one to conclude—I am sure that there is plenty of case law on the matter—that for compliance there must be universal adult suffrage, unimpeded or unadulterated by any special electoral rolls, such as those which are features both of this Bill and of legislation in the unilateral declaration of independence legislature in Southern Rhodesia in the 1960s. It is clearly perverse to think that the Bill would ever meet our obligations under the convention.
      I am trying to persuade the House and the promoters, that from a law-making point of view, there is an overwhelming case for accepting new clause 1. If they believe that I am wrong, we shall soon discover who is right, because the Secretary of State will be obliged to have a word with the Attorney-General. I am sure that the promoters would not wish to pass legislation that is inconsistent with the European convention. All I argue is that there should be this test. What is wrong with that? What have the promoters to hide?
      Very able staff in the Library drew my attention to a legal opinion which, with the permission of the House, I shall summarise. It expresses the view that the fact that
      86
      we decline to consider whether a piece of legislation complies with the European convention could make it ultra vires. The opinion states:
      "the requirement for a written statement under s 19"—
      of the Human Rights Act—
      "might have important effects on rules governing judicial recognition of Acts of Parliament. The making and publication of the statement might be regarded as conditions precedent to the legal power of either House of Parliament to proceed to consider, a fortiori, to approve, the Bill. If so, it will give rise to an innovation in United Kingdom constitutional law, in that it will open up the possibility that judges might hold legislation purportedly passed without a s 19 statement having been made to be invalidated by procedural ultra vires in the form of a failure to comply with a condition precedent to the exercise of the power to legislate … it would perhaps be possible for a court to treat s 19 as introducing a new requirement to the rule of recognition applicable to statutes, breach of which would invalidate a measure purporting to be a statute."
      To a layman like me, that means that the fact that the provisions of section 19 have not been fulfilled in respect of the Bill or any other private Bill might make such Bills ultra vires.
      Mr. Cohen: I trust that I am not making a frivolous intervention on a good argument, but the opinion my hon. Friend has just quoted contains a word that I do not understand—fortiori. It sounds Italian—
      Mr. Andrew Dismore: It is Latin.
      Mr. Cohen: As a layman, I do not know whether that word is relevant to the argument. Will my hon. Friend explain the meaning of the word and its relevance, if any, to his argument?
      Mr. Mackinlay: I am not sure whether I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. However, I have had the opportunity to read the legal opinion in its entirety. It is manifest that the United Kingdom Parliament is in danger of the acute embarrassment of having a statute scrutinised in the courts—either the UK courts or the Strasbourg court testing it against the European convention on human rights—and its being held to be ultra vires and hence invalid. If that happened, it would be a bad day for Parliament.
      Although the A-level textbooks on the British constitution state that it is not possible for the courts to look at the Official Report during a court case, my understanding is that the matter is not that simple. It would be drawn to the court's attention that, this evening, I—and, no doubt, others—drew to the attention of Her Majesty's Government their obligations under the Human Rights Act. If the Minister is not prepared to concede tonight that there is at least a point that requires further examination, the court will note the flagrant disregard and arrogance displayed by the Government when they were cautioned about their duties and obligations.
      The Minister points to the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster, who is the sponsor of the Bill. I could give the Minister a bowl of water, so that, like Pontius Pilate, he could pretend that the Bill was nothing to do with him. However, it is directly to do with him. The right hon. Gentleman could use his good offices to counsel the Bill's supporters to accept new clause 1. However, the Minister's body language appears to

      87
      indicate that he has failed to grasp that he, as a member of the Government, has an obligation to get the legislation right. The judges will look at our debate tonight and, when they see the Government's arrogant disregard for the advice they were given, they are far more likely to find in favour of the person who has made the complaint against a perverse and grubby piece of legislation.
      Mr. Dismore: My hon. Friend focuses on the Human Rights Act 1998, but our obligations extend beyond that Act to the European convention on human rights itself. Does my hon. Friend agree that, if it is found that the Bill breaches that convention—there are strong arguments to be made that it does—the UK could, irrespective of section 17 of the 1998 Act, find itself before the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, which could find the Bill to be in breach of the convention? Irrespective of the 1998 Act, the Bill may be in breach of the convention.
      Mr. Mackinlay: My hon. Friend is absolutely correct. I sometimes despair: I should have expected an intervention by now, either from the Minister or from the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster. We are told that he and the Bill's supporters want the legislation to be passed. Its progress has taken and will continue to take a long time, unless the right hon. Gentleman rises and tells us that he will commend the new clause to the Bill's supporters, whom he could consult during the debate.
      If the right hon. Gentleman does not do as I suggest, I hope that it will be noted by those outside the House that both the Bill's promoter and the Government were counselled on the matter. When the Bill reaches another place, I hope that their Lordships—whatever their views on and affection for the quaint and arcane arrangements for the City of London—will understand that an important legal principle is at stake and must be taken into account. I hope that, either here or in another place, new clause 1 will be incorporated in the Bill, before it is enacted.
      Mr. David Heath: The hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) has done the House a signal service by tabling the new clause, not only because of its relevance to the Bill, but because of its relevant to the procedures of the House in a wider sense. I should say that my purpose is not to delay the Bill's progress—I believe not in using procedural methods to delay Bills with which I do not agree, but in defeating them in the appropriate manner, that is, in the Lobby. I hasten to add that the City of London is of limited relevance to my Somerset constituency, even though, when I am in London, I live only 50 yards from its boundary.
      In broad terms, my reason for participating in the debate is that there is at stake an important principle, both in terms of the way in which we in this country conduct our democracy and in terms of the way in which we in the House adopt procedures to comply with the commitments that we have given, either through treaty, as in our original adoption of the European convention on human rights, or through legislation, as in the Human Rights Act 1998. Certain of the Bill's contents give rise to, at least, concern about its compatibility with the Human Rights Act.
      88
      The hon. Gentleman and I have, for two and a half years, served together on the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs. He will recall the careful work that that Committee carried out in respect of electoral proceedings in Hong Kong, as part of an overall study of human rights. We were highly critical of the proposals adopted by the Chinese Government, with the support of the Hong Kong authorities, because they appeared to be at variance with our understanding of human rights and proper electoral processes.
      The Bill creates an arrangement which, if not precisely identical, bears more than a passing resemblance to the Hong Kong arrangements. Therefore, it is right that the House should satisfy itself as to whether there is a breach of human rights legislation. If it were to be found that the Bill is in breach of that legislation, that begs the question whether the current arrangements for the City of London are even more in breach. However, that is a separate matter that is not encompassed by today's debate.
      8 pm
      The issue is important for the House because the hon. Member for Thurrock has put his finger on a deficiency within our present arrangements. The right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) is right when he says that there is no differential, when we pass a Bill to become an Act, when it comes to the route by which it reached the statute book. That is merely a matter of procedure within the House. At the end of the day, the measure is an Act of Parliament.
      If I part company with the hon. Member for Thurrock, it is when he says that there is a responsibility on the Government to ensure that legislation that is presented to the House is in accordance with the provisions of the Human Rights Act 1998. There is a responsibility on us all, as legislators, to satisfy ourselves that the legislation that we are prepared to put forward is in line with the 1998 Act. Have we yet satisfied ourselves that we have fulfilled that implied duty on us? My answer is, "No, we are not." We would be satisfied, perhaps, by an assertion from the Treasury Bench, but only if that were backed up by appropriate legal advice, which means the intervention of the Attorney-General. We have had no such assurances. Therefore, that which is proposed in the new clause seems adequate to fill the lacuna in our present procedures and would prevent the implementation of the Bill until we have received satisfaction.
      Those on the Treasury Bench should consider the problem carefully. I do not think that at present there is an appropriate procedure. I cannot accept that there is a distinction between Government-sponsored legislation and that which comes from Back-Bench Members, and there must be some defence against us acting effectively unconstitutionally, and certainly in breach of our commitments. I do not think that the hon. Member for Thurrock is right when he suggests that we can act ultra vires in these circumstances. That is not a term that would apply to the House. However, there is scope at some later stage for a court to certify that the legislation that has been passed in these circumstances is not in accordance with either our own domestic legislation—for example, the Human Rights Act—or our treaty obligations. That would require the Government to introduce further legislation. It was a deficiency in the Human Rights Act

      89
      that we did not incorporate the ability to strike down law that was held to be in breach of the human rights convention, but that is a different matter.
      I shall listen carefully to the Minister's reply to this short debate. If there is a Division on the new clause, I intend at present to support the hon. Member for Thurrock. I say that as an individual Member and not as a party spokesman. I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey), who speaks for the Liberal Democrats on these matters, has some sympathy with the view of the hon. Gentleman. He is nodding, so I take it that he is assenting.
      Those who support the Bill should explain how we shall otherwise discover whether the legislation that we are being asked to consider, support and enact is in accord with existing legislation and with the treaty obligations into which we freely entered. I do not believe that the mechanism currently exists. Irrespective of whether the clause is passed this evening, the debate has raised an issue that needs to be considered on another occasion to ensure that all the legislation that we consider is in accordance with our clear intentions as demonstrated by the Human Rights Act.
      Mr. Tony Benn: I have listened to the debate with great interest, and especially to the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath). We are discussing not only how the City of London should arrange its elections, but much wider matters. The right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke) should tell the House whether the promoters considered its implications under the European convention on human rights. The Government, however, are providing massive assistance—they are distancing themselves from the Bill politically while supporting it. The promoters, however, have a responsibility for ensuring that their legislation, which will be part of the legislation of the United Kingdom, accords with the European convention. The Government must deal with the issue if it arises later.
      I put the second question personally to the right hon. Gentleman, who is an experienced Member. Having previously been Home Secretary and the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, with responsibility for human rights, does he believe that a resident in the City of London, who could be outvoted by people or companies who have bought their votes, would be able to take a case to the European Court of Justice? Those of us who vote in general elections go to polling stations, where there are masses of huge notices warning us about bribery and corrupt practice, for example. Yet the Bill legalises the very corrupt practices that would, we are warned, get us unseated by an election court. I have twice been before an election court, and it is a terrifying body.
      Could it really be the case that a resident in the City of London, who discovered that his claim to vote in a ward election was overwhelmed by people or companies who had bought their votes and nominated the elected, would not have a reasonable chance of going to the European court and saying, "This is corrupt"? If the Bill is enacted, the election court would have to interpret the measure that is before us. It would say, "I am sorry, it may be corrupt generally but it is not corrupt in London because Parliament has passed legislation that allows this type of corruption." However, that will not apply if someone goes
      90
      to the European court. That court would have the right to consider the legislation as well as the practice and relate the two to the convention.
      I have used strong language, and I believe that we are considering a corrupt proposal. I do not mean that individuals will benefit, but I believe that we are being asked to legalise the buying of votes for political purposes. As Members of Parliament, we have a responsibility, quite apart from my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General and my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, to consider whether we want to see the great City of London having its local government bought by companies under legislation that we enact. The House is almost empty, but I know that if there is a Division the Lobbies will fill with Members who have been told by the Whips that they have a duty to support the Bill. That is what happened last time.
      Mr. Robert Syms: In 1969, Lord Callaghan reformed the business vote in much of Britain except for that in the City of London. The right hon. Gentleman was a member of that Labour Cabinet. If he felt so strongly about the matter, why did he not resign?
      Mr. Benn: The thought that someone should resign if he is a minority in the Cabinet is an interesting one. If that were the position, the Cabinet would lose half its membership every week. I have never accepted that approach. I do not recall the then Cabinet ever discussing the matter because not every little piece of legislation comes before Cabinet. I say without any discourtesy that not everything that Lord Callaghan did is automatically inscribed in the article of faith. The present Government would describe Lord Callaghan as old Labour to his fingertips. As a loyal supporter of the Government, do not ask me to endorse such old Labour corruption, as identified in the hon. Gentleman's intervention.
      Of course, there has been the buying of votes in the past. Indeed, the practice was legal. If we go back far enough, we find that ordinary people did not have the vote. In 1832, only 2 per cent. of the population had the vote: they were all rich white men. It may seem that 1832 is a long time ago, but it was only 18 years before my grandfather was born. Democracy is quite new. Women got the vote at the same age as men only in my lifetime. That was 1928. Only a year or two before I was elected to this place, we got rid of the business vote and the university vote. We are now reintroducing the corporation vote. Although this goes beyond the terms of the debate, London should be brought under the new mayor, so when my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) takes responsibility for London he will be able to deal with the problems of the electoral system in the City as well as other matters. However, that is a wider issue that I must not go into.
      Democracy should be central to the views of all hon. Members. It should not divide us politically, and it certainly should not incorporate the Government Front Bench along with the City of London, whose acquaintance with democracy is a narrow one. It is an offshore island moored in the Thames, with a freedom that many other offshore islands would be glad to have. I hope that the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster will address himself to my question: did he and the promoters seek advice? Secondly, does he think that under

      91
      normal election law an elector would have a claim against a winning candidate, who would use the mechanisms that we are being invited to endorse?
      Mr. Peter Brooke: I welcome the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) back to the deliberations. We enjoyed his contribution on Second Reading. Some of the remarks in the admirable contribution that he has just made had the flavour of a re-run of some of his observations on Second Reading. I shall return later to the question that he asked me.
      The hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) tabled new clause 1. Shortly after he became a Member of Parliament, he asked me an oral question when I was still a member of the Cabinet. He prefaced his question with the sentiment that although I was a very nice chap, I was a rotten Minister. I think that the hon. Gentleman is a very nice chap and I am sorry that his capacity as a Minister has not yet been tested. The skill with which he remained in order for a speech that lasted approximately half an hour was testimony to his ability as a parliamentarian. I cannot divine the Patronage Secretary's view, but I thought that the hon. Gentleman was extremely skilful. I shall respond to his questions later.
      The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) said that the City had little to do with Somerset. A friend went to live near Cambridge recently. After he had lived there for approximately 18 months, he met a military-looking man at a party who said, "I haven't seen you before; where are you from?" My friend replied, "We've been living here for 18 months, but before that we lived in Somerset for several centuries." "Ah, royalists, eh? You'll find we're mainly Cromwellians around here", responded the gentleman from Cambridge. The City of London was firmly on the parliamentary side in the civil war, therefore it is not surprising that the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome did not detect much connection between Somerset and the City.
      Mr. David Heath: Some of my ancestors were executed in 1685 for taking up the parliamentary cause later than the rest of the country.
      Mr. Brooke: I recall the events of 40 years later, but you would rule me out of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if I pursued them.
      The right hon. Member for Chesterfield will have been a Member of Parliament for 50 years later this year. Understandably after 50 years, his memory is playing him marginally false. My father was Home Secretary during the right hon. Gentleman's first 25 years in the House; I have not been Home Secretary during his second 25 years in the House. It is remarkable that I am the third longest sitting Member for the City of London in 717 years. It was represented by four Members of Parliament for most of that time. I have never been Home Secretary, therefore I cannot respond to the aspect of the right hon. Gentleman's speech that referred to that.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Mr. Syms) responded to the heart of the speech of the right hon. Member for Chesterfield and the point about a challenge by a resident in the City. The corporation is anxious
      92
      to preserve the ability of wards under the current arrangements—which were endorsed by the Government of which the right hon. Gentleman was a member in 1969—to elect residents. The Bill provides for that. What the right hon. Gentleman describes as a corrupt practice is simply the current position in terms of legislation that has prevailed between 1969 and now.
      New clause 1 would provide that clause 3 should not take effect until the Secretary of State had made a statement that the Bill was compatible with convention rights, which are defined in amendment No. 22 as having the same meaning as in the Human Rights Act 1998. The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. McDonnell) has raised the human rights convention on several previous occasions. Every time that has been done, the Chair has made the technical position clear. In drafting the Bill, the promoters followed that position. Nevertheless, I shall explain it.
      8.15 pm
      Section 19(1) of the Human Rights Act states:
      "A Minister of the Crown in charge of a Bill in either House of Parliament must, before Second Reading of the Bill—
      (a) make a statement to the effect that in his view the provisions of the Bill are compatible with the Convention rights"—
      the Act calls that a "statement of compatibility"—
      "or
      (b) make a statement to the effect that although he is unable to make a statement of compatibility the government nevertheless wishes the House to proceed with the Bill."
      The section goes on to say that the statement should be in writing and published in a manner that the Minister who makes it considers appropriate. We are now familiar with the practice of including the ministerial statement on the front page of Government Bills.
      The scope of the section 19 is clear. It applies to public Bills—I readily acknowledge that the hon. Member for Thurrock made that clear—but it does not apply to private Members' Bills, private Bills or secondary legislation. The hon. Gentleman is entitled to take the view that the requirement of section 19 should be extended. The point was recently debated in another place in relation to secondary legislation.
      Mr. John Cryer: I have followed the right hon. Gentleman's argument carefully, but does he argue that the convention should not apply to private Bills? As my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) pointed out, when Bills become legislation, there is no difference between a private and a public Bill.
      Mr. Brooke: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point, which he makes fairly. However, that is a general policy issue on which I am not expressing an opinion.
      In response to the question of the right hon. Member for Chesterfield, I shall state what the City of London Corporation has already done and determined in relation to the Bill and the convention within the current parameters of the law.
      Mr. McDonnell: I want briefly to clarify one of the right hon. Gentleman's points. In one of the points of order that I made, I said that the Bill could be defined as

      93
      having a Minister in charge of it. It would therefore be in the remit of section 19 of the 1998 Act, which states:
      "A Minister of the Crown in charge of a Bill … must".
      Successive Ministers have so vehemently promoted the Bill that it could be construed that they were in charge of it. They should therefore make a statement.
      Mr. Brooke: I am grateful for that intervention. I am not envious of those on the Treasury Bench, but under the conventions of the House, I am in charge of the Bill and, therefore, the hon. Member who has to make appropriate concessions or statements on behalf of the promoters.
      The point that the hon. Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Cryer) made is a general policy issue, not a matter for the promoters. I hope that Labour Members agree that it is inappropriate for a private Bill to extend the scope of section 19 of the 1998 Act. New clause 1 would have that effect.
      The hon. Member for Thurrock raised a series of contingencies about the Attorney-General. Standing Orders on private business require the deposit of the Bill with the Attorney-General. The Bill was so deposited and the Attorney-General is not ignorant of it. He is entitled to submit a report—such reports are submitted at Committee stage—on any private Bill. The Attorney-General's office has submitted no report on the Bill. Having given the explanation about section 19, I make it clear that the promoters of the Bill and their lawyers have examined the human rights convention more than once. That examination has failed to reveal a contravention.
      I appreciate that new clause 1 seeks an opinion from the Secretary of State, and I hope that it will be for the convenience of the House if I put on the record, as for a Government Bill, the opinion of the promoters that no contravention of the convention rights arises from the Bill's provisions. That answers the question of the right hon. Member for Chesterfield.
      Mr. Tony Benn: On that point—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I think that the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke) has completed his remarks, unless he says otherwise.
      Mr. Brooke: I was seeking to make those the final remarks in my speech.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: I call Mr. McDonnell.
      Mr. John McDonnell: I am pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) has tabled the new clause and congratulate him on doing so. I have raised compliance with the human rights convention on three occasions, including today. The previous occasion was the carry-over debate in November. Despite the fact that the matter has been taken seriously by the House and by the Speaker and the Chairman of Ways and Means in the discussions, unfortunately, it has been dismissed somewhat lightly by the Government. I need to clarify that the Bill is Government promoted. In every debate, a Minister has taken responsibility for ensuring that it proceeds. Although we are informed that the vote is unwhipped, on
      94
      many occasions we have been told that the Government want to see the business through and an informal Whip has been applied. I find that disgraceful.
      I simply say to the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) that none of our debates on this important issue have been delaying mechanisms. I agree that we should defeat the Bill in the Lobby and believe that, had there been a genuinely free vote, this piece of detritus would have been thrown out long ago. The human rights new clause is critical, though dismissed by the Government. I shall sit down at any stage to allow my hon. Friend the Minister to intervene from the Front Bench so that we can hear the Government's views on whether the Bill complies with the human rights convention.
      The hon. Member for Wantage (Mr. Jackson) chaired the Committee that examined the Bill at length, and a number of my colleagues were also involved in that scrutiny. When I raised compliance with the human rights convention in a point of order during our debate on 14 July, he said:
      "Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It might be relevant to report to the House that, as Chairman of the Select Committee that considered the Bill—we spent several days on it and heard petitioners—I can confirm that that issue was not raised by any of the petitioners and did not come before the Committee at any stage."
      I regret that that statement was made, because it is wrong. I would seek an adjournment of the House, if necessary, to ask the hon. Gentleman, who is not in his usual place, to comment on those remarks. I should have informed him that I would raise this matter, and I apologise to him and the House for not doing so, but I genuinely thought that the Chairman of the Committee would have been present, as he has been for previous debates.
      Mr. Syms: As I understand it, my hon. Friend the Member for Wantage (Mr. Jackson), as Committee Chairman, pointed out on 14 July that that issue was not taken up by either of the petitioners in Committee, although it formed part of the evidence—the original petition—lodged by Mr. Malcolm Matson.
      Mr. McDonnell: With the greatest respect, if the hon. Gentleman wants me to read the quote from the hon. Member for Wantage again, I shall do so. He did not say that. He said that
      "I can confirm that that issue was not raised by any of the petitioners and did not come before the Committee at any stage."—[Official Report, 14 July 1999; Vol. 335, c. 464.]
      I do not like to contradict him when he is not in his place, but he was the Chairman of the Committee. I should be happy to seek an adjournment to enable him to come forward and say why he made that statement. I understand the difficulties of chairing a Committee of that sort, but a central element of Mr. Matson's petition concerned human rights. It drew attention to the fact that the Bill contravened his human rights, which is why I welcome the debate.
      The petition by Malcolm John Matson said:
      "Your Petitioner is a resident and Freeman of the City of London and although entitled to a vote in City elections, he is effectively disenfranchised (together with all other residents) because of the continuation of an unfair property qualification whereby control of his local authority and of all the normal functions of local government (e.g health, education, planning etc.) rests with individuals who do not live in the City of London.

      95
      Your Petitioner and his rights and interests and property are injuriously affected by the Bill, to which your Petitioner objects for reasons amongst others hereinafter appearing."
      Paragraphs 6, 7 and 8 of the petition draw attention to the breaches of the earlier charter establishing the corporation, which was granted by Edward III in 1341, and paragraph 8 states:
      "The Bill, if enacted, will be incompatible with the Human Rights Act 1998 and in particular, Article 3 of Protocol 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights."
      That was drawn to the attention of the Committee in the petition, but the Chairman informed the House that at no time was it brought before the Committee and at no time debated.
      I am happy to ask your advice, Mr. Deputy Speaker, or that of the House on how we can redress the misleading of the House. The premise of all our debates has been that the human rights contravention was discussed in Committee. Only as a result of the tabling of the new clause tonight and the various points of order that I have raised have we identified the fact that the House was misled, no matter how innocently. I know the hon. Member for Wantage to be a conscientious Member and Committee Chairman, but no matter how innocently the House was misled it is pot enough to say that the Bill's contravention of human rights was not discussed by the Committee. He and other members of the Committee failed to draw that matter from the petition and seek advice.
      Perhaps the Committee sought to discuss the matter in secret session, but was advised by Officers of the House that it did not come before the Committee as a relevant matter. That is not what we have been informed. We have been advised tonight by the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke) that at no stage did the Attorney-General intervene to advise the members of the Committee or the House that the Bill contravened the 1998 Act. I believe that, when a matter is before a Committee and a petitioner has drawn attention to a specific issue, it is for the Committee to seek such advice. The Chairman of the Committee, therefore, has a specific responsibility. When a petitioner has placed such an important matter before the Committee, he should seek the advice of Officers of the House and, when dealing with specific legislation such as the Bill, he should seek the advice of the Attorney-General.
      Mr. Mackinlay: On whether the Bill was somehow canvassed with the Attorney-General and whether it swept across his desk, every Bill is considered by the Law Officers. Although they considered Bills before we passed the 1998 Act, that legislation specifically says that they have to consider human rights. The fact that the Bill might have crossed the Attorney-General's desk is immaterial—he was not charged, nor asked for his opinion on that specific point.
      Mr. McDonnell: That emphasises the point that I want to draw out. My view is that procedure on the Bill has been such that, without points of order being raised and without the new clause being tabled, we would have been remiss in our duty and certainly liable under the European convention on human rights. We may still be so if the Bill proceeds unamended.
      The new clause is vital because it protects hon. Members and Officers of the House from prosecution under the European convention on human rights, a
      96
      matter which I raised in an intervention on a speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock. Hon. Members may feel that the usual protections of the House are sufficient to protect them under the convention, but I do not agree. Such overarching supra-national and international treaties into which we have entered, with their global rights, duties and legal responsibilities, are rapidly undermining national protections and immunities. The best example of that is the recent case of General Pinochet. An individual country may seek to give immunity to one of its elected members—in the case of General Pinochet, a non-elected senatorial member—but international rights established in law exist and will, therefore, hopefully be enforced.
      8.30 pm
      I am not trying to suggest, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that if the Bill is passed you will be arrested on your next trip to France or Spain, or wherever you and your family take your next holiday. I am trying to make the point that localised immunities are not sufficient. They are no longer enforceable. Therefore, we must be sure beyond doubt that, at every stage in our deliberations, legislation is compatible with the European convention on human rights. On this occasion we have not even examined that matter, let alone been convinced.
      Mr. Gerald Bermingham: I apologise for not being present for the earlier part of the debate, but I was here for the beginning of my hon. Friend's speech, and I have been listening with considerable interest. Does my hon. Friend agree that, under article 33 on inter-state cases, any party or person could take the City of London Corporation to the European Court if it was found to be in breach of article 3 of the protocol, which is the right to free elections? What has been built in here, which does not seem to have been considered, is, literally, a gain in terms of litigation, which will give rise to a number of cases in future. Should not that be avoided at all costs?
      Mr. McDonnell: I shall deal with that later. I repeat that it behoves us as individual Members and as a corporate body—a Chamber—to ensure that all legislation complies with the European convention on human rights. That is why we enacted the legislation in November 1998.
      We have not had the advice of Officers of the House or members of the Government to enable us to come to a view, on Second Reading, in Committee or on Report, on whether the legislation complies with that convention. The new clause could provide us with some protection, but I doubt that it will. It is a long-stop. It is a post-action protection. Although supportable tonight, it would have been better had the Bill been withdrawn and properly drafted.
      I want to dwell for a moment on the general question of private Bill legislation.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must focus his remarks. We are debating a specific new clause. To go outside that and have a general discussion

      97
      on the European convention on human rights or the private Bill procedure of the House would be out of order, and so I shall rule.
      Mr. McDonnell: With great respect, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that is what I seek to avoid.
      Mr. Cohen: The new clause and amendment No. 22 are grouped under the heading "Compatibility with the European Convention on Human Rights". My hon. Friend developed an argument about possible liability under the convention. My hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) said that the Minister might be liable. In the past, when local authorities were in breach of the law, they were subject to district audit, surcharge and punishment, but often when Ministers have been found in British courts to be in breach of the law, they have not been subject to a penalty. Now it will not be the British courts that make a decision, but the European Court. Is my hon. Friend saying that a Minister, or this Parliament as a corporate body, or an unincorporate body, could be subject—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That intervention is far too long.
      Mr. McDonnell: The point that I was trying to make, perhaps not clearly enough, is that I no longer believe—the Pinochet case shows this—that localised immunities allocated by individual Parliaments or states can provide adequate protection when human rights have been contravened. Individual Ministers and all hon. Members are liable for their own action. On that basis, the new clause may provide us with limited protection. The new clause seeks to ensure that the Bill does not become an Act until we have a clear statement from the Attorney-General or another Law Officer on behalf of the Government that the Bill does not contravene the human rights convention.
      I can tell the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster that I appreciate the City of London Corporation giving its legal opinion. I would welcome a copy of that opinion and the name of the counsel who provided it. However, it is somewhat discourteous not to circulate that opinion in advance, given that this matter has been raised on three separate occasions in the past 12 months.
      The point of section 19 of the Human Rights Act 1998 is to ensure that all of us—officers of the House, Members of Parliament and Ministers—are given independent advice in which we can have confidence. Had we had a statement from the Attorney-General, or had the matter at least been referred to him during the Committee stage, we would have had some response that we could have taken into account in the debates.
      Mr. Bermingham: Would it surprise my hon. Friend to learn that the courts throughout the land are being advised by the Lord Chancellor's Department to implement article 6 of the European convention before 1 October in decisions that they are currently making? After 1 October, there will be no problems. Would it not be logical for Ministers to examine the convention and implement it in their legislation?
      Mr. McDonnell: With the greatest respect to my hon. Friend, who is experienced in these matters and in the
      98
      law, section 19 of the Human Rights Act 1998 provided that, in advance of the formal implementation of the European convention on human rights in British legislation later this year, Ministers could show compliance on the front of a Bill. That is pertinent to this new clause. We were hoping that acceptance of the new clause would enable that provision to be incorporated not in private legislation generally—I accept that—but in this specific legislation, because of the concerns that have been expressed about it on both sides of the House.
      In our debates, it has been noticeable that few, if any, Members of Parliament have defended the existing system. Few, if any, have defended the reforms. Some Ministers have said that this may be a staging post on the road to further reform, but have not defended the current proposals in their own right.
      The rationale for the new clause is that the 1998 Act does not apply to private Bills. Section 19 on statements of compatibility does not apply to private Bills. We have had rulings on that from the Speaker, and we accept that. Therefore, we must propose an amendment, such as the new clause, to each private Bill to see whether it is compatible with the European convention on human rights.
      Section 19 of the Act is specific. It states:
      "A Minister of the Crown in charge of a Bill in either House of Parliament must, before Second Reading of the Bill—
      …make a statement to the effect that in his view the provisions of the Bill are compatible with the Convention rights".
      We raised this matter on Second Reading, and the Committee discussed it to see whether the Bill is in contravention of the convention. Section 19 continues:
      "or … make a statement to the effect that although he is unable to make a statement of compatibility the government nevertheless wishes the House to proceed with the Bill."
      We had a statement from the Minister that the Government wished the House to proceed with the Bill, but that was not in relation to compliance with the convention.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is repeating arguments. He must direct his remarks to whether or not the new clause should be accepted by the House. It relates specifically to the Bill and the proposed action by the Secretary of State. I do not want to hear the arguments that I have heard already more than once this evening being repeated yet again—otherwise I shall have to invoke Standing Order No. 42.
      Mr. McDonnell: I am not entirely sure what Standing Order No. 42 is, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman will find out if he persists in straying from the subject of the new clause.
      Mr. McDonnell: I think that that is what they call an object lesson, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
      It is crucial for us to know whether the Bill contravenes article 3 of the first protocol before it is enacted, for several reasons. For one thing, if we do not know that, we shall become liable. As was made clear in our debate on the European convention, article 3 has crucial implications. It requires Governments who signed the

      99
      convention to support and promote free and fair elections. In our view—no Minister can contend that the selling and purchasing of votes—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is now beginning to deal with the substance of the Bill, and with arguments that we have already heard. The new clause is specifically directed at action demanded by the Secretary of State to deal with a specific situation, and the reasons underlying why that might be necessary have been rehearsed many times.
      Mr. McDonnell: With the greatest respect, Mr. Deputy Speaker, it is difficult to debate the new clause without exploring all the ramifications of the Bill in the context of the convention. If only to protect ourselves in the future, we should all say why we consider the new clause to be so critical, because saying whether the Bill contravenes the convention will be important in ensuring that none of us are liable in the future.
      I want to be assured that any record of today's debate makes plain my sincere belief that the Bill does contravene the convention. On that basis, if the new clause is not accepted, I want it to be clear when the legislation is tested—if it is passed—in any action against individual Members or Officers that I am not liable. I want it to be clear that I did not support the Bill at any stage, but supported the new clause to try to ensure that it would not be enacted before a statement had been made about whether it contravened the convention.
      Mr. Bermingham: My hon. Friend makes a valid point, which is often overlooked by Parliament. In December 1998, the court made a decision in Pepper v. someone or other—I cannot remember the name—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hart."] Thank you. The decision was that the courts would now look not only to the intention of Ministers, but to what lay behind a Bill, and to the intention that Parliament then had. If the intention of Parliament is to flout legislation that is about to be enacted, surely no court will uphold the contents of—in the present instance—this Bill.
      Mr. McDonnell: That, too, is a valid point. I believe that, if the House rejects the new clause tonight and a change is made later, tonight's discussions can be prayed in aid with regard to our joint responsibility for promoting legislation in this way. My point, however, is that we are jointly, severally and individually liable for our actions. I believe that, unless the new clause is passed tonight, we as a Chamber will be liable for contravention of the convention. I want to make it plain that I was not party to the decision, and I support the new clause in order to prevent any future contravention in the legislation. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) said, the selling and purchasing of votes is not just corrupt, but contravenes the European convention on human rights.
      8.45 pm
      The demand for the new clause to go through goes beyond the protection of individual residents of the City of London Corporation. If the Bill goes through, it will enable a breach of the human rights not just of corporation residents, but of my constituents.
      100
      Under the Greater London Authority legislation, the City of London Corporation is treated as any other London borough in consultation and development of policies by the new structure for London government: the London mayor and Greater London Authority. Under a range of policy areas, the mayor is required in law to consult the corporation on the development of those policies. Therefore, the introduction of further selling of the business vote undermines the human rights not just of corporation residents, but of my constituents. In that corrupt way, the corporation will be elected and will influence London wide policy.
      The ramifications for the human rights of the whole of London's population should be not only debated, discussed and examined by the House, but, under the new clause, considered by the Attorney-General. The new clause would enable the Attorney-General to consider the matter before the Bill's enactment. I hope that it would allow a report to be brought before the House—I believe that that is what was understood by my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock—and a thorough debate to take place. The thorough debate would revolve around whether the Bill complied with the provisions in the European convention on human rights on the free expression of the opinion of the people.
      Mr. Mackinlay: My new clause does not provide for a report to come back, but that would be ideal. Ideally, both the promoters and the Minister would get the mood of the House and suggest that we abandon tonight's proceedings, or adjourn, and ask for a report. However, failing that, my new clause would mean that the Act could not be triggered until such time as the matter had been brought back.
      Mr. McDonnell: I understand what my hon. Friend says, but if a report is not brought back under the new clause, the House will not be able to discuss the validity of the Attorney-General's views. At least under section 19 of the Human Rights Act a statement is made. I was hoping that the new clause would enable at least some report to the House. If it does not, it may need further discussion and amendment later. I would welcome the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster to rise to his feet to withdraw the Bill for redrafting, but I have gone beyond that hopeful stage. I can see that you, too, Mr. Deputy Speaker, are beyond that stage.
      There are implications not just for City of London Corporation residents, but for all the constituents of Greater London. That is why I as an individual Member of Parliament for a London constituency think that the issue is critical.
      I appreciate that, under the Human Rights Act, there is an opportunity for a get-out clause. It has not been referred to, but I will draw that out briefly. Section 10(2) of the Act provides for remedial orders, which, in layman's terms, give the Government an opportunity to come back. If the Government have got legislation wrong and are found by the European Court to be in contravention of the European convention on human rights, they will be able to issue a remedial order. That order gets individual Ministers off the hook, not that I am particularly bothered about that at this stage. It enables us all, I suppose, to express a view with regard to liability. However, the new clause would obviate the necessity for such remedial orders. I believe that if the Bill were passed, a remedial order would clearly be required.

      101
      Consequently, I urge my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock to consider the new clause's potential and the Government's ability eventually to promote a remedial order. My hon. Friend may want to enter discussions with Ministers on the drafting of relevant remedial orders, should the new clause be passed.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is ahead of himself. The substance of new clause 1 is to call upon the Secretary of State to make a statement to the effect that, in his view,
      "the provisions of the Act are compatible with the Convention rights."
      That is the limit of new clause 1. Even if the new clause were approved by the House, it would not debar someone later from challenging a statement of the Secretary of State. Therefore, we should be considering not remedial orders, but, right now, whether a statement will even be made.
      Mr. McDonnell: With the greatest respect, Mr. Deputy Speaker, there will be no opportunity to challenge any statement made under the new clause. As my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock has just clarified, the statement would not be a report to the House. The problem with the new clause is that, even if it were passed, it would provide no procedure for a report or statement to be made to the House. As my hon. Friend has advised me, however, although the new clause is not intended to provide such a procedure, the use of such a procedure should be considered.
      If a statement is not made to the House for debate, and if the Government are subsequently found to be remiss and in contravention of the convention, remedial orders will be required and all hon. Members will be complicit in contravening the human rights legislation. That is the logic that I am following in the debate.
      I should be quite happy to engage in a dialogue or discussion with the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster and my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock on how the matter might best be dealt with. Today, however, I urge the House to proceed no further with the new clause. None the less, if we divide on it, I shall vote for it, as it would at least provide a fall-back position.
      Section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998 is very specific on what is lawful and what is unlawful. I am therefore at a loss to understand why the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, the hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Hill), has not yet intervened to say whether the Government have considered the issues and the Bill, so that a statement might be made in accordance with the new clause.
      As I have made very clear, I believe that we could act differently by throwing out the Bill and starting again with a more democratic Bill—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman again. However, not only is he repeating himself within the space of a very few minutes, but he is again ignoring my advice that he cannot revert to how the Bill is being dealt with. We are dealing with one simple matter: new clause 1.
      Mr. McDonnell: I was going to finish my sentence by saying, "because of its offence against the human rights legislation", and that I support new clause 1.
      102
      I also pray in aid some of the work that we have been doing on human rights legislation in relation to local government around the world. Recently, a conference of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association permitted us to examine and debate the human rights role and responsibilities of individual member states of the European Union and of the Commonwealth. New clause 1 is intended to ensure that the Government address the human rights issue by including in the Bill a requirement for them to make a statement, and it accords with some of the work being done by the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association.
      At the conference, Richard Bourne, chairman of the Commonwealth human rights—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I would accept an allusion, but we will not have a full discussion of that conference, which is quite outside the scope of the amendment.
      Mr. McDonnell: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I have respected your views throughout the debate, and you have been kind to me in every debate into which I have entered. However, with the greatest respect, you are not to judge whether I was about to make an allusion or a full statement on the matter, because I had not made it.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must have a care about challenging the rulings of the Chair. He was about to launch into further references to the conference. I think that he had made a sufficient allusion to it in support of his general argument, which was therefore in order. However, I have had to remind the hon. Gentleman on a number of occasions of the specific matter that we are discussing. He has repeated himself several times, using the same words over and over again. That is causing me to repeat myself in calling him to order. The hon. Gentleman should respect the rulings that I have given from the Chair, and ensure that the remainder of his remarks is strictly within the terms of the new clause. Otherwise, I shall have to invoke Standing Order No. 42.
      Mr. McDonnell: The discussion at the Commonwealth human rights conference was clear about the huge role that Governments had to play in the protection of citizens' human rights and the promotion of local tenets of democracy. The new clause would enable the Government to make a statement, before we proceed further with the Bill, that they value local democracy, value and uphold democratic rights and, on that basis, believe that we are not in contravention of the European convention on human rights. In my view, we are. In my view, we tread a dangerous path. It is my contention that all legislation should comply with the European convention, and private Bills should not be exempt. On that basis, I support the new clause.
      Mr. Andrew Dismore: The right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke) gave the House an assurance that the promoters of the Bill had found no contravention of convention rights, but he has been challenged by hon. Members to say where that advice came from. That is a very important issue, for this reason.

      103
      I do not wish to construe article 3—the right to free elections—bearing in mind your earlier constraints, Mr. Deputy Speaker. However, it could be said in relation to article 3 that if the lawyers who advised the promoters of the Bill on this point had offices in the City of London, they could have had a vested interest in giving their opinion. If, for example, those lawyers have huge, swish offices in one of the more upmarket parts of the City, the rateable value of their property may be several millions of pounds.
      Mr. Peter Bradley: And several votes.
      Mr. Dismore: Several hundred votes, I say to my hon. Friend. Under schedule 1, each million pounds works out at 100 votes.
      It may be that those lawyers thought that this Bill could be a good Bill for lawyers. The City of London sometimes has policies concerning what the legal profession should be up to in the City, and I have expressed criticisms of City lawyers in other debates. Those lawyers may well come to the view that the City should be doing more to promote the interests of lawyers and, by packing the vote with several hundred of their nominated electors could influence the outcome of City of London policy through the election procedures that we are being asked to approve tonight. Those who may have been asked to advise on the Bill may have had a vested interest in saying that it does not contravene the European convention on human rights.
      Mr. McDonnell: On that basis, does my hon. Friend agree that it behoves the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster to publish that opinion this evening—even if it is only laid around the House—and the name of the counsel who gave that opinion?
      Mr. Dismore: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention, as it is essential that we know who gave that advice and whether the lawyers involved, for example, already have representatives on the corporation of London. There may already be common councillors or City aldermen from that law firm. There may be a close connection between the lawyers advising the City and the City itself. If we could see the opinion, we could determine whether the views on articles 2 and 3 were correct. We could also check whether it was obtained fairly, and properly given.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. McDonnell) noted that, besides the firm of solicitors to which I referred, leading counsel may also be involved.
      9 pm
      Mr. Bermingham: Is not the date of the advice relevant also? Opinion in respect of validity and compliance has changed rapidly over the past 18 months. An opinion that is two or three years old may be worthless.
      Mr. Dismore: One of the problems of the Human Rights Act 1998 is that it contains no definitions to help construe the terms of the articles of the European convention. My hon. Friend makes an important point. There has been an awful lot of case law recently, and the interpretation of the convention has developed alongside
      104
      it. I am sorry to say that, once or twice, British Governments have been found to be in contravention when they had considered that to be unlikely.
      Mr. Peter Bradley: My hon. Friend is a distinguished lawyer, and will know that one gets the advice that one pays for. Would it not be useful to see the instructions on which the advice that we are discussing was based?
      Mr. Dismore: Yes. My hon. Friend and I used be members of Westminster city council. We were often shown legal opinions, and then we got wise to asking to see the instructions on which they were based. That was illuminating, as we discovered that one gets the answers to the questions that one poses.
      I should like to know whether the lawyers were asked to advise on the definition of "free" in article 3. The word could mean fair, or that something does not have to be paid for. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) noted earlier, the Bill would make people pay for votes. For example, a person at odds with the City of London's policy on joining the euro might rent or buy some buildings to get a few votes in elections in the City, in the hope that he would be able to influence City policy. Several millionaires with a firm view on that matter may decide to spend their money on mounting such an attempt.
      I should also like to know whether the lawyers were instructed to construe the phrase "free expression", which appears in article 3.
      Mr. Bermingham: If I were a multi-millionaire—and I am not, being a practising lawyer—and bought property in the City worth millions of pounds, I could vote there and I would also have all my property votes. Why should my property votes, which would have been purchased, be worth more than my human votes, which I would have earned by residence?
      Mr. Dismore: My hon. Friend makes a valid intervention. I hope that the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster will reveal the contents of the lawyers' opinion, and the instructions that they were given.
      Before my hon. Friend intervened, I referred to the term "free expression" in article 3. I think that that term should mean that people can put their crosses wherever they choose on the ballot paper. However, the people who will be asked to exercise their "free expression" will be nominated by a qualifying body—in other words, their employers. I can envisage that people will mark their ballot papers in a way that they know will please their employers.
      That practice harks back to the old days of the rotten boroughs, when people were required to vote in the way preferred by their squire. The City is run by the third millennium's squirearchy, and the Bill would enable them to tell their underlings how to vote. I should like to know whether the lawyers who advise the City were asked to construe the definition of "free expression" in that context.
      Mr. Bermingham: Does my hon. Friend agree that this is an example of the perfect political Whip, effectively saying, "If you don't vote the right way, you're out."?
      Mr. Dismore: This goes beyond what my hon. Friend says; in this House, if one votes against the Whip—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. The hon. Gentleman is straying from the subject. He must keep within the terms of the new clause before us.
      Mr. Dismore: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was perhaps getting a little carried away in responding to my hon. Friend's intervention, because I thought that he made a valid point.
      My point follows the earlier intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Bradley). It goes back to the main defence against the new clause proposed by the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster: that a legal opinion was obtained saying that this piece of legislation complied with the European convention.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The new clause that I am referring to was moved by the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay). Is that the new clause that the hon. Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) is discussing?
      Mr. Dismore: It is, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I am grateful to you. You were not in the Chamber earlier, but you are quite right in that my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) made the point in support of his new clause. However, in responding on behalf of the promoters of the Bill, the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster made the point that the new clause was not necessary because a legal opinion had been obtained by the City that it complied with the European convention, and that we did not have to worry.
      I am questioning whether that legal opinion has any validity for the purposes of our debate, bearing in mind that we have yet to see it, as well as seeing the instructions. The instructions to the City lawyers may simply have said, "Let us know whether this complies with the European convention" without drawing attention to the specific points that I have raised.
      Mr. Tony Benn: Could my hon. Friend advise me? Let us suppose that the Bill is taken to the European court under the convention. The first question to the Attorney-General will be, "Did you consider the Bill?" We are told by the promoter of the Bill that the Attorney-General did not; we are told that he has not responded. The Attorney-General will be unable to say that he has never thought of it because all these debates have highlighted that point, and still we have a silent Attorney. That must make Britain much more vulnerable if, as is almost certain, the Act—as it will be—is taken to a court for consideration.
      Mr. Dismore: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that intervention. The phrase "silent Attorney" is probably a contradiction in terms, but I get the drift of his remarks. If the Bill were challenged in the European courts, Her Majesty's Government, especially the Attorney-General, would be on the receiving end, not the City of London. If
      106
      the Attorney-General and the Government have not considered that, and without the new clause being incorporated and any view being reported back to the House for debate, the Government could be buying a pig in a poke.
      Mr. David Heath: Is not the most extraordinary thing about the debate the fact that no duty is placed on the Bill's promoter or, indeed, on the corporation of the City of London? The duty is placed on the Secretary of State. The Minister could have curtailed this entire discussion by simply accepting the implied duty that would have been placed on him by legislation promoted by the Government.
      Mr. Dismore: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely correct. When we vote on Third Reading, we must be sure that the Bill complies with the convention. If not, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington said, we could accidentally be in breach of the European convention, simply because we had accepted the word of the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster. I know that the right hon. Gentleman is a very decent chap; I am sure that he is very well versed in these matters. He may well have seen the legal opinion, although I do not know whether he has.
      Today, the right hon. Gentleman told us that the City of London Corporation had obtained an opinion that the measure does not breach the European convention. Will he tell us whether he has read that legal opinion and the instructions that gave rise to it? I should be happy to give way to him. Before I gave way to a series of interventions, the main thrust of my argument concerned whether those instructions directed the lawyers properly to the questions that they should consider in construing article 3 and other provisions in relation to the European convention.
      Mr. McDonnell: My hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) mentioned—I think in error—that there would be an opportunity to discuss the matter on Third Reading if such a statement were made. The new clause would not enable the Third Reading to take into account a statement by the Attorney-General; it would apply merely before the provisions of the Act come into force. As I tried to point out, despite being interrupted several times, we will not have an opportunity to debate any statement because it will not be made until after the House has dealt with the Bill. Based on that, we are jointly and severally liable for whatever happens in due course.
      Mr. Dismore: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point. Perhaps that is why when the Bill reaches Third Reading—irrespective of whether the new clause is accepted—we should vote against it anyway. There is a strong argument that the Bill is an extremely bad one.
      Mr. Cohen: As my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Bradley) has pointed out, our hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) is a distinguished lawyer, whose expertise is most valuable to the House.
      Mr. McDonnell: It is free.
      Mr. Cohen: Will my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon tell us whether, in these circumstances, it is usual

      107
      for a body such as the City of London to consult counsel on one specific point? Would that show that the body was worried about that particular point? In my hon. Friend's opinion, by not publishing the advice and by insisting on secrecy, does that not show there might be something fishy—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is pushing his luck.
      Mr. Dismore: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr. Cohen), because he has made an interesting intervention. It goes back to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin as to the importance of the instructions. Those instructions might well reveal the motivation behind obtaining the opinion. They might reveal that the City was not only worried, but may also have had its own view on the matter, which the lawyers were asked to consider.
      If we are to vote against the new clause, not only do we need the assurances of the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster that the City has found that particular opinion, but the right hon. Gentleman should put his money where his mouth is, or rather the City—for whom he speaks—should do so: we should see the legal opinion and the instructions on which it is based. We should see that before we proceed much further with the debate.
      The right hon. Gentleman has had ample opportunity to intervene on me and on other hon. Members to say, on behalf of the City, that the legal advice and instructions would be made public. He could have said, "We have nothing to hide. We are happy that we obtained the legal opinion in good faith". He could have told us that the City had instructed the lawyers at great length to address the points that I made in relation to article 3 and other provisions that could be contravened by the Bill. We would all be happy about that. Indeed, if we had that opinion, some of us might be prepared to show a copy to the Attorney-General in the Lobby—although of course we cannot do so because he is in another place.
      Mr. McDonnell: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We have had an extensive debate on the legal opinion that the City of London Corporation has sought and obtained. We know that it exists because of the statement by the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke). What procedure may we now take so as to adjourn the House to enable the right hon. Gentleman to circulate that legal opinion before the debate continues?
      9.15 pm
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. These are matters for debate, and we cannot adjourn the House on the basis of what has been debated. We must allow the debate to continue.
      Mr. Dismore: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
      Mr. Gordon Prentice: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. That raises the interesting
      108
      possibility that there may be a multiplicity of legal opinions, and that the promoters are being coy because the City favours only one of those opinions.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman should not concern himself too much with what legal opinion the promoters took, because the main matter before us is the new clause that has been tabled by the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay). That is all that we should concern ourselves with.
      Mr. Dismore: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The reason why we have been considering the issue of the opinion obtained by the City is that my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock, in moving that the new clause be read a Second time, argued very strongly that we had no legal advice before us.
      Mr. Bermingham: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Please do not think me unkind. If the Chair has just ruled that we must think only about the new clause and not about the opinion, is that not a bit like a look-out on the Titanic being told that he is sailing the Atlantic and to ignore the icebergs?
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Although I used to work in a shipyard, I do not know a great deal about the Titanic, but I would tell the hon. Gentleman that, while it is allowable to refer to the opinion that was sought by the City of London, hon. Members' harping on about it at great length concerns me. That is why I am telling the hon. Gentleman that we can move on now. The point has been made that the City of London has sought legal advice in this matter. I think that we all seek legal advice from time to time, but that point has been made, so perhaps we can move on.
      Mr. Dismore: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
      We understand that, if the new clause were incorporated into the Bill, the Secretary of State, in making a statement, would seek the Attorney-General's opinion. The problem that we have in the House is that we cannot seek the Attorney-General's opinion because he is not a Member of this House. The Attorney-General does not attend Attorney-General's questions; the Solicitor-General attends in his place. I certainly would not say that the Solicitor-General is not a distinguished lawyer, but he is not the Attorney-General.
      The answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock by the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster was that that did not matter, because the City had obtained its legal opinion. I would simply say that if we had that opinion, we could judge for ourselves.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I would say that there is such a thing as tedious repetition, and I would say that the hon. Gentleman is straying on that because he has mentioned that point. Before I entered the Chamber, the point was also mentioned by one of his hon. Friends, so we cannot belabour it. We have the new clause before us. If the hon. Gentleman is running out of things to say, it may be time to conclude his remarks.
      Mr. Mackinlay: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. During those exchanges, I was able to take a

      109
      look at "Erskine May". May I draw your attention to page 388? I am sure that you are very familiar with that particular page. There are no pictures in it, but it does relate to this point. I raise it on a point of order, addressing it through you to the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke). It says:
      "There is no rule to prevent Members not connected with the Government from citing documents in their possession, both public and private, which are not before the House, even though the House will not be able to form a correct judgment from partial extracts."
      However, footnote 9 says:
      "A private Member's action in handing a document to a Minister in support of arguments was ruled to be 'very irregular'".
      Although that footnote related to the handing of documents by a Back Bencher to a Minister, it would be reasonable to assume that, similarly, it was highly irregular for the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster to hand over documents and not bring them to the attention of the whole House.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has just read out a very interesting quotation from "Erskine May".
      Mr. Cohen: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You will know that Select Committees and the House have the power to insist that both people and papers are brought before them when that is relevant. I submit that it is relevant to receive counsel's advice before the debate is concluded. May I put it—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is not a point of order. The question of bringing people or documents before the House is not a matter for debate. We are now debating the new clause tabled by the hon. Member for Thurrock.
      Mr. McDonnell: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: I hope that it is a point of order. I get the feeling that some hon. Members are seeking to prolong the debate. [Interruption.] Order. I have dealt with points of order and not one of them was a proper point of order. Some hon. Members are testing the patience of the Chair.
      Mr. McDonnell: Of course, I would not do that, Mr. Deputy Speaker. However, may I give notice, on a point of order, that we shall table a substantive motion in the House requiring the production of the document?
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order; the hon. Gentleman can do whatever he wants. I call the hon. Member for Hendon to resume his speech, but if he has nothing to say other than to repeat the case that he has already made, he must sit down.
      Mr. Dismore: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have quite a few other points to make about the new clause.
      First, if we had the Attorney-General's opinion, it would provide a much stronger basis on which we could proceed with the Bill.
      Mr. John Cryer: Let us leave aside the legal opinion for a minute. If this Act were challenged in the courts,
      110
      does my hon. Friend think it conceivable that the courts would not consider the House's deliberations this evening?
      Mr. Dismore: If such matters came before the courts—the High Court, the House of Lords or, beyond that, the European Court of Human Rights—it is inevitable that, under the provisions of Pepper v. Hart, to which my hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham) referred, the courts would consider what was said in the House. If the Government did not provide the certificate sought by the new clause and appeared before the court—the Government and not the City would defend the legal action—they would be in great difficulty given the points made in the debate.
      Because of earlier rulings, we are not able to draw the House's attention to the detailed breaches that were alleged in relation to the Bill, but we can at least make it absolutely clear that, in the absence of a certificate from the Secretary of State, many of us have reservations. If my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State were to give a certificate, that would go a long way towards satisfying me. I would know that the opinion would be based on the opinion of the Attorney-General, for whom I have great regard.
      Mr. Bermingham: If a certificate were given, not only would my hon. Friend be satisfied, but so would I. However, bearing in mind the rulings that already exist under articles 34 and 33 and protocols 3 and 7 of the convention, we need to know on what basis the certificate would be given.
      Mr. Dismore: The matter goes beyond that. The new clause would not prevent a legal challenge being made even if a certificate were given. The purpose of a certificate is not to provide one with a cast-iron defence in the courts or a public immunity defence. It would simply reassure the House that the Bill complied with the European convention. It is not a defence to go to court and say, "Well, we've got a certificate so you can't sue us," but the certificate would reassure us.
      Mr. Bermingham: Does my hon. Friend further agree that, if the certificate and the reasons behind it were given, we could see whether or not the Government had concluded that a certificate could be given and, therefore, whether or not they thought the Bill was a bad Bill—which is what we have been saying for the past two and a half hours?
      Mr. Dismore: My hon. Friend makes a valid point. If such a point were read into the proceedings of the House, it could also be raised during a legal challenge under the precedent set by Pepper v. Hart. If the issue were to appear before the courts, not the City but the Government would be in the dock.
      This point is particularly important when one considers the convention. For illustrative purposes, we have all focused on article 3—the right to free elections—but other articles, such as article 2 on the right to education, are even more important. I shall certainly not go through the construction of that article, because there is a risk that it could be contravened by the Bill. Suffice it to say that there are reservations in the context of the Human Rights Act.

      111
      I can see the most bizarre position developing whereby no certificate has been given; somebody challenges whether proper education is being provided in the City of London; the Government end up in the dock and there is some reservation—without any great thought about whether article 2 is contravened by the Bill. We would suddenly find ourselves in the most horrendous legal mess in trying to interpret the position.
      New clause 1 is very much needed. It would give the House great reassurance that the Bill complies with the convention—or, to adopt the point of view of my hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens, South, that it does not do so. When we are asked to give the Bill a Third Reading, that should be very much to the forefront of our minds.
      Mr. McDonnell: Legal advice is being bandied across the Chamber—unpublished or not—but will my hon. Friend clarify that his main thrust is that it is essential that we achieve protection in some form? What would be the consequences of not having such protection under the new clause?
      Mr. Dismore: The most obvious consequence will be that the House will have passed legislation that does not comply with the European convention on human rights or with our own Human Rights Act. That in itself would have other consequences—in addition to the Government's perhaps looking rather foolish because they would have been found in contravention of the legislation in the European Court.
      I mentioned earlier that our Government have been caught out by the European Court on only a couple of occasions in three years—which is not bad when compared with the previous Government's record. I certainly hope that our Government continue to maintain their very good record on the convention.
      Mr. Bermingham: Would not the consequences of being caught out be having to agree under the terms of settlement to compensate and to rectify? The cost of rectification in this case would be enormous.
      Mr. Dismore: My hon. Friend is correct. One problem is that the City is very much a law unto itself—that is why trying to reform it is difficult. We may end up with huge legal bills and having to pay compensation bills for infringing people's rights. We may have to try to unstitch decisions in the City and hold new elections there, having first passed better legislation that incorporates one person, one vote, rather than one building, one vote. I very much hope that the Government will take on board the fact that the consequences could be horrendous, and will either ensure that new clause 1 is agreed to so that we have an opinion, or prevail on the City to release the opinion, so that we can at least check whether we agree with it.
      Mr. Peter Bradley: I am worried about the implications of my hon. Friend's comments about legal advice. Can he construe any circumstances in which such
      112
      advice may be given to justify, for example, the constitution of the upper Chamber on the basis of property ownership rather than democratic franchise?
      Mr. Dismore: I am very tempted—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We could not stray into those matters under this narrow new clause.
      Mr. McDonnell rose—
      Mr. Dismore: I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington.
      Mr. McDonnell: The issue of consequences has been raised and I can understand that the residents of the City of London—or, as a result of the Greater London Authority Act 1999, the residents of Greater London—would be the offended party, but who would bear the cost? It would not be the City of London Corporation any more because the Bill would become a public Act, and because the Government have not intervened—
      9.30 pm
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have already heard the hon. Gentleman make that point. He cannot go over it again.
      Mr. Dismore: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In conclusion—
      Mr. Cohen: Will my hon. Friend give way on one brief point? The whole thrust of my hon. Friend's argument is that the House needs the statement from the Secretary of State; otherwise the whole matter could be taken to the European Court. He knows that there is to be a mayor elected for the rest of London. Does he think that the mayor might—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.
      Mr. Dismore: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his point. The problem with legal challenges is that, if the Bill is not in compliance with human rights legislation, such a challenge could come from any quarter and be made in any court. However, I think that my hon. Friend slightly misunderstands my earlier point, which is that legal challenge is possible, whether or not there is a certificate of compliance. All such a certificate does is reassure the House that the chance of such a challenge being made is small.
      A challenge could come from the mayor or the Greater London Authority, from a resident of the City or a business in the City, or from any aggrieved person with a remote interest in the City. That is why new clause 1 is so important. Even if there were a broad consensus in support of the Bill, some mischievous individual might attempt to unpick it by pursuing lengthy legal proceedings through the courts. We all know how long it can take a case to go though the lower courts, the High Court and the Court of Appeal, before getting to the European Court. The Bill could be the source of litigation lasting 10 or 15 years. In the end, the only beneficiaries would be

      113
      lawyers, and it is not the purpose of the House to provide lawyers with a living—even though I should declare an interest in that I am a solicitor.
      The new clause is extremely important. The House requires the assurance that it would provide and I hope that it finds favour with hon. Members.
      The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Keith Hill): I start by thanking the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke) for giving the House the necessary assurances on the compatibility of the Bill with convention rights.
      Mr. McDonnell: Will the Minister give way?
      Mr. Bermingham: Will the Minister give way?
      Mr. Hill: For heaven's sake, give me a chance. Well, even though I have heard my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. McDonnell) more than once today, I shall give way to him—although I warn him that it will be the only time that I do so.
      Mr. McDonnell: Does the Minister's remark mean that he has seen the legal opinion? If so, why has it not been brought to the House and copied to hon. Members?
      Mr. Hill: I have not seen the legal opinion. However, the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster is an honourable Member. It is his duty as the sponsor of the Bill to give the necessary assurances, and he has done so. I have no intention of impugning his honour or his integrity.
      Mr. Peter Bradley: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Once before, I made the mistake of referring to a Member specifically as the "honourable" Gentleman. I was reprimanded on the basis that all Members are honourable Members, therefore the expression is meaningless.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order. The Minister can express himself any way he pleases, as long as he observes the rules of the House.
      Mr. Hill: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
      Let me deal with the concerns expressed by various hon. Members about the Secretary of State's involvement, which is the subject of the new clause. We have been debating the new clause for the past two and a half hours, so it does not seem unreasonable that I should make an observation regarding it. The law is entirely clear: the Human Rights Act 1998 requires that, for public Bills, the Minister in charge must make a statement of compatibility with convention rights, or state that he is unable to do so. There is no equivalent requirement for private Bills or private Members' Bills.
      Mr. Bermingham: I speak from practical profession experience, going back more than 30 years. Does the Minister accept that the European Court might not care to think about whether legislation is public or private, but that it will think about the rights of the citizen and ask itself one simple question: have the citizen's rights
      114
      been infringed? Whether it is a public Bill or a private Bill matters not a tinker's cuss. The European Court will enforce the rights of the convention.
      Mr. Hill: I hope to come on to that point in due course.
      I am saying that in various incarnations—
      Mr. Dismore: Will my hon. Friend give way?
      Mr. Hill: Just a minute.
      In various incarnations I have heard my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington raise the question of compliance in relation to the Bill. He has done so on several occasions on points of order preceding the Bill's consideration. You will recall, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that during each of the preceding two occasions when the Bill has been discussed the occupant of the Chair has made it clear that there is no provision in legislation or in the rules of the House for making statements of compatibility with convention rights in relation to a private member's Bill or private Bills.
      The view has been taken that the issue is one for debate and not for the Chair. The rules of the House are therefore entirely clear on this matter. The guidance from the Chair is also entirely clear, and we are complying with that guidance and with the law.
      I take up the issue that was raised initially by my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay). It was picked up and danced with by many other hon. Members. The specific issue was the possible future role of my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General. Should a court wish to declare an Act incompatible, the Crown is given an opportunity to argue against it. It is our understanding that that is a right and not a requirement. The central point is that under existing legislation it is the sponsor who is required to state his view on compatibility. Parliament can then take a view and amend accordingly if it wishes to do so. A further statement from the Government, either on a private Bill or a private Member's Bill, will not change whether the Bill complies with the Human Rights Act 1998. It is Parliament that needs to get the Bill right, not the Minister, not the Government and not the Attorney-General.
      Mr. Mackinlay: Are the Government neutral on the new clause? Will there be a free vote for all right hon. and hon. Members, including those who are on the payroll? Can my hon. Friend give an assurance that there will be no Whips outside the Lobby picketing to ensure that Labour Members turn down the new clause? Can he give us an unequivocal assurance on that?
      Mr. Hill: As the Minister speaking from the Dispatch Box, I cannot be responsible for events that occur outside the Chamber. I feel very much responsible for what occurs when I am at the Dispatch Box. My hon. Friend has undoubtedly received the Whip during the past few days. My recollection, as I am sure it is his, is that the vote was clearly and unequivocally described as a free vote. If that was on the Whip, I am sure that that will satisfy my hon. Friend and other hon. Friends in the Chamber that it is a free vote.
      Mr. Cohen: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. Indeed, he is truly honourable.

      115
      Before the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay), was he saying that it would be Parliament and Members of Parliament who would be liable if the Bill became an Act and is in breach of the European convention? I can understand that Ministers should not be liable and I sympathise with that point. However, the Bill comes from the City of London. Should not responsibility fall on the City and not on my hon. Friend the Minister or Parliament?
      Mr. Hill: Strictly speaking, we are not debating liability in this context. Instead, we are debating where liability lies for a declaration about the compatibility of the Bill with the convention. The fact is that it lies with the sponsor, who has discharged that duty. It would therefore be wholly inappropriate—
      Mr. Dismore rose—
      Mr. Peter Bradley rose—
      Mr. Hill: No, I shall not give way. It would be wholly inappropriate for the Secretary of State to be asked to make a statement on a Bill for which he has no responsibility. That is a matter for the Bill's promoters. The right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster has placed a statement on record on their behalf. That is the proper approach. I hope that his statement is sufficient to satisfy hon. Members, and that my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock will withdraw the amendment.
      Mr. Brooke rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
      Question put, That the Question be now put:—
      The House divided: Ayes 137, Noes 68.

      Division No. 35]

      [9.40 pm

      AYES

      Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

      Collins, Tim

      Allen, Graham

      Colman, Tony

      Amess, David

      Cormack, Sir Patrick

      Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

      Cotter, Brian

      Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

      Cran, James

      Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

      Crausby, David

      Bayley, Hugh

      Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

      Beard, Nigel

      Davey, Edward (Kingston)

      Betts, Clive

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Blunt, Crispin

      Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

      Boswell, Tim

      Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

      Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

      Day, Stephen

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

      Dowd, Jim

      Bradshaw, Ben

      Duncan, Alan

      Brazier, Julian

      Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

      Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

      Ennis, Jeff

      Browning, Mrs Angela

      Evans, Nigel

      Cabom, Rt Hon Richard

      Fisher, Mark

      Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

      Ftzpatrick, Jim

      Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

      Flight, Howard

      Flint, Caroline

      Campbell-Savours, Dale

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

      Caplin, Ivor

      Foulkes, George

      Casale, Roger

      George, Andrew (St Ives)

      Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

      George, Bruce (Walsall S)

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Gill, Christopher

      Coaker, Vernon

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      116

      Green, Damian

      Mullin, Chris

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

      Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

      O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

      Heald, Oliver

      Pearson, Ian

      Healey, John

      Perham, Ms Linda

      Heppell, John

      Plaskitt, James

      Hill, Keith

      Pond, Chris

      Hodge, Ms Margaret

      Pope, Greg

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

      Howells, Dr Kim

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

      Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

      Quinn, Lawrie

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Randall, John

      Humble, Mrs Joan

      Rendel, David

      Hutton, John

      Robathan, Andrew

      Jack, Rt Hon Michael

      Roche, Mrs Barbara

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      Ross, William (E Lond'y)

      Jamieson, David

      Roy, Frank

      Jenkins, Brian

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

      Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

      Ryan, Ms Joan

      Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

      Sanders, Adrian

      Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

      Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

      Keeble, Ms Sally

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Key, Robert

      Soley, Clive

      King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

      Southworth, Ms Helen

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Spellar, John

      Laing, Mrs Eleanor

      Spelman, Mrs Caroline

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Squire, Ms Rachel

      Leslie, Christopher

      Starkey, Dr Phyllis

      Levitt, Tom

      Stoate, Dr Howard

      Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

      Stuart, Ms Gisela

      Lidington, David

      Syms, Robert

      Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

      Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      Lock, David

      Loughton, Tim

      Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

      McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)

      Timms, Stephen

      Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

      MacGregor, Rt Hon John

      Turner, Neil (Wigan)

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Wicks, Malcolm

      McNulty, Tony

      Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

      Mactaggart, Fiona

      Wills, Michael

      Mates, Michael

      Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

      Meale, Alan

      Moriey, Elliot

      Tellers for the Ayes:

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

      Mr. Desmond Swayne and

      Sir Peter Emery.

      NOES

      Ashton, Joe

      Hood, Jimmy

      Barnes, Harry

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Bell, Martin (Tatton)

      Hurst, Alan

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)

      Iddon, Dr Brian

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Illsley, Eric

      Berry, Roger

      Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

      Best, Harold

      Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

      Butler, Mrs Christine

      Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

      Cann, Jamie

      Ladyman, Dr Stephen

      Cawsey, Ian

      Linton, Martin

      Clapham, Michael

      Uoyd, Tony (Manchester C)

      Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

      McDonnell, John

      Collins, Tim

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Connarty, Michael

      McWalter, Tony

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Cousins, Jim

      Marshall-Andrews, Robert

      Cryer, John (Homchurch)

      Michie, Bill (Shefld Heeley)

      Dalyell, Tam

      Miller, Andrew

      Davidson, Ian

      Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)

      Dawson, Hilton

      Naysmith, Dr Doug

      Dismore, Andrew

      Olner, Bill

      Dobbin, Jim

      Pickthall, Colin

      Efford, Clive

      Pike, Peter L

      Gibson, Dr Ian

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Rammell, Bill

      Gordon, Mrs Eileen

      Savidge, Malcolm

      Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

      Sawford, Phil

      Hinchliffe, David

      Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

      117

      Skinner, Dennis

      Willis, Phil

      Smith, Angela (Basildon)

      Wise, Audrey

      Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

      Wood, Mike

      Stinchcombe, Paul

      Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

      Stunell, Andrew

      Taylor, David (NW Leics)

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Tynan, Bill

      Mr. Harry Cohen and

      Wareing, Robert N

      Mr. Peter Bradley.

      Question accordingly agreed to.
      Question put accordingly, That the clause be read a Second time:—
      The House divided: Ayes 81, Noes 120.

      Division No. 36]

      [9.52 pm

      AYES

      Barnes, Harry

      Linton, Martin

      Bell, Martin (Tatton)

      McDonnell, John

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Bermingham, Gerald

      McWalter, Tony

      Best, Harold

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Bradshaw, Ben

      Marshall-Andrews, Robert

      Butler, Mrs Christine

      Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

      Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

      Miller, Andrew

      Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)

      Cann, Jamie

      Naysmith, Dr Doug

      Cawsey, Ian

      Olner, Bill

      Clapham, Michael

      Perham, Ms Linda

      Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

      Pickthall, Colin

      Connarty, Michael

      Pike, Peter L

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Pond, Chris

      Cotter, Brian

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Cousins, Jim

      Rammell, Bill

      Crausby, David

      Rendel, David

      Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      Dalyell, Tam

      Sanders, Adrian

      Davey, Edward (Kingston)

      Sawford, Phil

      Davidson, Ian

      Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

      Dawson, Hilton

      Skinner, Dennis

      Dismore, Andrew

      Smith, Angela (Basildon)

      Dobbin, Jim

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Efford, Clive

      Starkey, Dr Phyllis

      George, Andrew (St Ives)

      Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

      Gibson, Dr Ian

      Stinchcombe, Paul

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Stunell, Andrew

      Gordon, Mrs Eileen

      Taylor, David (NW Leics)

      Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

      Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

      Hinchliffe, David

      Turner, Neil (Wigan)

      Hood, Jimmy

      Tynan, Bill

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Wareing, Robert N

      Hurst, Alan

      Whitehead, Dr Alan

      Iddon, Dr Brian

      Willis, Phil

      Illsley, Eric

      Wise, Audrey

      Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

      Wood, Mike

      Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

      Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

      Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Ladyman, Dr Stephen

      Mr. Peter Bradley and

      Lepper, David

      Mr. Harry Cohen.

      NOES

      Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

      Brazier, Julian

      Allen, Graham

      Brinton, Mrs Helen

      Amess, David

      Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

      Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

      Browning, Mrs Angela

      Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

      Campbell-Savours, Dale

      Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

      Casale, Roger

      Bayley, Hugh

      Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

      Beard, Nigel

      Chidgey, David

      Betts, Clive

      Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

      Blunt, Crispin

      Boswell, Tim

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

      Clwyd, Ann

      118

      Coaker, Vernon

      Levitt, Tom

      Collins, Tim

      Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

      Colman, Tony

      Lidington, David

      Cooper, Yvette

      Lock, David

      Cormack, Sir Patrick

      Loughton, Tim

      Cran, James

      MacGregor, Rt Hon John

      Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

      McNulty, Tony

      Day, Stephen

      Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

      Dowd, Jim

      Mates, Michael

      Duncan, Alan

      Meale, Alan

      Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

      Merron, Gillian

      Ennis, Jeff

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

      Evans, Nigel

      Fitzpatrick, Jim

      Mullin, Chris

      Flight, Howard

      Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

      Flint, Caroline

      O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

      Pearson, Ian

      Foulkes, George

      Pope, Greg

      Fox, Dr Liam

      Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

      Gill, Christopher

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

      Gilroy, Mrs Linda

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Quinn, Lawrie

      Green, Damian

      Randall, John

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

      Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

      Robathan, Andrew

      Heald, Oliver

      Roche, Mrs Barbara

      Healey, John

      Ross, William (E Lond'y)

      Heppell, John

      Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

      Hill, Keith

      Ryan, Ms Joan

      Hodge, Ms Margaret

      Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

      Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

      Soley, Clive

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Southworth, Ms Helen

      Howells, Dr Kim

      Spellar, John

      Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

      Spelman, Mrs Caroline

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Squire, Ms Rachel

      Humble, Mrs Joan

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Hutton, John

      Stoate, Dr Howard

      Jack, Rt Hon Michael

      Stuart, Ms Gisela

      Jamieson, David

      Syms, Robert

      Jenkins, Brian

      Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

      Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

      Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

      Twigg, Derek (Halton)

      Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Keeble, Ms Sally

      Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

      Kemp, Fraser

      Wills, Michael

      Key, Robert

      Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

      King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

      King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Laing, Mrs Eleanor

      Mr. Desmond Swayne and

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Sir Peter Emery.

      Question accordingly negatived.
      It being after Ten o'clock, further consideration stood adjourned.
      Bill to be further considered on Wednesday 2 February.

  DELEGATED LEGISLATION
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): With permission, I shall put together the motions relating to delegated legislation.
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

  DELEGATED LEGISLATION
    CONTRACTING OUT
    That the draft Contracting Out (Functions in Relation to Petroleum Royalty Payments) Order 2000, which was laid before this House on 16th December, be approved.
    EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING
    That the draft Industrial Training Levy (Construction Board) Order 2000, which was laid before this House on 16th December, be approved.

    EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING
    That the draft Industrial Training Levy (Engineering Construction Board) Order 2000, which was laid before this House on 16th December, be approved.—[Mr. Betts.]
    Question agreed to.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 25 (Periodic Adjournments),
  That this House, at its rising on Tuesday 22nd February, do adjourn till Monday 28th February 2000.—[Mr. Betts.]

  NORTHERN IRELAND
  Ordered,
  That Mr. Stephen Hesford be discharged from the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee and Mr. Tony Clarke be added to the Committee.—[Mr. Betts.]

  Just-in-time Distribution
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Betts.]
  10.3 pm
  Dr. Alan Whitehead: I was delighted to be selected to initiate this debate.
  During the two and three quarter years I have been a Member, I have observed that Adjournment debates come in all shapes and sizes. Some deal with large issues involving a national or international sweep, and others with very local issues, often pertinent to the constituency of the Members initiating them. My chosen subject does both. On the one hand, it is a large issue that goes to the heart of the well-being of United Kingdom manufacturing and retailing and the competitiveness of the UK economy; on the other, it affects everyone's lives in a detailed and local way. In Southampton, every time I visit Safeway, just down the road from me, I am relying on the just in time system. At Ford, just up the road, every time a production worker turns round to look for a component from the box to, fit the shell of a Transit van, he or she relies on just in time.
  Perhaps it is because the factor is all-pervasive that no one notices it. I did a trawl of the number of times that just in time has been mentioned in the House since 1994, and there is virtually no trace; yet the importance of the system is incalculable, and to date has been a source of some pride to the United Kingdom. Indeed the White Paper on sustainable distribution states:
  "the evidence suggests that the UK is now amongst the world leaders in efficient management of the supply chain, representing an important competitive advantage for UK companies."
  How does just in time work? It works on the basis that goods arrive to serve their purpose—display for sale, or entry into the production line—literally just in time, by means of planning the transit of goods from internal source or entry port, via national or regional distribution centre to destination, so that warehousing is eliminated and minimal time is lost in storage.
  Recently, that has worked to the UK's advantage. Between 1986 and the present, the ratio of stock to turnover in the UK has reduced from about 15:1 to just over 10:1. The UK now holds the lowest number of weeks stock of all the major European Union countries. However, as maximum efficiency requires for just in time the integration of each stage of distribution, the system is centralised. Distribution is based on the UK motorway spine. It relies on the transit of goods to depots on the spine and redistribution to their destinations back along motorways.
  That means that goods are transported substantial distances overwhelmingly by road. There is a downside. The system's profligacy with vehicle miles means that just in time will become an increasingly potent source of carbon dioxide emissions. More than 80 per cent. of UK freight goes by road, a far higher proportion than in other EU countries and a significantly higher proportion than the 60 per cent. carried by road in France and Germany.
  There is a further complicating factor. As a nation, Britain trades externally to a greater extent than many of its competitors. Some 30 per cent. of goods entering the just in time system come from abroad and 95 per cent. of those arrive at UK ports.

  121
  Although goods come in a variety of forms and will require differing methods of handling at ports and subsequent distribution, a significant proportion arrive in containers and are then transported to national or regional distribution centres, mainly by road. The containers arrive at port on ships that are rapidly increasing in size rapidly. Currently, vessels transporting 6,000 to 7,000 boxes are operating and vessels able to take up to 10,000 boxes are under construction.
  The draught of those ships and their port handling requirements mean that, increasingly, port facilities for containers will be concentrated in three places: Felixstowe, Thamesport and Southampton. That will inevitably add to the problems of just in time as the logistics of getting boxes to distribution centres are compounded by the need to navigate the M25, in the case of Felixstowe and Thamesport, and the A34 and M40 in the case of Southampton.
  The system relies for its efficacy on specifying the arrival time as a starting point for the consideration of logistics. That works only as well as it is possible to identify reliable delivery methods. If those methods become suspect, logically, the whole system will fall down.
  That is exactly what is happening in the UK; it is a little noticed side effect in the debate on road congestion. We know that car traffic is predicted to increase by one third over the next 20 years. Freight transport is predicted to expand even faster. Estimates for 20 years' time suggest that miles driven by articulated trucks will almost double.
  As congestion worsens, each distribution company vies for ways to maintain its supply routes, often employing computer modelling to evade congestion delays. That produces a classic "tragedy of the commons", in that it is overwhelmingly in the interest of each company to invest in ways of avoiding congestion to keep its business afloat, but in no one's joint interest to investigate ways of reorganising the overall system so that it continues to work. Collectively, therefore, the companies involved in just in time are entering a cul-de-sac, with no logical way out. What was a competitive advantage for the UK then becomes a competitive disadvantage.
  We are therefore faced with three challenges to just in time. Congestion will change it from just in time to just too late. The concentration of imports to a few ports will exacerbate that effect. To maintain the system, reliance on road transport will radically increase vehicle miles and carbon dioxide emissions.
  As just in time is predicated on arrival time, transport managers will resort to planning earlier start times to distributional journeys. That will inevitably run up against the legal limits of drivers' time. The companies will then either press drivers to flout the regulations, or they will have to introduce of modern version of the old stagecoach system. That would entail stationing fresh drivers in motorway service areas or the doubling of cab crews for longer journeys. In either event, over time such measures would introduce to the system a step change in costs, cancelling out many of the cost advantages of the system's initial introduction.
  As a consequence of the combined pressure of just in time and the development of container vessels, additional capacity in the three receiving ports that I mentioned is likely to be needed. At the same time, the future for the
  122
  United Kingdom's approximately 200 other commercial ports will become uncertain. Although some of them will continue to trade successfully in the import and export of bulk or specialist cargoes, many others will effectively close down and be converted to leisure uses. Already, most of the medium and smaller United Kingdom ports are under-used, and together, they represent a huge amount of long-term investment which is in danger of being lost as an element of the United Kingdom's distribution system.
  As transport managers resort to avoidance stratagems to maintain the flow of goods, overall journey distances will increase. Even if they do not increase, fuel expended in traffic jams will cause the same effect. Advances in fuel efficiency, engine design and co-operation between distributors will certainly offset some of that outcome, but overall, it is unlikely that the result will be to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide from the transport sector, as is required under the targets in the Government's strategy on climate change. The eventual trajectory, as just in time becomes less effective, is for such emissions to be increased substantially.
  At this point, the weary Minister will undoubtedly be saying to himself, "That's the problem defined, but what about the solutions?" Although we are not short of solutions, the problem is that many of them do not really help—or, if they do help, they mitigate the problem, not solve it.
  We could, for example, build more roads. Simply increasing the capacity of the United Kingdom's roads to deal with maintenance of just in time would be a straightforward policy. The policy might also be accompanied by freight-only lanes on major roads, to provide greater time reliability for haulage. However, the environmental consequences of such increased road building would be devastating, and the emissions produced by the greater use of roads that would follow such a policy would make it a politically and environmentally unacceptable route to follow.
  We could put more goods on to rail. Initially, that is a very attractive option, and, in the medium-term, it is a very important policy imperative. However, use of the current rail system is not favoured by hauliers, as they believe that the system is not reliable and that transit by rail would involve complex and expensive switching of modes. Certainly, the railways have dealt with the short-term problem of reliability in freight transport. Modal split remains a problem, but could be dealt with by more efficient transfer facilities. However, a structural long-term problem remains if we are considering a road-to-rail policy.
  Even if all the targets of the two rail freight companies now operating were met, only about 10 per cent. of road haulage would be diverted. That would flatten out road haulage growth in the short term, but would only alleviate the long-term problem, rather than solve it. To go further than that would require fundamental change to the rail network. Although freight slots could be given priority over passenger slots, that would impinge on the Government's plans for increased passenger traffic, as slow freight trains run in front of faster passenger trains.
  Alternatively, new track to accommodate freight could be built, but the environmental impact of such new infrastructure could well be as difficult to justify as a programme of new motorway construction.

  123
  We could distribute goods by sea. Such a suggestion has historically been regarded as somewhat cranky, but is now becoming increasingly realistic. Distribution by sea would rely on trans-shipment, perhaps from the hub ports that I have mentioned, such as Felixstowe and Southampton. In principle, that is eminently possible, because of the network of available receiving ports along the length of Britain's coastline and the relatively short distances inland that would be required to distribute goods to their destination.
  Advances in the design of roll on/roll off and fast-goods vessels ensure that the journey times and the unpredictability of sea routing could be considerably reduced.
  Environmentally, sea distribution would be the almost perfect solution, combining very low energy use per kilometre hauled and the capacity to remove a far greater percentage of road haulage than could be done by transferring to rail. Transport managers object that sea freight also suffers from modal exchange problems, is unreliable and—as distribution routes largely do not exist—is effectively unusable. Moreover, the existence of distribution centres on the motorway spine ensures that the whole distribution system would need to be reorganised.
  Currently, port charges and ancillary dues mean that 60 per cent. of the costs of many short sea journeys will be taken up by payments due before the shipment leaves port. This compares very unfavourably with the ease of access to road, and the still relatively low cost of entering a truck into the haulage business. These problems are real and serious, but are all in principle resolvable.
  We could deconstruct the present assumptions behind the just in time system itself. Considerable scope exists to question the structure that has developed around just in time. Are there methods of sourcing goods which do not entail such profligate movement of materials around the country? These might relate to an examination of the arrangements employed at present of hauling goods to one central point in the UK to redistribute them; changing the way in which containers come into the UK; or encouraging the adoption of more local sourcing by attaching the true costs of the travel of goods to the eventual cost to the consumer.
  My preferred policy approach starts with what I hope is an important understanding—that just in time, as a method of securing efficient distribution of goods, must not be seen as the enemy. The assumptions slotted in behind just in time, which have created an almost total reliance on road distribution, are the problem. If we are to attempt to analyse the requirements of a genuinely sustainable distribution system that breaks out of the logical cul-de-sac of present practice, we need to address a simple policy question—can we retain just in time without its pitfalls?
  In reality, this is a difficult target, but just in time—or something like it—is not negotiable unless we are to contemplate the dismantling of much of the pattern of food and consumer goods shopping that our society now regards as a given; and, of course, unless we contemplate adding substantial stock-holding costs to our manufacturing industries.
  124
  Policy imperatives therefore stand out. We should not look for a magic bullet, because there is none. Instead, we should look at a combination of modes—importantly, bringing the sea into full use around our coasts—which match, crucially, the mode to the transportation need. That is the opposite of the current practice of just in time.
  We need to recognise that the market will not—and, logically, cannot—solve its own dilemma. Integrated Government policy initiatives which provide incentives for change, protection from short-term adverse consequences and regulatory penalties for recalcitrant distributors are necessary.
  We need to develop distribution routes based on the trans-shipment of goods arriving at the main UK ports to the dozens of regional ports that can serve as new distribution centres. The technology of short sea shipping already exists in a way that can establish fast routes. The political issue is to examine the economics of port handling, so that the front-loaded costs which make short sea shipping disproportionately expensive are reduced.
  We must combat the perceived unreliability of short sea routes by extending establishment and support grants to the long-term development of effective routes. We can overcome the perceived time delay on sea routes by priming just in time shuttles—that is, ensuring that a continuous conveyor belt of goods to arrive just in time is established. Ford already operates such a system between Zeebrugge and Dagenham.
  Priming essentially consists of underwriting the initial day or arranging that goods will be in transit when they are switched to a slower mode. Once the shuttle is established, no further underwriting is then needed, assuming that the overall costs of the new system are equivalent to its predecessor's.
  We should examine with the distribution industry the economics of breaking down the logistics of long-term trunking to national and regional distribution centres. This could consist of a variety of mutually supportive measures, such as co-operation in distribution between companies; developing source-packed containers, so that they travel as close as possible to their eventual destination before being opened and redistributed; and the encouragement, through financial incentives or penalties, of the local sourcing of goods to minimise haulage wherever possible.
  This is, unashamedly, a discussion of a big issue. However, I sometimes think that the pursuit of how we get through next week often blinds us to the work that we should be doing next week to get us through the next 50 years. The problem with this subject is that no one will notice that it is a real policy problem until the system has actually broken down.
  Professor Charles Handy, in his book "The Age of Unreason", cited the alleged scientific fact that the central nervous system of a frog is insufficiently developed to impel it to jump out of a saucepan of water provided it is heated gently. The gradualness of the change at no stage triggers a reaction in the frog, and it eventually boils to death. I do not know how Professor Handy knows this, and it is an experiment that I would strongly advise against trying at home. However, it serves as a metaphor for our current position.
  I was encouraged by the publication of the White Paper on sustainable transport, which put forward many wise ideas. I am not sure, however, that it contains sufficient

  125
  saucepan-jumping techniques. I trust that my hon. Friend the Minister will address the need for such skills in his reply tonight.
  10.20 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Keith Hill): As is conventional, I begin by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Dr. Whitehead) on obtaining this debate on the future of just in time. Indeed, I read with interest his Adjournment debate of 23 April 1998. Some of the issues that he raised then are of relevance today.
  The Government recognise the importance of a healthy distribution system. The introduction of just in time has had huge consequences for the competitiveness of United Kingdom industry and the economy of the country as a whole. The use of the just in time philosophy has led to a radical reshaping of our major manufacturing and retail industries, reducing wastage and costs and improving the quality of production. The reductions in working capital that industry has been able to achieve over the past 10 years have released nearly £30 billion of resources at manufacturing and retail levels for productive investment. That has helped to maintain our competitiveness in a challenging global market place.
  Furthermore, the UK is rightly recognised as a world beater in efficient supply chain management—of which just in time forms the philosophical basis. We can boast that logistics as a proportion of gross domestic product in the UK is the second lowest in the world at 10.62 per cent., beaten only by the United States at 10.49 per cent. Europe averages 11.79 per cent., and the global average is 11.74 per cent. The Government are committed to maintaining the UK's position at the competitive edge.
  My hon. Friend is right to point out that we need a distribution system that is sustainable and that will serve our economy in the decades to come. That is why we stated in our freight policy paper "Sustainable Distribution: A Strategy":
  "We need an integrated transport infrastructure in which road, rail, inland waterways, coastal shipping, ports and airports all play their part in delivering the goods."
  This is a multi-pronged strategy, which makes better use of our roads as well as our rail and water networks. Clearly, the freight transport industry has a strong role to play in improving the efficiency of its services and developing the new logistics and supply chain opportunities that keep British business on track.
  The Government recognise that short sea shipping is a generally safe, environmentally friendly and sustainable mode of transport. We actively support its further development. The shipping sector can make an important contribution, either in its own right or as part of an intermodal system, to the economy of this country. As set out in our shipping policy paper, "British Shipping: Charting a New Course", the Government want to encourage short sea shipping and are keen for the industry to look at ways in which shipping might overcome some of its disadvantages. Measures might include logistical and technical innovation, research and development programmes to investigate the potential contribution of new shipping designs and technologies, better intermodal freight connections and innovation in equipment and design to reduce handling.
  126
  With the development and deployment of faster ships, there is the increasing potential for short sea shipping to be able to meet the just in time requirements of modern industry and to break into new markets. It can reach some outlying parts of the European Community that other transport modes cannot reach. At the same time, we recognise that better marketing and promotion of short sea shipping and better communication between the various service providers could encourage more shippers and forwarding agents to consider sea freight as a real option. The Government will liaise with the industry regarding possible initiatives to encourage the short sea and coastal shipping sectors that help us to meet our environment and transport goals.
  The use of just in time shuttles is an interesting idea. I note that Ford already operates such a system, and clearly finds it a viable option. However, it would be for industry itself to establish whether, given the time constraints associated with road congestion and the consequential costs associated with that, the continuous conveyor belt of goods that can be achieved by short sea shipping would be a better option.
  The Government are committed to extending the freight facilities grant scheme to include coastal and short sea shipping to encourage the transfer of freight from roads to this more environmentally friendly mode of transport. We will be consulting on the details, including the costs that would be eligible for grant, and the criteria to be used in assessing applications.
  The United Kingdom will also continue to be involved in European initiatives to support short sea shipping. We warmly welcomed the European Commission's second progress report on this subject, and were pleased to support the adoption of the Transport Council resolution on the promotion of this mode of shipping last month. A number of the recommendations in the report are already in place in the United Kingdom. We are examining the others to determine whether they can be taken forward by Government initiative. Some are clearly for industry action, but we will be keeping in close touch with the shipping industry to discuss the Government's role in creating a climate favourable to the development of short sea shipping.
  The efficiency of our ports is vital to our industry and our distribution networks, as my hon. Friend pointed out. Increases in port traffic bring pressures on ports themselves, and on the road and rail links to ports as part of wider transport networks. Ports are distribution centres not only for primary products moved in bulk, but increasingly for higher value manufactured goods moved in boxed cargoes—both deep sea container traffic and ro-ro trailers and containers on shorter sea routes. Increases in ship sizes and the growth in boxed cargoes are increasingly associated with gateway ports, including those mentioned by my hon. Friend.
  Ports must play their full part in taking active measures to improve the efficiency of operating berths and moving cargoes to customers, eliminating hold-ups and improving delivery times and reliability. The Government will also play their part, as we said in our White Paper "A New Deal for Transport: Better for Everyone". We aim to encourage provision of multimodal access to markets, make best use of existing port infrastructure and promote best environmental standards in the design and operation of ports. We are also aiming to address the issues raised by changes in trading patterns and their effects on

  127
  demands for port capacity. We recognise that some ports may need to increase capacity to meet future demand. We aim to say more about our strategic approach in this area in a ports policy paper on which we are currently working.
  As my hon. Friend has said in the House before, congestion threatens our economy. Even if we were to divert freight via coastal shipping to its nearest port, roads would still be needed to transfer the goods to and between our factories and shops. That is why a competitive, thriving road transport sector will still form a linchpin in our economy; that is why this Government will be spending £1.4 billion over the next seven years on major trunk road schemes; and that is why we increased spending on roads maintenance by 10 per cent. this year. That compares with the record of the previous Government who cut spending by 9 per cent. over a four-year period.
  We are also improving choice for the commuter. The Transport Bill will enable local authorities outside London to introduce road user charging which can help to tackle the problems of traffic congestion that cost the economy billions of pounds every year. Then there is the £750 million that we have allocated to local authorities so that they can put their local transport plans into action. That is all part of a £2.4 billion cash injection for local transport over three years. But that is not all: on 13 December 1999, my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister launched his 10-year investment plan to transform Britain's transport systems, and which will tackle congestion on our roads, improve journey times and make life easier for British industry.
  Through our promotion of the use of key performance indicators, we have been able to demonstrate the importance of transport provider-customer relations in reducing delivery delays and improving efficiency. However, there is much room for improvement, especially in the reduction of carbon dioxide emissions from freight distribution. That is why the Government are working with industry to improve the efficiency of distribution and to reduce its energy consumption. Through the energy efficiency best practice programme, we have been promoting best practice in road haulage and logistics. The new sub-group of the Road Haulage Forum, established by my noble Friend Lord Macdonald of Tradeston, will tackle the environmental and business challenges associated with improving business performance.
  128
  Industry has not been a complacent partner in these matters. I offer the House some examples of best practice, where efficient supply chain management has reduced transport demand, while retaining the basic philosophy of just in time. Tesco has integrated its primary and secondary distribution activities. By sharing both types of activities with its suppliers, the company has been able to reduce empty running and, more important, the total mileage of the vehicle fleet. Together with new packaging technologies, those measures have combined to improve the efficiency of vehicle utilisation, saving about 3 million miles per year—equating to 4,600 tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions.
  Excel Logistics, a third-party logistics provider, operates a consolidated just-in-time supplier collection system for Rover Group. Vehicles are shared by the factory and the suppliers, visiting each supplier in turn, before returning to the factory to de-stuff and then repeat the cycle. That has resulted in a saving of 3.9 million miles—equivalent to 5,400 tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions.
  The automotive industry is recognised as being at the forefront of just in time in the UK; we are seeing the development of supplier parks, whereby suppliers of volume components are encouraged to set up manufacturing operations on sites that are literally next door to the assembly plant. That is resulting in huge savings in transport costs and has removed any concerns regarding road congestion on the timing of deliveries.
  By these examples, I hope that I have been able to show my hon. Friend that just in time does not mean a profligacy of vehicle miles. Companies that have adopted that approach consider transport as part of the whole supply chain and do their best to ensure that that part of the chain operates as efficiently as possible—maximising vehicle utilisation and minimising vehicle mileage.
  In conclusion, I reiterate that we are committed to ensuring that we do not lose the competitive edge that we have gained through the use of just in time. As my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister has pointed out, good transport is key to our economic ambitions. With our new transport package delivering the policies for an integrated transport system, as set out in our transport White Paper, we intend to develop the framework within which British businesses can thrive.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty-eight minutes to Eleven o'clock.

SOLICITOR-GENERAL

  Senator Pinochet
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Solicitor-General what request the Spanish authorities have made to the Crown Prosecution Service to seek leave for judicial review of the Home Secretary's decision in respect of Senator Pinochet; and if he will make a statement. [106408]

  The Solicitor-General
  The Crown Prosecution Service is acting as the agent of the Kingdom of Spain in relation to the conduct of the Spanish request for the extradition of Senator Pinochet. It would therefore be inappropriate to reveal details of any instructions received in relation to this matter since The Crown Prosecution Service is under a duty to preserve solicitor-client confidentiality. It is for the Kingdom of Spain to release any details of their instructions to the Crown Prosecution Service.

PRIME MINISTER

  Civil Service Press Officers
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will institute an inquiry into the reported remark by a civil servant to an Evening Standard employee concerning the consequences of the health correspondent continuing particular investigations; and if there are official guidelines concerning the acceptability of such remarks. [106037]

  The Prime Minister
  The Department of Health has already looked into the matter referred to by the hon. Member. I am fully satisfied that the press officer concerned behaved in accordance with the standards expected of civil service press officers.

  A Working Guide for Government Press Officers

  states that:
  "It is the duty of the Press Officer to present the policies of his or her Department to the public through the media and to seek to ensure that they are understood."

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make it his policy to answer questions on the different Government charges and taxes on students at universities throughout the United Kingdom. [105979]

  The Prime Minister
  Ministers will answer on issues for which they are responsible, in line with the resolutions of the House on 25 October 1999.

  Responsibility for the funding of higher education in Scotland and Northern Ireland lies with the relevant devolved executive. Ministers will answer questions
  2W
  which relate to decisions which the devolved executives have taken, only to the extent that these have an impact on the Government's responsibilities.

  EU Charter of Rights
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Prime Minister if the Charter of Fundamental Rights will accord new rights not currently granted in common law. [106281]

  The Prime Minister
  There is no agreement that it should do so. The Cologne Conclusions state that:"fundamental rights applicable at Union level should be consolidated in Charter and thereby made more evident".

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Prime Minister (1) if he will make a statement on the Government's policy on including rights of(a) free speech, (b) free association, (c) the existence for political parties and (d) trade union (i) existence and (ii) membership within the Charter of Fundamental Rights; [106279]

  (2) if he will make a statement on his Government's policy on including (a) the right of asylum, (b) age discrimination, (c) social rights, (d) education rights, (e) health rights, (f) social security rights, (g) immigrants' rights, (h) same sex partnerships' rights, (i) women's rights, (j) children's rights, (k) economic rights, (l) cultural rights and (m) disabled people's rights in the Charter of Fundamental Rights. [106280]

  The Prime Minister
  Work on the draft Charter has just begun. It is not possible to say at this stage how the drafting body will approach the question of inclusion of the above categories. The Government will wish to explore the best way to profile existing rights in a way which reflects the Cologne Conclusions and the nature of the current application of those rights in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Prime Minister what assessment he has made of the financial consequences of the adoption of a Charter of Fundamental Rights for(a) industry and (b) government; and if he will make a statement. [106377]

  The Prime Minister
  The Government see no reason for the Charter to add to existing rights and obligations, nor is there agreement that it should so do.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Prime Minister what anti-discrimination enforcement measures will be included in the Charter of Fundamental Rights; and if he will make a statement. [106376]

  The Prime Minister
  It is for the Charter drafting body to consider how, if at all, such measures should be included.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the Government's policy on the withdrawal of voting rights of a member state deemed to be in breach of the Charter of Fundamental Rights under the Treaty of Amsterdam as modified, under Article 13. [106399]

  The Prime Minister
  Article 7 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU) sets out the circumstances whereby the Council can consider suspending certain rights deriving from the TEU, including voting rights, should they determine the existence of a serious and
  3W
  persistent breach by a member state of principles mentioned in Article 6(1) of the TEU. This says that the Union
  "is founded on the principles of liberty, democracy, respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, and the rule of lay, principles which are common to the Member States".

  There is no agreement that the Charter of Rights should give rise to action of that kind, or that it should be incorporated into the EU/EC Treaties.

  Sir Richard Body
  To ask the Prime Minister which body will be the final arbiter on questions on interpretation of the Charter of Fundamental Rights. [106389]

  The Prime Minister
  The Government want a non-justiciable Charter which makes existing rights more visible. Where those rights are justiciable elsewhere, the relevant source instruments (for example, the European Convention on Human Rights or the EU/EC treaties) will continue to be interpreted in the usual way by the appropriate institutions (for example, the European Court of Human Rights or the European Court of Justice).

  EU Intergovernmental Conference
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list those areas of potential qualified majority voting raised to date by(a) EU member states, stating the country in each case and (b) the Commission, as areas for negotiation at the forthcoming Intergovernmental Conference, in which the Government have not insisted on retaining unanimity. [106165]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 18 January 2000,Official Report, column 416W.

  EU Membership (Cost-benefit Analysis)
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Prime Minister what cost-benefit analysis of UK membership of the European Union the Government have undertaken. [106401]

  The Prime Minister
  The Government are clear about the benefits to the United Kingdom of its membership of the European Union. Membership of the European Union brings significant benefits to the British economy. Over half our trade in goods is with the EU, with eight of our top 10 trade partners in Europe. In 1998 trade in goods was worth some £95.4 billion. Membership gives us access to a single market of 372 million people—the largest and richest market in the world. Over three and a half million jobs are directly linked to trade with the EU with thousands of jobs being created as a result of Britain's position as the gateway to countries outside the Union. The UK is now the top location in the EU for foreign direct inward investment. At the same time we benefit as consumers, with Single Market competition bringing lower prices and greater choice, and the Single Market rules ensuring proper protection for consumers. In addition, we have secured European Structural funding worth £10 billion for 2000–06 for regeneration and economic development in the UK regions. Our farmers also benefit from the £5 billion a year in aid under the Common Agricultural Policy.

  Iran
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 18 January,Official Report, columns 416–17W on the Iranian Foreign Minister, if he will define the countries in the area of strategic importance to the United Kingdom mentioned in his answer. [106568]

  The Prime Minister
  Iran and her neighbouring countries represent an area of strategic importance to the United Kingdom for a number of reasons. Among these are the region's history of political instability and conflict, the importance of the region for world energy resources, and its position across important global communications routes. Iran also straddles the major route by which heroin reaches the United Kingdom from Afghanistan.

  Criminal Assets (Confiscation)
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Prime Minister when he expects to publish the Performance and Innovation Unit's study on the confiscation of criminal assets. [106409]

  The Prime Minister
  I expect the Performance and Innovation Unit (PIU) to complete its study on the Pursuit and Seizure of Criminal Assets by the spring. Decisions flowing from the PIU's work will be made public in the normal way.

  Liberal Democrats (Co-operation)
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Prime Minister what plans he has to issue a new joint declaration on co-operation with the Liberal Democratic Party. [106722]

  The Prime Minister
  None.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Royal Ulster Constabulary
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what were the staffing levels of the RUC Special Branch in September 1994 and September 1999 in total and broken down(a) into component operational units, (b) by grade or rank, (c) by perceived religious or community origin and (d) by gender. [101882]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 15 December 1999]: For the information to be provided fully in the form requested would identify the religious or community background of individual officers and would therefore breach statutory confidentiality. The following tables show the numbers of officers by rank at 30 September 1994 and 1999 and the gender and the community background of officers in the Department at 31 December 1994 and 1998 (the latest figures available).

  Composition by rank

  Rank

  30 September 1994

  30 September 1999

  Superintendent and above

  19

  20

  Chief Inspector

  20

  22

  Inspector

  58

  58

  Sergeant

  136

  133

  Constable

  581

  594

  Total

  814

  827

  5W

  Composition by gender and community background

  1994

  1998

  Perceived Protestant

  Male

  654

  657

  Female

  80

  84

  Total

  734

  741

  Perceived Roman Catholic

  Male

  49

  52

  Female

  3

  4

  Total

  52

  56

  Not known

  Male

  18

  20

  Female

  0

  0

  Total

  18

  20

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what positions, rank and postings were held by the Chief Constable of the RUC in each of the years 1988 and 1989. [105654]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 17 January 2000]: In 1988 and 1989 the Chief Constable was a Detective Superintendent stationed at RUC Headquarters.

  Asset Sales
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the items in the National Asset Register sold by his Department, its agencies and associated public bodies since 25 February 1999, stating in each case the amount of money realised; if he will estimate the total amount raised from such sales to date; and if he will make a statement. [104495]

  Mr. Ingram
  The amount of items in the National Asset Register sold since 25 February 1999 is £988,860.00.

  Ruskin College, Oxford
  Mr. Hilary Benn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland in each of the past five financial years, how many students from Northern Ireland have attended Ruskin College, Oxford. [105277]

  Mr. Mandelson
  Responsibility for this subject has been devolved to the Northern Ireland Assembly and is therefore no longer a matter for the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

  Mrs. Rosemary Nelson
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when the written threats issued against Mrs. Rosemary Nelson were passed to the Minister of Security's office by the Committee on the Administration of Justice. [103818]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 17 January 2000]: The Committee on the Administration of Justice wrote to me on 10 August 1998.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps were taken by the Government to ensure the safety of Mrs. Rosemary Nelson. [103820]
  6W
  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 17 January 2000]: The Government sought assessments from the RUC on Mrs. Nelson's security on two occasions, February and August 1998. On each occasion the RUC determined that they had no intelligence to substantiate a specific threat to Mrs. Nelson. Following the RUC's reply to our August inquiry we wrote to the Committee on the Administration of Justice on 24 September 1998. My office replied to their queries about how Mrs. Nelson could apply for inclusion in the Key Persons Protection Scheme and for the provision of a personal protection weapon. We also suggested that she may with to seek the advice of her local Crime Prevention Officer in relation to security advice at her home and at her work place.

  Patten Commission
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many written submissions were received by the Patten Commission; and if he will place these documents in the Library. [105475]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 17 January 2000]: The number of written submissions received by the Patten Commission is a matter for the Commission itself which was independent of Government. In their Report (para 2.3 page 11) the Commission advised that they received approximately 2,500 individual written submissions in addition to a number of petitions signed by several thousand people and several standardised letters. The Government are not in possession of these submissions and are not in a position to place the documents in the Library.

  Street Signs (Vandalism)
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many(a) Irish language and (b) Ulster Scots street signs have been damaged or stolen in each district council area in the past 12 months; what legal sanctions are available in respect of acts of vandalism; what guidelines have been issued to the police to assist in the prevention of vandalism; how many persons have been charged with offences concerned with bilingual signs in each district council area; and what was the outcome of the prosecution. [105459]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 17 January 2000]: Not all of the information requested is retained in a form that would permit details to be extracted without incurring a disproportionate cost.

  Vandalism of this nature is recorded as Criminal Damage, which covers a wide range of offences and forms an important element of RUC training supported by operational documents. If the cost of the damage is less than £400 under the Summary Jurisdiction Act (NI) 1953, the penalty may be up to six months imprisonment or a Level 3 fine. If the cost of damage exceeds £400, the penalty under the Criminal Damage (NI) Order 1977 may be up to a 10 years imprisonment on indictment or up to two years on summary conviction.

  Human Rights
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps have been taken by the Northern Ireland Office to prepare for the implementation
  7W
  of the Human Rights Act 1998 in Northern Ireland; and what specific training opportunities have been organised. [103824]

  Mr. George Howarth
  [holding answer 19 January 2000]: The Human Rights Unit in the Northern Ireland Office co-ordinates the Department's preparations for the implementation of the Human Rights Act.

  A human rights seminar, organised by the Northern Ireland Office, was held in June 1999. It involved the main criminal justice organisations and players in Northern Ireland, including non-statutory bodies. Its aim was to generate a heightened awareness of issues surrounding the Human Rights Act, contribute to a common understanding of the issues and provide an opportunity to discuss new concerns and discern where a common approach was required.

  The Northern Ireland Office has also explored any vulnerabilities in legislation and action has been taken—or will be taken—wherever necessary.

  Senior officials and other key staff have attended half-day awareness sessions run by The Queen's University, Belfast. Legal groups are also working with the University to provide more in-depth seminars to legal staff in the Department of the Director of Prosecutions for Northern Ireland and the Crown Solicitor's Office.

  An inventory of remaining training requirements is currently under way. All staff are to receive general awareness training, which is to be supported by more detailed training on aspects of the Act which tie in to their specific job needs.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland for what reasons the Northern Ireland Office is not participating in the Government's Human Rights Task Force. [103825]

  Mr. George Howarth
  [holding answer 19 January 2000]: The composition of the Task Force is a matter for the Home Secretary. The Chief Commissioner of The Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission (which is funded by the Northern Ireland Office) is represented on the Task Force. On 18 January 2000, I made a presentation to the Task Force, outlining the strategy of the Northern Ireland Office for implementation of the Human Rights Act.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what training(a) has been undertaken and (b) is planned for the future, relating to the Human Rights Act 1998 for (i) the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions and (ii) the Northern Ireland civil service. [103831]

  Mr. George Howarth
  [holding answer 19 January 2000]: A Project Team has been established within the Department of the Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland to oversee implementation of the Act. Work is continuing in producing, in consultation with the Crown Prosecution Service, relevant training materials for staff. It is intended that such materials and subsequent training will have regard to any relevant differences in criminal law and practice between Northern Ireland and England.

  Training for the Northern Ireland Departments is a matter for the Northern Ireland Administration.
  8W
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what written material on the Human Rights Act 1998 has been provided to(a) the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions and (b) the Northern Ireland civil service; and if he will place copies in the Library. [103832]

  Mr. George Howarth
  [holding answer 19 January 2000]: The Department of the Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland has been provided with the same material as has been issued throughout Government Departments in the rest of the United Kingdom.

  Training for the Northern Ireland Departments is a matter for the Northern Ireland Administration.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what arrangements have been made to review policy and practice within departments in order to ensure full compliance with the Human Rights Act 1998; and what arrangements have been made to do this in(a) the Northern Ireland Office and (b) the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions. [103834]

  Mr. George Howarth
  [holding answer 19 January 2000]: The Northern Ireland Office has undertaken a scrutiny of legislation which requires or may require amendment as a result of the Human Rights Act 1998. Any necessary action has already been taken or is under consideration.

  The Department of the Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland continues to monitor developments in criminal law with particular reference to ECHR issues.

  Saville Inquiry
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how much was spent up to 31 December 1999 on the Saville Inquiry into the events in Londonderry on Sunday 30 January 1972. [106079]

  Mr. Mandelson [holding answer 20 January 2000]: The total cost incurred by The Bloody Sunday Inquiry up to 31 December 1999 are £13,306,797.

  Young People in Care
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) how many places are available in secure accommodation for young people in care in Northern Ireland; [106449]

  (2) how many care homes have been overcrowded in each of the last three years; [106454]

  (3) how much has been spent in providing alternative places in hotels for both young people and accompanying staff in the last three years. [106448]

  Mr. Mandelson
  Responsibility for this subject has been devolved to the Northern Ireland Assembly and is therefore no longer a matter for the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

  Parades Commission
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he has received the review of the working of the Parades Commission; and if he will place a copy of the review in the Library. [103828]
  9W
  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 19 January 2000]: The review of the approach to handling contentious parades is due to be completed shortly and, once we have had the opportunity to consider its findings, we will make an announcement.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  BSE
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many head de-boners went out of business as a result of the introduction of BSE safeguards; how many people lost their jobs; and how much compensation was paid by the Department. [102311]

  Ms Quin
  Businesses specialising in head de-boning were severely affected when tighter restrictions on cattle heads were introduced in March 1996 in line with advice from the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee. The information requested on business closures and job losses is not available. No compensation was paid to head de-boners, a decision which was upheld by the European Commission on Human Rights.

  Those head de-boners which also operated cutting plants were able to benefit from arrangements introduced shortly afterwards to purchase and dispose of unsaleable stocks of beef to ease the pressure on their activities.

  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) if a credit rating was sought for each of the companies which submitted a tender in the recent award of contracts to abattoirs by the Intervention Board under the over 30-month scheme; [102360]

  (2) if credit references were taken up in relation to each of the companies which submitted a tender in the recent award of contracts to abattoirs by the Intervention Board under the over 30 month scheme. [102358]

  Ms Quin
  The Intervention Board (IB) obtained financial reports from Dun and Bradstreet on tendering companies who were not previously contracted to provide Over Thirty Months Scheme (OTMS) slaughtering services. Decisions on the award of contracts were taken in full knowledge of the information contained in these reports. Similar reports were not sought in respect of companies with whom IB already had satisfactory and long-standing contractual relationships under the OTMS.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many visits were made to each hunt kennel in the last two years by(a) his Department's veterinary surgeons and (b) his Department's officials. [102541]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 13 December 1999]: This information is not held centrally. However, the instructions issued to members of the State Veterinary Service require visits to hunt kennels to be carried out on a monthly basis to check compliance with the rules on Specified Risk Material and at least annually to check compliance with rules on non-SRM animal by-products.
  10W
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what advice his Ministry gives to(a) hunts and (b) hunt kennels on the receipt of deadstock where (i) the dead animal is suspected of BSE and (ii) where BSE is present in the relevant herd. [102539]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 13 December 1999]: All cattle suspected of having BSE are slaughtered by MAFF officials who arrange for their remains to be incinerated, apart from the heads which are sent to the Veterinary Laboratories Agency for analysis.

  Deadstock which comes from herds which have had a case of BSE, but which are not BSE suspects or the offspring of BSE cases, may be sent to hunt kennels. We do not provide any special guidance on the handling of such carcases because there is no evidence of horizontal transmission of BSE. The hunt kennels are however subject to controls on specified risk material and are visited by the State Veterinary Service on a regular basis to ensure compliance. Results of their audits are published in the BSE Enforcement Bulletin, which is placed monthly on the Library of the House.

  Mr. Randall
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many incineration plants are currently burning(a) carcase and (b) meat and bone meal under the over 30 months scheme contract. [104241]

  Ms Quin
  Seven plants are currently incinerating Over Thirty Month Scheme (OTMS) carcase material from abattoirs, and 16 plants are incinerating casualty OTMS animals that have been slaughtered on-farm. One plant is currently incinerating OTMS meat and bone meal.

  Mr. Randall
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what are the(a) total number of carcases and (b) total tonnage rendered each year by each company awarded a contract under the over 30 months scheme since those contracts started. [104238]

  Ms Quin
  The tonnage of material processed under the Over Thirty Month Scheme (OTMS) by rendering companies contracted by the Intervention Board is given in the table.

  Tonnes

  Renderer

  1996

  1997

  1998

  19991

  Canterbury Mills

  28,657

  24,673

  39,539

  44,391

  Prosper De Mulder Ltd.

  183,265

  120,390

  198,198

  194,824

  William Forrest & Son (Paisley) Ltd.

  48,080

  37,578

  70,106

  72,433

  Lisburn Proteins/Glen Farm Holdings Ltd.

  25,034

  45,979

  65,574

  66,895

  Duncrue Food Processors

  6,337

  1,288

  0

  0

  Dundas Bros.

  15,501

  23,849

  0

  0

  Fats & Proteins (UK) Ltd.

  47,773

  55,974

  4,801

  0

  Gilberts Animal By-Products

  26,983

  63,672

  0

  0

  J. G. Pears

  8,202

  19,819

  0

  0

  Peninsular Proteins

  28,695

  27,061

  0

  0

  Ulster Farm By-Products

  30,415

  2,770

  0

  0

  1 Estimated

  11W
  Equivalent data for the number of animals rendered are not available in the same format. However, the estimated number of animals rendered in each of the above years is as follows:

  Number of OTMS animals rendered:

  1996: 1,091,570

  1997: 780,785

  1998: 802,078

  1999: 844,920

  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if the views of the(a) Hygiene Service and (b) Meat and Livestock Commission were formally sought on each of the companies which submitted a tender in the recent award of contracts to abattoirs by the Intervention Board under the 30 month scheme. [104160]

  Ms Quin
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to him on 20 December 1999,Official Report, column 440W.

  Mr. Randall
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list those contracts that have been awarded by the Intervention Board for rendering or incineration under the over 30 month scheme, and the gate fees negotiated with each company. [104242]

  Ms Quin
  Four companies have contracts to render OTMS carcase material at an average gate fee of £80 a tonne (equivalent to approximately £40 per animal).

  Prosper De Mulder Ltd.

  Canterbury Mills Ltd.

  Glenfarm Holdings Ltd.

  William Forrest & Son (Paisley) Ltd.

  Five companies have contracts to incinerate OTMS carcase material from approved abattoirs at an average gate fee of £88 per animal.

  WRE Services

  Bronzeoak Ltd.

  Durga Environmental Ltd.

  Sacone Environmental Ltd.

  Orkney Direct Waste Disposal

  Sixteen companies have contracts to incinerate casualty OTMS animals that have been slaughtered on-farm at an average gate fee of £80 per animal.

  Cambridge Pet Crematorium

  Cluttons Agricultural

  Companions Rest

  Tom Goddard & Sons

  Haymans

  Hawkins

  Incineration Scotland

  Incineration South West

  Hamilton (Irvine) Ltd.

  Lawton

  Cremtor

  Scottish Agricultural College (Ayr)

  Scottish Agricultural College (Aberdeen)

  Tellam Incineration

  Wessex Incineration

  Westcot Hides Ltd.

  The Intervention Board has concluded contracts with three companies for the large scale incineration of meat and bone meal (MBM) produced under the OTMS. The contracts cover the incineration of a total of 650,000
  12W
  tonnes of MBM at a total cost of £51.1 million, an average gate fee therefore of £79 per tonne (equivalent to approximately £10 per animal).

  Shanks Chemical Services Ltd.

  Fibrogen Ltd.

  Prosper De Mulder Ltd.

  Negotiations continue with a fourth company for the balance of the Intervention Board's incineration requirement.

  Mr. Randall
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what estimate his Department has made of future incineration requirements under the over 30 months scheme. [104237]

  Ms Quin
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for South-East Cornwall (Mr. Breed) on 15 December 1999,Official Report, column 230W.

  Beef Exports
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assistance is provided by his Department for the export of English beef to the EU. [105032]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 17 January 2000]: Officials have sent detailed guidance on the Date-based Export Scheme (DBES) to all abattoirs that may be eligible to participate in the Scheme and set up a helpline to give advice. The Government have also spent more than £1 million on developing the scheme, including the IT systems which are necessary to support it, which will not be recovered through charges. Close contact is maintained with the English slaughterhouse participating in DBES and a temporary rebate has been applied to charges for checking the export eligibility of animals.

  Genetically Modified Food
  Mr. David Heath
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if his Department will be funding research to confirm the findings of the Scottish Office's flexible fund project RO 818 (grant number FF818) on potatoes modified for the GNA gene undertaken by the Rowett Research Institute. [101753]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 9 December 1999]: We have no plans to carry forward this research.

  Flood Defences (South-West)
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to increase funding to the Environment Agency to undertake emergency flood prevention measures in the South-West. [105417]

  Mr. Morley
  The Government are aware of the serious flooding that occurred over the Christmas period. We sympathise with all those affected and pay tribute to the work done by the Environment Agency and others to mitigate the effects. Apart from grants towards approved capital works, the Ministry does not contribute to the cost of the Environment Agency's flood defence work. The great majority of this work is funded by levies on local authorities, for which funding is provided through the Revenue Support Grant and Standard Spending Assessments arrangements. The cost of any emergency
  13W
  flood prevention measures in the South-West will need to be met through these existing mechanisms. If studies identify the need for future capital works, MAFF funding will be considered against the normal criteria and national priority assessments.

  Interest Rates (Farmers)
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will introduce low-interest loans and mortgages for farmers. [105030]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 17 January 2000]: The Government have no plans at present to introduce low interest loans and mortgages for farmers. The £1.6 billion support for Rural Development, which my right hon. Friend announced on 7 December 1999, Official Report, columns 701–03, will be applied through project funding or grants which offer effective and well focused forms of support.

  In addition, loan guarantees will continue to be available to qualifying sectors of the agriculture industry under the Government's Small Firms Loan Guarantee Scheme.

  Departmental Properties
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food 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. [105305]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 19 January 2000]: The information requested is set out as follows:

  Properties wholly vacant
  1. Former Buffer Depot, Nant Alyn Road, Rhydymwyn, Mold, Flint—closed 30 March 1994.
  This site is contaminated as a result of wartime use and cannot be disposed of until the contamination is removed.
  2. Former Buffer Depot, Abergwili Road, Abergwili, Carmarthen—closed 28 March 1991.
  Despite a number of marketing campaigns, it has proved impossible to find a purchaser willing to pay a reasonable price for this property.
  3. Former Buffer Depot, Caton Road, Claughton, Lancs—closed 31 March 1994.
  A purchaser has been identified and sale arrangements are in hand.
  4. Former Buffer Depot, New Street, Earl Shilton, Hinckley, Leics—closed 17 March 1994.
  A purchase has been identified and sale arrangements are in hand.
  5. Former Buffer Depot, Little Glen Road, Glen Parva, Leicester—closed 31 March 1993.
  The sale of this site should be completed within the next month or so.
  6. Former Buffer Depot, Melbourne Place, Sowerby, N. Yorks—closed 31 July 1991.
  It has taken far longer than anticipated to establish the planning status of this site. It will be marketed shortly.
  7. Former Buffer Depot, Trentside, Gunthorpe, Nottingham—closed 17 March 1994.
  Negotiations are under way to sell this property back to the successors of the former owner under the terms of the Crichel Down rules.
  14W
  8. Former Buffer Depot, Kendal Road, Harlescott, Shrewsbury—closed 23 March 1995.
  The site will be marketed when an appeal against a rejection of an application for planning consent is determined.
  9. Former Buffer Depot, 5 Almondbank, Perth—closed 29 September 1995.
  MAFF's agents advise that marketing of this site should be delayed until the planning status of an adjacent site is established.
  10. Former Central Science Laboratory, Torry Research Station, 135 Abbey Road, Aberdeen—closed 31 August 1996.
  A purchaser has been identified and sale arrangements are in hand.
  11. Former Central Science Laboratory, Hatching Green, Harpenden, Herts—closed 1 December 1996.
  A purchaser has been identified and sale arrangements are in hand.
  12. Land and dwellings at Worthing Road, Littlehampton, West Sussex—vacated on various dates between January 1996 and May 1999.
  An application for planning consent has been submitted and we await the outcome.
  13. Land at Ware Road, Hoddesdon, Hertford—originally vacated in 1989,
  We are co-operating with the Health Authority, who own adjacent land, with a view to establishing a planning designation and joint marketing arrangements.

  Properties mainly vacant
  14. Crown House, Sittingbourne Road, Kent—mainly vacated in October 1992.
  15. Offices in Albert Dock, Hull—mainly vacated in June 1996.

  Deregulation
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food 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. [106084]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 20 January 2000]: Since 1994 the Department has made two orders reducing regulatory burdens, The Deregulation (Corn Returns Act 1882) Order 1996 and the Deregulation (Slaughterhouses Act 1974 and Slaughter of Animals (Scotland) Act 1980) Order 1996. These Orders are estimated to have each saved industry £100,000 per year. We will continue to look for opportunities to use such orders to remove legislation where we can.

  Fisheries Council
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what the outcome was of the Fisheries Council held in Brussels on 14 January; and if he will make a statement. [106539]

  Mr. Morley
  Since the Fisheries Council which met on 16–17 December succeeded in agreeing on Total Allowable Catches for 2000 there was no need for a further meeting of the Council on 14 January.

  Chicken Imports
  Mr. Andrew George
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what recent representations he has received regarding the labelling of chicken imported into the UK from outside the European Union. [103293]
  15W
  Ms Quin
  Ministers and officials have received a number of letters from right hon. and hon. Members, the industry and the public on this matter. In addition, my right hon. Friend the Minister met with representatives from the National Farmers Union, the British Poultry Meat Federation and other poultry organisations on Monday 20 December to discuss this and other issues of concern to the sector.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Bonuses
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much his Department, its agencies and associated public bodies spent in total on extra bonuses above usual payments for staff working over the New Year period; what were the(a) maximum and (b) minimum bonuses paid; how many people received the (i) maximum and (ii) minimum payments; and if he will make a statement. [104471]

  Mr. Straw
  I will write to the hon. Member.

  Home Detention Curfew
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what percentage of prisoners who have electronic tags have not been convicted of violent crimes. [105334]

  Mr. Boateng
  As at 12 January 2000, 81 per cent. of those prisoners subject to home detention curfew at that time did not have a current index offence for an offence of violence. Of the total number of prisoners placed on home detention curfew since the scheme began on 28 January 1999, 83 per cent. did not have a current index offence for an offence of violence.

  Puppy Farms
  Jane Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action his Department is taking to regulate intermediaries who sell on animals bred on puppy farms, with regard to certification of the animals' health. [105342]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Under the Breeding and Sale of Dogs (Welfare) Act 1999, which came into force on 30 December 1999, the keeper of a licensed dog breeding establishment can only lawfully sell a dog either from his or her own premises direct to a person who it is believed will not be selling it on, or to the keeper of a licensed pet shop or a Scottish rearing establishment.

  A certificate of health is not required and there are no plans to introduce such a requirement into transactions, the conditions of which are essentially for the parties involved. The permitted sales outlets are, however, subject to stringent local authority licensing controls aimed at safeguarding the health and welfare of the animals involved. In addition, dogs sold through licensed pet shops/rearing establishments must wear a collar and identifying tag, to ensure that the originating breeder can be traced in all cases and not least by prospective purchasers wishing to make checks on a dog's provenance.
  16W
  The Home Office has recently issued guidance to local authorities about the administration and enforcement of this legislation.

  Prison Statistics
  Mr. McLoughlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 13 January 2000,Official Report, columns 217–18W, on prisoner statistics, if he will reformulate the table provided on Sudbury prison to show the number of prisoners serving a life sentence. [105662]

  Mr. Boateng
  The information requested, updated to December 1999, is given in the table.

  Total population and life sentence population at Her Majesty's Prison Sudbury 1989–99

  Date

  Life sentence prisoners

  Life sentence prisoners as a percentage of the total population

  Total population

  1989

  30 June

  69

  12.8

  537

  31 December

  67

  12.9

  518

  1990

  30 June

  77

  14.7

  524

  31 December

  75

  16.2

  464

  1991

  30 June

  50

  9.4

  534

  31 December

  42

  9.6

  436

  1992

  30 June

  37

  8.2

  450

  31 December

  43

  10.7

  402

  1993

  30 June

  50

  11.0

  455

  31 December

  71

  17.5

  406

  1994

  30 June

  79

  17.9

  441

  31 December

  80

  20.0

  401

  1995

  30 June

  81

  20.9

  387

  31 December

  81

  21.5

  377

  1996

  30 June

  76

  16.0

  474

  31 December

  64

  14.0

  456

  1997

  30 June

  62

  12.3

  504

  31 December

  62

  13.4

  462

  1998

  30 June

  62

  12.6

  493

  31 December

  72

  14.8

  488

  1999

  30 June

  75

  15.0

  499

  31 December

  91

  18.7

  486

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department in his projection of prison numbers for the next five years, what proportion of prisoners
  17W
  will be (a) female, (b) offenders in respect of cannabis, (c) class A drug offenders and (d) housed in hospital wings. [105928]

  Mr. Boateng
  The Research Development and Statistics Directorate of the Home Office provided revised projections of the prison population in England and Wales in October 1999. A summary of the projection is included in the October 1999 "Prison Population Brief" which is available on the Internet at http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/index.htm.

  Projections are provided according to various alternative scenarios. The middle variant projection assumes that Crown Court custody rates increase at 0.6 per cent. for males and 1.1 per cent. per annum for females, but sentence

  Long-term projections projected through to 2007, England and Wales

  2000

  2001

  2002

  2003

  2004

  2005

  2006

  2007

  Higher variant:

  Total population

  67,800

  71,500

  72,900

  73,700

  75,100

  76,900

  78,600

  80,300

  Female population

  3,700

  4,100

  4,500

  4,600

  4,700

  4,800

  4,900

  5,000

  Females as a percentage of total population

  5.5

  5.7

  6.2

  6.2

  6.3

  6.2

  6.2

  6.2

  Middle variant:

  Total population

  67,300

  69,900

  70,700

  71,200

  71,800

  72,500

  73,500

  74,400

  Female population

  3,700

  4,000

  4,200

  4,200

  4,300

  4,300

  4,400

  4,500

  Females as a percentage of total population

  5.5

  5.7

  5.9

  5.9

  6.0

  5.9

  6.0

  6.0

  Road Traffic Offences
  Mr. Miller
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prosecutions, and how many(a) injuries and (b) deaths there were in each category of road traffic offence, in each of the last five years for which statistics are available. [105850]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The information requested is available only for those offences where death or injury are explicit in the wording of the charge and are shown in the table. Similar information for other offences is not available centrally as the circumstances of the offences are not collected.

  Prosecutions for motoring offences involving eath or injury, England and Wales, 1993–97

  Offence

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1996

  1997

  Causing death by dangerous driving

  352

  301

  305

  333

  376

  Causing death by careless driving under the influence of drink or drugs

  63

  48

  51

  63

  78

  Causing death by aggravated vehicle taking

  27

  26

  13

  27

  28

  Causing bodily harm by furious driving

  98

  122

  97

  99

  85

  Figures for 1998 are not yet available.

  Mr. Miller
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department in how many cases relating to death on the road the charge was reduced from dangerous to careless driving in each of the last five years for which statistics are available. [105849]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The information requested is not available centrally.
  18W
  lengths stay at 1998 levels. A higher variant assumes that from 2001, in addition to the custody rate increase assumed in the middle variant, sentence lengths increase by 1.5 per cent. per year for males and 2 per cent. per annum for females. The results are as given in the table. These scenarios both assume that the amount of courts' business remains constant over the period. Projections take into account known legislative and policy changes.

  Information on the projected number of persons committed to custody for cannabis and class A drug offences are not available. Projections are not made by type of offence.

  For persons housed in hospital wings, it is estimated that over the period of the projections between 1.5 and 1.7 per cent. of the prison population will be located in health care centres at any one time.

  The statistics collected on court proceedings record only the offence for which the court took its final decision and not that for which the defendant was initially prosecuted, if different.

  Domestic Violence
  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans the Government have to combat domestic violence suffered by men. [105844]

  Mr. Boateng
  The Government regard all forms of domestic violence as unacceptable, whether it is perpetrated by men on women, women on men or within same-sex relationships. The position of men who experience abuse is recognised in, for example, our `Break the Chain' leaflet for domestic violence survivors and those such as family, friends and neighbours who might be able to help them. The evidence is, however, that, by comparison with men, women are more likely to experience domestic violence over a lifetime, more likely to experience repeat victimisation, more likely to be injured and to seek medical help, more likely to experience frightening threats, and more likely to be frightened and upset.

  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has made of the number of male victims of domestic violence who are abused by their female partners. [105848]

  Mr. Boateng
  The most reliable figures available are from the 1996 British Crime Survey, which estimated that 650,000 men aged 16 to 59 had been assaulted by a current or former partner in 1995, of which 170,000 suffered some injury. 95 per cent. of the men assaulted had been assaulted by a female on the most recent occasion. 180,000 men said they had experienced frightening threats from a female or male partner (figures not available separately).

  Police Manpower (National Insurance)
  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what reports he has received on the effect of changes in national insurance contributions on police staffing levels in England in 2000–01. [105891]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Association of Police Authorities estimated that the cost to the police service in England and Wales of changes in national insurance contributions could be around £23 million in 1999–2000. These additional costs were taken into account when police authorities set their budgets for 1999–2000. It is for chief constables to determine staffing levels within the overall resources available to them.

  Data Protection
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if the phrase "any imposition of a similar nature", used in his answer of 8 April 1998,Official Report, column 262W, has the same meaning as in paragraph 10.5(f) of the White Paper on Interception of Communications in the United Kingdom (Cm 4368). [106059]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Yes. The intention is to provide a statutory framework to regulate the disclosure of communications data to investigating agencies. The grounds upon which disclosure of communications data may be required will be consistent with those contained in existing data protection legislation, and use of this power will be audited by an independent Commissioner, to ensure it is used only where necessary and proportionate to the matter under investigation. The new regime will also be governed by a statutory Code of Practice.

  General Pinochet
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what translation facilities were available to the medical team he appointed to examine General Pinochet; and if they were available throughout the medical examination; [106010]

  (2) what were the linguistic qualifications of the medical team he appointed to examine General Pinochet. [105919]

  Mr. Straw
  [holding answer 20 January 2000]: Dr. Wyke is a native speaker of Spanish who came to this country after completing a first degree at the Autonomous National University of Mexico. Professor Lees speaks Spanish fluently to a professional standard; he makes frequent visits to Spain and other Spanish speaking countries to give university lectures, in Spanish, on his area of medical expertise.

  The medical examination of Senator Pinochet was accordingly conducted in Spanish.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent discussions he has held with the Government of Chile concerning the Spanish request for the extradition of General Pinochet; and if he will place correspondence relating to such discussions in the Library. [106017]
  20W
  Mr. Straw
  [holding answer 20 January 2000]: I have not personally discussed this case, or corresponded about it, with the Government of Chile, or any of its representatives.

  Some of my ministers and officials have had cause to do so. They have had strict regard to the fact that I am exercising a quasi-judicial function under the Extradition Act 1989. It is not our practice to make publicly available the contents of correspondence with other governments. The details of contacts of this nature are confidential to the governments concerned.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what were the terms of reference he gave the medical team he appointed to examine General Pinochet. [106007]

  Mr. Straw
  [holding answer 20 January 2000]: The medical team was asked to undertake the examinations and procedures it judged to be desirable in order to provide me with a fully comprehensive report on the state of Senator Pinochet's health.

  The team was also asked, without in any way intending to limit the comprehensive scope of the commission, to advise whether there were any aspects of Senator Pinochet's state of health which, separately or together, would suggest that he is not at present fit, or is likely to become unfit, to stand trial in Spain. Particular attention was drawn to Senator Pinochet's ability to follow a line of questioning, to recall events, some of which took place as long ago as the 1970s, and to give coherent evidence.

  The team was asked to advise on the extent to which the subjection of Senator Pinochet to a criminal trial would itself be likely to affect his health.

  To the extent to which any of the contents of the team's report were to be influenced by observation of Senator Pinochet's conduct and manner, advice was also sought on the extent to which that conduct and manner were capable of being consciously influenced by the Senator himself.

  Crime Statistics
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will publish figures for the 12 months ending September 1998 on the(a) number of notifiable offences by police force area and by category of offence; and (b) percentages of notifiable offences in individual offence groups by police force area. [106531]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  It has not been possible to estimate totals for categories of offences at the police force level for the year ending September 1998 because of the change to new Home Office counting rules for recorded crime half way through the period.

  VAT (National Crime Squad and National Criminal Intelligence Service)
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has made of the amount of non-reclaimable value-added tax which will have to be paid by the(a) National Crime Squad and (b) National Criminal Intelligence Service in (i) 1999, (ii) 2000 and (iii) 2001–02; and if he will make a statement. [106533]
  21W
  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Estimates of VAT payments by the National Crime Squad (NCS) and the National Criminal Intelligence Service (NCIS) were £4.400 million and £2.068 million respectively for 1999–2000; and £5.310 million (NCS) and £2.304 million (NCIS) for 2000–01. Out-turn for 1999–2000 is likely to be slightly lower; and estimates for 2000–01 are likely to be reduced in the light of the levies I decided for the two organisations on 10 January. There is no current estimate for the costs of VAT for the two organisations for 2001–02.

  Prison Ships
  Mr. Rapson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the viability of using aircraft carriers moored in Portsmouth as prison ships. [106174]

  Mr. Boateng
  The Prison Service continuously monitors the projected population figures and makes best use of the available accommodation to contain prisoners in secure custody. The Service evaluates all practical options that present themselves. Consideration has not been given to the idea of using an aircraft carrier moored in Portsmouth harbour as a prison ship.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Syms
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he intends to respond to the letter of 20 December 1999 from the hon. Member for Poole on behalf of Benjamin Patrick Daniels. [106200]

  Mrs. Roche
  I will reply to the hon. Member for Poole shortly.

  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the hon. Member for Walsall, North will receive a reply to his letter of 22 November regarding a constituent. [106201]

  Mrs. Roche
  I wrote to my hon. Friend on 21 January. I am sorry for the delay.

  Prison, Ashford
  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the decision was taken to alter the plans for a 650 bed male prison at Ashford, Middlesex, to a 450 bed female prison. [106175]

  Mr. Boateng
  Ministerial endorsement to the construction on the Ashford site of a 450 place prison to hold female prisoners was formally given in March 1998.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Sawford
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the total cost to public funds of asylum seekers awaiting determination of their case in each of the last five years. [105993]

  Mrs. Roche
  Until 1999 (when responsibility transferred to the Home Office) asylum support costs were divided between the Department of Social Security and the Department of Health. In 1998–99, asylum support cost £470 million, of which £280 million was borne by the Department of Social Security. In 1997–98, asylum support 22W
  cost £375 million, of which £305 million was borne by the Department of Social Security. In 1996–97, asylum support cost £412.7 million of which £400 million was borne by the Department of Social Security. In 1994–95 and 1995–96 asylum support costs were met by the Department of Social Security. These costs were £360 million and £420 million respectively. Changes to the Department of Social Security benefits in 1996 removed support to those asylum seekers who applied for support "in country". Support for asylum seekers was made available under the terms of the National Assistance Act 1948. With effect from 1996–97 local authorities were reimbursed for their expenditure through a special grant administered by the Department of Health.

  Mr. Sawford
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what was the average waiting time for asylum seekers between arrival in the United Kingdom and determination of their case, in each of the last five years; [105994]

  (2) how many asylum seekers are awaiting determination of their case; and how many were awaiting determination at the end of each of the last five years. [105992]

  Mrs. Roche
  As at the end of November 1999, 98,045 asylum applications were awaiting an initial decision.

  Available information on outstanding applications and average waiting times for 1994 to 1998 is given in the table.

  Average initial decision times in months, and number of outstanding cases, 1994–981

  Average length of decision time2

  Year

  All Applications1

  Applications lodged pre July 1993

  Applications lodged post July 1993

  Applications outstanding at the end of the year3

  1994

  17

  28

  6

  55,255

  1995

  18

  42

  9

  69,650

  1996

  17

  53

  12

  57,405

  1997

  22

  65

  15

  51,795

  1998

  17

  79

  12

  64,770

  1 Excluding dependants

  2 The average length of time (in months) is calculated from when data application is lodged to the date of initial decision, and relates to the year in which the decisions were made

  3 Figures rounded to the nearest 5

  Settlement Applications
  Mr. Tynan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the average waiting time for the processing of an application by a foreign national for settlement in this country on the basis of his or her marriage to a UK citizen. [105602]

  Mrs. Roche
  The information requested is not available.

  The time taken to process applications for settlement on the basis of marriage to a United Kingdom citizen is affected by a number of factors, including the complexity of individual cases. However, where the applicant obtained prior entry clearance for the purpose of marriage before entering the United Kingdom, applications for settlement are at present being dealt with within a week. Those applications where further inquiries may be needed

  23W
  can take considerably longer but are now being given priority. A special exercise was set in place before Christmas to target such applications.

  Dr. Starkey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department in each of the last five years, how many applications for settlement were(a) made, (b) decided on and (c) outstanding at the year end; and what was the average time taken to process an application in each year. [106047]

  Mrs. Roche
  The available information relates to decisions taken on applications for indefinite leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom, excluding those cases where indefinite leave to remain is refused but limited leave is granted in some capacity. Data for 1995 to the end of the first half of 1999 are given in the table, together with an estimated average time which such decisions took in 1995–98. Following reorganisation of caseworking practices at the beginning of 1999, the time taken to process applications for variation of leave, which includes applications for indefinite leave to remain, is affected by a number of factors, including the complexity of individual cases. More than half of applications for variation of leave can be processed under "fast track" procedures. Such cases are currently being determined within about a week of receipt, but applications where further inquiries are needed may take considerably longer. Streamlined procedures have, however, been introduced throughout the Integrated Casework Directorate to speed up consideration of all applications.

  Year of decision

  Settlement applications decided

  Average time (in days) to decide applications for indefinite leave to remain

  1995

  59,040

  57

  1996

  64,340

  46

  1997

  60,580

  53

  1998

  71,290

  72

  19991

  236,300

  1 First half

  2 Provisional

  Entry Refusals
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many persons travelling by coach from Poland in the past six months have been refused entry at Dover; and what is the gender breakdown of these refusals. [104755]

  Mrs. Roche
  Statistics are not kept of the numbers of persons refused entry having travelled by coach, or of the gender breakdown of these refusals. A total of 1,934 Polish nationals were refused leave to enter at Dover between June and December 1999.

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proportion of passengers travelling from Poland by coach, via Dover, are interviewed by immigration officials; and of those what proportion are(a) male and (b) female. [104753]
  24W
  Mrs. Roche
  All Polish nationals (and other non-European Union nationals travelling from Poland) seeking leave to enter the United Kingdom are interviewed by an immigration officer. Statistics on the gender of passengers are not kept.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Garnier
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will instruct the Immigration Control Department Management Unit at the Whitgift Centre, Croydon, to reply immediately to the letter about Mrs. Sardj Goswarni of Oadby, Leicestershire, dated 23 October 1999, from the hon. and learned Member for Harborough to Moira Bing. [105982]

  Mrs. Roche
  An official from the Immigration and Nationality Directorate wrote to the hon. and learned member on 19 January.

  Czech Republic (Visa Requirement)
  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his Department's letter to the hon. Member for North Thanet of 17 January (Ref. PO 20700/99), what plans he has to impose visa requirements upon visitors from the Czech Republic. [106371]

  Mrs. Roche
  The hon. Member is aware of the Government's concern about the numbers of asylum seekers from the Czech Republic and other parts of Central Europe. We are in close contact at ministerial and official level with the countries concerned to try to improve the position and we keep all the possible options, including a visa regime, under review.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Entrepreneurship Lessons
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many secondary school pupils in(a) Shrewsbury and Atcham and (b) Shropshire will receive lessons in entrepreneurship in the current school year; and if he will make a statement. [101138]

  Jacqui Smith
  The Department does not hold figures on the numbers of secondary school pupils receiving lessons in entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship does not currently form part of the National Curriculum, and thus it is up to individual schools to decide whether, and how, to teach it.

  However the revised National Curriculum—most of which will come into force from September 2000—will encourage pupils to think creatively and critically, and will encourage innovation and enterprise. The new framework for Personal, Social and Health Education (PSHE) and Citizenship will cover financial literacy, consumer education and entrepreneurial skills as follows:
  At Key Stage 1, children will be taught that money comes from difference sources and can be used for different purposes.
  At Key Stage 2, they will be taught to look after their money and realise that future wants and needs may be met through saving.

  25W
  At Key Stage 3, they will be taught what influences how we spend or save money, and how to become competent at managing personal money.
  At Key Stage 4, they will be taught to use a range of financial tools and services, including budgeting and saving, in managing personal money. They will also be taught the rights and responsibilities of consumers, employers and employees.

  £7 million of Standards Fund money has been made available for next academic year for implementation of the PSHE/citizenship frameworks in schools, and £5 million has been made available for the introduction of citizenship. Further funding will be available in 2001–02. In addition the Chancellor, in his 1999 Pre-Budget Report, announced a £10 million package to boost enterprise skills in schools, particularly those in disadvantaged areas.

  Life Education Centres
  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make additional support available to schools to help them fund the services of life education centres; and if he will make a statement. [104009]

  Jacqui Smith
  The DfEE has already provided a significant amount of support for the work of Life Education Centres (LECs). Specific support has been provided for a Regional Development Officer's post, and LECs have also benefited from some the money provided by the DfEE through the Grants of Education Support and Training (GEST) and Standards Fund programmes for drug prevention and education work. We are providing a further £7.5 million of support this year and in 2000–01, through the Standards Fund, to assist all schools to deliver effective drug education. It is for individual schools to decide on the detailed content and organisation of drug education programmes in schools; Life Education Centres is one of a number of possible programmes they may adopt.

  Asset Sales
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list the items in the National Assets Register sold by his Department, its agencies and associated public bodies since 23 February 1999, stating in each case the amount of money realised; if he will estimate the total amount raised from such sales to date; and if he will make a statement. [104497]

  Mr. Wills
  The total value of money realised from the sale of assets by the Department from 23 February 1999 to January 2000, its agencies, and associated public bodies since the publication of the information in the National Assets Register is £8,407,482.

  Asset management is kept under close review, and those which are surplus to requirements are disposed of as quickly as possible, subject to value for money considerations. They are normally disposed of on the open market by public auction or tender. The exception to this rule is that in DfEE, good working IT equipment is gifted to education and employment bodies and projects via third
  26W
  party organisations. The table lists items reported as sold by the Department, its agencies, and associated public bodies since the information on assets was published in the National Assets Register.

  Department for Education and Employment

  Type of asset sold

  Number of transactions or transaction detail

  Value realised (£)

  23 February 1999 to January 2000

  Vehicles

  29

  120,103

  Other IT equipment

  By sale

  1,352

  4,114

  By recycle project1

  478

  0

  Freehold Property2

  Letchworth Skills Centre

  500,000

  Office Machinery

  9

  3,500

  1 Other IT Equipment—Other than the items sold by public auction and the recycling project, approx. 676 IT items were "scrapped" as they had no open market value.

  2 Letchworth Skill Centre—this property was disposed of in October 1998. The cash for this sale is payable in instalments spanning several years. The value realised represents the money received by the Department from this sale since last reported. There remain two instalments to be collected totalling £850,000 (£500,000 due in April 2000 and £350,000 due April 2001).

  Organisation

  Type of asset sold

  Value realised (£)

  Employment Service

  January 1999-December 1999

  Land and buildings1

  3,870,754

  Fixtures and fittings

  280

  Vehicles

  1,522,031

  Office machinery

  1,725

  Ofsted

  1999–2000

  Vehicles—cars2

  26,952

  QCA

  1998–99

  IT equipment

  1,179

  Motor vehicles

  19,279

  1999–2000

  Motor vehicles

  3,503

  Teachers Training Agency

  1999–2000

  Office equipment

  1,700

  Construction Industry Training Board

  1999–2000

  Land and buildings

  219,850

  Plant and machinery

  2,568

  Vehicles

  253,271

  Funding Agency for Schools 1

  1998–99

  IT equipment

  3,600

  1999–2000

  IT equipment

  1,600

  Furnishings

  400

  Fixtures and fittings

  35,000

  Investors in People (UK)

  1998–99

  IT equipment

  1,080

  1999–2000

  IT equipment

  138

  Equal Opportunities Commission

  1998–99

  Miscellaneous

  920

  1999–2000

  Miscellaneous

  2,048

  Remploy Ltd.

  1998–99

  Buildings

  540,000

  Plant and other equipment

  384,000

  27W

  Organisation

  Type of asset sold

  Value realised (£)

  1999–2000

  Buildings

  270,000

  Plant and other equipment

  473,000

  Other

  35,000

  Student Loan Company

  1998–99

  Computer equipment

  26,000

  Vehicles

  10,175

  1999–2000

  Office furniture

  630

  Further Education Funding Council

  1999–2000

  IT equipment

  3,607

  Office furniture

  340

  Office equipment

  135

  Engineering Construction Industry Training Board

  1998–99

  Vehicles

  61,000

  IT equipment

  1,000

  1999–2000

  IT equipment

  7,000

  1 Employment Service Property Assets listed in the National Assets Register were sold between 1 January 1999 and 31 December 1999: Elephant & Castle ESJ; West London AT Crosby ESJ.

  2 Number of transactions: 7

  Reception Classes
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will review incentives for schools to recruit children early into reception classes. [105356]

  Ms Hodge
  The Secretary of State will continue to encourage school admission authorities to review with Early Years Development and Childcare Partnerships the needs of four-year-old children and the preferences of their parents. This is stated in the recently published report "Tomorrow's Children: the review of pre-schools and playgroups and the Government's response."

  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list local authorities which maintain(a) a single point of entry and (b) two points of entry to reception classes. [105355]

  Ms Hodge
  The Department is unable to compile a list of local education authorities who operate a single and two point of entry to infant and primary school reception classes. The timing of admission to reception classes may vary from school to school because in some cases responsibility for admission arrangements rest with the individual schools' governing bodies.

  Student Loans
  Dr. Brand
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what ethical guidelines were set for Hays Document Management before the Student Loan contract was placed in Calcutta and Columbo. [105505]

  Mr. Wicks
  This is a matter for the Student Loans Company and I have asked the Chief Executive to write to the hon. Member with the information requested and place a copy of the reply in the Library.

  Schools Adjudicators
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will take steps to ensure that school closure adjudicators who have served as local councilors 28W
  are not appointed to carry out adjudications into closure proposals put forward by local authorities controlled by the political party to which they belong. [105627]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  [holding answer 18 January 2000]: The Chief Adjudicator, Sir Peter Newsam, is responsible for allocating school closure proposals to Adjudicators. In doing so he takes into consideration possible conflicts of interest.

  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what arrangements have been made to enable the adjudicator he has appointed to consider Northumberland County Council's proposals to close Kirknewton, Acklington and Milfield schools, to hold a public hearing or inquiry into the proposals, in accordance with the guidance on the School Adjudication System which he issued on 1 April 1999. [105641]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  [holding answer 18 January 2000]: I understand that Dr. Billings, the Adjudicator appointed to consider Northumberland County Council's proposals, is planning to hear directly from parents and other interested parties who have anything to add to the points made during the consultations which have already taken place. He has instructed the Office of the Schools Adjudicator to make the necessary arrangements.

  Subsidised Recycled Computers Scheme
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will provide funding to low-income earners and families participating in the subsidised recycled computers scheme to cover the costs of(a) telephone lines and calls, (b) increased electricity usage, (c) paper for printing and (d) maintenance and servicing. [105836]

  Mr. Wills
  The £15 million made available for the 'Computers Within Reach' initiative is entirely focused on maximising the subsidy on the recycling process, to enable computers to be made available at the lowest personal cost to those who could not otherwise afford it. The Department recognises that recipients' needs, circumstances and priorities will change during the lifetime of the scheme—for example, a job-seeker may initially wish to work off-line to produce a CV and develop word-processing, database and spreadsheet skills in order to improve employability. In order to meet this range of need, the computers will all be of a high minimum specification, including 56k modem, enabling recipients to control costs in using them on or off-line as they prefer. As usage will vary, subsidised funding will not be made available to cover telephone lines or calls. Electricity and paper costs are likely to be minimal, and the cost of the bureaucracy to administer them would not represent value for money.

  Maintenance and support are an essential part of this initiative. The minimum level of support available to all users under the scheme is as follows:

  Maintenance and Support

  Delivery and installation

  Delivery and installation to the purchaser's home or preferred location. Installation must include connection to the Internet if required, receipt of a welcome e-mail and access to the NGfL home page

  29W

  Maintenance and Support

  Service

  Maintenance for a minimum of one year for all hardware purchased.

  Warranty

  Replacement of system with equivalent or better specification in the event of failure within one year.

  Special Educational Needs
  Mr. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what is the procedure which must be followed by local education authorities before closing special needs schools; who makes the final decision in such instances; and if he will make a statement. [105577]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 19 January 2000]: A local education authority wishing to close a special school must first consult all interested parties, including the school itself, parents who have children at the school and any other local education authorities placing children at the school. If, after consultation, the local education authority decide to proceed with closure they must publish notices advising of their intention and providing information about alternative provision to be made for pupils who would be displaced by the closure. The notice must also be sent to whomever will be deciding the proposals. Usually, this will be the local School Organisation Committee; exceptionally, where a local School Organisation Plan has not been agreed, the decision will fall to the Secretary of State.

  Following publication of a proposal there is a statutory period during which anyone can send objections to the proposal to the local education authority. The authority then have a further statutory period in which to send their comments on the objections to the School Organisation Committee (or the Secretary of State).

  The School Organisation Committee's decision on statutory proposals, or that of the Secretary of State, is final. However, in cases where the School Organisation Committee cannot reach a unanimous view, the proposal must be referred to an independent adjudicator for decision.

  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many students with special educational needs receive an assessment and have a plan prepared for their transition from school to further education, as a proportion of those so entitled; and what action he is taking to ensure that local authorities carry out their statutory obligations in this area. [106039]

  Jacqui Smith
  This information is not collected centrally. We would however expect LEAs and schools to have regard to their statutory duty to carry out a transitional review of a young person's statement of special educational needs following his or her 14th birthday; and to produce a transition plan covering all aspects of the young person's future development. The evidence is that LEAs and schools are meeting their obligations in this area. My Department is however ready to investigate any cases brought to its attention in which a school or LEA is not so complying.

  Autism
  Dr. Ladyman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on the findings of the 1998–99 annual report of the Special Educational Needs Tribunal on cases involving autism. [105914]

  Jacqui Smith
  The number of appeals registered with the Special Educational Needs Tribunal in 1998–99 was 2,412. Of these, 313 involved autism.

  The Special Educational Needs Tribunal operates independently of Government and it would not be appropriate for the Department to comment on the cases heard.

  In September 1999 I hosted an Autism in Education Seminar, which has led to the establishment of a working group tasked to identify and disseminate good practice in relation to educational provision for children with autism.

  Employment Action Zones
  Mr. Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many contracts for employment action zones have been awarded to bids led by the public and voluntary sectors. [103689]

  Ms Jowell
  [holding answer 20 January 2000]: We have not yet awarded any contracts to run Employment Zones from April 2000. We have, however, identified preferred bidders in 11 areas. Of these, seven will be led by a public sector/private sector consortium. The other four will be private sector led and we were encouraged that in each case the private sector organisation concerned is working in partnership with other public and/or voluntary organisations.

  Pupil Statistics
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment for each year between 1990 and the latest year for which figures are available, what were the number of(a) 16-year-olds and (b) 17-year-olds in full-time education as a percentage of the age group, in total and broken down by gender. [106405]

  Mr. Wicks
  The information requested is contained in the following table:

  The numbers of 16 and 17-year-olds in full-time education as a percentage of age group and by gender, England, end 1990 to end 1998

  Percentage of age group

  Males

  Females

  Males and Females

  16-year-olds

  End 1990

  55.1

  63.8

  59.5

  End 1991

  62.7

  70.7

  66.6

  End 1992

  66.5

  73.7

  70.0

  End 1993

  69.7

  75.7

  72.6

  End 19941 (a)

  68.6

  74.7

  71.5

  End 19941 (b)

  68.6

  73.5

  71.0

  End 1995

  67.3

  73.6

  70.4

  End 1996

  66.6

  73.0

  69.7

  End 1997

  66.1

  72.6

  69.3

  End 1998 (prov.)

  67.0

  74.2

  70.5

  31W

  The numbers of 16 and 17-year-olds in full-time education as a percentage of age group and by gender, England, end 1990 to end 1998

  Percentage of age group

  Males

  Females

  Males and Females

  17-year-olds

  End 1990

  39.5

  46.4

  42.8

  End 1991

  45.1

  52.7

  48.8

  End 1992

  50.4

  58.0

  54.1

  End 1993

  54.0

  61.3

  57.5

  End 19941 (a)

  55.5

  62.1

  58.7

  End 19941(b)

  56.2

  61.3

  58.7

  End 1995

  55.5

  61.5

  58.4

  End 1996

  54.7

  61.3

  57.9

  End 1997

  54.1

  60.6

  57.2

  End 1998 (prov.)

  54.9

  61.7

  58.2

  1 Figures are shown on two bases for end 1994 due to a discontinuity in the FE data sources. The rows for (a) are consistent with earlier years and for (b) with later years.

  Source:

  Statistical First Release 13/99: Participation in education and training by 16 to 18 year olds in England, 1988 to 1998

  Higher Education Access Funds
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment when he intends to publish the report of his study into higher education access funds. [106203]

  Mr. Wicks
  We will publish the report of the Hardship Loans and Access Funds Review shortly.

  Youth Employment (Shropshire)
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what the(a) percentage and (b) total reduction in youth unemployment have been since 1 May 1997 in (i) Shrewsbury and Atcham and (ii) Shropshire; and if he will make a statement. [105526]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the Director of the Office for National Statistics. I have asked him to reply.

  Letter from Tim Holt to Mr. Paul Marsden, dated 24 January 1999:
  As Director of the Office for National Statistics (ONS), I have been asked to reply to your recent parliamentary question on the percentage and reduction in youth unemployment since 1st May 1997 in Shrewsbury and Atcham, and Shropshire.
  The ONS publish a monthly count of claimants of unemployment-related benefits. The claimant count consists of all people claiming Jobseeker's Allowance or National Insurance credits at Employment Service local offices. They must declare that they are out of work, capable of, available for and actively seeking work during the week in which the claim is made.
  Between 1st May1 and November 1999 unadjusted computerised claimants amongst 18–24 years old fell by 143 (37%) in the Shrewsbury and Atcham constituency and 695 (36%) in the Shropshire county.

  1 The closest count date for the 1st May relates to April's data.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Age Discrimination
  Mr. White
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he is taking to implement Article 13 of the Treaty of Amsterdam with regard to age discrimination. [105596]

  Ms Jowell
  I have been asked to reply.

  At this stage the Commission published its proposal for a framework directive dealing with discrimination in employment and training on the grounds of disability, age, ethnic origin, religion/belief and sexual orientation, which was put forward by the European Commission in November. Negotiations have just begun within the relevant Working Group of the Social Affairs Council and agreement will require unanimity.

  The Code of Practice on Age Diversity in Employment is the centrepiece of our strategy to combat age discrimination in the workplace. The Code, which is non-statutory, sets the standard for non-ageist approaches to recruitment, training and development, promotion, redundancy and retirement. This is backed by detailed guidance and case studies. The Code, launched in June 1999, was developed with the help and advice of some key social partners, including the TUC, CBI, Institute of Personnel and Development, Age Concern and the Employers Forum on Age, among others. To date over 40,000 copies have been issued.

  Mr. White
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many jobs in(a) the Foreign Office and (b) EU institutions have an age limitation. [105595]

  Mr. Vaz
  All the jobs in the Diplomatic Service and the Home Civil Service of the Foreign Office have a retirement age of 60. For recruitment to the Diplomatic Service there is a lower age limit of 21 and an upper age limit of 52. For the Home Civil Service there is a lower age limit of 16 and an upper age limit of 58.

  The upper age limit for recruitment to the EU institutions is 45. The age of retirement is 65.

  Europe Roadshow
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the reasoning behind the selection of each venue for the Your Britain Your Europe roadshow. [105536]

  Mr. Vaz
  I refer the hon. Member to my written reply to his question of 18 January 2000,Official Report, column 415W. He should make a point of reading the replies to questions he has tabled.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he held with hon. Members regarding the Your Britain Your Europe roadshow, prior to its tour. [105537]

  Mr. Vaz
  Prior to the roadshow I wrote to all the hon. Members whose constituencies I covered during my tour.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs for what reason Her Majesty's Government have sponsored the Your Britain Your Europe roadshow; which organisations were
  33W
  consulted over planning; and if he will make a statement on efforts made to maintain political neutrality therein. [105538]

  Mr. Vaz
  It is Government policy to set out the benefits of our membership of the EU. One of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office's publicly declared performance targets is to increase public support for EU activities.

  We consulted the European Commission, European Parliament, Britain in Europe and Government Departments during the planning stage.

  This was not a party political event. All relevant constituency MPs and MEPs were invited to join.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the nature of the activities featuring in the Your Britain Your Europe roadshow as concern(a) the British Embassy in Paris, (b) schools, (c) Nissan, Sunderland, (d) the House of Commons and (e) the South West Regional Euro Forum; and if he will deposit a copy of all material distributed during the tour in the Library. [105535]

  Mr. Vaz
  At the British Embassy in Paris I conducted a radio interview for the Today programme. In the UK, I visited several schools either to discuss EU projects in which they were involved, or to exchange views on Europe with students. At Nissan I met plant management and senior business leaders to discuss the impact of the single market on their businesses. I had no roadshow engagement in the House of Commons. At the South West Regional Euro Forum, I met regional business leaders to discuss trade opportunities and the impact of the euro. I have deposited copies of the roadshow material in the House of Commons Library.

  Cologne Presidency Conclusions
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what are the non-military crisis response tools referred to in Section 56 of the Cologne Presidency Conclusions. [105588]

  Mr. Vaz
  The Conclusions of the Cologne European Council called on the General Affairs Council to deal with all aspects of security with a view to enhancing and better co-ordinating the Union's and member states' crisis response tools. In pursuit of this remit, the Presidency report adopted by the Helsinki European Council on "Non-military crisis management of the European Union" outlined further action on non-military aspects of security. It does not define the scope of that activity, but includes an illustrative list covering civilian police, humanitarian assistance, administrative and legal rehabilitation, search and rescue, electoral and human rights monitoring.

  EMU
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will deposit in the Library a copy of the Wilton Park paper entitled Europe after Economic and Monetary Union; and if he will make a statement on his Department's assessment of political conclusions reached. [105587]
  34W
  Mr. Vaz
  There is no Wilton Park paper with that exact title. However two papers on the subject of EMU, summarising conferences held in October 1998 and May 1999, are available on Wilton Park website www.wiltonpark.org.uk.

  Wilton Park brings together people of all viewpoints to discuss topical issues. Although its finances are underwritten by my Department, its academic independence is guaranteed. Its reports on EMU as on other subjects reflect the personal accounts of the chairman and rapporteur of the range of views expressed at its conferences. Government policy on EMU is clear. The determining factor underpinning any Government decision on EMU membership is whether the economic benefits from joining are clear and unambiguous.

  International Federation of Europe Houses
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the mission statement of the International Federation of Europe Houses; and if he will deposit in the library a list of(a) these Houses and (b) the activities of the Houses funded by the EU in 1999. [105790]

  Mr. Vaz
  The aim of the International Federation of Europe Houses is to encourage debate among the citizens of Europe about the issue of European integration. The members of the Federation are independent bodies with structures and operating procedures which reflect the particular community, region, country and cultural sphere in which they operate.

  A list of the Houses and the activities of the Houses in 1999 has been deposited in the Library.

  The European Commission provides up to a maximum of 50 per cent. funding for individual projects.

  Departmental Smoking Policy
  Mr. Crausby
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action he is taking to reduce smoking in his Department. [105801]

  Mr. Hain
  We have in place a Health Promotion Strategy, based on the White Paper "Our Healthier Nation", and have signed up to the Healthy Workplace Initiative. The strategy includes a policy limiting smoking to designated areas and single occupancy offices. In response to the request by the Government White Paper "Smoking Kills", further restrictions to the smoking policy are under consideration.

  We run a campaign on National No Smoking Day and also incorporate anti-smoking initiatives in regular health fairs. Advice on quitting smoking forms part of routine medical clearance procedures for employees (and spouses) going overseas and our doctors and nurses provide one-to-one and group support for individuals who want to quit smoking. Our health and safety team raise awareness about smoking on seminars for senior managers and on pre-posting training courses and we offer a range of information through our Healthline Library. Plans are in hand for a website which will be used to promote various health issues including anti-smoking initiatives.

  Golden Fleece
  Mr. Austin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with the Argentine Government regarding access by the Stanley-registered schooner Golden Fleece to the port of Ushuaia; and if he will make a statement. [106077]

  Mr. Battle
  We are aware of the paper which the owner of the Golden Fleece recently received from the port authorities in Ushuaia about entry by his vessel to Argentine ports. We have taken this incident up with the Argentine Government in Buenos Aires. I understand that these discussions are progressing satisfactorily. I hope that the matter can be resolved in a way that will not result in a recurrence of this type of incident. I shall write to my hon. Friend to update him on the outcome of our representations.

  Corpus Juris
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what was the basis of his statement that corpus juris was no longer on the agenda. [106400]

  Mr. Vaz
  The idea of a European Public Prosecutor was discussed but not agreed at Tampere. The Corpus Juris package of proposals have never been formally tabled and were not subject to discussion.

  Xenophobia
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the role of the EU Monitoring Centre on Xenophobia in formulating the Charter of Fundamental Rights. [106375]

  Mr. Vaz
  It is open to individuals and organisations such as the EU Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia to contribute views on the Charter. The Charter drafting body consists only of representatives of member states, National Parliaments, the European Parliament and the Commission.

  Arms Exports
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on how many occasions exports notified as having been denied under the EU Code of Conduct on Arms Exports have been subsequently taken up by businesses from (i) other EU countries and (ii) non-EU countries. [106309]

  Mr. Hain
  Operative Provision 3 of the EU Code of Conduct sets out the procedures to be followed by member states refusing licence applications and consulting other states about their notification of denial of a licence.

  Operative Provision 4 of the EU Code of Conduct states that
  "Member States will keep such denials and consultations confidential and will not use them for commercial advantage".

  These provisions effectively prevent member states from revealing business gained as a result of undercuts following EU Denials. We are not informed if non-EU countries take up business refused by EU member states.
  36W
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the policy of his Department on the control of arms exports to combatants in the Great Lakes Region. [106385]

  Mr. Hain
  Export licence applications for countries involved in the conflict in the Great Lakes region are considered on a case by case basis against our strict national criteria and those in the EU Code of Conduct.

  Nuclear Deterrent
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to the oral statement made by the Minister of State, the hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Hain) on 18 January 2000,Official Report, columns 171–74WH, if it remains Her Majesty's Government's policy to retain a strategic nuclear deterrent as long as other countries possess nuclear weapons. [106132]

  Mr. Vaz
  We pledged in our election manifesto to retain Trident as the ultimate guarantee of the United Kingdom's security while pressing for multilateral negotiations towards mutual, balanced and verifiable reductions in nuclear weapons.

  When we are satisfied with progress towards our goal of the global elimination of nuclear weapons, we will ensure that British nuclear weapons are included in negotiations.

  Pakistan
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he has taken since 12 October 1999 to seek a European Union embargo on the export of arms and dual-use goods to Pakistan. [106647]

  Mr. Hain
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary discussed the coup in Pakistan with his EU colleagues at the European Council at Tampere on 15–16 October 1999 and at the General Affairs Council on 15 October 1999. EU Foreign Ministers considered a full range of options for further measures against the military regime.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will place in the Library a copy of the minutes of the meeting on 8 December 1999 between officials of his Department and other departments at which the processing of strategic export licence applications for Pakistan was discussed. [106646]

  Mr. Hain
  Minutes of internal discussions are not made public under Exemption 2 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  Kosovo
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about the export of a load handling system and container unit to Norwegian People's Aid in Kosovo. [106867]

  Mr. Vaz
  We have granted a licence for the export to the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (FRY) of a Load Handling System and Container Unit for use by Norwegian People's Aid, an organisation engaged in humanitarian demining activities in Kosovo on behalf of
  37W
  the United Nations Interim Administration Mission in Kosovo (UNMIK). These goods are on the UK's Military List.

  UN Security Council resolution (UNSCR) 1160 imposed an arms embargo on the FRY. The only exception to this embargo is that in UNSCR 1244, which provides that prohibitions imposed by UNSCR 1160 shall not apply to the sale or supply of arms and related material for use by the international civil and security presence in Kosovo. We have notified the UN Sanctions Committee of this export and they have raised no objection. The export of the equipment required for demining purposes is not prohibited by the EU arms embargo.

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the accommodation available for displaced and homeless Roma in Kosovo. [106098]

  Mr. Vaz
  UNMIK have given urgent consideration to the needs of the Roma. Shelter for all of Kosovo's population has been a major concern for the international community working in Kosovo this winter.

  A number of contingency measures have been taken to provide some form of protection for people who do not have access to shelter of their own. These include:
  500 prefabricated units set up in the Mitrovica, Pec and Decane districts;
  8,000 places in heated collective accommodation identified;
  the provision of up to 15,000 all-season tents and heating.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which projects relating to his Department that appeared in the Private Finance Panel's list of 29 November 1995(a) have been completed, (b) are still pending, (c) have been dropped and (d) are being pursued by means other than a public private partnership. [105870]

  Mr. Hain
  I refer the right hon. Member to the answer given today by my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary for the Treasury,Official Report, columns 117–8W.

  EU Common Defence and Security Policy
  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the effect of European Union enlargement on the Common European Defence and Security Policy. [104537]

  Mr. Vaz
  The development of the CEDSP of the EU continues following the conclusions of the Helsinki European Council. The arrangements put in place need to reflect, before enlargement, the EU's relations with the aspirant countries and equally to enable the policy to function in an enlarged community. For their part, new members will be expected to accept the defence acquis of the Union when they join.

  World Trade Organisation (Croatian Membership)
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a38W
  statement on the Government's policy on Croatia's application for membership of the World Trade Organisation. [104756]

  Mr. Vaz
  We support Croatia's application to join the World Trade Organisation. Membership will allow Croatia to enjoy the benefits of integration in the world trading system. We hope that agreement on the terms of Croatia's joining can be reached quickly.

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the impact that the deferment of Croatia's application to join the World Trade Organisation will have on its advancement(a) to a full market economy and (b) to meet criteria for European Union membership; and if he will make a statement. [104757]

  Mr. Vaz
  We hope that the agreement on the terms of Croatia's joining the WTO can be reached quickly, but a delay need not affect Croatia's progress towards a full market economy or EU membership. Croatia can reform its economic and market structures independently of pursuing its application to join the WTO. We urge the new Croatian government to make progress towards meeting the criteria for EU membership, including democratisation, respect for human rights and compliance with international obligations.

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will discuss Croatia's application for membership of the World Trade Organisation when he next meets(a) the United States Secretary of State, (b) the Foreign Minister of France and (c) the European Commission; and if he will make a statement. [104752]

  Mr. Vaz
  The GAC on 24 January will discuss the full range of EU policy towards Croatia in light of the election results. We support Croatia's accession to the World Trade Organisation (WTO). The Balkans are likely to be on the agenda when the Foreign Secretary next speaks to Mrs. Albright.

  Visa Regimes (Europe)
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs with which European countries the United Kingdom operates a visa regime. [104754]

  Mr. Vaz
  The United Kingdom operates a visa regime on the following European countries:

  Albania

  Belarus

  Bosnia Herzegovina

  Bulgaria

  Croatia

  Macedonia

  Romania

  Slovakia

  Turkey

  Ukraine

  Federal Republic of Yugoslavia

  East Timor
  Mr. Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the current security situation in East Timor. [104565]
  39W
  Mr. Battle
  I visited Indonesia and East Timor on 16–20 January. As I discussed with Major General Cosgrove, the Commander of INTERFET, the security situation in East Timor is generally stable. A memorandum of understanding between the Indonesian Armed Forces, the International Force in East Timor (INTERFET) and the United Nations Transitional Administration in East Timor (UNTAET) on relations at the East Timor/West Timor border was signed on 12 January. All remain concerned about militia activity in the enclave of Oecussi and in West Timor's refugee camps. I made our concerns about this clear to the Indonesian Regional Military Commander during my visit.

  Commercial Guidelines
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what guidelines his Department gives to British private sector companies which employ non-governmental military companies in areas of conflict in the developing world. [106128]

  Mr. Battle
  No specific prescriptive guidelines exist.

  Both the Department of Trade and Industry and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office encourage British private sector companies to act responsibly in overseas investments, particularly in areas of conflict.

  Both Departments provide briefing on the prevailing internal situation in specific countries on request.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  World Trade Organisation
  Ms Drown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps he is taking to co-ordinate different Government department's policies towards the World Trade Organisation. [104503]

  Mr. Caborn
  We use informal and formal networks into which we put a lot of effort. Informally, DTI officials have almost daily contact with colleagues in other Government Departments, including in particular FCO, HMT, DfID, MAFF and DETR. More formally, we have regular cross-Whitehall meetings of officials in a Trade Policy Group. There is also correspondence at ministerial level and discussions in Cabinet Committee. Reflecting this close co-ordination we had a team of officials including other Government Departments in Seattle and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State was accompanied by my right hon. Friend the Secretary for State for International Development, my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, and myself.

  Dr. Palmer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will initiate a consultation process concerning the outcome of the World Trade Organisation talks in Seattle and future policy in relation to such talks. [105061]

  Mr. Caborn
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State stated the Government's position following the Seattle Conference in the debate in the House on 9 December 1999,Official Report, columns 1022–94. As the Government remain committed to the launch of a new comprehensive Round of trade negotiations, the existing consultation
  40W
  processes which they have in place remain valid. This includes consultation with Parliament, to which the Government attach particular importance. The Government launched a wider consultation exercise last year, including a new website which we will be expanding in the coming months to provide more information and features, and to which we have had a good response. We will also continue to hold meetings with a range of people including business, NGOs and trades unions at both official and ministerial level.

  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assistance he is intending to provide to developing countries without a permanent representative to the World Trade Organisation Secretariat in Geneva in order to assist them to be more fully involved in the Millennium Round of trade negotiations. [105579]

  Mr. Caborn
  [holding answer 20 January 2000]: While the Government regret that a new Round was not launched at the Seattle Conference at the end of last year, we remain committed to launching a comprehensive Round at the earliest opportunity. The Government have committed themselves to increasing the WTO's regular budget for technical assistance. In addition, the Government have funded a number of other programmes for countries without a mission in Geneva including: a week-long series of briefings, seminars and policy debates in Geneva to help these countries prepare for the Seattle meeting; support for CARICOM countries most of whom do not have a representative in Geneva to participate in WTO negotiations; their contribution to the Commonwealth's Trade and Investment Access Facility through which they are funding inter alia a Geneva-based trade policy expert to advise their trade Ministries. In addition, the Government are working with a wide range of organisations including UNCTAD, the World Bank and Commonwealth Secretariat to help build the trade capacity of developing and least developed countries so that they can participate more effectively in the world trading system.

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry for what reason Croatia's application for membership of the World Trade Organisation was not accepted; and if he will make a statement. [104758]

  Mr. Caborn
  Croatia's market access offer in services which forms part of her World Trade Organisation (WTO) accession negotiations has not been accepted by all WTO members. This currently prevents her becoming a member of the WTO. The United Kingdom continues to fully support Croatian WTO accession, and looks forward to welcoming her as a WTO member in the near future.

  Stakeholder Pensions
  Mr. Pollard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what measures he is taking to liaise with the Secretary of State for Social Security to ensure that the introduction of stakeholder pension schemes are introduced in a way which minimises the regulatory impact and cost of compliance for small businesses. [105599]

  Ms Hewitt
  As a result of the consultation process, one of the key decisions on stakeholder pensions announced by the Secretary of State for Social Security on 10 January 2000,Official Report, columns 79–80W was that

  41W
  businesses with fewer than five employees will not be required to provide access to a scheme, thus minimising the additional burden for small businesses. My officials in the Small Business Service are in continuing discussions with their counterparts in the Department for Social Security, and with representative bodies, specifically on how the potential administrative burden on employers can be kept to a minimum.

  Company Assistance (Non-assisted Areas)
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what (1) financial assistance is available to new businesses in non-assisted areas; [105274]

  (2) what financial assistance he will provide for company expansion in non-assisted areas. [105273]

  Mr. Caborn
  Financial Assistance to companies in non-Assisted Areas is restricted to SMEs. The Secretary of State announced on 10 November 1999,Official Report, column 629W, proposals for a new Enterprise Grant scheme for SMEs which will be available in certain specified non-Assisted Areas, as well as the Assisted Areas. This is a discretionary scheme offering a grant of up to 15 per cent. of fixed capital costs on projects of less than £500,000 (7½ per cent. in the case of medium sized firms in the specified non-Assisted Areas), with a maximum grant of £75,000. Both new businesses and existing companies seeking to expand are eligible to apply. Further details of the scheme can be found in the scheme brochure, copies of which have been placed in the Library of the House. In addition, the Small Firms Loan Guarantee Scheme continues to support small firms nationally by providing a Government Guarantee, against default by borrowers, to high street banks and other financial bodies. Loans under the Scheme can be between £5,000 and £250,000 to both new and existing businesses which are looking to expand.

  Export Credits Guarantee Department
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list for each member of the ECGD Advisory Committee how much ECGD business has been undertaken in respect of which the member has a declared financial interest. [105419]

  Mr. Caborn
  The amount of business for which ECGD has provided cover for companies or banks in which EGAC members have declared a financial interest is as follows:

  Member

  Date of entry

  Company in which interest held

  Business since date of entry £ million

  David Harrison

  January 1997

  Lloyds TSB plc

  1281

  Liz Airey

  March 1998

  LASMO plc

  None

  Alan Brown

  September 1998

  Barclays plc

  124

  Stuart Doughty

  January 1997

  Kennedy Construction Ltd.

  None

  A-C Mac Ltd.

  None

  Paramount Performance

  None

  Geoffrey Lynch

  May 1993

  Hiscox plc

  None

  42W

  Member

  Date of entry

  Company in which interest held

  Business since date of entry £ million

  Peter Mason

  March 1998

  AMEC plc

  20

  Witchingham Development Ltd.

  None

  David

  December

  HSBC plc

  17941

  McLachlan

  1998

  Nat West plc

  1.3

  1 The figures are for finance provided by the banks either as sole lender or member of a lending syndicate (principal amounts only).

  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry which countries are off cover for medium/long-term ECGD export credit cover. [105478]

  Mr. Caborn
  The table shows, from information readily available, those markets where there is no medium/long-term cover available.

  The table also includes those markets where only projects meeting the "Good Projects" criteria will be considered. Where no medium-term cover is available ECGD may consider viable hard currency earning projects in the public/private sector (not sovereign) on a case-by-case basis.

  Market

  M/T cover?

  Afghanistan

  N

  Burma

  N

  Chad

  N

  Gabon

  N

  Iraq

  N

  Kenya

  N

  Libya

  N

  Nigeria

  N

  Somalia

  N

  Uganda

  N

  R—although no M/L cover available projects can be considered under 'Good Projects' initiative for the following markets

  Albania

  R

  Algeria

  R

  Angola

  R

  Argentina

  R

  Armenia

  R

  Azerbaijan

  R

  Bangladesh

  R

  Belarus

  R

  Benin

  R

  Bhutan

  R

  Bosnia-Herzegovina

  R

  Bulgaria

  R

  Burkina Faso

  R

  Burundi

  R

  Cambodia

  R

  Cameroon

  R

  Cape Verde Islands

  R

  CAR

  R

  Comoros

  R

  Congo

  R

  Congo DR

  R

  Cook Islands

  R

  Cote d'Ivoire

  R

  Cuba

  R

  Dominican Republic

  R

  Ecuador

  R

  Equatorial Guinea

  R

  Ethiopia

  R

  Gambia

  R

  43W

  Market

  M/T cover?

  Georgia

  R

  Guatemala

  R

  Guinea-Bissau

  R

  Guyana

  R

  Haiti

  R

  Honduras

  R

  Iran

  R

  Jordan

  R

  Kazakhstan

  R

  Kiribati

  R

  Kyrgyzstan

  R

  Laos

  R

  Liberia

  R

  Macedonia

  R

  Madagascar

  R

  Malawi

  R

  Mali

  R

  Marshall Islands

  R

  Mauritania

  R

  Micronesia

  R

  Moldova

  R

  Mozambique

  R

  Nicaragua

  R

  Niger

  R

  Niue

  R

  North Korea

  R

  Northern Marianas

  R

  Pakistan

  R

  Palau

  R

  Peru

  R

  Qatar

  R

  Romania

  R

  Russia

  R

  Rwanda

  R

  St. Lucia

  R

  Samoa

  R

  Sao Tome and Principe

  R

  Senegal

  R

  Serbia and Montenegro

  R

  Seychelles

  R

  Sierra Leone

  R

  Slovakia

  R

  Solomon Islands

  R

  Sudan

  R

  Surinam

  R

  Syria

  R

  Tajikistan

  R

  Tanzania

  R

  Togo

  R

  Turkmenistan

  R

  Tuvalu

  R

  Ukraine

  R

  Uzbekistan

  R

  Venezuela

  R

  Yemen

  R

  Zambia

  R

  Zimbabwe

  R

  Note:

  As at 15 January 2000

  EU Structural Funds
  Ms Atherton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what guidance he has given on the retrospective funding of projects under the forthcoming Objective 1 Programme. [105523]

  Mr. Caborn
  The Structural Funds General Regulation sets out when retrospective funding of projects is permitted. For the UK's Objective 1 programmes this is the date on which the Commission 44W
  deem they had received an acceptable draft of the programme. For the Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly programme, this is 3 November 1999.

  It has always been a matter for Programme Monitoring Committees to decide whether, and to what extent, they wish to use any retrospection.

  Enterprise Grant
  Dr. Brand
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he will announce(a) the criteria for the tier 3 grant up to £75,000 and (b) the amount available to the regions of England; and if he will make a statement. [106152]

  Mr. Caborn
  The information is as follows:

  (a) My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced on 10 November 1999, Official Report, column 629W, a new discretionary Enterprise Grant scheme which would be available to SMEs in tier 3 and the Assisted Areas of the English regions. The aim is to target high quality projects with fixed capital investment of up to £500,000. There will be some regional variation in the delivery of the scheme through the Government Offices, taking account of the economic strategies of the Regional Development Agencies. Further details of the scheme's core criteria can be found in the scheme brochure, copies of which I have placed in the Libraries of the Houses.

  (b) The budget for Enterprise Grant is £45 million over three years. The allocation for 2000–01 by region, based on 3-year average spending on Regional Selective Assistance cases at this level, will be as follows:

  £000

  Region

  Allocation for 2000–01

  East

  300

  East Midlands

  1,200

  London

  300

  North East

  3,000

  North West

  3,600

  South East

  900

  South West

  450

  West Midlands

  3,150

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  2,100

  Total

  15,000

  National Minimum Wage
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will quantify the impact of a minimum wage increase to(a) £4, (b) £4.50 and (c) £5 per hour on (i) employment, (ii) price levels and (iii) Government expenditure. [105916]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  Measuring the effect of hypothetical levels of the national minimum wage on employment, price levels and Government expenditure is a highly complex task and the impacts would be difficult to quantify. For the last nine months the Low Pay Commission has carried out a thorough empirical study of the impact of the actual minimum wage since its introduction, and that report will be published soon. Neither the Government nor the Low Pay Commission
  45W
  has carried out detailed modelling on the scenarios given in the question, and could not do so except at a disproportionate cost.

  Post Offices
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many post offices and sub-post offices there were in England in May 1997, 1998 and 1999; and what the projected figure is for 2000. [106042]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  I understand from the Post Office the numbers of directly operated post offices and of sub-post offices in England were as follows:

  Directly operated

  Sub-post offices

  Total

  March 1998

  510

  14,268

  14,778

  March 1999

  502

  14,091

  14,593

  The Post Office does not have the comparable figures for years before 1998 and does not make forward projections of post office numbers.

  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many post offices there were in the Salisbury constituency in each year from 1983 to 1999; and if he will make a statement. [106157]

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

  The Post Office advise that in October 1999 the number of post offices in the Salisbury constituency was 55.

  Benefit Payment Methods
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment he has made of the impact that switching payments from benefits and pensions books to bank transfers will have on local post offices and sub-post offices. [106076]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  The automation of the post office network, which is due for completion by the spring of 2001, will enable the Post Office to extend its arrangements with the high street banks to offer a range of banking facilities at post offices. This will mean that benefit recipients who wish to access their benefits in cash at post offices will continue to be able to do so, both before and after the migration of benefit payments to automated credit transfer from 2003, while other bank customers will benefit from the wider availability of banking facilities, particularly in rural areas.

  Mr. Ashdown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make available all information relating to the proportion of business income accounted for by Benefits Agency business for post offices within(a) Somerset and (b) the Yeovil constituency; and if he will make a statement. [104749]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 20 January 2000]: The proportion of business income accounted for by Benefits Agency business for post offices varies from post office to post office.

  "The Rising Tide"
  Dr. Starkey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment he has made of the extent to which the objectives set out in the report of the Committee on Women in Science and Technology, The Rising Tide, have been met. [106051]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Department's Unit charged with promoting science, engineering and technology (SET) for women, which was set up in response to one of "The Rising Tide" recommendations, continues to monitor progress on the other recommendations in that report.

  There is a continuing problem with the under-representation of women in SET, especially in the physical sciences and engineering, and the Unit works with other organisations in the field to seek to redress this. Recent initiatives include the ATHENA project, a joint project with the Higher Education Funding Councils and the Committee of Vice Chancellors and Principals, targeted at addressing barriers to progression in higher education, and promoting a positive image for women in SET careers through the recent poster campaign targeted at 13-year-old girls. Further information and links to other relevant organisations are available via the Unit's website at www.set4women.gov.uk.

  Heavily Indebted Poor Countries
  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much debt service he estimates will be received from each of the heavily-indebted poor countries in the financial years(a) 1999–2000 and (b) 2000–01. [105745]

  Mr. Caborn
  The UK has debt agreements with 32 heavily indebted poor countries (HIPCs). The table shows payments due to ECGD under these agreements together with an estimate of amounts likely to be received by the end of each year, assuming the schedules remain unchanged. However a number of these HIPCs will benefit from further debt reduction and rescheduling in the current year under the enhanced HIPC Initiative. This provides for up to 90 per cent. debt reduction multilaterally, or more in the case of need. Additionally some will benefit from the Chancellor's recent announcement that the UK will unilaterally write off 100 per cent. of the debt in certain circumstances. The extent of further debt reduction and the timing thereof for each country depends on a number of factors. Consequently it is not yet possible to gauge with any accuracy the effect on the current estimates.

  Estimate of receipts from HIPCs 1999–2000 and 2000–01 (assuming current debt agreements remain unchanged)

  £ million

  Country

  Amount due 1999–2000

  Estimate of receipts by 31 March 2000

  Amount due 2000–01

  Estimate of receipts by 31 March 2001

  Angola

  10.373

  nil

  10.373

  nil

  Benin

  0.180

  0.180

  0.169

  0.169

  Bolivia

  0.803

  0.627

  0.502

  0.502

  Burkina

  Faso

  0.059

  0.059

  0.037

  0.020

  C.A.R.

  0.069

  nil

  0.011

  nil

  Cameroon

  1.414

  1.414

  2.379

  2.379

  47W

  Estimate of receipts from HIPCs 1999–2000 and 2000–01 (assuming current debt agreements remain unchanged)

  £ million

  Country

  Amount due 1999–2000

  Estimate of receipts by 31 March 2000

  Amount due 2000–01

  Estimate of receipts by 31 March 2001

  Congo

  Republic

  14.447

  nil

  10.165

  nil

  Congo D.R.

  11.753

  nil

  11.753

  nil

  Cote

  d'Ivoire

  2.619

  0.068

  0.087

  0.087

  Ethiopia

  0.478

  0.478

  0.429

  0.429

  Ghana

  1.434

  0.721

  0.722

  0.722

  Guinea

  Republic

  0.673

  0.103

  0.613

  0.613

  Guyana

  2.476

  1.607

  1.548

  1.548

  Kenya

  11.770

  6.850

  13.108

  13.108

  Liberia

  nil

  nil

  nil

  nil

  Madagascar

  0.263

  0.263

  1.290

  1.290

  Malawi

  0.117

  0.117

  0.100

  0.100

  Mali

  0.638

  nil

  0.657

  nil

  Mauritania

  0.638

  nil

  0.638

  nil

  Mozambique

  11.176

  nil

  12.159

  12.159

  Nicaragua

  0.031

  nil

  0.007

  0.007

  Senegal

  0.015

  0.015

  0.403

  0.403

  Sierra

  Leone

  0.128

  nil

  0.135

  0.135

  Somali

  Republic

  0.456

  nil

  0.456

  nil

  Sudan

  11.253

  nil

  10.566

  10.566

  Tanzania

  1.732

  1.732

  11.999

  11.999

  Togo

  2.042

  nil

  2.245

  nil

  Uganda

  0.291

  0.291

  0.291

  0.291

  Vietnam

  0.318

  0.318

  0.232

  0.232

  Yemen

  0.189

  0.189

  0.118

  0.118

  Zambia

  0.885

  0.868

  1.031

  1.031

  Note:

  With the exception of Nicaragua for whom a Moratorium was agreed `nil' is shown where countries have not been servicing debt. Liberia's final payment date was in 1998 therefore no payments are scheduled. However they have not paid for many years and there are arrears of some £15.7 million.

  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much total bilateral debt service was received by Her Majesty's Government from each of the heavily-indebted poor countries in the financial year 1998–99. [105738]

  Mr. Caborn
  [holding answer 20 January 2000]: In the financial year 1998–99 a total of £39.628 million was received from heavily-indebted poor countries under bilateral debt agreements. The table shows a country by country breakdown.

  Receipts from HIPCS in 1998–99 under bilateral debt agreements

  £ million

  Country

  Amounts received 1998–99

  Angola

  nil

  Benin

  0.216

  Bolivia

  1.083

  Burkina Faso

  0.081

  C.A.R.

  nil

  Cameroon

  1.858

  Congo Republic

  nil

  Congo D.R.

  nil

  Cote d'Ivoire

  0.268

  Ethiopia

  0.564

  48W

  Receipts from HIPCS in 1998–99 under bilateral debt agreements

  £ million

  Country

  Amounts received 1998–99

  Ghana

  1.397

  Guinea Republic

  0.154

  Guyana

  3.438

  Kenya

  11.537

  Liberia

  nil

  Madagascar

  0.464

  Malawi

  0.086

  Mali

  0.270

  Mauritania

  0.321

  Mozambique

  nil

  Nicaragua

  0.039

  Senegal

  0.020

  Sierra Leone

  nil

  Somalia Republic

  nil

  Sudan

  nil

  Tanzania

  9.806

  Togo

  0.161

  Uganda

  0.275

  Vietnam

  0.851

  Yemen

  3.491

  Zambia

  3.248

  Note:

  Where 'nil' is shown the countries have not been servicing this debt.

  Information Technology
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps his Department is taking to ensure the continued growth of the IT and communications infrastructure. [106090]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 20 January 2000]: We will continue to work with Oftel and the European Commission to ensure that the regulatory framework promotes competition and investment in communications infrastructure and services. This year will see the grant of licences for third generation mobile and broadband fixed wireless services which will give a major boost to competition in broadband services. BT is also investing heavily in upgrading its local loop so that competing service providers can provide new broadband services from this Spring. Competing telecoms operators will also be able to provide such services over unbundled local loop from July 2001.

  Companies (Political Fundraising)
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) if he will seek to reform company law to control the use of companies for fundraising for extremist purposes; [106096]

  (2) if he will investigate possible breaches of company law by Info 2000 Software Ltd; and if he will make a statement; [106094]

  (3) if he will make a statement on the circumstances in which a limited company may be used for fundraising for extremist causes; [106093]

  (4) if he will seek to amend company law to enable those dealing with companies whose function is fundraising for extremist causes to be aware of the nature of the company with which they are dealing. [106095]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 20 January 2000]: In many cases a company's memorandum of association, delivered for the purposes of incorporation, will disclose the nature

  49W
  of its objects. However this is not a statutory requirement and a company's objects are often drafted in general terms and do not in practice restrain the company's activities. In subsequent disclosure on its annual return, a company is required either to give its Standard Industrial Classification code, which indicates its main activities, or to give a verbal description of them. Those companies that are obliged to file a directors' report as part of their annual accounts must include a description of their main activities in that report. All these documents are available for public inspection.

  At present, the law requires that companies disclose in the directors' report all donations or subscriptions in excess of £200 to a political party of the United Kingdom. The Political Parties Elections and Referendums Bill, now before the House, will seek to widen the scope of this disclosure requirement by extending it to include all foreign political parties.

  If a company and/or those connected with it, are engaged in any criminal activity, they will be subject to the appropriate criminal sanctions. If a company fails to file its annual report or accounts, this can lead to the company being struck off. In relation to the specific company referred to in my hon. Friend's questions, it is currently in default of its filing obligations, and steps are being taken to strike the company off. If the hon. Member has any further specific information it should be sent to my Department, for consideration of what further action, if any, should be taken.

  Ethical Trading Initiative
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what financial support his Department has given to the Ethical Trading Initiative; and if he will make a statement. [106126]

  Mr. Caborn
  My Department, together with the Department for International Development and other interested departments, fully supports the aims of the Ethical Trading Initiative and encourages companies to associate themselves with it. It is an important voluntary sector initiative promoting corporate codes of conduct relating to companies' dealings with overseas suppliers. My Department does not provide direct financial support to the Ethical Trading Initiative, although such assistance is provided by the Department for International Development.

  Internet
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what estimate he has made of the amount of telephone traffic going via the internet; and if he will make a statement. [106718]

  Ms Hewitt
  Current estimates are that no more than 1 per cent. of voice telephony traffic globally is carried over the internet. But an increasing proportion of all telecommunications traffic consists of internet data. According to OF1EL, the UK Telecommunications regulator, the current proportion in the UK is around 25 per cent. of all telecommunications traffic.

  Defence-related Exports
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what proportion of the total sum paid out in 50W
  claims authorised by the Export Credits Guarantee Department in 1998–99 was for defence-related exports. [105929]

  Mr. Caborn
  21 per cent. of the claims authorised in 1998–99 were in respect of defence-related exports.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what proportion of the Export Credits Guarantee Department's 1998–99 exposure in unrecovered claims is for defence-related exports. [105931]

  Mr. Caborn
  8.5 per cent. of unrecovered claims were in respect of defence-related exports.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the Government's policy is concerning the underwriting of defence-related equipment sales to the Governments of(a) Jordan, (b) Kenya, (c) Egypt, (d) Algeria and (e) Nigeria. [105933]

  Mr. Caborn
  ECGD, for varying reasons, is not currently underwriting defence-related equipment sales to the Governments of Jordan, Kenya and Algeria. It is unlikely that ECGD support would be available for defence sales to Nigeria. In principle, cover is available for defence sales to Egypt on a case by case basis.

  With the exception of Egypt, ECGD has not supported defence business on these markets for some years.

  It is a condition of ECGD support for defence business that there should be a valid export licence, if applicable, for the goods involved.

  Parental Leave
  Mr. Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what estimates he has made of the rate of take-up of parental leave if it were(a) paid by employers, (b) paid by the Government and (c) unpaid. [106032]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  In the Regulatory Impact Assessment we produced an estimate that for every 700,000 babies born, 100,000 parents will take unpaid parental leave. We have not produced estimates on the rate of take-up of paid parental leave.

  Mr. Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what estimate he has made of the potential costs of parental leave if it were paid by the Government. [106031]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  We have introduced unpaid parental leave as agreed by the European Social Partners and in line with our commitment in the Fairness at Work White Paper. The Regulatory Impact Assessment makes an estimate of the cost of unpaid parental leave. We have not produced an estimate of the potential costs of paid parental leave.

  European Employment Pact
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to the answer of 6 December, Official Report, column 420W, on the Employment Pact, if it is her Department's assessment that a quantitative evaluation is possible of the practical benefits arising from the European Employment Pact. [105659]

  Ms Jowell
  I have been asked to reply.
  51W
  The European Employment Pact brought together three processes: the Luxembourg employment process, the Cardiff economic reform process and the new Cologne macro-economic dialogue. It brings fresh impetus to the promotion of long term, sustainable job creation in a climate of stability and growth. The Joint Employment Report assesses progress against the Employment Guidelines and the Cardiff Reports assess the progress of product and capital market reforms. It is too soon to evaluate the benefits of the Cologne process.

DEFENCE

  Territorial Army
  Mr. McWalter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will address personnel shortages in the Army by retaining larger numbers of TA units than he had previously planned. [104545]

  Mr. Spellar
  The restructuring of the Territorial Army following the SDR is making it better able to support the regular Army than before. I therefore have no plans to reverse these changes.

  European Defence and Security Policy
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the role of non-NATO states in the common European defence and security policy. [104549]

  Mr. Hoon
  Under arrangements agreed at December's Helsinki European Council, all EU member states will be entitled to participate, on an equal basis, in EU decision making on Common Defence and Security matters. There will be no discrimination between those EU member states who are NATO Allies and those who are not.

  Elvington Airfield
  Mr. Grogan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about the future of Elvington airfield. [104550]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  Elvington airfield is surplus and is being sold. My Department has now selected a preferred purchaser and intends to sell the property to Elvington Park Ltd. It is hoped that the sale will be concluded shortly.

  Royal Ordnance
  Mr. Borrow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the future of Royal Ordnance. [104551]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  As I announced on 21 December 1999,Official Report, column 467W, we have entered into a long term partnering arrangement with Royal Ordnance for the supply of a wide range of ammunition products from Royal Ordnance. The arrangement, which is initially for 10 years, will provide Royal Ordnance with a stable workload worth some £100 million per year. It will provide value for money for the taxpayer by establishing a stable base from which Royal Ordnance can invest and restructure for the future.

  Kosovo
  Dr. Palmer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on peacekeeping operations in Kosovo and Bosnia. [104552]

  Mr. Hoon
  British forces continue to make an outstanding contribution to the international community's peace-keeping operations in Kosovo and Bosnia. In Kosovo, we contribute 3,500 troops to KFOR, while in Bosnia we intend to bring our contribution down from around 3,300 now to some 2,000 during the course of this year.

  The United Kingdom remains fully committed to long-term peace and stability in the Balkans as a whole.

  30. Mrs. Lait: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment his Department has made of the effectiveness of the weapons and equipment used by British armed forces during the Kosovo operations; and if he will make a statement. [104566]

  Mr. Hoon
  My Department constantly monitors the effectiveness of the weapons and equipment used by British armed forces, and we have learned valuable lessons from our experiences in Kosovo. Remedial action is being taken forward as appropriate and a report on lessons learned will be published later this year.

  Mr. Duncan Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations about the SA 80 weapon system were made to Ministers by the Chiefs of Staff during the Kosovo campaign. [106170]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  None.

  Armed Forces (Homosexuals)
  Fiona Mactaggart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what action he has taken as a result of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights on lesbians and gay men in the armed forces. [104553]

  Mr. Hoon
  I made a statement to the House on 12 January 2000,Official Report, columns 287–88, about implementation of the legal judgment of the European Court of Human Rights. Homosexuals are no longer excluded from service in the armed forces. All personnel, regardless of their sexual orientation, are subject to a new code of social conduct that sets out what is acceptable and unacceptable behaviour. The code is concerned with the effect of personal conduct and behaviour on operational effectiveness. I have placed a copy of the code in the Library of the House.

  Dr. Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what progress he is making in settling compensation claims for those service men and women discharged from the armed forces in breach of their rights under the European convention on human rights. [104570]

  Mr. Spellar
  In light of the ECHR's judgment on 27 September 1999, the Secretary of State for Defence authorised that settlement negotiations be entered into with those individuals discharged as a result of their homosexuality who had Employment Tribunal applications already in train and whose account is accepted as being substantially factually true. Over 60 offers of settlement have been made and, to date, three individuals have accepted those offers, and payments have been made.

  Transport Aircraft
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what action is being taken to harmonise Future Transport Aircraft requirements with those of the French and German Ministries of Defence. [104554]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  The competition for the Royal Air Force's Future Transport Aircraft is being conducted on the basis of a common European Staff Requirement agreed between several European partners, including France and Germany.

  Type 45 Destroyers
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when contracts will be signed with United Kingdom shipyards for the construction of Type 45 destroyers and other vessels for the Royal Navy. [104556]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  We plan to place the order for the First-of-Class Type 45 destroyer with the Prime Contractor by the end of this year with the intention that it be built at the Marconi Marine (YSL) Ltd. yard on the Clyde. Decisions have still to be taken on the timing for follow-on Type 45 vessels but current planning assumptions are for a class of 12 ships to enter service between 2007 and 2014.

  Contracts for other RN shipbuilding programmes, of which there are many over the next 10–15 years, will be signed at the appropriate point of the procurement process.

  US (Discussions)
  Mr. Miller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he next plans to visit the United States to discuss defence matters. [104558]

  Mr. Hoon
  I am going to the United States later today to discuss defence matters.

  Cadets
  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what estimate he has made of the annual cost to the Army, Air and Sea Cadets of paying fees to the Criminal Records Office for criminal records searches in respect of adult leaders and helpers. [104559]

  Mr. Spellar
  The Sea Cadet Association estimates that its use of the Criminal Records Bureau will cost around £15,000 per year. The Army Cadet Force estimates that it will spend about £20,000 per year, while the Air Training Corps has allocated £6,000 per year in future budgets for the cost of inquiries.

  Service Families (Schools)
  Mr. Colman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what steps his Department is taking to improve access to schools for service families. [104560]

  Dr. George Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what steps he is taking to improve access to schools for service families. [104561]

  Mr. Spellar
  The inter departmental Service Families Task Force has achieved considerable success in improving access to schools for Service families. The Department for Education and Employment has, for the 54W
  first time, made specific reference to Service children in their Code of Practice on Schools Admission. The Code directs local education authorities and school admission authorities to ensure that the needs of Service children are taken into account by considering inviting Service Children's Education, an MOD agency, to their Admission Forum. The Service Children's Education agency is now either a formal member, or is in attendance, on 16 Admission Forums for areas in England where there are large numbers of Service children. The Code of Practice also requires admission authorities to be sensitive to the position of children of parents returning from working abroad, such as Service personnel.

  Armed Forces (Women)
  Mr. Hopkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will review the restrictions on posts available to women in the armed forces. [104563]

  Mr. Spellar
  Women cannot currently serve in the Royal Marines General Service, cap-badged posts in the Infantry and Royal Armoured Corps (including the Household Cavalry) and the RAF Regiment on the grounds of combat effectiveness. The Army is currently conducting a study into the effects of gender upon combat effectiveness that is due to report to Ministers in 2001.

  Additionally in the Royal Navy women cannot serve in submarines or as mine clearance divers for medical reasons. The position will be kept under review.

  Anglo-French Co-operation
  Dr. Naysmith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what progress has been made since the St. Malo agreement in promoting Anglo-French co-operation in defence. [104564]

  Mr. Hoon
  The Letter of Intent on co-operation in crisis management and operations signed at St. Malo in December 1998 has allowed work to be taken forward on planning for non-combatant evacuation operations; joint exercises; improved links between operational headquarters; co-ordination of naval deployments; information exchanges on peacekeeping activities; Year 2000 computer problems; logistics; and arrangements for dealing with the media.

  Specific examples of co-operation are: the posting of liaison officers into operational headquarters; the attachment of HMS Somerset, and later HMS Grafton, to the French FOCH Carrier Task Group in the Adriatic during the Kosovo conflict; the joint signing ceremony in New York on 25 June of Memoranda of Understanding between our respective Governments and the UN on troop availability for UN peacekeeping operations; and co-operation on media handling during the Kosovo conflict. We also signed a Mutual Logistics Support Agreement at the UK/France Summit held in November 1999.

  Defence Medical Services
  Mr. Olner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to increase spending on the Defence Medical Services over the next three years. [104567]
  55W
  Mr. Spellar
  Following the Strategic Defence Review, an additional £140 million was made available for enhancement of the operational capability of the Defence Medical Services over the four years from 1998–99 to 2001–02. We plan to maintain increased expenditure in subsequent years.

  Ballistic Missile
  Mrs. Laing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the threat of a ballistic missile attack on the United Kingdom. [104569]

  Mr. Hoon
  Our current assessment is that there is no significant ballistic missile threat to the UK at present, but developments continue to be monitored closely.

  Missile Systems
  Mr. Gordon Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what progress he has made in assessing future requirements for beyond-visual-range air-to-air missile systems. [104571]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  We are currently assessing final bids received from two companies, Matra BAe Dynamics and Raytheon Systems Ltd, to meet the RAF's requirement for a Beyond Visual Range Air-to-Air Missile. Assessment is almost complete and we hope to be in a position to announce the outcome of this competition early this year.

  Merchant Ships
  Mr. Bill O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the agreements between British merchant shipping companies and his Department on the availability of merchant ships for defence purposes. [104572]

  Mr. Spellar
  There are no agreements between my Department and British merchant shipping companies on the availability of merchant ships for defence. As my hon. Friend is aware the Ministry of Defence enjoys a close and productive relationship with the UK Chamber of Shipping and the DETR on defence issues, primarily through the auspices of the Shipping Defence Advisory Committee.

  Navy Manpower
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the projected levels of Navy manpower for the next three years. [104555]

  Mr. Spellar
  The Strategic Defence Review addressed shortages in the Services and set a target for the Naval Service to bring overall strengths into line with requirements by 2002. It is on course to do so. The forecast requirement for 1 April 2002 is for 38,900 personnel. Our aim is to provide the trained strength needed to meet requirements.

  Eurofighter
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the current in-service date of the Eurofighter. [104568]

  Mr. Hoon
  The in-service date of Eurofighter, which is defined as delivery of the first aircraft, is June 2002.
  56W
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the likely effectiveness of the Eurofighter when deployed from aircraft carriers. [104915]

  Mr. Hoon
  [holding answer 18 January 2000]: This is a matter for the Chief Executive of the Defence Procurement Agency. I have asked the Chief Executive to write to my hon. Friend.

  Letter from Robert Walmsley to Mr. Paul Flynn, dated 24 January 2000:
  I am replying to your question to the Secretary of State for Defence asking what assessment has been made of the likely effectiveness of the Eurofighter when deployed from aircraft carriers. This matter falls within my area of responsibility as Chief of Defence Procurement and Chief Executive of the Defence Procurement Agency.
  A 'navalised' version of the Eurofighter is one of the options being assessed to meet the Future Carrier Borne Aircraft (FCBA) requirement. FCBA is due to replace the Royal Navy Sea Harrier and the Royal Air Force Harrier forces, and will be required to operate from the two new carriers.
  A contract has been placed with BAe Systems, to study launch and recovery design issues that would arise from the development of the Eurofighter aircraft for carrier operations. The outcome of this work, together with MOD operational effectiveness studies on the option, will be used to inform the decision on the choice of FCBA aircraft.

  Mr. Duncan Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when the Eurofighter will become operational with its full complement of air-to-air and air-to-ground weaponry. [106566]

  Mr. Hoon
  As the date when Eurofighter will become fully operational could provide a useful indicator about our defence capability to potential adversaries, I am withholding it in accordance with Exemption 1 (Defence, Security, and International Relations) of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  Joint Rapid Reaction Force
  Mr. Ivan Henderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has received from the Royal Navy regarding the timescale for awarding the PFI contract for the Joint Rapid Reaction Force Roll-On Roll-Off vessels. [104089]

  Mr. Spellar
  One the aims of Smart Procurement has been to define more clearly the needs of the customer (in this case the Royal Navy) and to empower them within the procurement process. Members of the Royal Navy are closely involved in the project on a day to day basis and contribute fully to the discussion and resolution of all issues related to the Roll-On Roll-Off ship project.

  Service Personnel (Medical Treatment)
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many service personnel are waiting for NHS hospital and consultant appointments relating to illnesses or accidents which interrupt their military service; how many have been waiting for more than six months; and what estimate he has made of the cost implications of delays. [104411]
  57W
  Mr. Spellar
  Members of the Armed Forces are entitled to full use of NHS hospitals on the same basis as civilians if appropriate military provision is not available. The MOD does not maintain overall records of those Service personnel who require secondary medical care in NHS hospitals.

  A400M Project
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many of the states supporting the A400M aircraft project have indicated that they would purchase the aircraft; how many each would purchase; and when the first aircraft could be in service with the RAF. [104405]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  None of the seven nations involved in the A400M project has made a contractual commitment to purchase the aircraft although two nations have declared a preference for the A400M. Each of the nations is addressing, within their national assessment programmes, the issue of the number of aircraft needed to fulfil their national air transport requirements but have not yet made firm decisions. We expect the aircraft selected to fulfil our Future Transport Aircraft requirement to enter service with the RAF in the latter half of this decade.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to make an announcement on the A400M project. [105555]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  We continue to aim to reach a decision in the early part of this year on our Future Transport Aircraft requirements. A400M is one of the aircraft under consideration.

  Gardening Leave
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many of his Department's(a) civil servants by grade and (b) service men and women by rank are (i) currently on gardening leave and (ii) have been on gardening leave for two months or more; and at what cost to his budget. [104468]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  Civilian staff on gardening leave are individuals who are genuinely surplus because there is no suitable employment for them, or because their circumstances prevent them from taking up that employment. My Department monitors the position routinely and the latest available figures, excluding the Meteorological Office and Defence Evaluation and Research Agency are set out as follows:

  MOD civilian staff between appointments

  Civilian staff by grade1

  Total

  Total 2 months or more

  Grade 7

  3

  3

  Grade 6

  1

  0

  MOD Police Constable

  1

  1

  Senior Scientific Officer

  1

  1

  Senior Executive Officer

  1

  1

  Higher Executive Officer

  24

  23

  Executive Officer

  5

  5

  Process and General Supervisory Grade 'D'

  1

  0

  Process and General Supervisory Grade 'E'

  1

  1

  Higher Professional and Technology Officer

  1

  1

  Senior Professional and Technology Officer

  3

  3

  Professional and Technology Officer

  1

  0

  Stores Officer Grade 'D'

  1

  1

  58W

  MOD civilian staff between appointments

  Civilian staff by grade1

  Total

  Total 2 months or more

  Mess Manager 'B'

  1

  1

  Administrative Officer

  1

  1

  Total

  26

  21

  1 As of November 1999

  2 Includes two part-time staff

  The approximate cost of these staff to the MOD budget this financial year, calculated on the basis of the length of time on gardening leave, is £314,000.

  Although these figures represent a tiny proportion of the 100,000 civilian staff employed by the Ministry of Defence, my Department takes the matter very seriously. Individuals are placed on gardening leave only as a last resort and the aim, wherever possible, is to find work for staff in between appointments.

  Although not recognised across all three Services, the term "gardening leave" (or "Wait Appointment" in the Royal Navy) is understood to apply to those who are fit and available for duty but for whom no post is currently available, and who are awaiting appointment. The amount of time involved for individuals is usually very short, and personnel move in and out of this category on a daily basis.

  Naval service personnel by rank. As of 13 January 2000

  Total

  Total 2 months or more

  Commodore

  2

  0

  Captain RN

  2

  0

  Commander

  2

  0

  Lieutenant Commander

  6

  1

  Lieutenant Colonel RM

  1

  0

  Totals

  13

  1

  The estimated cost calculated on the basis of the length of time on gardening leave is £62,952.18.

  Army personnel by rank. As of 13 January 2000

  Total

  Total 2 months or more

  Major General

  2

  1

  Brigadier

  1

  0

  Totals

  3

  1

  The estimated cost calculated on the basis of the length of time on gardening leave is £26,481.79.

  Royal Air Force personnel by rank. As of 13 January 2000

  Total

  Total 2 months or more

  Air Vice Marshal

  1

  0

  Air Commodore

  1

  0

  Group Captain

  2

  0

  59W

  Royal Air Force personnel by rank. As of 13 January 2000

  Total

  Total 2 months or more

  Warrant Officer

  1

  0

  Flight Sergeant

  1

  0

  Totals

  6

  0

  The estimated cost calculated on the basis of the length of time on gardening leave is £15,452.36.

  Tri-Service personnel by rank. As of 13 January 2000

  Total

  Total 2 months or more

  Major General and equivalent

  3

  1

  Brigadier and equivalent

  4

  0

  Colonel and equivalent

  5

  0

  Lieutenant Colonel and equivalent

  2

  0

  Major and equivalent

  6

  1

  Warrant Officer

  1

  0

  Staff Sergeant and equivalent

  1

  0

  Totals

  22

  2

  The total estimated cost of these personnel is £104,886.33.

  Unexploded Ordnance
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his Department's estimate of the percentage of unexploded ordnance which results from cluster bombs dropped from(a) 5,000 feet, (b) 10,000 feet, (c) 15,000 feet, (d) 20,000 feet and (e) 25,000 feet. [104806]

  Mr. Spellar
  Approximately 5 per cent. of the bomblets within a Cluster Bomb fail to detonate when they impact. Regardless of the height from which they are dropped, this figure does not vary.

  AWE Aldermaston
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the conviction by the Environment Agency in December of AWE Aldermaston for unauthorised discharges of tritium. [105066]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  This is a matter for the Chief Executive of the Defence Procurement Agency. I have asked the Chief Executive to write to my hon. Friend.

  Letter from Robert Walmsley to Mr. Harry Cohen, dated 24 January 2000:
  I am replying to your question to the Secretary of State for Defence asking if he will make a statement on the conviction by the Environment Agency in December of AWE Aldermaston for unauthorised discharges of tritium.
  On 13 December 1999, Hunting-BRAE, the current management and operating contractor for the Atomic Weapons Establishment, pleaded guilty at Newbury Magistrates' Court to three charges in connection with the unauthorised discharge of low level tritium into the Aldermaston Stream and were fined a total of £17,500 plus costs of £4,220. The Environment Agency, who issued the summons, have stated that the discharges have no significant health or environmental consequences. They also accept that the stream is the best available method of discharge and have allowed AWE to
  60W
  continue with this. For their part, Hunting-BRAE have stated that the discharges were made in the belief that the Environment Agency were aware of the situation and had condoned it.

  Indonesia
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what is his Department's policy on requests from the Indonesian Government for back up support for military hardware already sold to them; [104836]

  (2) what requests have been made by the Indonesian Government over the last 12 months for the renewal and replacement of military equipment that has been sold to the Indonesian regime; and if he will make a statement. [104835]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  Requests for licensable back-up support for existing military hardware overseas are considered case by case in line with the criteria which the Foreign Secretary announced to the House on 28 July 1997,Official Report, columns 26–29W and the EU Code of Conduct on Arms Exports.

  While the exact details are commercially confidential, we understand that prior to the EU embargo a number of British companies were in discussion with the Indonesian Government about the supply of both spares for existing items and new defence equipment.

  The EU embargo lapsed at midnight on 16 January 2000. Any future UK defence equipment to Indonesia will again be subject to case by case consideration under the criteria referred to above.

  Departmental Smoking Policy
  Mr. Crausby
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what action he is taking to reduce smoking in his Department. [105805]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  It is my Department's aim, in line with wider Government policy, to create a non-smoking working environment, in so far as this reflects the wishes of staff. In fact, many MOD sites already operate a no smoking policy. Detailed guidance on smoking policy within MOD is promulgated in the departmental Health and Safety Handbook, Joint Service Publication 375, a copy of which has been placed in the Library of the House.

  Departmental Property Disposals
  Mr. Hawkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what procedures his Department has to ensure that elected representatives for an area are consulted on possible future disposals of MOD property in that area prior to discussions with local government officers. [105149]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 17 January 2000]: My Department liaises closely with local authorities in considering options for the future of defence sites to ensure that local planning issues are taken into account in deliberations. Decisions to close MOD establishments and subsequently dispose of sites are taken by Ministers and colleagues, and I write to inform hon. Members before our officials inform local authority representatives.

  Departmental Lawyers
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list by(a) service, (b) rank or grade and (c) location of workplace the numbers of qualified lawyers working for his Department. [105651]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 19 January 2000]: The table gives the service, rank and location of qualified lawyers working for my Department.

  (a) Service/(b) Rank/Grade

  (c) Location

  Royal Navy1

  1 Admiral

  London

  3 Captains

  1 Commander

  1 Lt. Commander

  1 Commodore

  Portsmouth

  1 Captain

  6 Commanders

  7 Lt. Commanders

  1 Lieutenant

  1 Lt. Commander

  Plymouth

  1 Lt. Commander

  Yeovilton

  1 Commander

  Northwood

  1 Lieutenant

  1 Lt. Commander

  Faslane

  2 Commanders

  At sea

  4 Lt. Commanders

  Army

  1 Major General

  Upavon

  1 Brigadier

  1 Colonel

  3 Lt. Colonels

  5 Majors

  1 Captain

  1 Brigadier

  Uxbridge

  1 Colonel

  3 Lt. Colonels

  2 Majors

  8 Captains

  1 Colonel

  Wilton

  1 Major

  1 Lt. Colonel

  York

  1 Major

  1 Major

  Bulford

  1 Lt. Colonel

  Aldershot

  2 Captains

  1 Lt. Colonel

  Shrewsbury

  1 Captain

  1 Colonel

  London

  3 Lt. Colonels

  2 Majors

  1 Major

  Portsmouth

  1 Lt. Colonell

  Aldergrove

  2 Majors

  2 Captains

  1 Lt. Colonel

  Northwood

  1 Major

  Glasgow

  1 Captain

  Edinburgh

  62W

  (a) Service/(b) Rank/Grade

  (c) Location

  2 Lt. Colonels

  Germany (Rheindahlen)

  1 Major

  1 Lt. Colonel

  Germany (Herford)

  1 Major

  1 Captain

  2 Colonels

  Germany (Bielefed)

  3 Lt Colonels

  1 Major

  6 Captains

  1 Lt. Colonel

  Cyprus

  1 Captain

  1 Lt. Colonel

  SHAPE

  1 Lt. Colonel

  HQ Allied Land Forces (NATO)

  1 Major

  Australia (Exchange post)

  1 Captain

  Georgia

  2 Majors

  Kosovo

  1 Major

  Bosnia

  4 Captains

  Under training

  Royal Air Force

  1 Air Vice Marshal

  Innsworth

  1 Air Commodore

  3 Group Captains

  3 Wing Commanders

  4 Squadron Leaders

  3 Flight Lieutenants

  2 Wing Commanders

  High Wycombe

  1 Squadron Leader

  1 Flight Lieutenant

  1 Squadron Leader

  Aldergrove

  1 Wing Commander

  Cyprus

  1 Flight Lieutenant

  1 Wing Commander

  Germany (Herford)

  3 Flight Lieutenant

  1 Squadron Leader

  German (Rheindahlen)

  Civil Service (MOD Legal Adviser)

  3 Senior Civil Servants

  London

  5 at Grade 6

  4 at Grade 7

  1 Senior Civil Servant

  Bristol

  4 at Grade 6

  2 at Grade 7

  1 Senior Civil Servant

  Germany (Rheindahlen)

  1 at Grade 6

  1 at Grade 6

  Cyprus

  1 As the Naval Service does not have a dedicated legal service, not all qualified RN personnel are currently serving in legal appointments

  In addition to those given in the table my Department also uses the services of the Treasury Solicitors Litigation team, based in London; the Crown Solicitor in Belfast and Robson Mclean, a commercial firm under contract to supply advice on Scottish legal matters. Various independent specialist solicitors and Counsel are used as the need arises.

  Departmental Fees
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the fees his Department, its agencies and associated public bodies collect; how much has been raised or it is anticipated will be raised from each of these fees from 1989–90 to 2004–05; and which of these fees count as negative expenditure. [105997]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  Unlike certain other departments the Ministry of Defence, its agencies and associated public bodies do not raise fees under legislative authority at present. Charges are, however, raised for a number of activities which are carried out on a discretionary basis, and figures are provided in the table for those from which

  Fees raised by MOD

  £ million

  Activity

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  Foreign and Commonwealth Training

  44.500

  47.300

  58.877

  34.135

  39.522

  31.166

  40.313

  34.353

  14.211

  15.310

  15.833

  16.754

  Loan Service Personnel

  38.825

  30.898

  29.017

  25.867

  21.794

  22.207

  29.870

  27.388

  26.128

  19.875

  21.525

  22.613

  Meteorological Office

  34.952

  40.000

  38.500

  44.500

  43.300

  44.000

  44.700

  46.300

  52.257

  47.809

  46.714

  4—

  Government Pipeline and Storage System

  21.449

  24.853

  29.529

  25.753

  24.126

  21.870

  20.087

  22.225

  23.271

  16.944

  17.695

  16.315

  Hydrographic Office

  13.670

  15.960

  19.458

  21.700

  19.800

  21.300

  25.600

  30.200

  3—

  34.000

  4—

  4—

  DESO Support to Industry

  5.200

  7.800

  2.800

  1.500

  2.600

  0.800

  2.700

  0.800

  3.300

  1.700

  1.700

  1.700

  Service Children's Education

  3.930

  4.207

  4.200

  3.589

  4.318

  4.065

  3.107

  2.105

  2.195

  1.582

  1.574

  4—

  Empire Test Pilot School

  2.114

  1.460

  3.575

  2.658

  2.995

  3.460

  5.594

  3.980

  2.810

  4.560

  2.780

  6.210

  Royal College of Defence Studies

  0.441

  0.707

  0.734

  0.800

  0.803

  0.941

  1.041

  1.146

  1.342

  1.352

  1.321

  1.483

  Joint Service Command and Staff College1

  0.000

  0.000

  0.000

  0.000

  0.000

  0.000

  0.000

  0.000

  1.497

  1.543

  1.815

  1.871

  HQ UKSC(G)—Training Facilities2

  0.000

  0.000

  0.000

  0.000

  0.000

  0.000

  0.000

  0.000

  0.000

  2.656

  4—

  4—

  HQ UKSC(G)—Pay Bureau Facilities2

  0.000

  0.000

  0.000

  0.000

  0.000

  0.000

  0.000

  0.000

  0.000

  6.931

  4—

  4—

  1 The Joint Service and Staff College came into existence in September 1997, before this costs for the single Service staff colleges were included within the return for Foreign and Commonwealth Training.

  2 This activity did not reach the threshold for reporting until 1998–99.

  3 For technical reasons no figure was reported for 1997–98.

  4 Forward estimates are not available for all activities.

  European Peacekeeping Corps.
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the planned operational range of the European Peacekeeping Corps. [106394]

  Mr. Hoon
  Member states of the European Union have expressed their determination to be able to act in support of the Common Foreign and Security Policy. They have set themselves a headline goal describing the level of capabilities they wish to achieve by 2003. They are not setting up a standing peacekeeping corps. The scale and range of possible future operations will depend on circumstances.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what specialised British sub-units will be tasked to the European Peacekeeping Corps. [106193]

  Mr. Hoon
  At the Helsinki European Council, EU member states committed themselves to improving their military capabilities, including a specific headline goal of being able to assemble, deploy rapidly and sustain up to 50,000–60,000 troops for Petersberg Tasks, including peacekeeping. There is no intention to create a Standing European Peacekeeping Corps.

  EU member states have not yet defined their national contributions towards the headline goal. In the event of an EU-led crisis management operation, the make-up of
  64W
  the largest amounts of revenue are realised. These figures are derived from those reported to the Treasury and Parliament in the Department's annual Fees and Charges return and for that reason do not extend beyond 2000–01.

  All the charges listed can be used to offset the expenditure to which they relate. In some cases, retained receipts will count as negative expenditure in national accounts aggregates but in other cases, may score as tax revenues.

  Charges are raised for a number of other activities of insufficient value to warrant inclusion in the Fees and Charges return, but this information is not held centrally and could not be obtained without incurring disproportionate cost.

  any UK contribution would depend on the specific circumstances of the operation and UK commitments elsewhere.

  Engineers
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many individuals within the teaching and management staff of the Department of Specialist Ground Training (air force) and comparable training establishments within the Army and Royal Navy are members of professional engineering institutions; and if he will identify those roles which require individuals to be chartered engineers. [106424]

  Mr. Spellar
  The number of individuals within the teaching and management staff of the Department of Specialist Ground Training who are members of professional engineering institutions is 34. The number of posts which require individuals to be chartered engineers is two.

  Based on current information supplied by the Army, the number of individuals within the teaching and management staff at the Royal School of Military Engineering at Chatham and Minley (plus associated schools) who are members of professional engineering institutions is 13, and there are nine posts/roles that require chartered engineers. At the Royal Electrical and

  65W
  Mechanical Engineers Training Group at Arborfield and Bordon, the figures are respectively 72 and seven. At the Royal School of Signals, Blandford, the figures are 12 and zero respectively.

  The Royal Navy do not hold figures on the number of teaching and management staff at RN engineering training establishments who are members of professional engineering institutions. RN training is designed to enable individuals to qualify for the relevant engineering institution. Membership of institutions is encouraged and supported, but it is currently up to each individual whether he or she applies for membership.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the compatibility of armed services engineering training courses validation and quality procedures with those of higher education colleges. [106428]

  Mr. Spellar
  Wherever possible, Armed Forces engineering courses are linked to civilian academic or vocational qualifications. Where such qualifications are awarded, in addition to the individual Service's own validation and quality procedures, the training is also subject to validation by the appropriate civilian body in the same way as equivalent qualifications awarded by higher education colleges and universities. This validation is extensive and can include, for example, in the case of NVQs, external verification and inspection by awarding bodies, National Training Organisations (NTOs) and/or the standard setting bodies of the industry concerned, the Training Standards Council and the local TEC.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to offer training courses in engineering to private sector businesses. [106426]

  Mr. Spellar
  The Armed Forces already offer places on their engineering training courses to private sector business, by offering available spare capacity, wherever possible. To reduce the overhead costs of training, the three Service Training Agencies are continuously seeking to develop these opportunities further.

  Training
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what evaluation he has made of training course validation processes (i) within each of the armed services and (ii) between the armed services. [106425]

  Mr. Spellar
  The Armed Forces employ the "Systems Approach to Training" methodology for the quality management of the development and delivery of their training courses. This conforms to current best practice in other NATO Armed Forces and is designed primarily to ensure that Service personnel are trained in a cost-effective manner to meet the high standards of performance required in operational situations.

  All three Services allocate resources to the development of validation processes and to their application to training courses. In this context, validation involves confirming that courses meet their stated aims and that students have met the prescribed standards, and confirming that the course aims continue to reflect operational needs.

  The three Services co-operate closely in the development of these processes and take account of best practice in both military and civilian training
  66W
  organisations. They have recently published a joint approach to a quality standard based on the "Systems Approach to Training" which confirms common standards for the management of training across all three Services, while taking account of the differing training requirements of each individual Services.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to merge the training functions of the armed services. [106427]

  Mr. Spellar
  A number of training functions are already being delivered on a joint service or lead service basis. The scope for further rationalisation of training between the three Services and the Civil Service is being examined as part of the wide ranging and fundamental review of defence training and education announced in the House by my right hon. and noble Friend Lord Robertson, the then Secretary of State for Defence, on 22 July 1999,Official Report, columns 612–13W.

  Sonar
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans the Government have to conduct and publish research into the environmental effect of sonar weapons on marine mammals. [105315]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  [holding answer 20 January 2000]: The Ministry of Defence does not use sonar weapons and has not, therefore, undertaken any primary research into the environmental effects of such devices on marine mammals. We do use active and passive sonars as sensors and all MOD research involving the use of active sonars is assessed to ensure that it complies with the European Union Habitat Directive and Joint Nature Conservancy Council guidelines. The output from any such research is published via international journals and as conference papers in accordance with normal scientific practice.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans the Government have to develop a long-range low-frequency sonar system for use on marine vessels. [105314]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  [holding answer 20 January 2000]: We are currently developing a low frequency sonar which we plan to fit to the Type 23 Frigate.

  Overstretch
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent proposals his Department has put to the Treasury to alleviate the effect of overstretch on the armed forces. [106004]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 20 January 2000]: We announced, before Christmas, enhancements to the Longer Separated Service Allowance and Longer Service at Sea Bonus in recognition of the sacrifices of those who spend long periods away from home. We have also reduced the numbers of personnel on operations in the Balkans, Gulf and Falkland Islands.

  Press Releases
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many press releases his Department issued in each year from 1995 to 1999. [106121]
  67W
  Mr. Kilfoyle
  The information requested is as follows:

  Year

  Numbers

  1995

  149

  1996

  176

  1997

  221

  1998

  294

  1999

  416

  British Forces Post Office
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the future location of the UK base of the British Forces Post Office. [104562]

  Mr. Spellar
  The future location of the UK base of the British Forces Post Office is currently under review as part of my Department's Strategic Development Plan for Greater London.

  Battle of Britain
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what funding he will make available for the maintenance of the RAF Battle of Britain Chapel and the associated Hurricane and Spitfire aircraft; and if he will make a statement. [106030]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  Financial provision for the maintenance of the RAF Battle of Britain Chapel and its enclave is some £20–£30,000 annually. As regards the glass fibre replica Hurricane and Spitfire aircraft, it is currently Royal Air Force policy that no public funds should be spent on maintaining such display aircraft, commonly referred to as "Gate Guardians". Funding for the recent refurbishment of the Hurricane was raised privately. Similar funding for the Spitfire is in the process of being raised.

  Royal Irish Regiment
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence(a) what representations he has received following publication of a group photograph of the Royal Irish Regiment in The Andersonstown News on 15 January, (b) where and on what date the photograph was taken, (c) how many soldiers and officers of each rank from battalions participated in the photograph, (d) what rank of soldier took the photograph, (e) what rank of officer supervised the photoshoot, (f) by what means the banner displayed in the photograph was obtained, (g) what transport arrangements were made to bring the banner into military barracks, (h) what was the purpose of the photograph, (i) where the film was developed and how many prints were (i) made, (ii) distributed and (iii) sold, (j) what disciplinary action has been taken consequent to the incident, (k) what assessment he has made of the impact of the incident on community relations and (l) what statement the Ministry has made to the press on the issue; and if he will make a statement. [106410]
  68W
  Mr. Spellar
  The circumstances surrounding the publication of a photograph of the Royal Irish Regiment in the Andersonstown News on 15 January 2000 are currently under investigation by the Special Investigations Branch, Royal Military Police. I will write to my hon. Friend when the investigation is complete and a copy of my letter will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Prison Ships
  Mr. Rapson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the viability of using aircraft carriers moored in Portsmouth Harbour as prison ships. [106177]

  Mr. Spellar
  My Department has not considered the viability of using aircraft carriers moored in Portsmouth Harbour as prison ships, nor has it been asked to.

  Recruitment Advertising
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what his expenditure was on national recruitment advertising in(a) cinemas, (b) television, (c) radio, (d) print and (e) posters during each month since April 1999; and what his monthly budget is in each category for (i) January, (ii) February and (iii) March 2000. [106184]

  Mr. Spellar
  The national recruitment advertising expenditure for the categories requested, in respect of the Naval Service and the RAF, broken down by month is as follows:

  £

  Cinema

  Television

  Radio

  Print

  Posters

  Naval Service (actual)

  April

  —

  —

  —

  36,035

  —

  May

  52,703

  7,637

  —

  189,532

  —

  June

  105,406

  8,336

  —

  99,472

  —

  July

  190,178

  10,900

  18,992

  152,786

  23,076

  August

  188,140

  4,350

  16,373

  265,428

  25,859

  September

  206,736

  2,350

  67,511

  179,964

  —

  October

  156,071

  —

  8,248

  128,865

  —

  November

  158,109

  1,316

  —

  303,444

  —

  December

  —

  17,625

  15,000

  91,355

  —

  (planned)

  January

  206,736

  812,000

  —

  97,259

  —

  February

  206,736

  —

  —

  184,866

  —

  March

  105,406

  —

  —

  163,876

  —

  RAF

  (actual)

  April

  —

  —

  —

  40,428

  —

  May

  —

  —

  —

  24,816

  —

  June

  550,000

  —

  425,385

  33,164

  —

  July

  —

  —

  3,000

  212,341

  —

  August

  —

  —

  —

  24,300

  2,614

  September

  40,938

  —

  —

  251,216

  —

  October

  —

  —

  —

  148,034

  —

  November

  —

  —

  —

  137,319

  —

  December

  —

  —

  —

  64,756

  —

  (planned)

  January

  —

  —

  —

  35,079

  —

  February

  —

  —

  —

  50,000

  —

  March

  —

  200,000

  —

  43,610

  —

  The Army do not maintain records of recruit advertising spend on a monthly basis. The general pattern

  69W
  of advertising runs in cycles with the peaks occurring in April/May and September. The expenditure, inclusive of the Regular Army and the Territorial Army, broken down where possible, is as follows:

  £

  April-December 1999

  January-March 1999

  Cinema

  —

  —

  Television

  3,015,279

  850,000

  Radio

  535,274

  425,000

  Print

  1,109,760

  240,000

  Posters

  138,431

  40,000

  The hon. Member may also wish to know that, in addition to the above expenditure, the Armed Forces spent about £267,000 on advertising via the Internet from April to December 1999, with a further forecast spend of £120,000 between January and March 2000.

  Recruitment advertising expenditure for MOD civilians is not held in the form requested. However, the total forecast expenditure on national recruitment advertising for civilian recruitment for financial year 1999–2000 is £4.4 million.

  SA80 Weapon System
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the SA80 weapon system modifications proposed by Heckler and Koch in 1997; and if he has introduced a modification programme. [106182]

  Mr. Duncan Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if a modification programme for the SA80 weapon system was implemented following the proposals from Heckler and Koch referred to in the letter from the Minister for Defence Procurement to the Defence Committee of 2 June 1997; what estimate was submitted by Heckler and Koch of the cost of their proposals; and if the SA80s used in the Kosovo campaign were modified as a result of these proposals. [106173]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  The Design Authority for SA80, formerly Royal Ordnance but now Heckler and Koch UK (Ltd.), was tasked in 1996 to investigate the reliability of the SA80 weapon system. Heckler and Koch reported in 1998 that there might be underlying problems with the reliability of the system and presented their proposals for modifications. A contract was placed in mid-1998 with Heckler and Koch for the modification of 200 weapons to be used for trials to determine the effectiveness of these modifications. Deliveries of these modified weapons were made in January 1999. The MOD conducted user trials in hot and cold climatic conditions with a range of NATO ammunition types. The trials were completed in July 1999 and the formal Design Authority report was delivered to the MOD in late December 1999. The trials confirmed that, after modification, there were significant improvements in the reliability of both the SA80 rifle and Light Support Weapon. Urgent work is in hand to assess the wider implications of the Design Authority report, including the cost, and we expect to make a decision on any modification programme by the end of March 2000.

  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if the SA80 weapon system remains suspended from the NATO Nominated Weapons List. [106183]
  70W
  Mr. Kilfoyle
  The SA80 weapon system remains suspended from the NATO Nominated Weapons List, the list of weapons for use in the testing of NATO approved ammunition types. This suspension in itself has no impact on the operational effectiveness of the weapon.

  Nancekuke
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his oral statement of 18 January 2000,Official Report, column 825W, to whom it was intended that the decontaminated plant and equipment disposed of from Nancekuke would be clearly identifiable. [106750]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  The locations where decontaminated plant and other materials were disposed of on the Nancekuke site were identified as a matter of good land management practice.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his oral statement of 18 January 2000,Official Report, column 825W, whether the decontamination and disposal provisions at Nancekuke involved placing equipment used at Nancekuke in mine-shafts. [106749]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  Prior to the closure at Nancekuke, the chemical plant was decontaminated and dismantled. Obsolete plant and some scrap metal was disposed of in a disused quarry and in two old mineshafts on the site. As part of a regular land quality assessment, recent surface soil and water samples were analysed and showed no signs of contamination from toxic agents. We are currently consulting with representatives of local authorities, the Environment Agency for England and Wales and other interested parties, how to take forward the land quality assessment work.

  GPS Guided Munitions
  Mr. Duncan Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to acquire GPS guided munitions for the Royal Air Force. [106567]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  The UK is procuring Storm Shadow, a conventionally armed stand-off missile which utilises Global Positioning Systems (GPS) technology, to provide a precision capability to defeat hardened static targets in almost all weather conditions. Storm Shadow has an In Service Date of 2002.

  We are also considering the procurement of precision guided munitions to improve the accuracy with which our forces can deliver ballistic bombs, and to provide a capability for them to be delivered in almost all weather conditions. Various technological solutions are available that could provide autonomous guidance for a weapon which met such a requirement, including the use of GPS technology.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which projects relating to his Department that appeared in the Private Finance Panel's list of 29 November 1995(a) have been completed, (b) are still pending, (c) have been dropped and (d) are being pursued by means other than a public private partnership. [105877]
  71W
  Mr. Spellar
  I refer the right hon. Member to the answer given today by my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury.

CABINET OFFICE

  Civil Service Management (Delegations)
  Mr. Miller
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what delegations have been made in 1999 under the Civil Service (Management Functions) Act 1992; to whom those delegations were made; and what were the main conditions attached to them. [166534]

  Mr. Stringer
  Since the last report to Parliament, 14 January 1999,Official Report, columns 253–54W, new delegations have replaced previous ones to reflect the creation of the devolved administrations and machinery of government changes. Ministers and office holders in charge of departments1 have been given delegated authority (from 1 July 1999) under the Civil Service (Management Functions) Act 1992:

  (a) to prescribe the qualifications (so far as they relate to age, knowledge, ability, professional attainment, aptitude, potential, health and coping with the demands of the job) for the appointment of home civil servants (with the exception of the Fast Stream Development Programme) in their respective departments; and

  (b) to determine in respect of home civil servants in their respective departments the number and grading of posts outside the Senior Civil Service and the terms and conditions of employment in so far as they relate to the following:

  i. classification of staff, with the exception of the Senior Civil Service;

  ii. remuneration, with the exception of the Senior Civil Service;

  iii. allowances;

  iv. expenses;

  v. holidays, hours of work and attendance;

  vi. part-time and other working arrangements;

  vii. performance and promotion;

  viii. retirement age and redundancy;

  ix. re-deployment of staff within the Home Civil Service.

  In some cases, for staff appointed by statutory office holders, the Minister for the Civil Service was statutorily required to give consent to terms and conditions of service. For such staff, delegation has been effected by waiving that requirement, subject to the condition attached to delegation.

  The delegation was subject to the condition that recipients comply with the provisions of the Civil Service Management Code as amended from time to time. Copies of the Civil Service Management Code are available in the Library of the House. All previous delegations and authorisations made under the Civil Service (Management Functions) Act 1992 were revoked with effect from 1 July 1999.

  Similar delegations were also made to the National Assembly for Wales and the First Minister of the Scottish Executive. These came into effect on 7 May and 1 July 1999 respectively and were also subject to the condition that they comply with the provisions of the Civil Service Management Code as amended from time to time.

  1 The statutory office holders are:

  Commissioners of Inland Revenue

  72W

  Head of the Registry of Friendly Societies, being the Chief Registrar of Friendly Societies and the First Commissioner of the Building Societies Commission

  Chief Charity Commissioner

  Commissioners of Customs and Excise

  Crown Estate Commissioners

  Director General of Electricity Supply

  Director General of Fair Trading

  Director General of Gas Supply

  Director of National Savings

  Director of Passenger Rail Franchising

  Director General of Telecommunications

  Director General of Water Services

  Director of Public Prosecutions

  Director of the Serious Fraud Office

  Government Actuary

  Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools in England

  Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools in Wales

  International Rail Regulator

  Public Works Loan Commissioners

  Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration and Health Service Commissioners

  Rail Regulator

  Government Reports
  Mr. Woolas
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office when the Government's annual reports on non-departmental bodies and executive agencies will be published. [106535]

  Mr. Stringer
  The Executive Non-Departmental Public Bodies 1999 Report and the 1999 Executive Agencies Report will be published simultaneously in March.

  Departmental Smoking Policy
  Mr. Crausby
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what action she is taking to reduce smoking in her Department. [105807]

  Mr. Stringer
  Restrictions on smoking in Cabinet Office buildings have been in effect since 1 August 1989. Smoking is permitted only in designated areas and rooms.

  Cabinet Office Staff Welfare promotes National No Smoking Day each year and has a web page on the Department's local intranet site giving tips on how to quit smoking. The Staff Welfare Officer is also available to give help and advice to anyone who needs it.

  The Cabinet Office Agencies all have similar no smoking policies in place.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  World Trade Organisation
  Dr. Palmer
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what steps her Department is taking to strengthen the World Trade Organisation's capacity to monitor the effect of present trade agreements on developing countries. [105063]

  Clare Short
  The WTO does not have a mandate to monitor the impact of trade agreements. It does have a responsibility to monitor developments in world trade and
  73W
  the implementation of trade agreements which it fulfils with resources from its core budget. My Department has committed £16 million of trade related technical assistance to developing countries, of which details have been placed in the House of Commons Library. This includes payments to a trust fund at the WTO to develop the capacity of developing countries to fulfil their responsibilities as WTO members and implement agreements. It also includes support for the capacity building programmes in UNCTAD and the ITC, and research to assess aspects of the effect of trade liberalisation on developing countries, for example, the effects of trade liberalisation on poverty, and the impact of WTO agreements such as the Sanitary and Phytosanitary Agreement. Studies on the impact of the Uruguay Round trade agreements by the World Bank and other bodies show that developing countries should benefit, relative to their GDP, as much as, if not more than, developed countries. Similar studies in advance of the expected new Round by the European Commission and others, offer a similar prognosis.

  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what recent research reports she has received on the economic impact of the first five years of the World Trade Organisation trading regime on developing countries. [105584]

  Clare Short
  The WTO, World Bank and the academic community have completed many reports on the economic impact of the World Trade Organisation trading regime. Ex-post assessment of the impact of changes to the world trade rules agreed under the Uruguay Round presents problems as it is almost impossible to disentangle the ex-post impact of multilateral trade liberalisation from the many other factors that have an impact on world trade and developing country economies. However, economic modelling can help to give some indication of the possible benefits which have been estimated to be between !13 billion and !125 billion for developing countries.

  This research work also suggests that developing countries stand to gain at least as much as developed countries from the Uruguay Round as a proportion of GDP, although, the distribution of benefits among developing countries is not evenly spread. South East Asia does well, there are also benefits for South Asia, but sub-Saharan Africa may face a small welfare loss.

  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what recent representations her Department has made to the World Trade Organisation concerning procedural reform. [106334]

  Clare Short
  My Department has not made any representations to the World Trade Organisation concerning procedural reform. This work is being led by the Department of Trade and Industry.

  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what discussions she has had with the United States of America concerning reform of the World Trade Organisation since 1 December 1999. [106333]

  Clare Short
  I have not had any discussions with colleagues from the United States concerning reform of the World Trade Organisation since the WTO in Seattle.

  Kosovo
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what has been the total cost of the humanitarian programme in Kosovo since the beginning of the conflict; and how much has been disbursed in(a) cash and (b) in materials and products. [105689]

  Clare Short
  My Department has committed £100 million to the humanitarian and rehabilitation programme in Kosovo since March 1999. Direct procurement of goods and equipment by the Department amounts to £40 million. Specific contributions to international organisations for the purchase of goods and equipment amount to £5 million. The balance of £55 million has been committed to a range of programmes through international agencies, international and local NGOs, commercial contractors and the DFID Field Offices in Pristina, Skopje, and Tirana. The vast majority of these programmes involve some procurement of goods and equipment, but information on the precise breakdown of programmes between goods and other expenditure is not readily available.

  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment she has made of the performance of the United Nations mission in Kosovo. [106453]

  Mr. Foulkes
  United Nations Mission in Kosovo (UNMIK) face a daunting and complex task in implementing SCR 1244.

  The range of challenges includes meeting humanitarian needs over the winter, setting up basic services in health and education, establishing the rule of law, and putting a system of revenue collection in place. They are also undertaking voter registration in order to hold elections as soon as feasible. These and other tasks have at times been hampered because human and financial inputs have been slow to mobilise. But the Mission is progressively doing a good job and has our support.

  Heavily Indebted Poor Countries
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what recent discussions she has had with the IMF and World Bank concerning the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries Initiative. [106330]

  Clare Short
  We have regular discussions with the Managing Director of the IMF and the President of the World Bank on a range of issues, including the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC) Initiative. Through our Executive Director's office in Washington, we are in day-to-day contact with World Bank and IMF management. Currently, we are exchanging ideas on how the poverty reduction strategy approach can be implemented most effectively, so that the enhanced debt relief provided under the HIPC initiative can have the maximum possible benefit for the poor. We also continue to press for the early implementation of the revised HIPC Initiative.

  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what representations she has received from non-Governmental organisations
  75W
  concerning expansion of the number of countries eligible for debt relief under the heavily indebted poor countries initiative. [106640]

  Clare Short
  I have received a number of letters requesting an increase from 41 to 52 to the list of countries eligible for HIPC relief. Countries can be added to the HIPC list as demonstrated by the inclusion of Malawi. However such additions require international agreement. Non-HIPC countries can receive up to 67 per cent. relief on their bilateral debts from the Paris Club of official creditors.

  Bilateral Debt Relief
  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what discussions she has had with local non-governmental organisations about their role in monitoring poverty reduction projects financed as a result of bilateral debt relief. [106639]

  Clare Short
  I refer to my answer to the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) on 19 January 2000,Official Report, column 479W, on the monitoring of bilateral debt relief. I met Directors of the British Agencies Overseas Group on 21 December, and discussed with them the importance of civil society being involved in developing and monitoring poverty reduction strategies.

  Departmental Expenditure
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what percentage of her departmental budget in 1998–99 was spent in Asia. [106328]

  Clare Short
  The percentage of the DFID Bilateral programme expenditure spent in 1998–99 in Asia was 28 per cent. This represents 14 per cent. of the total DFID programme. In addition some of our multilateral contributions will be directed towards Asia, but we cannot determine how much.

  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what her Department's planned spending on(a) Latin America, (b) Asia, (c) Africa and (d) Europe is in financial year 1999–2000. [106695]

  Mr. Foulkes
  The Department for International Development's (DFID) planned expenditure on Bilateral Country Programmes for the current (1999–2000) financial year is as follows:

  £ million

  (a) Latin America

  33

  (b) Asia

  315

  (c) Africa

  447

  (d) Europe

  196

  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment she has made of the impact of an increase in her Department's spending in the Balkans on projects in southern hemisphere. [106340]

  Clare Short
  No financial or material resources were diverted from projects in the Southern Hemisphere as a result of the increased spending in the Balkans.
  76W
  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what percentages of her departmental budget in 1998–99 were spent in(a) Africa and (b) Latin America. [106694]

  Clare Short
  The percentage of the DFID Bilateral programme expenditure spent in 1998–99 in(a) Africa and (b) Latin America is as follows:

  Percentage

  As a proportion of Bilateral expenditure

  As a proportion of total DFID programme

  Africa

  39.0

  19.0

  Latin America

  3.0

  1.0

  Special Advisers
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will place the curriculum vitae of her special advisers in the Library. [106343]

  Mr. Foulkes
  Owing to the personal nature of this request, we are not obliged to supply the information requested.

  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State in her Department employs a special adviser. [106765]

  Mr. Foulkes
  I employ no special advisers.

  Ministerial Offices
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what was the cost of the refurbishment of her Department's ministerial offices. [106342]

  Mr. Foulkes
  Since 1997 our Department has spent the following amounts on the refurbishment of ministerial offices, which include replacement furniture and redecoration:

  Year

  £

  1997

  7,978

  1998

  7,376

  The figures for 1999 are not yet available.

  Indigenous Cultures
  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what representations she has made to the IMF and the World bank concerning respect for indigenous cultures. [106641]

  Mr. Foulkes
  We have made no direct representations to the IMF and World bank concerning respect for indigenous cultures. But we continue to pay close attention to the development of World bank Country Assistance Strategies, especially the social impact on marginalised or vulnerable groups, and we also keep a close eye on World bank safeguard policies.

  UN Reform
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what her criteria are for assessing the progress of United Nations reform. [106456]

  Mr. Foulkes
  The overriding criterion in the field of development is the contribution which the UN and its funds, programmes and specialised agencies make to achieving the International Development Targets for poverty eradication, agreed by the entire UN membership. Better UN performance will require continuing efforts to focus the work of UN development agencies where they can be most effective in helping meet the Targets, to link resources more closely to objectives and outputs, and to strengthen co-ordination within the UN family and between the UN and other development institutions, particularly the World Bank. The UN must also improve its response to conflict, which threatens poverty reduction in many poor countries and continue to work with others to develop and implement the statistical systems needed to measure year-on-year progress towards the Targets. The UK will continue to support the UN and its development agencies in improving their effectiveness on all these fronts.

  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what recent progress has been made in reforming the United Nations. [106455]

  Mr. Foulkes
  In the field of Development the process of institutional modernisation started by the UN Secretary General in 1997 has improved the impact of the UN, though much remains to be done. New and improved strategic co-ordinating mechanisms have been established to enhance the UN's development policy cohesion. The pilot UN Development Assistance Framework has begun to increase co-ordination between UN agencies and between the UN and other development institutions at country level and will be extended rapidly to more countries. Agencies such as the World Health Organisation (WHO) and the UN Industrial Development Organisation (UNIDO) have established clearer objectives, a sharper focus on clearly defined core activities, sound finances and better management. UNDP and UNICEF have made progress in developing management systems that link resources more closely to objectives and results. We are encouraging all UN development agencies to modernise their management and organisation to increase their effectiveness in helping meet the International Development Targets.

  Departmental Premises
  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will list the premises purchased for use by her Department since 1 May 1997 and their cost. [106643]

  Mr. Foulkes
  No premises have been purchased by our Department since 1 May 1997.

  Aid Suspensions
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development to which countries her Department has suspended aid since 1 May 1997; and what was the reason in each case. [106332]
  78W
  Mr. Foulkes
  Our bilateral co-operation programme with the Government of Pakistan was suspended on 15 October 1999, in response to the military coup of 12 October. We continue to provide assistance to poor people through non-governmental channels.

  Our bilateral co-operation programme with the Government of Sierra Leone was suspended on 28 May 1997, in response to the military coup. The programme recommenced again in July 1999 following the Lomé peace agreement.

  North Caucasus
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assistance her Department has provided for the people of Chechnya since 1 December 1999. [106335]

  Clare Short
  Since 1 December 1999, DFID has contributed !145,000 (£893,000) to the UN Inter Agency Appeal for internally displaced people in the North Caucasus. The contribution was split between the World Food Programme (!1,000,000), the United Nations Children's Fund (!250,000), the World Health Organisation (!100,000) and the UN Office for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Affairs (!100,000). In November, DFID contributed £500,000 to the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) appeal for the North Caucasus; ICRC work in the region is ongoing. The UK has also contributed through our share of the 1.2 million euro pledged by the EU.

  British Council
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what is the projected funding from her Department to the British Council for the financial year(a) 1999–2000, (b) 2000–01 and (c) 2001–02. [106341]

  Clare Short
  The resources set aside by my Department for the Grant-in-aid to the British Council (£30 million 1998–99, £31 million in 1999–2000, £32 million in 2000–01 and £33 million in 2001–02) have been transferred to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. My Department therefore no longer provides core funding for the British Council.

  The British Council continues to be a key provider of services, on a commercial basis, to implement my Department's programmes.

  Departmental Public Information Line
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how many calls were made to her Department's public information line in(a) 1997–98 and (b) 1998–99. [106337]

  Clare Short
  In 1997–98 our Public Inquiry Point received 2,410 telephone calls. In 1998–99 this rose to around 5,400.

  Departmental Website
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how many complaints she has
  79W
  received from the general public about the effectiveness of the search engine on her Department's website. [106338]

  Clare Short
  In the last year we have received six complaints about the effectiveness of the search engine.

  Russia
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what funds from the TACIS programme have gone to Russia in the past six months. [106336]

  Clare Short
  We have been unable to obtain information in the precise form requested. However, contracts totalling euro 56,950,523 financed from the TACIS Russia programme commenced during the six months up to 20 January 2000.

PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL

  House of Lords
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the President of the Council when she intends to set up the joint Committee to consider the report of the Royal Commission on the Reform of the House of Lords; and if she will make a statement. [105669]

  Mrs. Beckett
  The Government set out in its White Paper "Modernising Parliament—Reforming the House of Lords" (Cm 4183), that"longer term reform would be considered by both Houses"
  after the Royal Commission had reported.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Organised Fraud
  Lorna Fitzsimons
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he expects to publish the report of the independent review of organised fraud. [106947]

  Mr. Darling
  Last February, I asked John Scampion, Social Fund Commissioner, to review the way we tackled organised fraud. Mr. Scampion has completed his review and I have placed a copy of his report in the Library.

  Organised fraud occurs across the Social Security system. It includes forgery, theft and other abuse of instruments of payment, operation of multiple false identities, and fraud by landlords and tenants. Mr. Scampion was asked specifically to consider how we could counter such threats, in particular through prevention, by designing structures and processes to minimise risk and secure the system against fraud.

  At present the Benefits Agency has a unit dedicated to countering organised fraud which Mr. Scampion has commended for its energy, skill and professionalism. Within local authorities there is very little co-ordinated action against organised fraud.
  80W
  Mr. Scampion's report makes a number of recommendations I will be considering further, but in the meantime I can announce that I will:
  set up a new national benefits intelligence unit to co-ordinate and extend intelligence on Social Security fraud, as the bedrock for both prevention and detection;
  overhaul and strengthen the capability and professionalism of investigators to tackle organised benefit fraud right across the benefit system. I will appoint a senior civil servant to manage the central organised fraud investigation service and to act as the Head of Profession for all benefit fraud investigators;
  set up new arrangements with local authorities to ensure investigations are targeted properly across the Social Security system;
  pursue (as announced last week) changes to the funding arrangements for local authority investigation work by developing a completely new anti-fraud incentive framework to be introduced from April 2001.

  All of this will contribute to a significant strengthening of our defences against organised fraud and our ability to tackle it where it occurs.

  In addition, as I have already announced, our plans to pay benefits through the banking system are a major step in preventing organised fraud attacks on our present, paper based, payment mechanisms.

  Child Support Agency
  Ms Kelly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what assessment the CSA has made of the contact rate between non-resident fathers and their children; and if he will make a statement. [104875]

  Angela Eagle
  No such assessment has been made as liability for child support is not linked to whether a non-resident parent has contact with his child(ren).

  However, research1 Shows that there is a consistent relationship between contact and the payment of child maintenance, although it is difficult to establish causality. Those who are currently paying maintenance tend to have a greater level of contact with their children than those who do not. Additionally, research2 suggests that non-resident parents would be less likely to pay the full amount of their maintenance assessment if they lost contact with their children.

  1 "Parental Obligation: a Study of Parenthood across Households" MacLean and Eekelaar (1997), "Absent Fathers?" Bradshaw et al (1999).

  2 Bradshaw et al (1999).

  Post Offices
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what proposals are being considered by his Department to help sustain and develop the viability of rural and urban sub-post offices. [105857]

  Mr. Rooker
  I refer the right hon. Member to the written answer from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry on 20 January 2000,Official Report, column 519W.

  Winter Fuel Payments
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what recent arrangements he has put in place to
  81W
  advertise the winter fuel payments for the elderly; and what percentage of those entitled to the payment have received it in the last three months. [106045]

  Angela Eagle
  A leaflet-based information campaign began in the autumn to inform and reassure those eligible of how and when payments for this winter would be made. National and regional press advertising also took place before Christmas to inform eligible pensioners that payments were currently being made, and provided information on what to do if they had not yet received a payment. An estimated 98 per cent. of those entitled have received their payments.

  Dr. Brand
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when Benefits Agency offices will be instructed to pay heating allowance to men aged over 60 years. [106178]

  Angela Eagle
  Winter Fuel Payments have always been available to men aged 60 and over who are in receipt of Income Support or income-based Jobseeker's Allowance and their benefit includes a pensioner premium.

  Payments due to people aged 60 and over who are newly eligible to Winter Fuel Payments because of the recent European Court of Justice ruling, will be made as soon as possible.

  To ensure these payments are made correctly, it will be necessary to determine the names and addresses of those people who are newly eligible.

  We will be able to identify some people through current Departmental records. However, the majority may have had no need to contact the Department for a long period and the information we hold may not be up to date. Therefore, we will need to introduce a claims process to determine their precise entitlement.

  This process will need to be developed carefully. The Benefits Agency is currently working on this and other operational issues to determine the best way to deliver the payments.

  An announcement will be made as soon as possible once our plans are further advanced.

  Pensioner Incomes
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate he has made of the income that two pensioners in examples 1 and 2 of page 122 of the Opportunities for All report could expect to receive from the minimum income guarantee, assuming that benefit is increased in line with income. [105811]

  Mr. Rooker
  The examples shown in "Opportunities for All" demonstrate how the State Second Pension and Stakeholder Pension will help those with low or interrupted earnings. The estimated weekly incomes of £84 and £91 in the two examples should be set against the current minimum income guarantee of £75 a week.

  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what assessment he has made of(a) average pensioner income and (b) average earnings in (a) Tamworth, (b) Staffordshire and (c) the United Kingdom in the last year for which figures are available. [105153]
  82W
  Mr. Rooker
  The information is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available is in the tables.

  Average pensioner unit income 1996–97

  £

  Mean income prices

  United Kingdom

  175

  Staffordshire

  1—

  Tamworth

  1—

  1 Not available

  Notes:

  1. Pensioner units are defined as single (non-cohabiting) people over State Pension age (65 for men, 60 for women) and couples (married or cohabiting) where the man is over State Pension age.

  2. Income is defined as weekly net income before housing costs of the benefit unit.

  3. All money amounts are expressed in £ per week at July 1996 prices.

  4. Reliable estimates for Staffordshire and Tamworth are not available due to small sample sizes.

  Source:

  Family Expenditure Survey

  Average earnings, April 1996 and April 1999

  £

  April 1996

  April 1999

  United Kingdom

  350

  399

  Staffordshire

  309

  367

  Tamworth

  1—

  1—

  1 Not available

  Notes:

  1. The figures shown are average gross weekly earnings of full-time employees on adult rates, whose pay for the survey pay period was not affected by absence.

  2. April 1996 figures are expressed in April 1996 prices; April 1999 figures are expressed in April 1999 prices.

  3. Reliable estimates for Tamworth are not available in either year.

  4. In 1999 the county of Staffordshire figure excludes Stoke-on-Trent UA. This Unitary Authority was not created until 1997.

  Source:

  New Earnings Survey

  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what targets he has set for(a) the reduction in the number of pensioners living below the poverty line and what is his definition of this term and (b) the reduction in the number of pensioners reliant on means-tested benefits. [105473]

  Mr. Rooker
  We have set out our strategy for tackling poverty and social exclusion in "Opportunity for All" (Cm 4445). The indicators of success, against which we shall monitor our progress, covers the position of pensioners living on low incomes. Our Green Paper "Partnership in Pensions" describes how State Second Pension and Stakeholder Pensions will over the long term reduce pensioner reliance on means-tested benefits.

  Benefit Payment Methods
  Mr. Hurst
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what arrangements he has made to ensure that recipients of pensions and benefits are aware that they may be paid in cash after 2003. [105331]
  83W
  Mr. Rooker
  The majority of benefit customers are paid by girocheque, order book or automated credit transfer (ACT) to a bank account. In some cases, the Department makes payment in cash to the customer.

  Following the move to ACT from 2003 customers will have their benefits paid into a bank account but will continue to have a choice of where they access their cash, with those who wish to collect at post offices still being able to do so. Our information leaflets and forms will be updated in line with the revised payment arrangements. Arrangements to meet other information needs of our customers arising from the change are being developed.

  Councillors (Incapacity Benefit)
  Mr. Caton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what incidental costs can be offset from a councillor's basic allowance when assessing their entitlement to incapacity benefit. [105517]

  Mr. Bayley
  The benefit rules permit limited work to be undertaken by people in certain circumstances without affecting their right to claim incapacity benefits. Work undertaken as a councillor is disregarded for the purposes of determining whether a person is incapable of work. However, Incapacity Benefit is reduced pound for pound where the net amount of the councillor's allowance exceeds a set limit, currently £49.50. In assessing the net amount of the councillor's allowance to be taken into account any expenses incurred in connection with the person's membership of the council are ignored. Such expenses are not specified in regulations but may include items such as clothes, travel costs and telephone calls.

  We propose to bring forward regulations in April as part of the annual up-rating exercise to increase the councillor's allowance limit from £49.50 to £58.50. This significant increase will align it with the therapeutic earnings limit in Incapacity Benefit.

  Departmental Smoking Policy
  Mr. Crausby
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what action he is taking to reduce smoking in his Department. [105794]

  Mr. Rooker
  In general, this Department has developed a range of initiatives that address issues around the ill-effects of smoking. Smoking is restricted to designated areas throughout the Department. A review of the policies is planned in the business year 2000–01, with a view to further reducing smoking within the Department as a whole.

  More specifically, Agencies within the Department have taken the following action.

  Local Benefits Agency managers have authority to organise local initiatives on health, including quitting smoking, and Benefits Agency Central Services regularly distribute literature on smoking and how to give up to all Benefits Agency staff.

  In Headquarters staff are given the opportunity to attend regular Health Fair days which address a number of healthy living issues, including the benefits of non-smoking. They are also invited to attend Quit Smoking clinics which support staff through the quitting
  84W
  process by means of follow up group meetings. Written advice on the ill-effects of smoking and giving up is made widely available to all staff in Headquarters.

  The War Pensions Agency have developed a range of initiatives in line with Cabinet Office recommendations. These include health and welfare initiatives such as awareness exhibitions that have included exhibits on the ill-effects of smoking. The Agency intends to issue literature to staff this year on specific health issues that will include the benefits of non-smoking.

  Future action on smoking and quitting the habit within the Child Support Agency will be influenced by the outcome of the Agency's recent stress audit, which is currently being evaluated and the provisional findings of the audit are due in early March.

  Pensions (Non-residents)
  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what action he proposes to take to ensure that UK citizens whose entitlement to a British state pension is partially based on contributions made abroad are not prevented from receiving their full pension if they retire in an EU member state; [105488]

  (2) what is his estimate of the cost to the Exchequer in each of the next five financial years of allowing those British citizens who have made contributions to their pensions while working abroad, to receive their full pension entitlement if they are (a) not ordinarily resident in the UK and (b) not ordinarily resident in the UK, but live within the EU;. [105490]

  (3) how many UK citizens receive a pension which is partly dependent on contributions made while resident in (a) Canada and (b) all other countries outside the UK. [105489]

  Mr. Rooker
  Where a person has paid contributions to the Social Security scheme of a country outside the UK, any pension entitlement from those contributions is decided and paid by the country concerned. No UK pension is paid on such contributions.

  A UK pension based entirely on National Insurance contributions is not affected if a person goes to live elsewhere in the EU. However, UK State Pension can be based wholly or partly on residence in Australia, Canada or New Zealand under the UK's Social Security agreements with those three countries. They have residence-based pensions which are not always payable if a person comes to live in the UK. If they go to live elsewhere the amount of pension derived from the agreement is no longer paid.

  There are no plans to change the provisions of these arrangements.

  Reliable estimates are not available of the cost of paying any UK pension derived from residence in Australia, Canada or New Zealand to pensioners who cease to be ordinarily resident in the UK.

  Some 9,000 pensioners in the UK receive State Pensions based wholly or partly on residence in Canada.

  Some 24,000 pensioners in the UK receive State Pensions based wholly or partly on residence in Australia or New Zealand.

  Disability Living Allowance
  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if section 10 of the Social Security Act 1998 and Regulation 7(c)(ii) of the Social Security (Decision and Appeals) Regulations 1999, which allows supersession at a later date of an original decision to award Disability Living Allowance when it is believed there has been a change of circumstance, can be applied following an appeal tribunal decision that has found in favour of the claimant using the same evidence available for the same period of time. [105175]

  Angela Eagle
  Yes.

  The Secretary of State is empowered by section 10 of the Social Security Act 1998 and regulation 6 of the Social Security and Child Support (Decisions and Appeals) Regulation 1999 to supersede both his own decisions and those of appeal tribunals. Regulation 7(2)(c)(ii) allows, for instance in Disability Living Allowance, a superseding decision to be effective from the date the Secretary of State is satisfied a disadvantageous change of circumstances took place.

  Where a tribunal finds in favour of an appellant, but in doing so does not (or is unable to) consider the available evidence, the Secretary of State may subsequently supersede on the basis of that same evidence. There is, of course, a further right of appeal against this new decision.

  State Pension
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate the cost of raising the basic State Pension(a) to the level of income support, (b) by £5 per week, and (c) by £10 per week. [106516]

  Mr. Rooker
  The information is in the table:

  Estimated cost of raising the basic State Pension, including linked benefits for 2000–01

  £million

  Gross

  Net

  To minimum income guarantee level

  6,280

  4,830

  By £5 per week

  2,870

  2,200

  By £10 per week

  5,740

  4,410

  Notes:

  1. Gross estimates have been provided by the Government Actuary's Department.

  2. For part (a), the full Category A rate of pension has been raised to the level of the Minimum Income Guarantee for a single pensioner aged 60–74 (£78.45 per week in 2000–01). Other categories of State Pension have been increased pro-rata.

  3. For parts (b) and (c), the increases shown apply to the full Category A rate. Other categories of State Pension have been increased pro-rata.

  4. Means-tested benefit offsets have been estimated using the Income Support Simulation Model and the Policy Simulation Model.

  5. Estimates are in 1999–2000 prices and are rounded to the nearest £10 million.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate the cost of introducing a top up on the basic state pension of(a) £3 at age 75 years and £5 at age 80 years and (b) £5 at age 75 years and £10 at age 80 years. [106518]
  86W
  Mr. Rooker
  The information is in the table.

  Estimated cost of introducing a top up on the basic state retirement pension for 2000–01

  £ million

  Gross

  Net

  3 per week for ages 75–79, £5 per week for ages 80 and over

  940

  640

  £5 per week for ages 75–79, £10 per week for ages 80 and over

  1,810

  1,220

  Notes:

  1. Gross estimates have been provided by the Government Actuary's Department.

  2. Age-related increases are assumed to be paid in full irrespective of the proportion of the full Category A rate of basic state pension received.

  3. Means-tested benefit offsets have been estimated using the Income Support Simulation Model and the Policy Simulation Model.

  4. Estimates are in 1999–2000 prices and are rounded to the nearest £10 million.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate the cost of raising the over 80 top-up on the state pension from 25 pence per week to(a) £5 per week, (b) £10 per week, and (c) £15 per week; and if he will make a statement. [106517]

  Mr. Rooker
  The information is in the table.

  Estimated cost of raising the age addition to the basic state retirement pension for 2000–01

  £million

  Gross

  Net

  £5 per week

  620

  390

  £10 per week

  1,280

  810

  £15 per week

  1,930

  1,270

  Notes:

  1. Gross estimates have been provided by the Government Actuary's Department.

  2. Age-related increases are assumed to be paid in full irrespective of the proportion of the full Category A rate of basic state pension received.

  3. Means-tested benefit offsets have been estimated using the Income Support Simulation Model and the Policy Simulation Model.

  4. Estimates are in 1999–2000 prices and are rounded to the nearest £10 million.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many recipients of the basic state pension are aged(a) under 75 years, (b) 75 years and over, and (c) 80 years and over; and if he will make a statement. [106519]

  Mr. Rooker
  The information is in the table.

  Number of recipients in Great Britain and overseas in receipt of the basic state retirement pension at 31 March 1999

  Million

  Age under 75

  6.3

  Age 75 and over

  4.5

  Age 80 and over

  2.4

  Note:

  Figures are rounded to the nearest hundred thousand

  Source:

  5 per cent. sample from the Pension Strategy Computer System

  Habitual Residence Test
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what criteria are used to determine whether individuals are habitually resident in the UK; and if he will make a statement. [106166]

  Mr. Bayley
  The purpose of the habitual residence test is to ensure that the income related benefits are paid to people with reasonably close ties to the United Kingdom and an intention to settle here. Each case is considered on its own merits. Guidance to decision makers and caselaw stresses the need to consider a wide range of factors, including the reason for a person coming (or returning) to the United Kingdom, the length of their stay, a settled intention to reside and any previous links with the country. The weight given to each factor will depend upon the individual's circumstances. Guidance to decision makers is contained in the Decision Makers Guide Volume 2 at paragraph 070719.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Garnier
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he will reply to the letter of 22 September 1999 from the hon. and learned Member for Harborough to the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Wallasey (Angela Eagle), on behalf of the estate of Mr. A. J. H. Boulter of Wigston, Leicestershire. [105983]

  Angela Eagle
  A reply was sent to the hon. and learned Member on 24 January.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Wembley Stadium
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will list the bodies consulted on the design of the proposed ramped area from the external road to the olympic track of the English National Stadium Project; and if he will make a statement. [102391]

  Kate Hoey
  The design of the ramp area was a matter for Wembley National Stadium Ltd. (WNSL) as part of its overall brief for the design of the stadium.

  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport on what basis he seeks to recover moneys from the Lottery award for the development of the English National Stadium at Wembley. [104327]

  Kate Hoey
  [holding answer 10 January 2000]: Sport England, the Football Association and WNSL are currently considering whether amendments are necessary to the existing Lottery Funding Agreement to reflect Wembley's new role as the centrepiece for football and rugby league in England. In the light of the prospective agreement, the Football Association has proposed that £20 million be returned to Sport England.

  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what estimate he has made of the additional costs of building the new Wembley Stadium in athletics mode with a capacity of 80,000, rather than in football mode with a capacity of 90,000. [104326]
  88W
  Kate Hoey
  [holding answer 10 January 2000]: I understand that although preliminary discussions took place between Wembley National Stadium, Sport England and UK Athletics about proposals to build the new stadium at Wembley in athletics mode with a capacity of 80,000, no estimates of additional costs were made.

  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what assessment he has made of proposals to offset the costs of building the athletics platform at Wembley Stadium against the corporate hospitality rights owned by UK Athletics. [104338]

  Kate Hoey
  [holding answer 10 January 2000]: The use of corporate hospitality rights at the new Wembley Stadium during an athletics event would be a matter for commercial negotiation between Wembley National Stadium Ltd. (WNSL) and the event organiser, UK Athletics. While preliminary discussions had taken place between WNSL and UK Athletics in which the Government did not take part, I understand that no firm agreements had been reached.

  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport which condition of the Lottery Funding Agreement for the development of the English National Stadium at Wembley has been breached. [104328]

  Kate Hoey
  [holding answer 10 January 2000]: The question of whether the conditions of a Lottery Funding Agreement have been breached are a matter for the Lottery distributor, in this case Sport England.

  Olympic Games Stadium
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) what(a) guidelines and (b) criteria the International Olympic Committee has notified him of regarding the minimum number of seats required for a stadium to host an Olympic Athletics competition; [104331]

  (2) what (a) guidelines and (b) criteria the International Olympic Committee has notified him of regarding the minimum number of seats required for a stadium to host the opening and closing ceremonies of an Olympic Games. [104332]

  Kate Hoey
  [holding answer 10 January 2000]: The International Olympic Committee has not notified the Department directly of guidelines or criteria for the minimum number of seats required for a stadium to host an Olympic athletics competition. The BOA have indicated that a viable UK bid would require an 80,000 seat stadium.

  Sports Tourism Strategy
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will make a statement on the arrangements for ticket sales for sporting events in the United Kingdom following the launch of the British Tourist Authority sports tourism strategy. [105059]

  Kate Hoey
  The BTA' s sports tourism strategy seeks to build on the capacity of these events to attract foreign visitors. The Sports Tourism Forum—established as part of the BTA strategy—will be examining the issue of ticket availability for tourists.

  Swimming Pools
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what steps his Department is taking to ensure an equal geographical distribution of Olympic-size swimming pools in the United Kingdom. [105085]

  Kate Hoey
  [holding answer 17 January 2000]: Sport England have proposed a facilities plan for the provision of Olympic sized swimming pools, in association with the Amateur Swimming Association. In which the assessment of the most appropriate location and geographical coverage are central to decisions being made on final location. Sport England ensure that the key factors needed to sustain a pool of Olympic size are taken into account, including: a critical mass of population to sustain its use; whether the configuration of the pool to Olympic scale best meets the needs for the local population; and the location and needs of high performance swimmers.

  There are currently 11 50m pools in England (including two under construction). Sport England have given in principal Lottery support to proposals for a new 50m pool in Loughborough. Sport England's facilities plan identifies the need for new 50m pools in the North East, Merseyside, Birmingham, Portsmouth, London and Leeds. The demand for a high performance swimming centre at Sheffield is also under consideration.

  Departmental Smoking Policy
  Mr. Crausby
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what action he is taking to reduce smoking in his Department. [105806]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  My Department actively encourages a reduction in smoking by operating a policy which permits smoking in only three designated smoking rooms. Ventilation in these rooms is designed to avoid the recirculation of smoke to non-smoking areas. In order to raise general awareness of health issues, my Department has introduced a computerised health checkpoint. This is accessible to all staff and includes information and advice on the risks associated with smoking. Staff have access to an on-site fitness centre and are given a full fitness assessment and advice on healthy living prior to joining. DCMS has also actively encouraged staff to participate in National No Smoking Day and will be doing so again this year.

  Post Offices
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what proposals are being considered by his Department to help sustain and develop the viability of rural and urban sub post offices. [105853]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  I refer the right hon. Member to the reply given by my hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry on 20 January 2000,Official Report, column 520W.

  Departmental Properties
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport 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. [105303]
  90W
  Mr. Alan Howarth
  [holding answer 19 January 2000]: My Department has the following properties unoccupied at present:

  Address of Property

  Wholly or partly unoccupied

  Date vacated

  Core Department

  2nd Floor, 179a Tottenham Court Road, W11

  Partly

  January 2000

  Basement, 7 St. James's Square, SW12

  Partly

  January 2000

  Royal Parks Agency

  Brew House Bushey Park

  Wholly

  ©1998

  New Lodge Bushey Park

  Wholly

  December 1999

  White Lodge, Bushey Park3

  Wholly

  ©1980

  Vanburgh Gate Lodge, Greenwich Park

  Wholly

  January 2000

  1 Area became vacant following closure of Y2K contingency office. Being actively marketed.

  2 Area became vacant following Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment (CABE) reducing their occupation prior to finding alternative premises.

  3 Requires the completion of significant restoration before re-occupation is feasible.

  Note:

  The remainder of the Royal Parks properties are available for re-occupation at any time.

  Television Subtitles
  Miss Kirkbride
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) what arrangements he has made for public consultation regarding his Department's review of digital television subtitling targets; [105985]

  (2) what the timescale is for his Department's review of digital television subtitling targets; and when he expects the review to be completed; [105984]

  (3) if his Department's review of television subtitling targets will include analogue television; [105987]

  (4) if he will publish the findings of his Department's review of digital television subtitling targets when it is completed. [105986]

  Janet Anderson
  The Government's review of the statutory targets on the subtitling, signing and audio description of programmes on digital terrestrial television will begin in early summer this year. We will be consulting the Independent Television Commission, the broadcasters, those who provide subtitling, signing and audio description services and consumer groups representing viewers with sensory disabilities. Once the review is completed in November 2000, we will publish the results.

  The review will not include analogue television to which different arrangements apply. The Broadcasting Act 1990 set a target of 50 per cent. of subtitling of programmes by 1998 (for Channel 3) and by the fifth anniversary of its launch (for Channel 5). Thereafter it is for the Independent Television Commission (ITC) to set targets which are reasonably practicable. The Commission has set a target of 80 per cent. of subtitling of programmes by 2004 for Channel 3 and it will review this target in 2001.

  National Lottery
  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will list in descending order of value(a) the number and type of National Lottery grants awarded to organisations in each constituency and (b) the total value of all National Lottery grants made to organisations in each constituency. [105898]

  Kate Hoey
  [holding answer 20 January 2000]: I have placed the following tables in the Libraries of the House: (a) the total number of Lottery awards to each constituency broken down by good cause and (b) the total value of grants awarded to each constituency broken down by good cause, both shown in descending order.

  The data have been taken from the National Lottery Awards Database which has been compiled using information on National Lottery awards supplied by the Distributing Bodies. The tables exclude Lottery awards not attributed by the Distributing Bodies to a particular constituency. The constituency information relates to the address to which the Lottery Award was sent.

  Television Licences (Pensioners)
  Mr. Õpik
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) when the Government plan to introduce free television licences for pensioners over the age of 75 years; [106551]

  (2) what mechanism the Government intend to put in place to ensure that (a) pensioners aged over 75 years who have previously purchased a television licence are reimbursed for the months still to run after they become eligible for a free licence and (b) pensioners who have purchased a television licence less than a year before turning 75 are reimbursed for the months still to run. [106552]

  Janet Anderson
  My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced in his pre-Budget statement on 9 November 1999,Official Report, columns 883–91, that people aged 75 or over will receive their television licence free of charge from this autumn. The Government intend to announce shortly the precise starting date and details of how the scheme will operate. We anticipate that the scheme will incorporate arrangements for refunds in respect of unexpired licences.

  Running Tracks
  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many local authority running tracks there are in Essex. [106468]

  Kate Hoey
  There are six local authority running tracks in Essex.

  Tourist Attractions (North-West)
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what recent discussions he has had with train and coach operators about promoting tourist attractions in the North-West. [105047]
  92W
  Janet Anderson
  [holding answer 17 January 2000]: I have had no recent discussions with train and coach operators in the North West. However, I have started a regular dialogue with rail and coach operators at a national level through the English Tourism Council's Transport Task Force. This was set up recently as part of the Government's national strategy for tourism, Tomorrow's Tourism.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Hague Convention
  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many children have been returned from(a) Greece to England and Wales and (b) England and Wales to Greece under the Hague Convention since the United Kingdom's accession to the Convention. [105847]

  Jane Kennedy
  The 1980 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction came into force between the United Kingdom and Greece in 1993. From 1993 to the end of 1999 there were 25 cases of abduction from England and Wales to Greece with 11 returns (44 per cent. of applications made) and 48 cases of abduction to England and Wales with 22 returns (46 per cent. of applications received. Cases may involve more than one child.

  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department when the next international review by member state signatories of the Hague Convention on child abduction will take place; and if he will press for common procedures to be enforced in signatory countries. [105845]

  Jane Kennedy
  The next Special Commission of the Hague Conference to review the 1980 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction will be held in the spring of 2001. Contracting states of the Hague Convention have committed themselves to operate the provisions of the Convention and to do so in accordance with the terms under which it has been incorporated into their national law. The Government recognise that the operation of international conventions involves the alignment of different jurisdictions and different traditions of law and society.

  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many children have been abducted to each of the signatory states of the Hague Convention since the United Kingdom's accession; and what proportion of such children has been returned by each of those states. [105846]

  Jane Kennedy
  Figures for the number of cases of abduction from England and Wales dealt with under the 1980 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction since the Convention came into force between the United Kingdom and each contracting state, and the percentage of returns, are set out in the table. Cases may involve more than one child. Cases may be resolved satisfactorily between the parents otherwise than by a return.
  93W

  Total number of cases between England and Wales and other contracting states involving children removed from England and Wales since convention in force

  Country

  Date in force with UK

  Total cases

  Number of cases where return effected

  Success rate (percentage)

  Argentina

  1991

  1

  0

  —

  Australia

  1987

  112

  68

  61

  Austria

  1988

  7

  3

  43

  Bahamas

  1994

  —

  —

  —

  Belgium

  1999

  2

  1

  50

  Belize

  1989

  —

  —

  —

  Bosnia

  1992

  2

  0

  —

  Burkina Faso

  1992

  —

  —

  —

  Canada

  1986

  62

  31

  50

  Chile

  1994

  —

  —

  —

  Colombia

  1996

  1

  0

  —

  Croatia

  1991

  3

  2

  66

  Cyprus

  1995

  10

  5

  50

  Czech

  Republic

  1998

  —

  —

  —

  Denmark

  1991

  14

  9

  64

  Ecuador

  1992

  —

  —

  —

  Federal

  Yugoslavia

  1992

  2

  0

  —

  Finland

  1994

  3

  2

  66

  France

  1986

  110

  39

  35

  Georgia

  1997

  —

  —

  —

  Germany

  1990

  80

  28

  35

  Greece

  1993

  25

  11

  44

  Honduras

  1994

  —

  —

  —

  Hong Kong

  1997

  5

  4

  80

  Hungary

  1986

  5

  1

  20

  Iceland

  1996

  —

  —

  —

  Ireland

  1991

  209

  126

  60

  Israel

  1991

  7

  3

  43

  Italy

  1995

  21

  12

  57

  Luxembourg

  1987

  1

  0

  —

  Macedonia

  1991

  —

  —

  —

  Mauritius

  1993

  2

  1

  50

  Mexico

  1991

  4

  0

  —

  Monaco

  1993

  —

  —

  —

  Netherlands

  1990

  56

  23

  41

  New Zealand

  1991

  38

  21

  55

  Norway

  1989

  14

  10

  71

  Panama

  1991

  —

  —

  —

  Poland

  1992

  7

  3

  43

  94W

  Total number of cases between England and Wales and other contracting states involving children removed from England and Wales since convention in force

  Country

  Date in force with UK

  Total cases

  Number of cases where return effected

  Success rate (percentage)

  Portugal

  1986

  18

  7

  39

  Romania

  1993

  1

  1

  100

  Slovenia

  1994

  1

  0

  —

  South Africa

  1997

  9

  0

  —

  Spain

  1987

  122

  70

  57

  St.Kitts and Nevis

  1994

  1

  1

  100

  Sweden

  1989

  18

  10

  55

  Switzerland

  1986

  13

  5

  38

  Turkmenistan

  1998

  —

  —

  —

  USA

  1988

  324

  170

  52

  Venezuela

  1997

  1

  0

  —

  Zimbabwe

  1995

  3

  1

  33

  Overall Total

  1,314

  668

  51

  Post Offices
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what proposals are being considered by his Department to help sustain and develop the viability of rural and urban sub-post offices. [105860]

  Jane Kennedy
  I refer the right hon. Member to the written answer given to him by my hon. Friend the Minister for Competitiveness on 20 January 2000,Official Report, column 519W.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department which projects relating to his Department that appeared in the Private Finance Panel's list of 29 November 1995(a)> have been completed, (b) are still pending, (c) have been dropped and (d) are being pursued by means other than a public private partnership. [105868]

  Jane Kennedy
  I refer the right hon. Member to the written answer given to him today by my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury.

HEALTH

  Gammahydroxybutyrate
  Ms Drown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans the Government have to ban the sale and possession of the sedative drug, Gammahydroxybutyrate. [105612]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  I have been asked to reply.

  The sale of Gammahydroxybutyrate (GHB) is governed by the Medicines Act 1968 and prohibited except under licence. GHB is not currently controlled under international drugs conventions or the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, and so possession does not constitute an offence.

  The Government keep drug misuse under review and the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs has a statutory responsibility to advise the Government on such matters. The Council has considered the misuse of GHB on several occasions, most recently in May 1998. It decided against recommending that GHB be controlled under the Misuse of Drugs Act. At present, the World Health Organisation are looking at GHB and the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction is considering its misuse within the European Union. The possible use of GHB in cases of drug rape is being considered within a Home Office sponsored Metropolitan Police research initiative into drug-assisted rape. The findings of these various pieces of research will be considered as part of the ongoing review process to which I have referred.

  Thrombolytic Drugs
  Mr. Hammond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of heart attack patients receive thrombolytic drugs within the target time of 30 minutes proposed by his Department. [99988]

  Yvette Cooper
  The Emerging Findings report on the National Service Framework for Coronary Heart Disease, published in November 1998, proposes a national standard for 'call-to-needle time' of 60 minutes for thrombolysis. This covers the total National Health Service response time from the point when the patient seeks professional help to the time when treatment is started if it is indicated.

  There is no national audit of thrombolytic therapy in place at present. An audit undertaken in 15 hospitals in 1997, the latest year for which data are available, found that 14 per cent. of eligible patients received thrombolytic therapy within 60 minutes of calling for help, and the proportion treated within 30 minutes of hospital arrival ('door-to-needle' time) was 33.2 per cent.

  Food Hygiene
  Mrs. Dean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will require local authorities to publish their inspection reports on food outlets. [100496]

  Yvette Cooper
  Decisions on publication of information in respect of food inspections are a matter 96W
  for individual local authorities in the light of local circumstances, taking into account the need to protect public health.

  In-vitro Fertilisation
  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what monitoring is carried out to ensure that IVF treatment is available in the North Essex Health Authority Area. [100900]

  Yvette Cooper
  No specific monitoring is carried out to ensure that in-vitro fertilisation treatment is available in the North Essex Health Authority area.

  The decision to provide in-vitro fertilisation treatment is one for individual health authorities. This decision should be taken in the light of local needs, available resources and clinical effectiveness.

  Malnutrition
  Mr. Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people were classified as suffering from malnutrition in(a) 1970, (b) 1980, (c) 1990 and (d) 1998. [101372]

  Yvette Cooper
  The number of admissions to National Health Service hospitals in England with a diagnosis of malnutrition was 3,581 for the financial year 1989–90 and 6,293 for the financial year 1997–98. Figures are not available on a comparable basis for the earlier years.

  Research studies have shown that 40 per cent. of adults patients and 15 per cent. of children are malnourished on admission to hospital, indicating that prevalence in the general population may be higher than the admissions figures suggest.

  The Government's National Diet and Nutrition Survey programme monitors the diet and nutritional status of the population of Great Britain and has shown that while most people are adequately nourished, there has been a persistent rise in obesity. In 1997, the Health Survey for England showed that 17 per cent. of men and 20 per cent. of women in England were obese compared to 6 per cent. and 8 per cent. of those studied in the earliest previous study in 1980.

  Breast Feeding
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent steps his Department has taken to promote breast feeding. [104093]

  Yvette Cooper
  We are fully committed to the promotion of breastfeeding, which is uniformly accepted as the best form of nutrition for infants. We also firmly believe that it is important that women and their partners are able to make a fully informed choice on how to feed their babies based on accurate and consistent information. This means that women should have access to information about all infant feeding practices through the relevant health care professional.

  Two part-time infant feeding advisers have been appointed. One is a practising health visitor and the other a midwife to act as a focus for developing and

  97W
  implementing strategies for promoting breastfeeding. In particular, their expertise will be utilised to increase the incidence of breastfeeding among groups where breastfeeding rates are lowest, for example, those on low income, and to ensure that all mothers have the information and support they need to make informed infant feeding choices.

  The infant feeding advisers are also managing a substantial project budget that will include taking forward developmental work on a model questionnaire for collecting information locally on monitoring breastfeeding rates, administer a small grant scheme to help evaluate projects which provide best practice on increasing breastfeeding rates among mothers on low incomes, take forward initiatives on a parent friendly approach to infant feeding and develop educational resources and promotional materials to promote breastfeeding that would appeal to varying groups in the population.

  We also promote breastfeeding in the following ways. The National Network of Breastfeeding Co-ordinators has been established to promote breastfeeding at a local level and to share ideas nationally with a view to increasing both the number of mothers breastfeeding and the length of time they continue to breastfeed. Each year the four UK Health Departments support National Breastfeeding Awareness Week to increase public awareness of the benefits of breastfeeding, which will this year take place between 14–20 May.

  The Department provides financial support to the four main voluntary organisations in this area, the National Childbirth Trust, La Leche League, Breastfeeding Network and the Association of Breastfeeding Mothers. Close links are also kept with UNICEF's Baby Friendly Initiative (BFI) which includes a Departmental observer sitting on the Steering Committee of the UK BFI. The Department offers support for research into breastfeeding through the Quinquennial Surveys of Infant Feeding Practice; a new survey will be undertaken this year. The Department also receives and publishes expert advice on breastfeeding through its advisory committees, such as COMA's Panel on Child and Maternal Nutrition.

  Also, as part of the Department's research initiative on health inequalities, we are supporting a study aimed at identifying the barriers to breastfeeding in low income groups. This should also help us to understand what influences a woman's decision whether to breastfeed or not. In turn, this will help us to develop and test new policies to promote and improve the health of babies from low income families. This research will report in late 2001.

  Employment Statistics
  Mrs. Ann Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) men and (b) women in each of the standard age groups were employed in his Department in (i) 1979 and (ii) 1999. [104030]

  Yvette Cooper
  In 1979 the Departments of Health and Social Security were a single department. The table shows the number of men and women employed by the DHSS in each of the standard age groups.
  98W

  Age group

  Female

  Male

  Total

  All ages

  62,525

  35,903

  98,482

  16–19

  8,325

  2,437

  10,762

  20–24

  15,599

  5,909

  21,508

  25–29

  8,369

  5,012

  13,381

  30–34

  5,238

  4,154

  9,392

  35–39

  3,848

  2,505

  6,353

  40–44

  3,597

  2,046

  5,643

  45–49

  4,577

  2,138

  6,715

  50–75

  12,969

  11,700

  21,669

  Other

  3

  2

  5

  The table shows the number of women and men employed by the Department of Health at 31 March 1999 in each of the standard age groups.

  Age group

  Female

  Male

  Total

  All ages

  2,821

  2,117

  4,938

  16–19

  13

  5

  18

  20–24

  121

  85

  206

  25–29

  342

  185

  527

  30–34

  555

  282

  837

  35–39

  551

  343

  894

  40–44

  430

  362

  792

  45–49

  367

  379

  746

  Drug Treatment
  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health of the £50 million allocated to health authorities for drug treatment services; what priorities he has set out for this expenditure; and what is the total allocated to the North West Region. [104343]

  Yvette Cooper
  £1,314,000 has been allocated to health authorities in the North West for the financial year 1999–2000. This is from a total of £12 million allocated to health authorities for the development of new drug treatment services. Announcements on the allocation of funding in 2000–01 and 2001–02 for the development of new drug treatment services are yet to be made. Three priority areas have currently been identified: development of primary care based treatment services and support for drug misusers; an increase in the provision of treatment services for young people who misuse drugs, particularly the under-18s, and prevention services for vulnerable young people (among the under 25s); and implementation of a hepatitis B immunisation programme targeted at drug misusers most at risk of the infection.

  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health of the £20 million allocated to local authorities for drug treatment services what priorities he has set out for their use; and what is the figure allocated to each local authority in the North West Region. [104344]

  Yvette Cooper
  The additional drug and alcohol specific grants and special grants allocated to local authorities in the north west for 1999–2000 are shown in the tables. This is from a total additional £3 million allocated to local authorities to develop new services and increase the numbers of problem drug misusers accessing services that have a positive impact on health and crime. It is expected that this will: improve access to services for substance misusers; support substance misusers, including people with a dual diagnosis, in overcoming their problems and helping them to lead healthier, crime free
  99W
  lives; and develop a co-ordinated and flexible service provision which will involve more extensive joint planning and commissioning.

  Local authority

  Additional drug and alcohol specific grant

  Bolton Metropolitan Borough Council

  72,000

  Bury Metropolitan Borough Council

  20,000

  Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council

  20,000

  Halton Borough Council

  39,018

  Oldham Metropolitan Borough

  31,500

  St. Helen's Metropolitan Borough

  23,655

  Local authority

  Special grant

  Liverpool County Council

  30,000

  Salford Metropolitan District Council

  27,600

  Vaccinations
  Laura Moffatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the cost to the NHS of vaccinating persons prior to their travelling abroad in the last year for which figures are available. [104134]

  Yvette Cooper
  It is not possible to give a total figure for the cost of immunisation for the purpose of travel abroad each year. Records are not kept of the numbers of people immunised and data on prescription items are limited as they do not differentiate between vaccine given for travel or for other reasons and they do not differentiate between primary courses (usually consisting of several doses of vaccine) and booster doses. The number of prescription items dispensed in England and the net ingredient costs for vaccines that may be given for the purposes of travel are given in the table.

  The number of prescription items dispensed and net ingredient cost for vaccines likely to have been administered for travel1 England, 1994–98

  Year

  Total number of prescription items (millions)

  Total cost (£ million)

  1994

  3.4

  40.5

  1995

  3.3

  47.0

  1996

  3.3

  49.1

  1997

  3.3

  52.4

  1998

  3.1

  52.0

  1 The travel vaccines are those preparations in the British National Formulary (BNF) (issue 38, September 1999) section 14.6—International travel: BCG, diphtheria, hepatitis A, meningococcal A&C, normal immunoglobulin, poliomyelitis, typhoid, and yellow fever. Some of these vaccines will have been prescribed for reasons other than travel.

  Notes:

  1. The data cover all prescriptions dispensed by community pharmacists and appliance contractors, dispensing doctors, and prescriptions submitted by prescribing doctors for items personally administered in England.

  2. The net ingredient cost refers to the cost of the drug before discounts and does no include any dispensing costs or fees.

  Infectious Diseases
  Laura Moffatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the cost to the NHS of treating patients in the UK for infectious diseases contracted in other countries in the last year for which figures are available. [104133]

  Yvette Cooper
  Information on the cost to the National Health Service from travel-related infection is not held centrally. Information on the numbers of all diseases notifiable under various Public Health (Infectious Diseases) Regulations in England and Wales are published in the Public Health Laboratory Service's Communicable Disease Statistics England and Wales. Where known, numbers of cases of diseases contracted abroad are given, but this information is not reliably reported. Copies are available in the Library.

  Lung Cancer
  Mr. O'Hara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health in the last year for which figures are available, how many people in each NHS region who are receiving palliative chemotherapy to relieve the symptoms of inoperable non-small lung cancer are aged(a) under 29, (b) 30 to 49, (c) 50 to 64, (d) 65 to 74, (e) 75 to 84 and (f) 85 years and over. [103950]

  Yvette Cooper
  Information on the number of people in each NHS region receiving palliative chemotherapy for inoperable non-small cell lung cancer by age group is not available.

  Evidence based guidance "Improving Outcomes in Lung Cancer" published in June 1998 has been sent to all commissioners and providers of lung cancer services and concentrates on those aspects of services which are likely to have a significant impact on health outcomes. The guidance is intended to support the ongoing implementation of the Calman/Hine report. The guidance makes it clear that palliative care should be an integral part of patient management for all lung cancer patients from the outset, including chemotherapy where appropriate.

  Neurology Treatment
  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is his target for the maximum waiting time to see a consultant neurologist; what is the current waiting period for Essex Rivers Healthcare NHS Trust; and if he will make a statement. [104506]

  Mr. Denham
  There is no specific target for individual specialities. Over a third of all patients have their first outpatient appointment within 4 weeks of being referred by their general practitioner. We are, however, determined to modernise services and reduce the number of patients waiting longer than thirteen weeks for their first outpatient appointment.

  Figures are not collected on the average waiting period of patients for a first outpatient appointment but figures are available on the length of time patients waited to be seen following a GP written referral. The latest figures available are for Quarter 2 (quarter ending 30 September 1999), and are given in the table.
  101W

  Of those GP written referrals seen in Neurology during Quarter 2, 1999–2000, the number who waited (in weeks) at Essex Rivers Healthcare National Health Service Trust

  Number

  0–3 weeks

  31

  4-under 13 weeks

  40

  13-under 26 weeks

  21

  Over 26 weeks

  36

  Source:

  Form QM08—completed by the Trust quarterly.

  Heart Disease
  Mrs. Brinton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what estimate he has made of the number of deaths per year(a) in total and (b) of heart patients which would be avoided if those diagnosed with heart disease were legally required to comply with prescribed medical treatment; [104763]

  (2) what estimate he has made of the number of deaths per year (a) in total and (b) of diabetics which would be avoided if those with a diagnosis of heart disease were legally required to comply with prescribed medical treatment. [104762]

  Mr. Denham
  No such estimates have been made.

  Diabetics
  Mrs. Brinton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of insulin-dependent diabetics failed to comply with medically prescribed treatment in the last year for which figures are available. [104761]

  Mr. Denham
  The information requested is not available centrally.

  NHS Litigation Authority
  Dr. Brand
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the average delay in reimbursement by the NHS Litigation Authority in the last 12 months; and how much is owed to each health authority. [105504]

  Mr. Denham
  The average time taken to reimburse health authorities and National Health Service trusts during this period was 1.8 months. However, the most recent figures indicate that the NHS Litigation Authority is currently meeting its target of dealing with cases within 30 days of receiving a correctly completed payment request form. It is not possible to state how much is owed to each health authority since this will change on a day-to-day basis.

  Babies (Heroin Addiction)
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many babies born in each health authority area in England in each of the last five years have been dependent at birth upon heroin or heroin substitutes. [105256]

  Ms Stuart
  The information requested is not available centrally.

  Generic Drugs
  Mr. Dobbin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to control the cost and availability of generic drugs. [105508]
  102W
  Ms Stuart
  We are determined to ensure that the supply of generic medicines to the National Health Service is reliable and delivers value for money. We have put in place a fundamental review of the generic medicines market to consider how we can best achieve these and related objectives. The review is under way and conclusions are expected in the summer.

  Morphine and Diamorphine
  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much(a) morphine and (b) diamorphine by (i) weight and (ii) cost the NHS has purchased in each of the last 10 years. [105354]

  Ms Stuart
  The information requested is shown in the tables.

  The number of prescriptions and the net ingredient cost of morphine and diamorphine hydrochloride dispensed in the community England, 1989–98

  Prescriptions (thousand)

  Morphine salts

  Diamorphine hydrochloride

  1989

  362.1

  67.5

  1990

  410.3

  72.8

  1991

  526.1

  140.8

  1992

  572.5

  133.0

  1993

  595.3

  119.3

  1994

  664.4

  128.5

  1995

  698.6

  128.9

  1996

  728.7

  119.9

  1997

  762.2

  116.5

  1998

  819.2

  114.6

  Net ingredient cost (£000)

  Morphine salts

  Diamorphine hydrochloride

  1989

  5,745.9

  2,204.8

  1990

  6,734.7

  3,418.2

  1991

  8,653.0

  3,583.0

  1992

  9,835.4

  3,612.4

  1993

  10,489.1

  3,593.4

  1994

  11,414.9

  3,755.6

  1995

  12,069.9

  3,854.6

  1996

  12,328.9

  3,822.9

  1997

  13,009.9

  3,747.5

  1998

  13,931.2

  3,808.1

  Notes:

  Please note that the data up to 1990 are not strictly consistent with data from 1991 onwards. Figures for 1989 and 1990 are based on fees and on a sample of 1 in 200 prescriptions dispensed by community pharmacists and appliance contractors only. Figures for 1991 onwards are based on items and cover all prescriptions dispensed by community pharmacists, appliance contractors, dispensing doctors and prescriptions submitted by prescribing doctors for items personally administered.

  The net ingredient cost is the basic cost of a drug and does not take account of discounts, dispensing costs, fees or prescription charges income.

  Intensive Care Beds
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) intensive care beds and (b) high dependency beds there were within the NHS in each of the last 30 years. [105676]
  103W
  Mr. Denham
  Available information is the average daily number of available and occupied beds by ward type for each National Health Service trust. This is published annually in "Bed Availability and Occupancy, England" and is available in the Library. However, this was an intensive care ward-based count. As wards classified as intensive care can also contain other types of beds, we have piloted a new census focusing specifically on adult intensive care and high dependency beds. We will publish the results in due course.

  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many additional intensive care beds were created in each NHS trust hospital during 1999; and how many were withdrawn from use in that year. [106204]

  Mr. Denham
  Information is not available in the form requested. However, we introduced on 31 March 1999 the first of a twice yearly census of intensive care and high dependency beds. A further census was taken on 30 September 1999. We will publish the results in due course.

  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will (1) list the number of intensive care beds opened at each hospital since 1 May 1997, giving the date of opening in each case; [106176]

  (2) list the number of intensive care beds at each hospital that have been closed since 1 May 1997, giving the date of closure in each case. [105893]

  Mr. Denham
  The information requested is not available centrally. Available information is the average daily number of available beds by ward type for each National Health Service trust. This is published annually in "Bed Availability and Occupancy, England" and copies are in the Library. However, this is a ward-based count and as wards classified as intensive care can also contain other beds, we have piloted a new twice yearly census focusing specifically on adult intensive care and high dependency beds. We will publish the results in due course.

  NHS Staff
  Mr. Sawford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) nurses and (b) doctors left employment with the National Health Service in each year from 1990 to the latest year for which figures are available. [105655]

  Mr. Denham
  Information about the numbers of nurses and doctors who have left the National Health Service is not collected centrally.

  Mr. Sawford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) nurses and (b) doctors were employed by the National Health Service in each year from 1990 to the latest year for which figures are available. [105593]

  Mr. Denham
  Information about numbers of nurses and doctors employed by the National Health Service in each year from 1990 to 1998 (latest year available) is shown in the tables.
  104W

  NHS hospital and community health services: Nursing, midwifery and health visiting staff 1990–98 England as at 30 September of each year

  Numbers (headcount)

  Whole-time equivalents

  1990

  463,790

  395,360

  1991

  473,220

  392,200

  1992

  460,180

  378,780

  1993

  445,160

  361,460

  1994

  431,300

  348,690

  19951

  411,840

  330,440

  1996

  415,750

  332,660

  1997

  417,570

  330,620

  1998

  421,750

  332,200

  1 A new classification of the non-medical workforce was introduced in 1995. Pre-1995 the classification was based on payscales.

  Notes:

  1. Figures are rounded to the nearest ten.

  2. Figures exclude agency staff and learners.

  Medical staff (doctors) employed by the NHS 1990–98 England as at 30 September

  Hospital doctors1

  Public health medicine and community health medicine

  All doctors

  1990

  48,590

  5,900

  54,490

  1991

  49,890

  5,320

  55,210

  1992

  50,380

  4,940

  55,320

  1993

  51,550

  4,710

  56,260

  1994

  52,040

  4,070

  56,110

  1995

  55,350

  3,920

  59,270

  1996

  57,120

  3,610

  60,730

  1997

  59,860

  3,410

  63,270

  1998

  61,650

  3,210

  64,860

  1 Hospital medical staff.

  Notes:

  1. Figures rounded to nearest 10.

  2. Totals may not equal sum of components due to rounding.

  Source:

  Department of Health medical and dental workforce census.

  Mr. Sawford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) nurses and (b) doctors were in training in each year from 1990 to the latest year for which figures are available. [105656]

  Mr. Denham
  Information about numbers of doctors in training in each year from 1990 to 1998 (latest available) is shown in the table. Information about numbers of nurses in training is not available for 1990–91 and 1991–1992. Data for 1998–99 are unvalidated.

  Available information for nurses is shown in the table.

  Doctors in training, 1990–98, England at 30 September

  House officer

  Senior house officer

  Registrar group

  GP registrars1

  All staff

  1990

  3,020

  10,900

  9,570

  1,560

  25,050

  1991

  3,060

  11,290

  9,900

  1,640

  25,890

  1992

  3,040

  11,570

  10,080

  1,610

  26,300

  1993

  3,090

  11,960

  10,370

  1,530

  26,950

  1994

  3,020

  12,190

  10,570

  1,440

  27,220

  1995

  3,220

  12,930

  10,820

  1,400

  28,370

  1996

  3,220

  13,770

  10,840

  1,300

  29,130

  1997

  3,360

  14,560

  11,360

  1,340

  30,620

  1998

  3,450

  14,750

  11,590

  1,450

  31,240

  1 Previously referred to as trainees

  Notes:

  1. Figures rounded to nearest 10

  2. Totals may not equal sum of components due to rounding

  Sources:

  1. Department of Health Medical and Dental Workforce Census

  2. Department of Health General and Personal Medical Services Statistics
  105W

  NHS Funded Pre-Registration Nursing and Midwifery Training Commissions1

  Nursing

  Midwifery3

  Total Pre-reg

  Year

  Diploma

  Degree2

  Total

  Degree

  Diploma

  Total Pre-reg

  Other

  Nursing and Midwifery

  Adjusted total4

  1992–93

  14,883

  190

  15,073

  42

  206

  248

  1,292

  15,321

  16,338

  1993–94

  12,439

  199

  12,638

  92

  450

  542

  1,215

  13,180

  14,197

  1994–95

  10,594

  255

  10,849

  92

  522

  614

  1,044

  11,463

  12,480

  1995–96

  11,495

  256

  11,751

  128

  485

  613

  1,030

  12,364

  13,381

  1996–97

  13,011

  297

  13,308

  161

  498

  659

  993

  13,967

  14,984

  1997–98

  14,429

  297

  14,726

  224

  572

  796

  908

  15,522

  16,539

  1998–99

  15,155

  1,201

  16,356

  254

  611

  865

  892

  17,221

  17,221

  1 Data updated on 1 October 1999 following a validation of midwifery data with ROs (against agreed data definitions new data from SERO

  2 The step change in degree commissions in 1998–99 is a result of the transfer from DfEE to DH following Dearing

  3 Midwifery data for 1992–93 is incomplete. Some degree data missing—poss. 60 places in 1993–94, poss. 24 places in 1995–96. 1996–97 onwards is incomplete.

  4 Adjusted to take account of Dearing transfer 1,017 places (1992–93 to 1997–98 inc.)

  Notes:

  1. Planned commissions (with degree data from SGU)

  2. Unvalidated 1998–99 outturn

  3. Data not available for 1990–91 and 1991–92

  Data Protection
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has for further action to restrain the use of anonymised data extracted from prescription forms; and if he will make a statement on the ownership of the data contained in prescription forms. [106061]

  Ms Stuart
  There has recently been a judgment in the Court of Appeal dealing with the use that can be made of anonymised data extracted from prescription forms. I have arranged for a Petition for leave to appeal to be lodged at the judicial office of the House of Lords. We shall also continue to consider the complex legal issues raised by the judgment, and, in particular, the implications for the use of data on prescription forms.

  Accident and Emergency Departments (West Midlands)
  Mr. John M. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many 24 hour accident and emergency departments there were in the West Midlands region on(a) 31 December 1970 and (b) 31 December 1999. [105989]

  Ms Stuart
  On 31 December 1999 there were 21 24-hour accident and emergency departments in the West Midlands region.

  The figure for 31 December 1970 is not available. Changes in the configuration of health services and in the definition of what constitutes an accident and emergency department have altered significantly over the last 30 years.

  Diseases
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the likely change over the next 10 years in the incidence of cases of(a) MRSA,(b) TB and (c) Hepatitis C; and what action is he taking to deal with such changes. [105424]

  Yvette Cooper
  [holding answer 20 January 2000]: MRSA is the antibiotic resistant form of Staphylococcus aureus, a bacterium which is carried harmlessly on the skin by at least a third of the population. About 80 per cent. of people who acquire MRSA similarly carry it harmlessly on the skin and do not suffer from any infection. Action is in
  106W
  hand to improve the surveillance of MRSA and also the prevention and control of hospital acquired infection, including MRSA. The extent to which this work will impact on the cases of incidence over the next 10 years is unpredictable.

  Official notifications of tuberculosis gradually fell to an all time low of 5,086 in England and Wales in 1987 from about 50,000 cases a year in the 1950s. Since the early 1990s there have been overall small year on year increases in total notified cases which are continuing. Provisional notifications for 1998 were just over 6,000. While some of this may be due to better ascertainment of cases, it has occurred against the backdrop of a worldwide resurgence of this disease that will, inevitably, continue to have some impact on tuberculosis in the United Kingdom through travel and immigration.

  We are working to minimise the effect of worldwide developments and have taken steps to strengthen the surveillance, prevention and control of tuberculosis, including drug resistant tuberculosis.

  The incidence of hepatitis C infection is not known as the virus is usually acquired without symptoms. Currently, the most frequent route of transmission of hepatitis C is through sharing of blood-contaminated equipment by injecting drug misusers. Preliminary evidence suggests that the prevalence of hepatitis C infection in newer injectors may be lower than in the past. We are continuing to promote harm minimisation measures to try to accelerate any downward trend.

  However, there is likely to be an increase in the diagnosis of hepatitis C in the next 10 years as individuals who have carried the virus for some time are identified through wider testing of groups who have been at risk. Improved treatments are becoming available to help prevent progression to serious liver disease.

  National Radiological Protection Board
  Mr. Livsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will(a) give the annual budget of the National Radiological Protection Board during each of the last

  107W
  three years and (b) list the source and amount of every payment to the board which exceeded five per cent. of its income in any one year. [105583]

  Yvette Cooper
  The annual budget of the National Radiological Protection Board during each of the last three years was:

  £ million

  1996–97

  15.2

  1997–98

  14.6

  1998–99

  13.7

  The source and amount of every payment to the Board which exceeded 5 per cent. of its income in any one year for the years above was:

  £000

  1996–97

  DH Revenue and Capital Grant

  6,413

  DETR (DoE)

  1,530

  CEC1

  1,070

  1997–98

  DH Revenue and Capital Grant

  6,303

  DETR

  2,720

  CEC

  860

  1998–99

  DH Revenue and Capital Grant

  6,187

  DETR

  680

  CEC

  930

  1 Commission of the European Community

  Dentistry
  Mr. Ashdown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the reasons for the declining number of registrations with NHS dentists; and if he will make a statement. [104722]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 20 January 2000]: The decline in the recorded number of registrations since December 1993 is due to a variety of reasons, including improved systems which remove duplicate registrations, the change in the adult registration period from 24 to 15 months, and some dentists withdrawing from the General Dental Service or reducing their level of commitment to the National Health Service. There will also be some patients who may choose not to register with a dentist, but seek dental treatment only when a problem occurs. The establishment of Dental Access Centres in various parts of the country, announced by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister last September, will enable people not registered with a dentist but who want to see one, to access high quality NHS care. The Government are committed to ensuring that, within two years, anyone wanting to see a NHS dentist would be able to do so by ringing NHS Direct.

  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he will publish the White Paper on NHS Dentistry. [106721]

  Mr. Hutton
  The National Health Service dental strategy will be published shortly.

  Hospital Waiting Lists (Mid-Essex)
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his reply of 13 January 2000,Official Report, columns 233–34W, on the Mid-Essex Hospital Trust, how many people in the Mid-Essex Hospital Trust area were waiting 12 months or more for treatment on the latest date for which information is available; and what has been the total number of patients waiting for hospital treatment in the Mid-Essex Hospital Trust area for the last two months for which figures are available. [106033]

  Mr. Denham
  The information requested is given in the table.

  Total number of patients waiting and the number of patients waiting over 12 months for hospital treatment in the Mid-Essex Hospital Services National Health Service Trust in October and November 1999

  Month

  Total waiting

  Number waiting over 12 months

  October

  9,372

  1,024

  November

  9,483

  1,042

  Source:

  Monthly Waiting List Returns

  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 13 January 2000,Official Report, column 234W, how many people in the Mid-Essex Hospital Trust area were, on 30 November 1999, waiting over 18 months for treatment, and for how long over 18 months each such patient was waiting; for what reasons such patients were waiting for more than 18 months; and if all these patients have now been treated. [106034]

  Mr. Denham
  We are committed to ensuring that no patient has to wait more than 18 months for treatment. However, the last published figures for waiting times, for November 1999, show that at the end of November 1999, 14 patients waited over 18 months for treatment at Mid-Essex Hospital Services National Health Services Trust.

  Information about individual patients waiting over 18 months is not collected centrally.

  Pay Settlement (North-West Lancashire)
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to increase the budget for the North West Lancashire Health Authority for 2000–01 to take account of the latest pay settlement for doctors and nurses. [106168]

  Mr. Denham
  The 2000–01 unified allocation for North West Lancashire Health Authority is £345.28 million, which represents a cash increase of £21.95 million (6.79 per cent.).

  The overall allocation will help fund the increased pay bill and other costs, such as health improvement programmes and reducing waiting lists. However, it is for health authorities, in partnership with National Health Service trusts, primary care groups, local authorities and the local stakeholders, to determine how best to use their funds to meet national and local priorities for improving health and modernising services. The significant additional resources available will aid them in this process.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on progress of the PFI project for the New Lymington Community Hospital. [105585]

  Mr. Denham
  Negotiations between Southampton Community Health Services National Health Service Trust and its private sector partner on the proposed private finance initiative scheme for a new community hospital for Lymington are continuing.

  Hearing Aids
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health for what reason he has introduced digital hearing aids on a pilot basis; and when he plans to extend their availability nationally. [106122]

  Mr. Hutton
  In order to introduce digital hearing aid technology into the National Health Service, hearing aid departments will need new equipment, professionals will need different skills and revised procedures will be required to prescribe digital hearing aids to patients. Such changes will need to be introduced in an integrated way. The pilots will last for two years, after which we will make decisions about extending their availability nationally.

TREASURY

  House Repossessions (Income Support)
  Mr. White
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent discussions he has had with mortgage companies about repossessions caused by a shortfall between payments that income support cover and actual interest due. [105600]

  Mr. Bayley
  I have been asked to reply.

  None. Income Support cover is calculated using a standard interest rate which is based on the weighted average of basic rates charged by the main building societies. It should be noted that the standard interest rate is an average and there is not always a shortfall between Income Support cover and actual interest due.

  Deregulation
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer 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. [106086]

  Mr. Timms
  [holding answer 20 January 2000]: The following orders have been made by Treasury Ministers:
  The Deregulation (Building Societies) Order 1995 (SI no. 1995/3233).
  The Deregulation (Friendly Societies Act 1992) Order 1996 (SI no. 1996/1188).
  The Deregulation (Credit Unions) Order 1996 (SI no. 1996/1189).
  The Deregulation (Industrial and Provident Societies) Order 1996 (SI no. 1996/1738).

  Debt Relief
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what authority will be responsible for assessing the effect of bilateral debt relief on the heavily indebted poor countries; [105737]

  (2) who will assess the implementation of health and education programmes carried out following the cancellation of bilateral debt. [105736]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  [holding answer 20 January 2000]: The Government are satisfied that the conditions of debt relief applied under HIPC are sufficient to guarantee that moneys freed up will be spent on social programmes and poverty reduction. 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, the implementation of which will be an essential pre-condition of qualification for HIPC debt relief.

  The transformation of the IMF' s Enhanced Structural Adjustment Facility into the Poverty Reduction and Growth Facility means that the Poverty Reduction Strategy will become the key instrument in the country's relations with the donor community. In the context of lending operations and assistance strategies, the Boards of the IMF and World bank will be asked to endorse the Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper. The Strategy will therefore provide the basis for IMF and World bank concessional lending to HIPC countries in the future, as well as for debt relief now.

  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the amount that each of the heavily indebted poor countries will save in debt service as a result of the decision to cancel bilateral debt. [105825]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  [holding answer 20 January 2000]: The specific amount of extra debt relief that a country will receive in any one year cannot be known until the amounts and way in which their multilateral HIPC debt relief will be given is known—in particular, the effect of any debt rescheduling of official bilateral creditors agreed by the Paris Club. This is why the Government is working with the International Financial Institutions to ensure that countries come forward for multilateral relief as soon as is possible.

  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer which departmental budget will cover the cost of the cancellation of ECGD debt to the heavily indebted poor countries. [105829]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  [holding answer 20 January 2000]: The Department for International Development will make grant payments to the countries in question to meet the remaining debt service obligations to ECGD after multilateral HIPC debt relief. These grant payments will be made from resources which are additional to the current aid budget.

  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he estimates that each of the heavily indebted poor countries will benefit from the bilateral debt relief programme. [105747]
  111W
  Miss Melanie Johnson
  [holding answer 20 January 2000]: The UK's extra bilateral debt relief is dependent on countries first qualifying for multilateral debt relief under the HIPC initiative.

  The G7 remains committed to its target of working with the International Financial Institutions to ensure that three-quarters of eligible countries reach their decision point by the end of the year and the remainder embark on the process as soon as possible thereafter.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the cost of the reduction of debt owed by heavily indebted poor countries to the UK over each of the next 25 years; what is the value of the debt written off at current prices; and what part of the debt was counted as an asset by the Treasury for accounting purposes. [105837]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The costs of reduction of debt by the heavily indebted poor countries will be divided between those amounts due to the relief provided under traditional multilateral debt mechanisms i.e. due to the UK's participation in the HIPC initiative and those amounts due to the extra bilateral relief that the UK is providing in order to relieve 100 per cent. of the debt burden of these countries. The current value of the total amount of debt owed to ECGD by the heavily indebted poor countries is approximately £1.9 billion.

  The cost of the debt reduction in any one year will depend on the number of countries who are eligible for relief, the amount of debt relief required to bring their debt stock to a sustainable level as defined by the terms of the enhanced HIPC initiative and the terms of their Paris Club debt rescheduling agreement.

  All debt held by ECGD is recorded in their own Accounts, which are managed on a commercial basis and separate from the Government's own accounts. The costs of debt cancellation due to the UK's participation in the multilateral HIPC initiative will fall to ECGD and will be recorded in their Accounts as an amount deducted from Recoverable Claims.

  The costs of providing the extra bilateral relief over and above the amounts due to the UK's participation in the HIPC initiative will be met by the Department for International Development from resources additional to the existing aid budget. The Government estimate, though, that, subject to assumptions about the period over which countries become eligible for relief and the amount of relief they receive under the multilateral HIPC initiative, the costs of providing the extra bilateral relief will be £640 million over the 25 year period.

  Friendly Societies
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) how many industrial and provident societies are registered with the Registry of Friendly Societies; and what proportion of these have an annual turnover of less than(a) £10,000 and (b) £5,000; [105897]

  (2) what representations he has received in the last two years regarding fees payable to the Registry of Friendly Societies by industrial and provident societies; and if he will make a statement. [105896]
  112W
  Miss Melanie Johnson
  [holding answer 20 January 2000]: 8,892 industrial and provident societies (I&Ps) are registered with the Registry of Friendly Societies (RFS). Based on the latest returns received, 992 and 739 have turnover less than £10,000 and £5,000 respectively. The Treasury receives occasional representations on fees payable by I&Ps to the RFS. Those fees are reviewed every year.

  VAT
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make it his policy to allow the National Crime Squad and the National Criminal Intelligence Service to reclaim value added tax paid on their normal policing activities. [106532]

  Dawn Primarolo
  No. VAT incurred by police authorities in the course of their normal policing activities can be recovered under section 33 of the VAT Act 1994. The National Crime Squad and National Criminal Intelligence Service are not police authorities and they are not eligible to recover VAT under the terms of this provision.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if it is his policy to continue to exempt from value added tax(a) finance and insurance and (b) betting, gaming and lotteries; and if he will make a statement. [106637]

  Mr. Timms
  Yes. EC law requires member states to exempt these services.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if it is his policy to maintain zero-rating for value added tax purposes on(a) construction of new dwellings, (b) books, newspapers and magazines and (c) international passenger transport; and if he will make a statement. [106636]

  Dawn Primarolo
  We have no current plans to remove these zero-rates. Any changes to VAT coverage would be for the Chancellor to decide in the next Budget.

  Personal Allowances
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the revenue yield in the(a) first year and (b) a full year from abolishing the age related personal allowances and replacing them with the standard personal allowance at the existing level. [106509]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The yield from replacing the age-related personal allowances with the standard personal allowances in 2000–01 is around £0.95 billion in a full year and £0.8 billion in the first year on a National Accounts Basis. These estimates are based on the 1997–98 Survey of Personal incomes and consistent with the November 1999 Pre-Budget Report forecast.

  Income Tax
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the(a) full year and (b) first year revenues which would be raised by increasing the basic rate of tax by one penny in the pound. [106510]
  113W
  Dawn Primarolo
  The latest estimate for changing the basic rate of income tax was published by HM Treasury in table 4 of the "Tax Ready Reckoner and Tax Reliefs" in November 1999, a copy of which is held in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the cost of abolishing the 10 per cent. income tax band and extending the size of the personal tax allowance by the size of this band. [106511]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The cost of abolishing the starting rate of income tax and increasing the personal allowances by £1,520 in 2000–01 would be £4 billion in a full year. This estimate is based on the 1997–98 Survey of Personal incomes and consistent with the November 1999 Pre-Budget Report forecast.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the cost of increasing the size of the basic rate income tax band by £2,000 per year, assuming no change in the size of the personal allowance or lower rate band. [106505]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The full-year cost of increasing the basic rate limit by £2,000 in 2000–01 is £0.9 billion. This estimate is based on the 1997–98 Survey of Personal incomes and consistent with the November 1999 Pre-Budget Report forecast.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the(a) first year and (b) full year revenue yield from introducing a 50 per cent. income tax rate on taxable income of over £100,000 per annum; and how this yield would increase in each of the following two years. [106512]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The full-year yields from introducing a 50 per cent. income tax rate on taxable income over £100,000 per annum are £2.6 billion in 2000–01, £2.9 billion in 2001–02 and £3.1 billion in 2002–03. The first year yield on a National Accounts Basis is £1.7 billion. These estimates are based on the 1997–98 Survey of Personal incomes and consistent with the November 1999 Pre-Budget Report forecast.

  Economic and Monetary Union
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if it is his policy to hold a referendum on entry to the euro within the lifetime of the next Parliament; and if he will make a statement. [106465]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Government policy towards holding a referendum on the single currency remains as set out by the Chancellor in his statement to the House of Commons on 27 October 1997.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the cost to date of the National Changeover Plan. [106388]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave the right hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude) on 13 December 1999,Official Report, column 78W.

  Law Students (Vocational Training Relief)
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make it his policy to ensure that students required 114W
  to undertake a fourth year at law school after taking their first degree will continue to be eligible for Vocational Training Relief after September 2000. [106044]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Chancellor announced in the March 1999 Budget that Vocational Training Relief (VTR) will be withdrawn when the national framework for Individual Learning Accounts (ILAs) is launched, under which people who open ILAs will be eligible for discounts towards the cost of approved types of learning. In last November's pre-Budget Report we said that, on current plans, the discounts will first become available from September this year and that accordingly VTR is to be withdrawn at the end of August.

  On that basis, VTR will not be due for training payments made on or after 1 September 2000. Students undertaking training which currently qualifies for VTR and continues after September 2000 will, however, be eligible for VTR if they pay the remaining course fees before the end of August 2000.

  Armed Forces Commitment
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many days total commitment of HM armed forces the reserves can maintain; if holding these reserves as(a) foreign exchange and (b) bullion modifies commitment capability; and if he will make a statement. [106402]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The costs of committing the armed forces depend on many factors, and do not necessarily require use of the Government's reserves.

  Bilateral Financial Assistance
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the total of financial assistance given by Her Majesty's Government to(a) Sub-Sahara Africa and (b) the former Yugoslavia in the last financial year. [106194]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Figures for bilateral financial assistance given by HMG are published in the Department for International Development Report "Statistics on International Development". For financial year 1998–99, the total bilateral financial assistance given by HMG to:

  (a) Sub-Sahara Africa was just over £560 million.

  (b) The Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro) was £4.5 million (the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia was promulgated in April 1992 following the breakup of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (former Yugoslavia)).

  The UK contributes indirectly to financial assistance in both areas as a member of the EU and in Sub-Sahara Africa as a shareholder in a range of international financial organisations. It is not possible to provide reliable statistics for this assistance in the financial year 1998–99.

  Departmental Consultation
  Dr. Tony Wright
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the public consultation exercises on policy matters carried out by his Department and its agencies in each of the last five years; who was consulted and by what means; how responses were analysed; how and in what form the results were transmitted to those responsible for the consultation; how the results of the
  115W
  consultation were published; and what analysis has been carried out of the extent and nature of policy changes resulting from the consultation. [106290]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  This information is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Transferable Tax Allowance
  Ms Kelly
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the cost to the Exchequer of providing a transferable tax allowance between(a) all married couples, (b) all married couples with children, (c) all families with children, (d) all married couples with children whose youngest child is under the age of five years, (e) all families with children whose youngest child is under the age of five years and (f) all families with caring responsibilities in receipt of invalid care allowance. [104868]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The estimated costs for 2000–01 of allowing married or co-habiting couples to transfer all or part of their personal allowance are given in the following table.

  Family type

  £ million

  (a) All married couples

  4,250

  (b) All married couples with children

  2,250

  (c) All families1 with children

  2,500

  (d) All married couples whose youngest child is under the age of five

  1,750

  (e) All families1 whose youngest child is under the age of five

  2,000

  (f) All families1 with caring responsibilities in receipt of invalid care allowance

  70

  1 A family is defined here as unit with a married or co-habiting couple

  Childcare Tax Credit
  Ms Kelly
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the steady-state cost of providing the childcare tax credit to all households with a child below the age of one year on the current tapers, irrespective of whether anyone is in work. [104865]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The childcare tax credit is available to families in receipt of the Working Families' Tax Credit or Disabled Person's Tax Credit who meet the work requirements and have eligible child care costs.

  If a separate weekly credit of £70 were to be given to all families with a child under one, including those on income support or Jobseeker's Allowance, subject to a taper of 55 per cent. for net income over £90 per week, then the estimated cost for 2000–01 would be about £800 million.

  Financial Services Authority
  Mr. Efford
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps he has taken to ensure that the Financial Services Authority's single ombudsman service is sufficiently funded to protect the interests of consumers; and if he will make a statement. [106514]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Financial Services and Markets Bill, in paragraph 2 of Schedule 14, requires the Financial Services Authority to take such steps as are 116W
  necessary to ensure that the operator of the Ombudsman scheme is capable of exercising the functions conferred by the Bill. The Bill also provides that funding should be provided by the industry. The FSA are in the process of consulting on the detailed arrangements of the Ombudsman Scheme.

  Mr. Efford
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received regarding the eligibility of companies to complain to the Financial Services Authority's single ombudsman service; and if he will make a statement. [106513]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  While the Financial Services and Markets Bill sets the general framework for the ombudsman scheme, the detailed operation of the scheme will be determined in rules made by the Financial Services Authority. It will be open, as specified in Clause 201(7) of the Bill, to the Authority to define certain categories of firms as eligible complainants. The FSA is currently consulting on this matter and has proposed that firms should be eligible to use the scheme if they have a turnover of up to £1 million and no more than four staff.

  Higher Rate Taxpayers
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the number and percentage of higher rate taxpayers in(a) each county in England and (b) each local authority area in (i) Scotland, (ii) Wales and (iii) Northern Ireland. [106745]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I regret that reliable estimates for the number of higher rate taxpayers are not available for each county in England, but they are available at Government Office Region level which are shown in the table:

  Taxpayer numbers by region—1999–2000

  Thousand

  Number of higher rate income taxpayers

  Total number of income taxpayers

  North East

  60

  1,000

  North West and Merseyside

  200

  2,900

  Yorkshire and the Humber

  140

  2,200

  East Midlands

  140

  1,900

  West Midlands

  145

  2,200

  East of England

  300

  2,600

  London

  420

  3,100

  South East

  515

  3,900

  South West

  175

  2,300

  Wales

  65

  1,200

  Scotland

  170

  2,400

  Northern Ireland

  35

  600

  Address abroad

  15

  100

  All

  2,400

  26,600

  These estimates are based on the 1997–98 Survey of Personal incomes and consistent with the November 1999 pre-Budget Report forecast.

  Departmental Smoking Policy
  Mr. Crausby
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what action he is taking to reduce smoking in his Department. [105802]
  117W
  Miss Melanie Johnson
  HM Treasury has an established policy on smoking intended to strike a balance between the interests of smokers and of non-smokers. Smoking is largely restricted to dedicated ventilated smoking rooms and is not permitted in common areas, with the exception of an area of the staff restaurant.

  Credit Unions
  Mr. Dobbin
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans his Department has to encourage the growth of credit unions; and if he will make a statement. [105199]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  I announced on 16 November 1999, a range of measures—increased flexibility, better regulation, and the establishment of a central services organization—to encourage the growth of credit unions.

  Revenue Losses
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the revenue lost to the Exchequer in each of the last three years. [105550]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Much of the revenue lost relates to the impact of the hidden economy. Estimates of revenue lost to the Exchequer due to the hidden economy are notoriously difficult to make. Although there have been attempts to do so, there is no reliable estimate available.

  Financial Secretary (Shareholdings)
  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what advice the Financial Secretary received from the Permanent Secretary to HM Treasury regarding his shares declared in the Register of Members' Interests. [105433]

  Mr. Gordon Brown
  By long-standing convention, any advice which Ministers seek from civil servants is confidential and is not made public, as provided for under Exemption 2 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  Efficiency Improvements
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what measures his Department has developed of efficiency improvements in delivering the Treasury's outputs over the three year Comprehensive Spending Review period. [105815]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The Treasury monitors those outputs which can be measured, such as replies to Parliamentary questions, letters or other communications with the public, payment performance, and so on.

  However the Treasury's primary output is policy advice. Such outputs are difficult to measure. Here, the Treasury has adopted a benchmarking approach, applying the European Foundation for Quality Management's business excellence model.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer which projects relating to his Department that appeared in the Private Finance Panel's list of 29 November 1995(a) have been completed, (b) are still pending, (c) have been dropped and (d) are being pursued by means other than a public private partnership. [105876]
  118W
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The Treasury is responsible for the activities of the now-disbanded Private Finance Panel, so I will answer the right hon. Member's series of questions on this issue for the Government as a whole.

  The information currently available is given in a table, a copy of which I am placing in the Library of the House.

  Following disbandment of the Private Finance Panel and Executive, the Treasury Taskforce adopted a database designed only to cover those projects with a realistic change of being achieved through PFI.

  The coverage of this database is therefore not identical to that of the 29 November 1995 table. In particular, the database cannot identify the anonymised projects referred to in that table, and the information sought could be obtained (if at all) only at disproportionate cost. In the case of DETR this is true of all projects.

  What the present table clearly shows is the great progress made by this Government since 1 May 1997 in reinvigorating PFI. Of the 250+ signed PFI deals since 1986, only 70 were achieved in the seven years prior to the election. In the first two and a half years of this administration, we have broken the logjam and are delivering much needed, high quality, value for money public services.

  National Insurance Records
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer for what reason the national insurance records of the hon. Member for Hereford's constituents Mr. John Farren and Mrs. Ann Farren are not up to date; and if he will make a statement. [106167]

  Dawn Primarolo
  It would be inappropriate to make publicly available personal information about the hon. Member's constituents, as provided for under Exclusion 12 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information. I am, however, writing to the hon. Member about this matter.

  Agricultural Workers (Suicide)
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list by English county since 1995(a) total suicides and (b) suicides among the agricultural workforce. [106181]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the Director of the Office for National Statistics. I have asked him to reply.

  Letter from Tim Holt to Mr. Robert Key, dated 24 January 2000:
  As Director of the Office for National Statistics (ONS), I have been asked to reply to your recent parliamentary question asking for total suicides by English counties since 1995 and suicides amongst the agricultural workforce.
  The information requested is given in the attached tables.

  Suicides and undetermined deaths1, at all ages, by English counties and years of occurrence, 1995–98

  County of usual residence

  1995

  1996

  1997

  1998

  England

  4,816

  4,572

  4,662

  4,815

  Greater London

  683

  649

  684

  734

  Greater Manchester

  263

  277

  270

  297

  Merseyside

  106

  146

  135

  141

  South Yorkshire

  116

  113

  133

  129

  Tyne and Wear

  137

  116

  125

  109

  119W

  Suicides and undetermined deaths1, at all ages, by English counties and years of occurrence, 1995–98

  County of usual residence

  1995

  1996

  1997

  1998

  West Midlands

  259

  211

  215

  219

  West Yorkshire

  220

  186

  219

  199

  Avon

  84

  88

  67

  82

  Bedfordshire

  45

  50

  46

  43

  Berkshire

  87

  79

  55

  76

  Buckinghamshire

  52

  51

  55

  62

  Cambridgeshire

  58

  63

  55

  55

  Cheshire

  90

  90

  81

  102

  Cleveland

  58

  59

  65

  51

  Cornwall and Isles of Scilly

  54

  71

  66

  59

  Cumbria

  68

  49

  62

  68

  Derbyshire

  98

  68

  94

  75

  Devon

  136

  112

  122

  119

  Dorset

  91

  78

  76

  67

  Durham

  45

  47

  63

  60

  East Sussex

  85

  90

  124

  90

  Essex

  151

  111

  126

  153

  Gloucestershire

  46

  50

  50

  56

  Hampshire

  160

  140

  143

  157

  Hereford and Worcester

  71

  63

  71

  70

  Hertfordshire

  84

  91

  74

  72

  Humberside

  88

  57

  96

  86

  Isle of Wight

  13

  13

  9

  20

  Kent

  119

  142

  130

  150

  Lancashire

  193

  155

  181

  181

  Leicestershire

  80

  88

  71

  77

  Lincolnshire

  55

  55

  45

  70

  Norfolk

  78

  66

  74

  92

  Northamptonshire

  63

  67

  61

  54

  Northumberland

  30

  27

  29

  28

  North Yorkshire

  98

  90

  84

  86

  Nottinghamshire

  93

  110

  90

  99

  Oxfordshire

  60

  59

  49

  52

  Shropshire

  30

  31

  33

  28

  Somerset

  50

  46

  47

  43

  Staffordshire

  101

  94

  95

  107

  Suffolk

  68

  67

  50

  60

  Surrey

  86

  101

  94

  85

  Warwickshire

  34

  28

  32

  45

  West Sussex

  76

  79

  78

  59

  Wiltshire

  54

  49

  38

  48

  1 International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, codes E950–E959 and E980–E989 excluding E988.8.

  Suicides and undetermined deaths1 among the agricultural workforce2, by English counties and years of occurrence, 1995–98

  Number

  1995

  England

  49

  South Yorkshire

  1

  West Midlands

  1

  Avon

  1

  Buckinghamshire

  1

  Cambridgeshire

  1

  Cheshire

  1

  Cornwall and Isles of Scilly

  1

  Cumbria

  1

  Derbyshire

  2

  Devon

  5

  East Sussex

  3

  Essex

  2

  Hereford and Worcester

  1

  Humberside

  1

  Kent

  1

  Lancashire

  2

  Leicestershire

  2

  Lincolnshire

  4

  Norfolk

  4

  North Yorkshire

  7

  Oxfordshire

  1

  120W

  Suicides and undetermined deaths1 among the agricultural workforce2, by English counties and years of occurrence, 1995–98

  Number

  Shropshire

  1

  Somerset

  2

  Staffordshire

  1

  Suffolk

  1

  Warwickshire

  1

  1996

  England

  59

  Greater London

  1

  West Yorkshire

  2

  Cambridgeshire

  3

  Cheshire

  1

  Cleveland

  1

  Cornwall and Isles of Scilly

  3

  Cumbria

  2

  Dorset

  2

  Durham

  1

  Essex

  3

  Gloucestershire

  2

  Hampshire

  2

  Hereford and Worcester

  2

  Hertfordshire

  1

  Kent

  4

  Lancashire

  2

  Lincolnshire

  4

  Norfolk

  1

  Northamptonshire

  1

  Northumberland

  2

  North Yorkshire

  5

  Nottinghamshire

  2

  Oxfordshire

  2

  Shropshire

  2

  Somerset

  5

  Surrey

  1

  West Sussex

  2

  1997

  England

  58

  Greater London

  1

  Greater Manchester

  1

  Merseyside

  1

  West Midlands

  1

  West Yorkshire

  3

  Avon

  1

  Berkshire

  1

  Buckinghamshire

  1

  Cambridgeshire

  1

  Cheshire

  2

  Cleveland

  1

  Cornwall and Isles of Scilly

  2

  Cumbria

  1

  Devon

  4

  Durham

  2

  East Sussex

  1

  Gloucestershire

  1

  Hampshire

  2

  Hereford and Worcester

  2

  Humberside

  3

  Lancashire

  2

  Leicestershire

  2

  Lincolnshire

  1

  Norfolk

  2

  Northamptonshire

  3

  North Yorkshire

  5

  Nottinghamshire

  2

  Oxfordshire

  1

  Shropshire

  2

  Somerset

  1

  Staffordshire

  3

  Suffolk

  1

  Wiltshire

  1

  121W

  Suicides and undetermined deaths1 among the agricultural workforce2, by English counties and years of occurrence, 1995–98

  Number

  1998

  England

  68

  South Yorkshire

  1

  West Midlands

  1

  West Yorkshire

  1

  Avon

  2

  Bedfordshire

  2

  Berkshire

  1

  Cambridgeshire

  2

  Cheshire

  2

  Cornwall and Isles of Scilly

  4

  Cumbria

  2

  Derbyshire

  1

  Devon

  5

  Dorset

  1

  East Sussex

  1

  Essex

  1

  Gloucestershire

  1

  Hampshire

  1

  Hereford and Worcester

  1

  Humberside

  3

  Kent

  1

  Lancashire

  5

  Leicestershire

  2

  Lincolnshire

  6

  Norfolk

  5

  Northamptonshire

  2

  Shropshire

  2

  Somerset

  2

  Staffordshire

  3

  Suffolk

  1

  Warwickshire

  2

  West Sussex

  1

  Wiltshire

  3

  1 International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, codes E950–E959 and E980–E989 excluding E988.9.

  2 Deaths of those aged 16 to 74 whose last gainful occupation was in occupation units 160, 900, 901, 902, as defined in OPCS, Standard Occupational Classification, 1991, London HMSO.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  GM Crops
  Mr. David Heath
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the pesticides applied on the farm scale trial of genetically modified oilseed rape and conventional oilseed rape at Model Farm, near Watlington, in 1999, giving in each case(a) the name of the product used, (b) the rate of application and (c) the date or dates applied. [101757]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 9 December 1999]: Information on all the pesticides (including herbicides) used on both the genetically modified and the conventional crops being grown under the farm scale evaluation programme is recorded in detail by the research contractors as part of their monitoring of field sites. The full information will be passed to the independent scientific steering committee overseeing the farm scale evaluations, and will be published in their report of the evaluations, but is not currently available. Pesticide information will help establish the context of any observed differences in wildlife between the GM and conventional crops, and will be published alongside the results.

  Korean Airlines Crash, Stansted
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment has been made(a) by his Department and (b) by the Air Accident Investigation Board, of the environmental implications of the dispersal of the depleted uranium ballast from the wings of the Korean Airlines aircraft which crashed at Stansted on 22 December 1999. [104703]

  Mr. Mullin
  I understand from the Environment Agency and the Air Accidents Investigation Board that the depleted uranium was part of the structure of the aircraft and was incorporated as solid weights in the tail section. Sixteen of the 20 weights have been recovered and none of these shows signs of damage such that dispersal would have occurred. A radiological survey of the crash site is being conducted and it is expected this will lead to the recovery of the others. The facts already established about the nature of the fire that occurred after the crash mean that it is extremely unlikely that any dispersal of the uranium will have taken place.

  The aircraft was carrying a very small amount of radioactive material used for medical diagnosis. This was contained in 220 vials of iodine-125 bound for China. The quantity of material involved is too small to cause any damage to local people or the environment. This material is of such limited potential risk that it is not required to be notified to the pilot in command among the list of dangerous goods carried. The recovery of residual material from the accident site is in hand and its disposal is regulated by the Environment Agency.

  Driving Licences
  Mr. Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the minimum age at which people can hold a driving licence. [104883]

  Mr. Hill
  The rules governing the age at which people can hold driving licences are set out in The Motor Vehicle (Driving Licences) Regulations 1999.

  Measures to improve the safety record of new licence holders are being considered as part of the road safety strategy, which is to be published shortly.

  Homeless People
  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to issue guidance to local authorities in relation to providing services for homeless people with multiple needs. [104805]

  Mr. Mullin
  Following consultation last year, the Government propose to issue in the Spring a revised version of the Code of Guidance for Local Authorities on the Allocation of Accommodation and Homelessness (Parts VI and VII of the Housing Act 1996). This will include specific guidance encouraging housing authorities to work together with all relevant agencies to secure the effective delivery of appropriate support packages to homeless people with housing and other needs.

  Radioactive Waste Management Advisory Committee
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to fill the vacancies on the Radioactive Waste Management Advisory Committee; and for how long these vacancies have existed. [105078]

  Mr. Meacher
  At the time of the last round of Radioactive Waste Management Advisory Committee appointments in November 1998, three positions, out of an agreed Committee complement of 20, were left unfilled. Candidates to fill two of these vacancies, under nuclear and radioactive waste management and health and safety membership template headings, were interviewed towards the end of last year. Appropriate appointments will be made in due course in conjunction with Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly Ministers.

  Tourist Attractions
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) what is the maximum distance a tourism site may be from a brown tourist attraction sign on a motorway; [105135]

  (2) if he will increase the maximum distance a tourism site may be from its brown motorway sign. [105136]

  Mr. Hill
  Guidelines for signing on motorways in England specify that an attraction should be within 20 miles of the junction from which it is to be signed. Stricter criteria relating to driving time rather than distance apply on the M25 and roads within it. Signs not meeting the criteria may exceptionally be permitted if justified by special local circumstances.

  Councillors
  Mr. Caton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what considerations underlie his policy of ensuring that local authority councillors receive a basic allowance. [105520]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  Our policy, as set out in "Modern Local Government"—In Touch with the People" (Cm 4014), is that financial support for councillors must reinforce the culture of the modern council and address, as far as possible, any disincentives to serving in local politics. Basic allowance is intended to recognise the time commitment expected of all councillors, including such inevitable calls on their time as meetings with officers and attendance at political group meetings.

  Council Housing
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many council houses were(a) sold and (b) built in each of the last 10 years in the London borough of Wandsworth. [105509]

  Mr. Mullin
  The available information reported by the London Borough of Wandsworth is in the table.
  124W

  Number of council-owned dwellings sold and built in London Borough of Wandsworth

  Year

  Sales

  New build completions

  1989–90

  2,262

  0

  1990–91

  1,050

  0

  1991–92

  840

  0

  1992–93

  672

  0

  1993–94

  674

  1

  1994–95

  449

  0

  1995–96

  248

  0

  1996–97

  421

  0

  1997–98

  464

  0

  1998–99

  470

  0

  Note:

  New house-building figures are based on calendar years.

  Sources:

  Sales: DETR Housing Activity P1(B) (quarterly) and Housing Investment Programme (annual) returns.

  New build: DETR Housing Activity P2(M) (monthly) returns.

  Departmental Smoking Policy
  Mr. Crausby
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what action he is taking to reduce smoking in his Department. [105803]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The Department seeks to create a non-smoking work environment. This is primarily through the creation of smoking rooms, or smoking areas where the size or configuration of the building does not make this feasible, although in some buildings staff have voted for a total ban on smoking. Health promotion activities have complemented this approach with displays, in-house magazine articles and proactive events. When lifestyle screening programmes are run an individual's smoking habits are one of the areas discussed with the screening nurse.

  Cable Telecommunications
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) if he will revise planning and development control legislation to bring cable communications development within the ambit of regulations governing radio installations; and if he will make a statement; [105664]

  (2) if he will make a statement on the height and bulk of cable telecommunications companies roadside cabinets which can be installed without planning consent; and if he will make a statement; [105522]

  (3) what plans he has to introduce planning control requirements to empower local authorities to control the length, bulk and location of roadside cable telecommunication cabinets; and if he will make a statement. [105521]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  Telecommunications operators are licensed by the Department of Trade and Industry under the Telecommunications Act 1984. These licensed telecommunications code system operators are authorised under Part 24 of Schedule 2 to the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (GPDO) to install specified telecommunications apparatus without the need to make a planning application to the local authority, ie they have permitted development rights.
  125W
  Under the operator licensing arrangements, SI 1999 No. 2450 harmonises the conditions attached to operators' licences and came into force on 27 September 1999. These permit a maximum cabinet size of 1.8 m high by 2.0 m long by 0.8 m wide.

  Under the GPDO, operators have permitted development rights for cabinets with a base area of up to 1.5 sq m. However, in areas such as National Parks, Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty, Conservation Areas and the Broads and Sites of Special Scientific Interest the permitted development right is subject to a prior approval procedure. Under this procedure the local planning authority has the opportunity to say whether it wishes to approve, within 28-days, details of a cabinet's siting and appearance. It can refuse approval if it considers this justified.

  In all cases, the installation of cabinets with a base size exceeding 1.5 sq m would need a full planning application to the local planning authority.

  Currently we have no proposals to amend the provisions of Part 24 of the GPDO.

  Washable Nappies
  Jane Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what steps the Government are taking to promote the use of washable nappies for environmental reasons; and if he will make a statement. [105178]

  Mr. Mullin
  Disposable nappies are a significant proportion of household waste. However, when all environmental impacts are taken into account, it is not established whether disposable nappies are environmentally preferable in the majority of cases.

  We encourage individuals to consider environmental factors when making purchasing decisions. Ultimately, though, it is for parents to decide which type of nappy is best suited to their circumstances.

  Rural Bus Services (Chorley)
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what monitoring his Department carries out of the level of bus services to rural areas in Chorley District. [105549]

  Mr. Hill
  Information on rural bus services is collected at County level.

  Following introduction of the Rural Bus Subsidy Grant in 1998 the Department undertook a monitoring exercise to assess the impact of the new grant. This showed that over 1,800 new or improved services had been introduced in England; 42 of those services were in Lancashire.

  Europe/North-West Rail Link
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what role his Department will play in ensuring direct rail links from Europe to the North-West in order to help businesses in this area. [105267]

  Mr. Hill
  I would refer my hon. Friend to my answer of 7 December 1999,Official Report, column 477W. Such services have been the subject of an extensive
  126W
  independent review, which Ministers are currently considering. An announcement on publication will be made in due course.

  Traffic Congestion
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the cost to business of traffic congestion on British motorways. [105264]

  Mr. Hill
  Various estimates have been made of the value road users place on the total amount of time lost to congestion on the road network for different years and using different methods. They agree that taking all road users together and the British network as a whole the total runs to billions of pounds every year, and has been rising.

  Although motorways account for a significant proportion of traffic—nearly 20 per cent. of all vehicle kilometres in England in 1996—analysis undertaken for the Government's report "Tackling Congestion and Pollution", published yesterday, suggests that they account for only about 5 per cent. of the total amount of vehicle time lost.

  Wide Loads
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what estimate he has made of the congestion costs of the movement of police-escorted wide loads between 7am and 7pm. [105543]

  Mr. Hill
  Delays caused by individual movements of police-escorted wide loads will vary significantly between circumstances depending on the time of travel and the route taken. I am not aware that any assessment has been made of the overall impact on the journey times of other road users.

  Waste Disposal (London)
  Mr. Hurst
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list, for each London borough, in the year 1998, the percentage of waste disposal by(a) landfill, (b) recycling and (c) incineration. [105327]

  Mr. Mullin
  The tables set out the available information for the percentage of municipal waste recycled, landfilled and incinerated in 1997–98 for the London boroughs. Full information is available for unitary authorities, which are responsible for both waste collection and disposal. For the boroughs that are waste collection authorities, the percentage of municipal waste recycled is shown. Landfill and incineration data are not available for individual waste collection authorities, as this is the responsibility of the waste disposal authority.

  Unitary authorities: Percentage of municipal waste recycled, landfilled and incinerated

  Percentage

  Recycling and composting

  Landfill

  Incineration

  Bexley

  17

  31

  52

  Bromley

  9

  91

  0

  Corporation of London

  0

  100

  0

  Croydon

  9

  90

  1

  Greenwich

  5

  19

  76

  Kingston upon Thames

  10

  90

  0

  127W

  Unitary authorities: Percentage of municipal waste recycled, landfilled and incinerated

  Percentage

  Recycling and composting

  Landfill

  Incineration

  Lewisham

  5

  2

  93

  Merton

  4

  n/a

  n/a

  Southwark

  3

  97

  1

  Sutton

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Tower Hamlets

  2

  98

  0

  Westminster

  5

  n/a

  n/a

  Waste collection authorities: Municipal waste recycled, as a percentage of waste collected by the waste collection authority

  Percentage

  Recycling and composting

  Barking and Dagenham

  n/a

  Barnet

  7

  Brent

  3

  Camden

  7

  Ealing

  6

  Enfield

  7

  Hackney

  n/a

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  5

  Haringey

  3

  Harrow

  6

  Havering

  n/a

  Hillingdon

  6

  Hounslow

  9

  Islington

  2

  Kensington and Chelsea

  6

  Lambeth

  4

  Newham

  2

  Redbridge

  4

  Richmond upon Thames

  n/a

  Waltham Forest

  4

  Wandsworth

  5

  Waste disposal authorities: Municipal waste recycled, landfilled and incinerated, as a percentage of waste recycled and disposed of by the waste disposal authority

  Percentage

  Recycling and composting

  Landfill

  Incineration

  Western Riverside Waste Authority

  1

  99

  0

  East London Waste Authority

  0

  87

  13

  North London Waste Authority

  2

  56

  42

  West London Waste Authority

  0

  100

  0

  Note:

  No response to the 1997–98 survey was received from the boroughs of Barking and Dagenham, Hackney and Havering, and data for Richmond upon Thames, Merton and Westminster are incomplete.

  Source:

  Municipal Waste Survey

  Water Industry
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on prospects for employment in the water utilities following Ofwat's recommendations on water pricing. [105147]

  Mr. Mullin
  The examination of the water industry's costs and efficiency assumptions is a matter for the Director General of Water Services. He has a statutory duty to secure that water companies properly carry out 128W
  their functions and are able to finance them. These functions must be carried out in full compliance with all legal requirements, including drinking water quality (regulated by the Drinking Water Inspectorate), health and safety (regulated by the Health and Safety Executive), environmental standards (regulated by the Environment Agency) and customer service and continuity of supply (regulated by the Director General himself). In conducting his periodic review of water price limits the Director General expects companies to improve on efficiency savings that they have already achieved. It will be for water and sewerage undertakers to ensure that they maintain the necessary staff and other resources to meet these obligations in full.

  In deciding how to meet price limits set by the Director General, companies will need to consider the range of measures open to them, including factors such as dividend policy, as well as the option of making staff redundant.

  The Government believe that it is possible to deliver substantial quality improvements and reductions in customers' bills, for the benefit of consumers. The environmental and water quality improvement programmes will create significant new employment opportunities, although my Department has not undertaken or commissioned research on employment in the water industry.

  Road Safety Schemes
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what was the expenditure by his Department and its agencies on road safety schemes in each financial year since 1997. [105485]

  Mr. Hill
  The expenditure was:

  £ million

  1997–98

  7.3

  1998–99

  50.6

  1999–2000

  139.3

  1 To date

  The basis for classifying road expenditure was revised from 1998–99 onwards, and the information for 1997–98 is not directly comparable with subsequent years. It may understate the position.

  Leasehold Valuation Tribunals
  Mr. Lepper
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what monitoring his Department undertakes of the work of Leasehold Valuation Tribunals; and if he will publish a report on that monitoring. [105813]

  Mr. Mullin
  My Department monitors the work load and staffing of the Leasehold Valuation Tribunals and their progress in resolving a variety of disputes relating to leasehold property. In addition, we have commissioned a study to monitor the implementation of the leasehold provisions of the Housing Act 1996, including the experience of leaseholders and freeholders using the tribunals. A report on the study will be published by the summer. We are also examining all aspects of the operation of the tribunals as part of a wider review of
  129W
  the Rent Assessment Panels. I announced publication of a consultation paper on the review on 18 November 1999, Official Report, column 5W.

  Mr. Lepper
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what guidance he has issued to Leasehold Valuation Tribunals since September 1997. [105812]

  Mr. Mullin
  Leasehold Valuation Tribunals are independent statutory bodies and my Department does not issue them with guidance. The Presidents of Rent Assessment Panels, from which membership of the tribunals are drawn, are responsible for providing advice to members on legal, valuation and procedural matters relevant to the work of the tribunals.

  Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species
  Mr. Lepper
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement about the issues discussed during the recent visit to Cuba by UK and EU officials and scientists in connection with the forthcoming meeting of the parties to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species. [105810]

  Mr. Mullin
  In September 1999, at Cuba's request, a delegation from the EU Scientific Review Group of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) conducted a fact finding mission to Cuba regarding the exploitation of Eretmochelys imbricate (hawksbill turtles). The mission met representatives of the Agencia de Medio Ambiente (AMA) of the Ministerio de Ciencia, Technologia y Medio Ambiente, the Cuban CITES Management Authority, and the Cuban Fisheries Research Center. It visited a traditional fishing site, an experimental ranching centre and turtle shell stockpiles. Issues discussed related to a draft proposal by Cuba on hawksbill turtles for the next CITES Conference of Parties (April 2000). The delegation looked at the implications of the proposal for both the Cuban and the wider Caribbean populations of hawksbill turtles, the quality of Cuba's captive rearing facilities, techniques for marketing shells, and conservation benefits arising from the proposal.

  The delegation was impressed with the stringency of Cuban controls, but was unable to see key data on population or monitoring of nesting beaches, and so could not reach any firm conclusions.

  House Building (Shropshire)
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many new homes have been built in(a) Shropshire and (b) Shrewsbury and Atcham from 1979 to date; and if he will make a statement. [105531]

  Mr. Raynsford
  From January 1979 to November 1999 inclusive, there were 32,400 and 6,250 dwellings completed in Shropshire and Shrewsbury and Atcham respectively.

  Rats
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what the findings were of the 1996 English House Condition Survey on 130W
  the relationship between rat infestations and unfitness due to ineffective draining of foul, waste and surface water. [105482]

  Mr. Mullin
  The recent MAFF report "Rodent Infestations in domestic properties in England" covers this issue. MAFF's report tentatively suggests that there is a relationship between the incidence of blocked drains and outdoor rat infestation but this has not been supported with statistically significant analysis of the data so the conclusion needs to be treated with caution. Moreover, faults that might be expected to reflect a direct link with sewers, such as cracked or defective drains covers, were not found to be related to rat infestation. A copy of the MAFF report is in the House of Commons Library.

  Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he will announce his proposals concerning areas of outstanding natural beauty. [105471]

  Mr. Mullin
  Funding increases for Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONBs) have already been announced. The Countryside Agency has an additional £2.5 million in the current financial year for their management and conservation, rising by a further £1 million in 2000–01, which will bring the Agency's budget for AONBs to £5.7 million.

  My right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment expects to make an announcement soon on further proposals to strengthen the protection and management of AONBs.

  Post Offices
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what proposals are being considered by his Department to help sustain and develop the viability of rural and urban sub post offices. [105863]

  Ms Armstrong
  I refer the right hon. Member to the reply given by my hon. Friend the Minister for Competitiveness on 20 January 2000,Official Report, columns 519–20W.

  Some support to sub post offices is currently provided through the non-domestic rating system. The sole post office or shop in a designated rural area is entitled to 50 per cent. mandatory relief from non-domestic rates, provided its rateable value is less than £5,000. Local authorities have discretionary powers to provide further relief up to 100 per cent. of the full rates bill for these and other properties in designated rural areas, with rateable values less than £10,000.

  We are also considering the suggestion in the Report of the Urban Task Force, "Towards an Urban Renaissance", that there should be rate reductions for small retailers in designated urban priority areas.

  In the 1998 White Paper "Modernising Local Government: In Touch With The People" we announced a general rate relief scheme for all small non-domestic properties, which will include small post offices in urban and rural areas. We aim to consult shortly on the details of this scheme.

  Housing Associations
  Mr. Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many housing association units have been available for rent in each of the past 10 years. [105228]

  Mr. Mullin
  [holding answer 18 January 2000]: The available figures for Registered Social Landlords (RSLs) in England are given in the tables below.

  Units owned by registered social landlords and available for rent, 1989–99 England only

  Thousands

  As at 31 March

  Occupied homes

  Homes vacant and available for letting

  Total number of units available for rent

  1989

  497.9

  8.2

  506.1

  1990

  548.6

  7.0

  555.6

  1991

  591.9

  7.3

  599.2

  1992

  629.9

  7.0

  636.9

  1993

  686.7

  17.2

  703.9

  1994

  758.1

  10.5

  768.6

  1995

  835.6

  10.6

  846.2

  1996

  911.2

  13.5

  924.7

  1997

  955.1

  14.8

  969.9

  1998

  1,012.0

  16.1

  1,028.1

  1999

  1,121.5

  17.8

  1,139.3

  Figures for the availability of hostel and shared housing bedspaces also exist for 1994–99.

  Number of hostel and shared housing bedspaces owned by RSLs, 1994–99 England only

  Thousands

  As at 31 March

  Occupied bedspaces

  Bedspaces vacant and available for letting

  Total availability of bedspaces

  1994

  71.6

  5.4

  77.0

  1995

  77.2

  6.0

  83.2

  1996

  81.0

  6.8

  87.8

  1997

  81.0

  7.3

  88.3

  1998

  86.4

  6.7

  93.1

  1999

  90.0

  7.2

  97.2

  Sources:

  (a) 1989–98 data: Registered Social Landlords in 1998: Profile of the RSL sector.

  (b) 1999 data: as yet unpublished.

  Airline Accidents
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment. Transport and the Regions what studies his Department has undertaken of the numbers of cases at international airports over the last 10 years when civil airline accidents on take-off or departure have resulted in ground fatalities. [105981]

  Mr. Hill
  In 1995 the then Department of Transport commissioned NATS Ltd. to advise on the scope for detailed modelling of the size and shape of risk contours around airports, in connection with its review of Public Safety Zone policy. In preparing its advice NATS used the CASE (Client Aviation System Enquiry) database of aircraft accidents maintained by Airclaims Ltd. to identify 132W
  information on crashes between 1979 and 1995 involving western-built airliner jets and turboprops. It used this information, in conjunction with data about aircraft movements, to calculate crash rates which would be relevant to the UK. From this information NATS used its own location model to determine the statistical distribution of crash locations in the vicinity of an airport. NATS also developed a consequence model to determine the size of the areas on the ground destroyed by aircraft accidents.

  The crashes used for the purpose of this work were not limited to those which resulted in ground fatalities. The most useful approach was considered to be to draw upon the most reliable data available to calculate crash rates and model crash location and consequences, and then to apply those results in defining new boundaries for Public Safety Zones at airports.

  London Underground
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what arrangements have been put in place to ensure that operation of the London Underground under a public-private partnership is subject to the provisions of the Customer Charter respecting compensation for delays experienced by passengers. [106071]

  Mr. Hill
  London Underground Ltd., which administers refunds under its customer charter, will remain as a public-sector company in the Public-Private Partnership (PPP). Therefore the refund policy will not be affected by the PPP.

  Jubilee Line Extension
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions to what extent a full service has been provided on the Jubilee line extension since its opening. [106072]

  Mr. Hill
  When the Jubilee line extension began to open, in phases, from May 1999, services were only offered from Monday to Friday, and limited hours were operated. This was to allow contractors access to the line for completion works.

  Now that the whole extension is open, and has joined the existing Jubilee line, full through services from Stanmore to Stratford, seven day a week services, and normal Tube opening hours are provided.

  There have been some problems with reliability due to technical difficulties with new equipment and systems. I understand that London Underground is addressing these issues. In the four weeks to 8 January, the percentage of scheduled trains operated has increased to 94.2 per cent. LU has work in hand to improve reliability further.

  Rail Passenger Partnership (Merseyside)
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the applications he has received in connection with the Rail Passenger Partnership from Merseyside. [105890]
  133W
  Mr. Hill
  The first two successful bids under the Rail Passenger Partnership scheme, together worth more than £3.5 million, were announced on 8 December 1999. The Franchising Director will make further announcements on bids already received and those he is expecting to receive in due course. These include at least one from Merseyside.

  Greenbelt Land
  Miss Kirkbride
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list those local authorities where the amount of greenbelt land exceeds(a) 90 per cent. and (b) 75 per cent. of the total land area of the local authorities. [105907]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  Information on the area of greenbelt land in each local authority is not currently available centrally. Estimates under preparation, based on designated greenbelt areas shown in adopted and deposited local plans, should be finalised within two months. I shall write to the hon. Member when they are available.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Watts
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions which overseas distribution systems his Department is reviewing as part of its review of local government grant distribution systems; and when changes in the grant system will be introduced. [105917]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The DETR commissioned PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) to conduct a research project examining grant distribution systems used overseas. The initial phase of the project entailed PwC producing outline descriptions of 19 grant distribution systems used in other OECD countries. The 19 countries examined were:

  Austria

  Australia

  Belgium

  Canada

  Denmark

  Finland

  France

  Germany

  Greece

  Ireland

  Italy

  Japan

  Netherlands

  New Zealand

  Norway

  Portugal

  Spain

  Sweden

  United States.

  The preliminary analysis of the 19 countries by PwC can be found on the Local Government Association (LGA) website at http://www.lga.gov.uk/lga/rgd/index.htm. Discussion of the 19 outline descriptions was carried out at the joint DETR and LGA review group. The next stage of the project required eight countries to be
  134W
  selected by the review group for further analysis. PwC produced detailed reports on these eight countries. The eight countries were:

  Australia

  Denmark

  France

  Germany

  Netherlands

  Spain

  Sweden

  United States.

  The preliminary in-depth reports produced by PwC can also be found on the LGA website. The next stage of the project required the joint DETR and LGA review group to agree which, if any, of the eight countries warranted further study. Four countries were selected for further analysis and a visit by representatives of DETR and local government. The four countries were:

  Denmark

  France

  Netherlands

  Sweden.

  Papers recording the information gained from the four visits can also be found on the LGA website. PwC will shortly be producing their final report. This will bring together all the material from the research project.

  The implementation of any change to the current grant distribution system will depend on the outcome of the consultation exercise taking place this summer and its timing will depend on whether legislation is required.

  Welsh Assembly
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions 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. [106069]

  Ms Armstrong
  General information and guidance on the implications of devolution for the work of the Department, including the handling of correspondence and inquiries, has been promulgated to staff throughout the Department. All senior managers have been briefed on the need for good communications and relations with the devolved administrations, following the arrangements set out in the "Memorandum of Understanding and supplementary agreements" (Cm 4444).

  We hope shortly to conclude and publish a bilateral concordat with the Cabinet of the National Assembly for Wales.

  Rail Franchising
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will discuss with the Franchising Director a requirement that in the next round of railway franchises for services between(a) Holyhead and Crewe and (b) Cardiff and Crewe, companies are required to tender on the basis of at least two through-train services between Holyhead and Cardiff each day. [R] [105888]
  135W
  Mr. Hill
  The Franchising Director has invited proposals for improved services in Wales and the North West. In any renegotiations the Franchising Director will seek the best deal he can for passengers, in line with the Instructions and Guidance the Deputy Prime Minister gave him last year. The Franchising Director has met with Welsh Assembly officials to discuss their aspirations, and he will consult them as plans for future services provision are formulated.

  Storm Damage
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what special financial assistance will be made available for coastal authorities in response to the damage caused by recent storms; and if he will make a statement. [106310]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  Local authorities have statutory powers to deal with emergencies and are expected to budget accordingly. They may apply for additional financial assistance where there is a case for doing so under existing rules. All local authorities were sent copies of the current guidance notes and thresholds on 26 February 1999. To date we have received no applications in respect of the recent storms.

  Multilateral Environmental Agreements
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what proposals he is making to the European Commission in respect of the arrangements enabling European Commission trade negotiators to take full account of environmental considerations and the requirements of multilateral environmental agreements. [105581]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 20 January 2000]: The United Kingdom played a leading role in the development of the European Union's position on how the relationship between trade and the environment should be addressed in the proposed new Round of multilateral trade negotiations. This position was set out in the conclusions of the General Affairs Council prior to the third World Trade Organisation Ministerial in Seattle in December 1999. The conclusions of the General Affairs Council are consistent with the Government's priorities for action in this area. They include commitments to clarifying the legal relationship between the rules of the WTO and trade measures taken pursuant to Multilateral Environmental Agreements, and to taking environmental considerations into account throughout the negotiations. I attended the Seattle Ministerial, where I was able to discuss trade and environment issues directly with representatives of the European Commission.

  The Government also strongly support the Sustainability Impact Assessment which the European Commission is undertaking to inform the European Union's negotiating position in future trade liberalisation negotiations. Officials from my Department and the Department for Trade and Industry will continue to participate in meetings with the European Commission and other member states of the European Union to discuss trade and environment issues.

  Severn Trent Water
  Mr. Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what 136W
  representations he has received concerning the impact of Ofwat's price review on employment at Severn Trent Water. [106043]

  Mr. Mullin
  [holding answer 20 January 2000]: The Department has received a number of representations on this issue, including correspondence from the Managing Director and employees of Severn Trent Water, local union representatives and hon. Members whose constituencies fall within the Severn Trent area. The representations expressed concern that Severn Trent Water might make some staff redundant following the decisions of the Director General of Water Services on price limits for water companies, to apply from April 2000.

  Setting price limits, at the price review, is a matter for the Director General of Water Services. He has a statutory duty to secure that water companies properly carry out their functions and are able to finance them. These functions must be carried out in full compliance with all legal requirements, including drinking water quality (regulated by the Drinking Water Inspectorate), health and safety (regulated by the Health and Safety Executive), environmental standards (regulated by the Environment Agency) and customer service and continuity of supply (regulated by the Director General himself). The Director General expects companies to improve on efficiency savings that they have already achieved. It will be for water and sewerage undertakers to ensure that they maintain the necessary staff and other resources to meet these obligations in full.

  In deciding how to meet price limits set by the Director General, companies will need to consider the range of measures open to them, including factors such as dividend policy, as well as the option of making staff redundant.

  The Government believe that it is possible to deliver substantial quality improvements and reductions in customers' bills, for the benefit of consumers. The environmental and water quality improvement programmes will create significant new employment opportunities, although my Department has not undertaken or commissioned research on employment in the water industry.

  French Lorry Strike
  Mr. Denzil Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what estimate he has made of the total amount of compensation so far paid by the French Government to British road haulage firms following the French truck drivers strike in 1996. [106149]

  Mr. Prescott
  While the Department was pleased to assist claimants in lodging their claims with the French authorities, the claimants are under no obligation to inform the Government of the outcome. However, I understand that an offer of compensation has been made in respect of all eligible claims.

  School Buses
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what discussions he has had with local education authorities and his ministerial colleagues in the Department for Education and Employment about the contribution that school buses can make to reducing traffic congestion. [106164]
  137W
  Mr. Hill
  Congestion caused by the "school run" is one of the issues considered by the School Travel Advisory Group (STAG). The first report from STAG was presented to me and to colleagues in the Department for Education and Employment and the Department of Health on 13 January. A copy of the report and the Government response have been placed in the Library of the House. As recommended by STAG, we have commissioned consultants to identify and analyse examples of good practice in promoting bus use for travel to school and to produce a guide to best practice.

  Motor Insurance
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will discuss with the British Insurers Association measures to avoid the practice of including motorists with criminal convictions on company insurances in cases where personal insurance is not available to them. [106288]

  Mr. Hill
  The main aim of our policy on motor insurance is to ensure that any driver who uses a vehicle on the road will be covered for their liabilities to third parties. To that end the motor insurance industry have agreed informally that they will always find a policy for anybody who holds a valid driving licence and is legally entitled to use a vehicle on the road. The premium charged reflects the risk attached to the driver and this includes driving history and any relevant convictions. This practice applies to both individual and company insurance policies. Seeking to prevent insurers from issuing any cover for valid licence holders would be likely to lead to an increase in uninsured driving.

  DVLA
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 13 January 2000,Official Report, column 210W, concerning the DVLA, how many people waited longer than (a) five, (b) eight, (c) 10, (d) 15 and (e) 20 weeks for car or motorcycle licences which required a medical investigation by the DVLA Medical Unit in each month of 1999. [106715]

  Mr. Hill
  The information is not available in the form requested, and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what was the(a) total and (b) unit cost of the DVLA's payments to private medical practitioners to process driving licence applications where the applicant declared a medical condition, in the most recent year for which figures are available. [106572]

  Mr. Hill
  In the financial year ended March 1999, a total of £2,576,233 was paid for 120,561 medical examinations (including opticians) an average payment of £20.98.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 13 January 2000,Official Report, column 210W, concerning the DVLA, how many people waited longer than (a) seven, (b) 10, (c) 15, (d) 20 and
  138W
  (e) 25 weeks for a bus or lorry licence which required a medical investigation by the DVLA Medical Unit in each month of 1999. [106733]

  Mr. Hill
  The information is not available in the form requested, and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 17 January 2000,Official Report, column 249W, concerning the use of private opticians by DVLA, how the annual saving of £504,000 relates to the extra costs of £280,000 referred to in his answer of 10 January 2000, Official Report, column 5W. [106697]

  Mr. Hill
  The DVLA Medical Unit refers some 8,000 applicants per annum for visual field tests. The cost for NHS Consultant Ophthalmologists was £98 per test, some £784,000 per annum. Using private Optometrists, the fee will be £35 per test, or £280,000 per annum which gives an annual saving of £504,000.

  Regional Chambers
  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what has been the cost to(a) central and (b) local government to date, of each of the regional chambers. [106125]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The costs of the voluntary regional chambers are a matter for their members. The Government have provided some support in-kind. In the East Midlands a member of the Government Office staff was seconded to assist with start-up arrangements, and in the South-East the Government Office has provided office space to the chamber.

  Salisbury Railway Station
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) if he will list by(a) date, (b) category and (c) outcome, the incidents recorded by Wiltshire Constabulary at Salisbury railway station in each year since 1995; [106553]

  (2) if he will list by (a) date, (b) category and (c) outcome, the incidents recorded by the British Transport Police at Salisbury railway station in each year since 1995. [106554]

  Mr. Hill
  The British Transport Police are responsible for policing, and recording the crime statistics, at Salisbury railway station.

  The figures for 1998 and 1999 are in the table, listed by date, offence and whether they were detected. Detected means where a person has been identified with the crime and either charged, cautioned or no prosecution has occurred. Records for the earlier years are now archived and are not easily retrieved.

  Date

  Offence

  Detected

  1998

  9 February

  Burglary of tenants premises

  No

  21 February

  Theft of pedal cycle

  No

  6 March

  Theft of personal property

  No

  7 March

  Criminal damage to motor vehicle

  No

  10 March

  Male rape

  Yes

  10 March

  Gross indecency

  No

  14 April

  Theft of cash

  No

  139W

  Date

  Offence

  Delected

  21 May

  Theft of pedal cycle

  No

  21 May

  Theft of pedal cycle

  No

  21 May

  Theft of personal property

  Yes

  24 May

  Theft of pedal cycle

  No

  3 June

  Theft of personal property

  No

  8 June

  Theft of pedal cycle

  No

  29 June

  Theft of pedal cycle

  No

  17 July

  Obtain service by deception

  No

  25 July

  Provocation/violence

  No

  8 August

  Criminal damage to motor vehicle

  No

  12 October

  Theft of cash

  Yes

  6 November

  Theft of personal property

  No

  11 November

  Criminal damage to motor vehicle

  No

  19 November

  Theft of pedal cycle

  No

  15 December

  Criminal damage to motor vehicle

  No

  1999

  10 January

  Interference with motor vehicle

  No

  21 January

  Theft from motor vehicle

  No

  29 January

  Theft of motor vehicle

  No

  19 April

  Theft of pedal cycle

  No

  17 May

  Theft of pedal cycle

  No

  17 May

  Theft of pedal cycle

  No

  8 June

  Theft of personal property

  No

  21 June

  Theft from motor vehicle

  No

  8 July

  Common assault

  Yes

  10 August

  Theft of cash

  No

  28 August

  Theft from motor vehicle

  No

  4 November

  Theft of personal property

  No

  26 November

  Theft of personal property

  No

  Ministerial Engagements
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list(a) which Government Ministers he met, (b) which outside organisations he met, (c) which outside individuals he had appointments with, (d) what outside visits he made together with the mode of transport used, (e) what overseas visits he made, (f) the Cabinet Committees he attended, (g) which
  140W
  English regions he visited together with the mode of transport used and (h) what other official engagements he carried out, on (i) 1 September, (ii) 2 September, (iii) 3 September, (iv) 4 September and (v) 5 September 1999. [105881]

  Mr. Prescott
  Between 1 September and 5 September I was on holiday in the United Kingdom.

  Allington, Incinerator
  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on his plans for a public inquiry in respect of the proposed incinerator at Allington. [106406]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  My right hon. Friend decided on 21 December 1999, after very careful consideration, not to call in the planning application for the Allington incinerator for his own decision, but to leave the decision to be taken by the planning authority. The Government's policy on call-ins is to be very selective. It is right that in almost all cases the decision on whether a development should proceed should be taken by the local planning authority.

  Therefore, planning applications are in general only called in if planning issues of much more than local importance are involved, and if those issues need to be decided by the Secretary of State rather than at local level. We have given as examples of cases where the Secretary of State might consider call-in appropriate those which may conflict with national policy on important matters; those which could have significant effects beyond their immediate locality; those which give rise to substantial regional or national controversy; those which raise significant architectural and urban design issues; and those where the interests of national security or a foreign government may be involved, 16 June 1999, Official Report, column 138W.

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

OECD Anti-bribery Convention
Lord Thomson of Monifiethasked Her Majesty's Government:
What response they have made to the consultations on the monitoring of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development anti-bribery convention.
The Minister for Science, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Sainsbury of Turville): My Lords, the Government have participated fully in the first phase of the monitoring process of the OECD Convention Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials. We shall consider carefully, in the context of the reform of UK legislation on corruption, how best to ensure that UK law is as effective as possible in the fight against corruption in international trade.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. Is he aware that the United Kingdom branch of Transparency International, an organisation that carries out good work in this area, strongly believes that, in order for the United Kingdom Government properly to fulfil their obligations, there ought to be a relatively simple amendment made to our domestic law in the area of corrupt practices that would enable British citizens who commit an act of bribery overseas to be prosecuted in this country?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, the Government are determined to tackle corruption. We have played a leading role in the negotiation of the convention. Last year we were among the first to ratify the convention. The convention, of course, requires that we review the existing jurisdictional basis of legislation in order to judge whether it is effective in combating international bribery. We shall do that as part of the review that the Home Office is conducting into existing anti-corruption legislation.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, will the Minister undertake to look at the audit carried out in December into legal compliance by British legislation and, having done so, will he report to the House? As president of Transparency International, I hear that that audit is highly critical of the UK's efforts so far. While I accept that the Minister and perhaps his
1318
colleagues in the Home Office are doing their best, it will not help us to continue our lead role if there is a highly critical audit of our progress to date.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, we have already looked at that audit and we take it most seriously. It will form part of the review and we shall take any appropriate action.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, will the Minister answer the Question posed by my noble friend? Are the Government willing or not to take control over acts of bribery committed by British citizens in foreign countries and to criminalise them in our courts?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, we are carrying out the review for that reason. If, in the spirit of prevention, that will improve the effectiveness, yes, in principle we shall do so. We are asking the working party to look at the mechanics.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, will the Government publish the audit that was mentioned by my noble friend Lady Chalker so that we can all see what it says?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, at the moment we cannot report the outcome of the recent examination by the OECD working group on bribery into our anti-bribery legislation because all signatories to the OECD convention have agreed not to make public the outcome of a phase one examination until after the OECD ministerial meeting in May.

House of Lords Reform
2.40 p.m.
Lord Goodhartasked Her Majesty's Government:
When they will propose to Parliament that a Joint Committee to consider the report of the Royal Commission on reform of the House of Lords should be appointed.
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Jay of Paddington): My Lords, as the House is well aware, the Royal Commission report was published just four days ago. In common, I expect, with many other Members of the House, over the weekend I spent some interesting hours reading it. It contains a wide-ranging and complex set of recommendations which deserve and will receive from the Government proper consideration.
We have said that a Joint Committee will be appointed to consider the parliamentary aspects of implementing any proposed reform. We expect to set that up once more detailed positions have been reached. I hope that those detailed positions may be reached in conjunction with other political parties on the policies and procedures for achieving the next stage of change.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, in thanking the Leader of the House for her somewhat uninformative reply, I ask for three undertakings: first, that this House will shortly have an opportunity to debate the Wakeham Commission report; secondly, that the Joint Committee will be set up and start work within a reasonable time—by that I mean certainly not later than the end of March—and, thirdly, that the remit of the Joint Committee will not be restricted simply to considering the proposals in the report, which many of us regard as deeply flawed?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I can certainly give an absolutely categorical assurance about the debate. I believe that my noble friend the Chief Whip, through the usual channels, has already discussed the possibility of such a debate. Last week, before the report was published, I wrote to the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition, who has specifically requested a debate, saying that that would follow the report of the Royal Commission.
On the timing of the setting up of the Joint Committee, I can go no further than my original reply. I am sorry that the noble Lord regards it as uninformative. It was intended to set an appropriate context for the establishment of the Joint Committee. That refers to the third point raised by the noble Lord about the agenda for the Joint Committee. We said in our White Paper on House of Lords reform, published approximately a year ago, that the Joint Committee would be established in order to consider the parliamentary aspects of any reform. We stand by that. The noble Lord's understanding of "reasonable time" being by the end of next month is perhaps slightly more optimistic than my own.
Lord Shore of Stepney: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that it is important to read the report? Am I correct in thinking that volume two will contain a lot of interesting suggestions and evidence that are not yet in printed form? When I collected volume one it contained a disk at the back, which is useful, but not entirely so for my purposes.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I cannot answer for the mechanisms of the Royal Commission on the printing or publishing of its evidence and findings. As I understand it, the CD-ROM to which my noble friend refers is intended to be the basis for public consumption of the report.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I cannot be the only one who found it difficult to understand what the noble Baroness the Leader of the House meant in her first reply. It was my understanding that the Joint Committee of both Houses, announced in the White Paper as long as a year ago, would automatically follow the publication of the Royal Commission's report. What strikes me this afternoon is that the noble Baroness is saying that it will only deal with the parliamentary aspects of the conclusions and not the wider issue of reform of this House.
1320
Secondly, while I am on my feet, may I ask the noble Baroness what happened to the appointments commission? That was announced a year ago and in November the noble Baroness said that it was to be set up imminently. May I ask also whether there has been discussion of these matters in the Cabinet?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, the answer to the third question is yes. Perhaps I can go backwards. I believe one of the conventions of this House is that one does not normally answer more than two supplementary questions but as they are relatively straightforward in the noble Lord's case, I am happy to do so. On the question of the appointments commission, the noble Lord may have noticed the announcement by the Cabinet Office last week that PriceWaterhouseCoopers was appointed as a result of the tendering exercise to assist the Cabinet Office in the appointment and recruitment of the independent members of the appointments commission. The Secretary of the Cabinet is even now finalising the advertisements for the positions, which will soon be made public.
As to the nature of the Joint Committee following the Royal Commission, I am sure the noble Lord will recall our many debates during the passage of the House of Lords Bill on precisely what form the committee might take in the light of the report of the Royal Commission. I am sure he will also recall that in our White Paper we made specific reference to the committee looking at the parliamentary aspects of any reform. That is what I referred to in my original Answer.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that it is important that, whenever the Joint Committee is set up, there will be need for its representatives to know the views of your Lordships? Should we have a debate before it is set up?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, my noble friend makes reference to a point about which I was obviously somewhat obscure in my original reply, given the nature of the two supplementary questions. Of course, there should be a debate. I thought I had made that clear in my response to the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart. On the question of your Lordships' views, that is precisely what I meant when I said it would be helpful to take the discussion of the Royal Commission forward in the context, as the Government have always said, of trying to achieve some basic consensus of an agenda for a Joint Committee.
Lord Craig of Radley: My Lords, the noble Baroness has been good enough to explain how the independent members of the appointments commission will be found by PriceWaterhouse. Is she able to tell the House what guidance PriceWaterhouse has been given in relation to the type of member and whether any can be found from this House or all found from this House?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I did not say that the process had been handed over to PriceWaterhouse. What I said, and I repeat, is that that company has been appointed to assist in the recruitment of the chairman and independent members of the House of Lords appointments commission. In colloquial language, it is acting as a professional headhunter in this area, which will be extremely useful. It is important to remember that it is looking at the independent members of the commission. They will be joined by those nominated by the political parties.
Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank: My Lords, will the noble Baroness clarify something she said regarding the circumstances which will lead to the setting up of the Joint Committee of both Houses. In the first instance, the noble Baroness referred to policies and procedures: later, she referred to an "agenda". Those are very different things. I am a little concerned by her suggestion, if I understand her right, that there may be some object in getting common ground before the committee meets. The noble Baroness shakes her head. I took for granted that the terms of reference of the Joint Committee were stage two reform of the House—nothing narrower than that.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, is obviously not aware of what is said in the White Paper. As I tried to outline in my response to the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, it is that, given the establishment of the wide-ranging review of House of Lords reform that the Royal Commission undertook, it is not appropriate, in the Government's view, to invite a subsequent approach on that wide basis. That is why we said in the White Paper that we would ask the Joint Committee to look at the parliamentary aspects of implementing any reform. The Government do not feel that it would be appropriate to invite another, new type of Royal Commission drawn from within the Palace of Westminster to look at precisely the same issues as the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, and his colleagues usefully spent the past year doing.
Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe: My Lords, does my noble friend the Minister agree that it is very kind and considerate of the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, to give such advance notice of the new targets and aspirations of Charter 88 and the chattering classes?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, my noble friend characterises the position of the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, in slightly acerbic terms, but perhaps they do derive from that particular environment.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, can the noble Baroness tell me why this particular firm has been appointed? My understanding is that it consists of accountants, not headhunters.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I am afraid the noble Baroness is slightly misinformed. It is indeed
1322
a firm of accountants, but a very important part of its business focuses on recruitment consultancy. After a tendering exercise, in which I as a Minister was not involved, this firm is the one that has been invited by the Cabinet Office to offer its professional advice in the area.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, given the fact that we are talking about reform of the people's Parliament, the fact that the noble Baroness the Leader of the House said a year ago in answer to my question that she would ensure that there was,
"a campaign of public information and consultation",
around the reform issue and the fact that there were only seven meetings held by the commission out of London none of which was advertised—drawing attendances below 100, can the noble Baroness give any indication as to whether the Government plan, even now, to engage in a thorough-going, public consultation and information exercise?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I am surprised by the noble Lord's question and the assumptions on which he bases it in relation to the activities of the Royal Commission. From reading the report and the interviews and bearing in mind the context in which the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, expresses the findings, I understand that he feels there was very good public consultation. Indeed, I know for a fact that local commission meetings were publicised. I believe that the Government were the only political party that had a very structured consultation procedure within the party to produce the evidence that we submitted to the Royal Commission.
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: My Lords, does the noble Baroness not feel that it is a reflection on the dignity and sovereignty of Parliament to ask a commercial firm to choose people for a constitutional commission? Does that worry her?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, if I may say so, I believe that the noble Lord and others who have raised points on the relationship of PriceWaterhouseCoopers have misunderstood the position. I shall be a little clearer about it. The Cabinet Office was very concerned about the nature and breadth of the recruitment process for this very important constitutional role, which the noble Lord quite rightly identified. In addition to the normal processes of going through the public appointments lists and the list of the Cabinet Office, it seemed sensible to invite a more positive approach in terms of going out to recruit people in the headhunting sense—which, I have to say, is not unconventional in relation to public appointments of many kinds—to see whether a wider trawl could be achieved. Had the Cabinet Office or the Government said, "We have appointed X to be the chairman of this committee", without any reference to a wider body, I suspect that we would no doubt have been accused of "cronyism", if I may use that word.

Probation Service
2.53 p.m.
Lord Hurd of Westwellasked Her Majesty's Government:
What representations they have received about their proposal to change the name of the Probation Service to the "Community Punishment and Rehabilitation Service".
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Bassam of Brighton): My Lords, to date a total of 60 written representations have been received from Members of Parliament, the National Association of Probation Officers, Probation Service staff, probation committee chairs and members of the public. In addition, representatives of the Association of Chief Officers of Probation and the Central Probation Council have raised the issue in discussions with Home Office Ministers.
Lord Hurd of Westwell: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply, although it did not tell us what those representations said. However, I can guess. This Government have acquired quite a reputation as a name changer, but does the Minister agree that not much good is done in the real world by altering the labels on people's official notepaper and on their office doors? There is a good deal of resentment, even ridicule, about this particular proposal. If the Government are determined for reasons of show to alter the respected, and I believe accepted, name of the Probation Service, could they not happen on something a little crisper and less clumsy than what is now proposed?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I respect the noble Lord's great knowledge in this area but we take a different view. As a member of the previous government, the noble Lord will be well aware that they were happy to see the Probation Service as simply assisting and befriending offenders. We take a rather different view. We believe that the service should be there to protect the public, enforce community punishments and reduce re-offending. That is why we have come forward with this particular name-change proposal.
Lord Janner of Braunstone: My Lords, although it is a very good idea to change the name to something more specific, does not my noble friend agree that it is wrong to change a name to something which is unwieldy, ugly and unusable? A probation officer will become a community punishment and rehabilitation officer and that is only one better than being a community rehabilitation and punishment officer, which would produce a very unpleasant acronym.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am not a great friend of unwieldy and unfriendly acronyms. I am sure that only a mischievous mind could misconstrue this particular set of initials in that form.
Lord Windlesham: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the proposed title, which I believe was personally
1324
selected by the Home Secretary from a list of alternatives, has indeed been greeted with ridicule throughout the criminal justice system? As the Home Secretary changed his mind and was converted on the policy of restricting the availability of jury trial after our debate last week, can the noble Lord say whether he will change his mind again?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, your Lordships will have the opportunity to debate this particular name change when the Crime and Public Protection Bill comes before this House. Noble Lords will then be able to debate the ideas behind the legislation, so there is still some opportunity for further consideration of the matter.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, on the question of representations, will the Minister be good enough to tell the House who has made representations in favour of this name change?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I can tell the noble Lord that no representations have been made in favour of the name change. However, given that there are about 17,000 members of staff in the Probation Service, the fact that we have received only 60 representations illustrates that, although the name change may not yet have gained great popularity within the service, there is no significant opposition to it.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, can the Minister tell us how much this extraordinary and stupid name change will cost?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am not aware of the additional cost—if any—that this name change will involve.
The Lord Bishop of Lincoln: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the new title is cumbersome and easily forgettable, especially among those people to whom it is likely to apply in a rather more personal and direct way? Further, will the noble Lord give consideration to a simpler title like, "Community Justice Service", which I believe many staff in the Probation Service actually favour?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am grateful to the right reverend Prelate for his helpful suggestion in this regard. However, we believe that the proposed name change reflects the kind of change that we are trying to make within the service. That is very important: it is a change in the nature and the culture of the Probation Service to one that will be involved in punishment and rehabilitation, thereby focusing people on challenging their own offending behaviour.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, is the Minister aware that he gave a ridiculous description of the previous government's policy with regard to the Probation Service? Has he considered the effect on morale of a change of name of this character,

1325
especially the depressing effect on long-serving members of a service who may feel that the change of name means that their previous service has not been respected? Is there not a read-across here to the RUC and, for that matter, to New Labour?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I cannot possibly agree with those sentiments. I believe that the term "assist and befriend" is taken from the Probation Service Act 1993, so it is actually on the statute book. As for the noble Lord's other comments, I can only say that we have confidence in what we are trying to achieve. We believe it to be right for the service. We also believe that we should re-focus the way that the service works. I cannot agree with the noble Lord's comment about the RUC.
Baroness Hogg: My Lords, what will someone who previously called himself or herself a probation officer now call themselves?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, a community punishment and rehabilitation officer.
Lord Puttnam: My Lords, I am sure that there is a good reason, but why was it felt necessary to include the word "punishment" in the new title?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, it was felt necessary because we believe that the service should focus on the effects of community sentencing, which is a form of punishment. It is not a soft option. Those matters need to be focused on. That is what the general orientation of the new service is to be.

Deaths in Custody
3 p.m.
Baroness Whitakerasked Her Majesty's Government:
What proportion of those who die in custody are black or Asian.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, for England and Wales, 29 or 12 per cent of those dying in police custody since 1st April 1996 and 52 or 10 per cent of those dying in prisons since 1st January 1996 have been black or Asian. Black and Asian people constitute approximately 5 per cent of the population of England and Wales. However, they form 11 per cent of those arrested and 15 per cent of those in prisons. Many deaths included in the figures are the result of self-harm or natural causes, involve alcohol or drugs, or are included because the definition on the police side extends to cover those who die while trying to evade arrest. Every death in custody is an individual tragedy, but only a small proportion are genuinely contentious.
Baroness Whitaker: My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for that helpful reply. Will he further illuminate three areas? Is he aware of concern about the possible use of excessive force and in how
1326
many of the cases that he mentioned was that alleged? Does my noble friend agree that it would be useful to know in how many cases the deceased was mentally ill? Has indirect discrimination ever been investigated in relation to deaths in any form of custody?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, this is a sensitive area. I shall try to answer the questions as best I can. I do not think that we have considered indirect discrimination with regard to deaths in any form of custody. There have been no restraint-related deaths in prison since 1995. Since April 1996 there have been a small number of deaths in police custody where restraint may have been a factor. As to knowing whether many of those in custody suffer from mental health problems, that is undoubtedly the case, but precise statistics in the form requested this afternoon are not available.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, has the Minister noted that no persons detained in military custody—that is, persons convicted of military offences—have died in custody in the past few years? Would it not he worth the Government investigating the reasons for the vastly better performance in that respect of military custodial sentences over civilian ones?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his useful contribution to the Question. However, it is worth reminding the House that recent reports, particularly the report produced by the Police Complaints Authority, have commended the Police Service on the way in which it has improved the monitoring of those detained and on the effect that has had on the number of deaths in custody The Prison Service is at this moment busy implementing the findings of a thematic report of April of last year from the inspectorate of prisons which is also designed to improve the way in which deaths in custody are processed and to ensure that the issues which may lead to them are dealt with by the Prison Service.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, presumably a post-mortem is carried out in all these cases. Is there a record of the proportion of those who have died in custody who were under the influence of either drugs or alcohol?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, those figures exist. There are figures as regards self-harm, natural causes and alcohol and drugs. Since 1st April 1996, for example, 53 prisoners in police custody died from alcohol or drugs, 41 died from natural causes and 60 as a result of self-harm. Those are important and telling factors which have a great impact on the statistics. Similar data and figures exist as regards the Prison Service. Rather than bore your Lordships with them this afternoon, I am more than happy to place them in the Library.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, can we take it that the Minister's initial Answer confirms that, if anyone should think or allege that discriminatory

1327
treatment was a contributory factor in these figures, that would be indirect discrimination as defined by the Race Relations (Amendment) Bill, which we shall discuss again on Thursday?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, that may well be the case. We are concerned to ensure that there is no discrimination in the Prison or Police Services. Those are important objectives for the Home Office as part of our modernisation programme.

Race Relations (Amendment) Bill [H.L.]
Lord Bassam of BrightonMy Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the amendments for the Report stage be marshalled and considered in the following order:

Clause 1,

Schedule 1,

Clauses 2 to 8,

Schedules 2 and 3,

Clause 9.—(Lord Bassam of Brighton.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Armed Forces Discipline Bill [H.L.]
3.6 p.m.
Read a third time.
Clause 1 [Custody without charge]:
Lord Burnham Lord Burnham moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 2, line 38, at end insert (", and
(c) that having regard to all the circumstances (including over-riding operational requirements) prevailing at the relevant time it is not practicable for the investigation to be launched diligently and expeditiously").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am sure that the Minister will be relieved to hear that discussions about the services' medical services and the shortage of fuel will be held in another place at Question Time this afternoon, and may be referred to but will not be debated in your Lordships' House this afternoon. This afternoon we are in the final stages of what we believe to be an unfortunate Bill which is designed—and possibly achieves, but we are not so certain about that—to achieve adherence to the European Convention on Human Rights and the Human Rights Act.
Amendment No. 1 returns to a point that I have raised since Second Reading in different ways. I have raised it on every occasion and do so now with due seriousness. The measure is designed to consider the practicalities of the operation of the Bill. We have said, and we believe, that it is not practicable to apply the conditions of the Bill on active service, whatever that may mean. I have moved amendments in Sanskrit, and in any other language I care to think of, which refer to the Geneva Convention, additional protocols and Uncle Tom Cobbleigh.
I return to what I believe to be a simple point. The amendment is phrased in simple English to make it clear that where there is a difficulty in applying the terms of this Bill, a commanding officer or other persons in charge of a service element may be permitted to delay consideration of a disciplinary case until it is practicable to do so; that is to say, when the unit leaves the active service conditions and operations in which it was involved at the time the matter first arose.
As I say, we have discussed almost every aspect of this on a number of occasions. It is a matter which we take extremely seriously. We believe that the Bill should operate in a way that does not damage military discipline. Therefore, I have no hesitation in yet again moving this amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Inge: My Lords, I have taken considerable trouble to talk to the military—not only to its lawyers but to other members, particularly in the Army. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Burnham, for outlining his understanding of the implications of applying the Bill under operational circumstances.
I have been assured by, what I would call, the "foot soldiers", like myself, and the Army lawyers that this matter is covered elsewhere in the amended—I stress the word "amended"—Army Act at Section 75A. Operational considerations are given effect in that Act, as they are in the discipline Acts of the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force. I believe the amendment is unnecessary.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I shared the endeavours of my noble friend Lord Burnham that it was not practicable to apply the Bill on active service, a point taken by me on Report and at Third Reading of the Human Rights Bill, and by several noble and gallant Lords at Second Reading and on Report of this Bill, which I supported. Amendments Nos. 1 to 4, which are grouped, are concerned with custody, as indeed is the whole range of Amendments Nos. 1 to 9.
On Report, one has to accept that the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, took the view that at times of active service and high intensity warfare, the Bill could not be made to work. But the noble and gallant Lord said that,
"there need not be anything in the Bill to cover that situation".—[Official Report, 18/1/00; col. 983.]
On Report, at col. 1000 of Hansard, my noble friend Lord Vivian—who has had far more active experience relevant to modern conditions than I have ever had—took the view that Section 75B(4) afforded adequate flexibility in those instances where operating imperatives made it impossible to conform with the legal requirements.
The noble Baroness, Lady Symons of Vernham Dean, has given a series of important assurances. The Bill was designed,
"so as to be compatible with all circumstances in which the Services might find themselves".
That, in a sense, remains to be seen.

1329
She said also that,
"operational considerations will remain paramount".
That no doubt is a firm and genuine intention. She said that commanders will,
"give appropriate priority to the operational imperatives of the situation",—[Official Report, 18/1/00; col. 1004.]
which will not conflict with the procedures in the Bill.
As part of these assurances she said that commanding officers,
"must be given proper guidance in the application of these new procedures and the way in which they should exercise the flexibilities that are inherent in this Bill".—[Official Report, 18/1/00; col. 1005.]
Finally, the noble Baroness advocated the need for a single operating system in all circumstances to reduce the scope for confusion, as was spoken to by other noble Lords.
It is of vital consequence that guidance to commanding officers as to operational considerations and having regard to the imperatives of the situation should be codified—perhaps in some kind of code of practice—and that this should be made available not only to commanding officers but to all courts martial, the courts martial appeal court and the summary appeal court. Perhaps the Minister will be able to give a formal undertaking to that effect. But, if such be the case, what is the objection to primary legislation which has the authority of permanent effect until the next amendment of the service discipline Acts, which are amended regularly from time to time?
3.15 p.m.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, my first duty is to apologise to the House on behalf of my noble friend Lord Wallace of Saltaire, who has been leading on our behalf on the Bill. He is absent from the House because he is today fulfilling a long-standing commitment abroad. So I will speak very briefly to the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Burnham—although perhaps not quite as briefly as he did.
As the noble Lord said, he tabled a series of amendments to the effect of the present amendments. These reflected the anxiety in certain quarters at earlier stages of the Bill as to the ability of commanding officers to ensure compliance with the ECHR at time of war or when on active service. The noble Lord mentioned that he had tabled other amendments to a similar effect on Report. On that occasion, no less than three gallant and noble Members spoke to the effect that existing legislation, as amended, provides sufficient flexibility for commanders in the field to act in a sensible way.
During the debate on the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Burnham, on Report, the Minister confirmed the soundness of that thinking and also assured the House that,
"operational considerations will remain paramount".—[Official Report, 18/1/00; col. 1004.]
There is a whole paragraph to that effect, which the noble Lord can find in Hansard.
1330
We do not support any amendment to the Bill along these lines. If the noble Lord, Lord Burnham, decides to test the opinion of the House, I will advise my noble friends to vote against his amendment.
Lord Hoyle: My Lords, I admire the doggedness and determination of the noble Lord, Lord Burnham. He has returned to this issue time after time. I hope that when he read my comments on Report he found them favourable. It appears that, once again, noble and gallant Members of the House have said to him that the issue is covered by legislation. I remind him again that the present Chiefs of Staff support this measure and that they would be against duplication of the system. Rather than the tide running for the noble Lord, it seems to be ebbing a little more against him each time he speaks. I hope that after taking everything into consideration he will not press his amendment today.
Lord Carver: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, referred to the line that I had taken at Second Reading and in Committee about this issue. There was never any doubt in my mind that operational requirements would take priority; it was a question of whether the system could be made to work. I also accept that on Report I suggested that derogation under Article 15 might be enough but that there are cases in which that might be difficult to apply, as the noble Baroness said when summing up. However, on Report, I was greatly impressed with the words of the noble Lord, Lord Vivian. He spurred me on to look again more carefully at Sections 75A and 75B of the Army Act as revised by the Bill.
I draw the attention of noble Lords to the words on page 2, line 22 where it states that:
"After receiving a report under subsection (1) above the commanding officer shall as soon as practicable determine".
The same kind of provision is made on page 3, line 35 where it states that:
"If a review is postponed under subsection (3) above—
(a) it shall be carried out as soon as practicable".
I accept that sufficient flexibility has been provided to make it possible, if constant reference to the judge advocate is not practicable under the circumstances, for the review to be delayed. For that reason, I regret to have to say to the noble Lord, Lord Burnham, that I cannot support his amendment.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean): My Lords, perhaps I may begin by assuring the noble Lord, Lord Burnham, that I should not in the least have minded discussing medical services or fuel for the Armed Forces, except that neither topic is relevant to the Bill before us. However, no doubt we shall be able to discuss those matters should the noble Lord decide at any point to table Questions on them.
The noble Lord is seeking once again to include some kind of opt-out amendment in the Bill concerning the arrangements that will permit an individual to be arrested and held in custody without

1331
charge. The noble Lord has tabled three substantive amendments, repeated three times, for each of the armed services. We addressed the difficulties with this type of amendment in Committee. I regret to inform the noble Lord that the new amendments contain nothing compelling to persuade the Government that they should be incorporated into the Bill. However, I can think of three very compelling reasons why they should not be included.
The first reason relates to Amendments Nos. 3, 6 and 9. They provide that a person may be kept in military custody without charge for more than 48 hours, because an investigation could not be launched. In effect, that could prolong indefinitely the period before which a person must be brought before a judicial officer. The effect of the drafting of the noble Lord's amendment would override the provisions in the Bill which limit to 96 hours the total custody of an individual without charge, because the wording of the amendment provides an alternative to the current provisions which include the 96-hour limit. Indeed, they are completely open-ended in terms of the length of custody without charge that would be permissible.
In relation to the convention, we have been advised that in order to comply with the principle of fairness, 96 hours is the maximum period of custody without charge that is likely to be compatible. On that point alone, it is my understanding that we do not have flexibility and I appreciate the reasons for that. A period of 96 hours—four days—is a long time in which to be deprived of one's liberty. In any event, we do not expect the 96-hour limit to create any problems because we would expect charges to be laid before someone within that period or for the person to be released while investigations continued. Furthermore, the Bill does not affect the ability of the commanding officer to restrict an individual's movements; for example, an individual could be confined to barracks.
As I have said on previous occasions, the Bill offers a great deal of flexibility in relation to timing, as several noble Lords have already pointed out. It also offers flexibility in relation to enabling the commanding officer to delegate certain of his powers. This flexibility has been developed with the services to meet those needs which I appreciate have been of great concern to many noble Lords, foremost among whom has been the noble Lord, Lord Burnham. However, the provisions have been designed to accommodate the kind of situations that we have discussed during the passage of the Bill, such as the events in East Timor, a submarine under the polar ice cap, or the demands of operational flying.
The second reason why the amendments are unnecessary is that, as drafted, what will be new Section 75A of the Army Act allows flexibility in relation to custody which may be required in difficult operational circumstances. Therefore, this has already been dealt with on the face of the Bill. The legislation allows the person who made the arrest to keep an individual in custody without charge until the commanding officer has received a report from the arresting officer advising him of the individual's arrest
1332
and has made his own decision on whether to keep the individual in custody. Additionally, the Bill requires the commanding officer to make his decision on custody only "as soon as practicable". Flexibility for operational exigencies is already on the face of the Bill, as the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, reminded us when he referred to the words of his noble friend Lord Vivian on Report, and as the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, also reminded us today.
Finally, any argument that the commanding officer should not be troubled in operational circumstances with questions of custody can be countered by the provisions in new Section 75E. In effect, this provides for the functions of the commanding officer in relation to custody to be delegated. For example, if the commanding officer of a flying station is absent for regular operational reasons, he can delegate his powers in relation to the matter to an officer under his command.
I must say that my third reason for not accepting these amendments is because Amendments Nos. 1, 4 and 7 contain drafting flaws which appear to me to be pretty much fatal and to render them inoperable. The flaws result from the very first word used—"and"—which requires the amendments to be read in conjunction with the words immediately preceding them. Those words, which are of course already in the Bill, lay down the conditions that enable the commanding officer to authorise custody. Essentially that custody is necessary to secure evidence and the commanding officer must be confident that the investigation is being conducted speedily. As I see it, because the amendments are prefaced with the word "and" to add a third condition about the operational circumstances prevailing at the time, that would mean that the commanding officer would find it more rather than less difficult to justify custody. I suspect that that was not the intention of the noble Lord. It is possible that the word he sought may be been "or". However, the House can consider only the amendment as drafted.
In any case, the overriding point I wish to make is that the Bill does not need the additional flexibility which the noble Lord purports to achieve with these amendments. The detailed proposals in the Bill, which, I remind noble Lords, have been closely developed over many months with the services who will be responsible for the operation of the new procedures, provide all the flexibility they need. For that reason, I urge the noble Lord, Lord Burnham, to listen carefully to the words of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Inge, who told us that he has taken advice from those whose judgment he trusts. It must be said that the noble and gallant Lord has more experience in these matters than either the noble Lord, Lord Burnham, or myself. The noble and gallant Lord is satisfied on the point. Furthermore, the House is aware that the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, has rightly and properly scrutinised the Bill in great detail. He, too, has expressed himself satisfied on this point. The Government are satisfied and, most importantly, all

1333
three of the armed services are satisfied. For the reasons I have given, I hope that the noble Lord will see fit to withdraw his amendment.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Burnham: My Lords, during the course of all the stages of the Bill it has been the aim of my noble friends and myself and those who are like-minded on this matter to ensure the maintenance, at the highest level, of service discipline and morale. Whatever the Chiefs of Staff may have assured the Minister—that the people who come under their command are entirely happy with the terms of the Bill—that is not my information or that of my noble friends.
Having said that, I am surprised and depressed by the speeches of the noble and gallant Lords, Lord Inge and Lord Carver, who state that they cannot see any cause for the amendment which I have put forward. I believe that they and others are wrong in their attitude to the Bill. If the Bill enables the Armed Forces to work exactly according to the terms of the European convention and of the Human Rights Act, so be it, but I do not believe that it does; nor do I believe that in marry aspects the Bill fulfils its aims; nor will it be readily acceptable to many members of the Armed Forces on the ground.
However, in the light of the attitude of the noble and gallant Lords, and very reluctantly—because I repeat I think it is wrong—I feel I have no alternative but to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 2 to 9 not moved.]
Lord Renton Lord Renton had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 10:
After Clause 13, insert the following new clause—
APPLICATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS ACT 1998 TO MILITARY OFFENCES
(" No provision or the Human Rights Act 1998 shall prevent members of the Armed Forces from being found guilty of offences against good order and military discipline.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I can see that the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General wishes to intervene.
The Attorney-General (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, I think that the noble Lord, Lord Renton, knows what I am going to say. I am advised by the House authorities that Amendment No. 10, which the noble Lord was about to move, is not relevant to the subject matter of the Bill. As your Lordships will know, the Companion states quite clearly that the amendments must be relevant to the subject matter of the Bill and that the advice of the Clerks should be taken in relation to matters such as these. The Clerks in the Public Bill Office advise that whereas this Bill deals with matters of criminal procedure, the amendment does not confine itself to matters of procedure, but extends more generally to the application of substantive criminal law in military courts and the rights of defendants there. The advice therefore is that the amendment is not relevant to the Bill.
1334
We all have a responsibility to see that our procedures are governed by the House as a whole. Accordingly, with that short explanation, which I hope neither the noble Lord, Lord Renton, nor your noble Lordships, think is intended to be anything other than helpful, I ask the noble Lord, Lord Renton, to accept the advice which the Clerks have offered, and not to move Amendment No. 10. I do understand that the Clerk of Public Bills has given notice to the noble Lord, Lord Renton, that he was writing with this advice.
Lord Burnham: My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord sits down, and before my noble friend, Lord Renton, replies, perhaps I may ask the noble and learned Lord whether, if the amendment of my noble friend was phrased in the terms of his amendment at Report stage, which in fact he withdrew, it would be acceptable and whether at this stage in the proceedings a manuscript amendment in those terms would be acceptable. I have to say that I have not spoken to my noble friend Lord Renton on this matter.
Lord Renton: My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord replies, perhaps I may say that the amendment which I have tabled for Third Reading is narrower in its effect than the amendment that I tabled in Committee, and tabled again but withdrew before it was discussed on Report. Perhaps I may also say that the amendment that I have tabled today is intended to help the Government by resolving the conflict which will arise, admittedly on rare occasions—but it must be covered in case it does arise—between a conviction for a breach of good order and military discipline on the one hand and the assertion of the rights of the accused person under the Human Rights Act on the other hand.
One should draw attention to the fact that the Clerks at the Table allowed the broader amendment for the Committee and Report stages. The broader amendment referred to "proceedings", but this amendment refers to merely a part of the proceedings—although a pretty vital part—namely, a conviction. It is utterly illogical, especially when the Long Title of the Bill refers to,
"findings made or punishments awarded on summary dealing or summary trial; and for connected purposes".
Could there be a more connected purpose than a conviction?
Perhaps I may conclude on a purely personal matter. I have been in Parliament for 54 years. I have been in your Lordships' House for 20 years. As far as I can remember, this is the very first time since I came to your Lordships' House that an amendment of mine has been rejected by the Table.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am sure that that is right, because although the noble Lord arid I may have disagreed on matters of principle, I do not think that we have ever disagreed on matters of procedure. What I am transmitting is the advice that has been given. I respectfully repeat the observation

1335
that I made earlier: the Companion makes it perfectly plain that the advice of the Clerks should be taken in relation to matters such as these.
I take the noble Lord's point that this is a different amendment in terms of phraseology from the one that was accepted earlier, as he put it. However, the very firm, unambiguous advice that we have—I know that it has been transmitted to a number of your Lordships—is that this is not an amendment capable of being relevant. That does sound rather harsh and discourteous. It is not intended to be. "Relevance" there is used, as I understand it, as a term of art; namely, outside the scope of the Bill. Despite what the noble Lord, Lord Renton, says about connected purposes, our perfectly clear advice is that that does not make this a relevant amendment capable of being discussed.
The noble Lord, Lord Burnham, asked whether at this stage it would be possible to have a manuscript amendment in different terms. I understand that it is not possible.
Lord Renton: My Lords, did the noble and learned Lord say "possible" or "not possible"?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: It is not possible, my Lords, at Third Reading.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, with the leave of the House, perhaps I may make a constructive suggestion. If, for example, the noble Baroness, Lady Symons of Vernham Dean, were able to give the kind of undertaking which I suggested as to a code of practice, would that not go a very long way to meet the concerns of my noble friend Lord Renton?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I do not think that I can answer for the noble Baroness as I am addressing the House at the moment, and I am not sure whether I can answer for the noble Lord, Lord Renton, when such a question is put to me, perfectly understandably and courteously. It is really a matter for the noble Lord. What I would say is that this is an important matter. We do regulate our own procedure. The advice is perfectly plain. I would, therefore, after this brief discussion, invite the noble Lord, Lord Renton, not to persist with this amendment.
Lord Renton: My Lords, perhaps I may have your Lordships' leave to speak again because this is an important matter. The noble and learned Lord seemed to suggest that the advice of the Clerks at the Table had to be accepted. But that assumes that they are always right. I must say that I would have put much greater faith in the judgment of the noble and learned Lord than in any of the officials of the House in view of his tremendous experience and learning—and not all of them are even lawyers. With great respect, the reasons which I have put forward carry weight. I cannot use another expression. To say that the amendment, which is more narrow than the one accepted for the Committee stage and which deals with a conviction
1336
rather than with proceedings—convictions are merely part of proceedings—is irrelevant is, with the deepest respect, invalid.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am not sure how much I can usefully further contribute. I have to say—I think it will be the general experience of the overwhelming majority of your Lordships—that I have always found the quality of the advice given admirably conscientious and thoroughly well considered. I know that the noble Lord will not wish to suggest anything to the contrary. I am not going to offer my own advice. It is not appropriate for me to do so. I am simply making two points to your Lordships. First, I did not say that the advice had to be taken; I said that the Companion makes it clear that the advice should be taken. Secondly, the reason the amendment is not relevant—that is not, I repeat, an offensive word; it is a term of art: in other words, the amendment is outside the scope of the Bill—is that it does not limit itself to procedure, which your Lordships have discussed on quite a number of occasions. It extends to substantive criminal law and the rights of defendants there. That is why it is not an apt, appropriate or relevant amendment to the Bill.
[Amendment No.10 not moved.]
Clause 18 [Right of appeal]:
Earl Attlee Earl Attlee moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 39, line 34, leave out ("in respect of whom").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 11, it may be convenient if I speak also to Amendments Nos. 12 to 26 inclusive. I remind the House that I have an interest as I am a serving TA officer with powers of summary jurisdiction that I exercise on behalf of my commanding officer.
We return to the key question of how long a serviceman should have to exercise his right of appeal under Clause 18. Given a free choice, I would not provide for a right of appeal against summary jurisdiction. It is important that your Lordships understand the effect of such a provision. Unlike in civilian life, the various parties to a case cannot avoid each other. Indeed, witnesses and the accused may be friends, I have myself been in that situation. The commanding officer will be in a difficult situation from the moment the serviceman is warned off for disciplinary action until that action is complete. For instance, for obvious reasons he will be reluctant to talk to a group of his own soldiers if the accused is within that group. Currently, under summary jurisdiction, disciplinary action is complete when the CO, after awarding sentence, gives the order "March out". It is then water under the bridge; it is over. It is to be hoped that there will not be a repeat incident and that life in the unit can get back to normal. The whole process, ideally, will be complete within a week.
Clause 18, as originally drafted, provided for 21 days to launch an appeal. This would have meant disciplinary action taking about a month to be completed, which is far too long. Quite apart from the difficulties I have just mentioned, in a serious case the CO may be minded to remand for court martial rather

1337
than risk having, his own award reduced by the summary appeal court. During operations, of course, this might well result in the serviceman being sent home, his career seriously damaged.
In Committee I moved an amendment providing for seven days in which to launch an appeal. The Minister recognised the strength of my argument and suggested that 10 days was the absolute minimum. She pointed out the need to seek legal advice, determine the grounds for appeal and then actually lodge the appeal. On Report the Minister moved her own amendment providing for two weeks in which to launch an appeal. Whether I have successfully tempted her with 10 days today, I know not.
The problem is that if we are to have this unwelcome provision of Clause 18, we have to strike the right balance between providing an effective and compliant right of appeal on the one hand, arid satisfying the paramount needs of maintaining military discipline and morale, on the other—in short, the moral component of fighting power. If we fail to achieve that, we shall be sowing the seeds of a future military disaster.
In order to meet the needs of discipline and morale, we need to complete the disciplinary process as quickly as possible. However, in a very few cases this will not be possible due to the serviceman being unhappy with the outcome. My amendment provides that the serviceman can certify to his commanding officer that he will not he appealing. He will be effectively stating that he is content with the outcome, that he knows he has done wrong, and that he has been dealt with fairly. He will, of course, need time to reflect, so he will not be able to certify until 24 hours after the CO has completed summary dealing. He then has a further six days in which to certify. During the six-day period he can also withdraw his certificate, which he might want to do, possibly after taking legal advice. Even after this period his right of appeal is still not completely lost as the summary appeal court can still consider an appeal out of time.
The new provisions would enable the vast majority of cases to be dealt with quickly. There will be a few cases where the serviceman is not content and will wish to take legal advice. In those cases he will not sign the certificate. Even if he does, the accused's legal adviser can cancel the certificate, provided he does so within six days. He could even do so by fax. That could be provided for in the rules of procedure. After taking legal advice, the accused may decide not to appeal, in which case he need do nothing other than allow the period in which to appeal to run its course.
Finally, in a very few cases there will be genuine difficulties either with the finding or the sentence. During previous stages, the Minister drew attention to the time required to launch an appeal. Because there will be so few cases falling into this category, we can be more generous with the time available to launch an appeal. The amendment therefore provides 21 days, as originally provided for in the Bill. These arrangements ensure that the Bill will still be compliant with the ECHR.
There may be some concern about the extra forms and administration that the new arrangements would entail. For the Army, the UNICOM computer system which already automatically generates the charge forms will be able to produce the certificate at the same time. No doubt the other services have similar facilities on their computer systems. There are often administration actions after summary dealings, providing a convenient opportunity to sign the certificate.
Some noble Lords may be concerned that a serviceman may be forced to sign his certificate. At Report stage I tabled an amendment to deal with the possibility of a serviceman being pressurised into withdrawing his election for court martial. My modest experience of service life has informed me of what actually happens in the real world. However, I was firmly put in my place by the Minister, who said:
"I am assured that if there were to be instances where undue pressure was found to have been brought, it would be taken very seriously and those responsible for such actions would be disciplined".—[Official Report, 18/1/2000; col. 1013.]
The Minister was obviously very confident about fair dealing by the services.
Strongly to advise a serviceman not do something that would in fact severely disadvantage him is one thing. Unfairly to pressurise him to sign a certificate that would give up his right of appeal would be quite another. I do not believe that any officer would do so; nor, I am sure, does the Minister.
If these amendments were to be agreed, the Bill would be significantly improved. In practice, there would then be hardly any difference in the current summary dealing arrangements, but the Bill would still be compliant with the ECHR. I beg to move.
3.45 p.m.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I appreciate that the amendments arise from a desire to ensure that the authority of the commanding officer and his ability to maintain discipline are not undermined. It is claimed that the undermining effect would result from the gap between the award of a sentence by the commanding officer and its commencement. I remind the House that there will be such a gap only where a sentence of detention is handed down. All other sentences will commence immediately.
I understand that the purpose of the amendments is benign. However, I cannot recommend that your Lordships agree to them, for two reasons. The first is that they are simply not necessary. We believe that most service personnel who have been dealt with summarily will accept their punishment and will want to get it over and done with, just as they do now. Because of that, we thought that it would he unacceptable to insist that an individual waited for the full 21, now 14, days before he or she was allowed to begin the sentence, if that is what the individual wished to do. We have therefore included a provision in Schedule 3 of the Bill which allows an individual to

1339
begin his or her sentence of detention straight away. It does not require him or her to sign and lodge any certificates. He or she can simply get on with it.
The second reason I cannot accept the amendments is that I am afraid they are flawed, in so far as they do not provide an adequate link with the current provisions in the Bill relating to commencement of sentences of detention, and will not necessarily work to achieve what we believe is the purpose behind the noble Earl's amendments.
The amendments as drafted do nothing more than allow an accused to submit a certificate to the commanding officer saying that he or she does not intend to appeal. But it is not mandatory for an individual who is accused to do that. The amendments do not in any way compel an individual to make a decision whether or not to appeal in seven days. An accused may still choose not to appeal but not mention that to anyone for a full 14-day period; or he or she may take the decision after nine, 10 or 11 days and seek to begin the sentence then.
Moreover, the amendment is flawed in so far as it does not require an individual who has certified that he or she does not intend to appeal to begin the sentence before the expiry of 14 days. Presumably, the lack of compulsion upon the accused then to begin the sentence defeats the very purpose of the amendments tabled by the noble Earl.
I have assumed that the purpose of the amendments—in many ways a very worthy purpose—is to help to accelerate the carrying out of justice. The noble Earl made that clear in introducing his amendments. However, we find ourselves again in a position of having to examine the terms of the amendments as drafted. I fear that they fail in their own terms. They are simply not drafted in a way that would ensure that matters were expedited in the way in which the noble Earl believes they would be. I suspect that the deficiency is in the drafting, and that defeats the purpose of the amendments.
I have little to add as to whether we ought to revert to an appeal period of 21 days. The services have agreed that we can live with the status quo; namely, the 14 days now on the face of the Bill. I see no reason to tinker with the Bill again unless it is entirely necessary.
I do not want to appear ungracious about the noble Earl's amendments. I know that he has tabled all of them with the best interests of the services in mind. I am grateful to him for that, and for the explanations that he has provided on the amendments. However, I assure the noble Earl and his noble friend Lord Burnham that the provisions have been carefully scrutinised by the services, and they are satisfied that no further changes are necessary. I hope that on that basis the noble Earl will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that response. I was not so concerned about the gap between the imposition of the sentence and the summary dealing. The problem for all officers
1340
involved and for the unit is not knowing when the issue is over and whether or not the soldier will appeal. I deliberately designed the amendment so that it was not mandatory to decide. I knew that it was not mandatory. If an individual wanted to take the full 21 days to decide whether to appeal, that would be perfectly in order. If on the other hand he wanted to say, "Yes, I want to take it on the chin", he could then sign a certificate and life could return to normal.
The amendment was designed to be helpful in seeking another way to reduce the period of uncertainty. I am slightly disappointed that the Minister did not like the thrust of the amendment, although I can understand her dislike of the drafting. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 12 to 24 not moved.]
Schedule 3 [Amendments of 1955 Acts and 1957 Act relating to summary appeal courts]:
[Amendments Nos. 25 and 26 not moved.]
An amendment (privilege) made.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean.)
Lord Burnham: My Lords, the Minister has claimed that the ECHR and the Human Rights Act are not the only reasons for the Bill. I hope that the belief that these are the reasons is correct, for if they are not this is an even worse Bill than we thought. The argument that one of the reasons for the Bill is to fall in line with modern thought is a poor one. It fails to recognise that the military ethos is different from the civilian. In signing on to join any of the Armed Forces, a man or woman voluntarily gives up a number of rights as a citizen in favour of military efficiency and the ability to do his or her job in the way that is expected. A serviceman is entitled to his rights under the Human Rights Act, but he must also be expected to give up some of his freedom of action.
That being the case, it is essential that the Bill fulfils its main function; namely, to ensure the military discipline comes into line with the terms of the Human Rights Act. It is clear that the Chiefs of Staff have been convinced that that is the case; the Minister has told us so. However, a number of officers with great experience of the Armed Forces and of military discipline are not so convinced; nor are some of my noble and honourable friends who are learned in the law. My noble friends would no doubt say so were they not exercising their legal expertise elsewhere. I seem to suffer from that.
The Government have made it clear that they are in a hurry: they want to have the Bill in place and enacted by the time the Human Rights Act comes into force in October. My honourable friends in another place, who have yet to have the opportunity to debate the Bill, recognise the timing problem, but are far from happy

1341
about the way in which the Bill has been framed. Irrespective of what is resolved today in this House, they are likely to argue against it in principle.
My noble friends and some noble and gallant Lords have at various stages during the passage of the Bill moved amendments which have attacked its worst features. But, having got to the end, we are still deeply worried, having failed to persuade the Government to make any substantial changes to the principles which govern it.
The Bill may damage the Armed Forces in a way that is irrecoverable. It introduces changes which will strike at the ethos of military discipline. When an individual is on a charge which renders him liable to face a court martial and a custodial sentence, it may well he that in some cases—it will not arise in every case, or possibly even in the majority of cases—he is a bad man. If such a man can taunt his commanding officer or defy the requirements of discipline without danger of immediate retribution, it must damage discipline and the morale of the whole unit.
One has in mind the old adage: act in haste, repent at leisure. The deadline of 1st October is clear, but if, as we believe, much of the Bill is unnecessary it is better to withdraw it and re-examine it fully. I am not so naive as to believe that the Government will agree to that just because I suggest it, but they may do so before the Bill reaches another place. There are many flaws in the Bill as we have pointed out during its passage through your Lordships' House. The Opposition's case is that it is only common sense to withdraw the Bill for further examination. If that happens and the aims of the Bill can be shown to be fulfilled, I believe that it will be given a speedy passage through both this House and another place. The Bill has too many flaws, which I shall not reiterate because they have been debated at every stage.
As a general point, it has been made clear that the various service discipline Acts are a hotchpotch which even the Manual of Military Law (in the case of the Army) cannot disentangle. At Report stage I moved an amendment which sought to reconcile the Acts. I did so deliberately, knowing that it would not be accepted, nor with any intention that it should be, but in the hope that the Minister would give us comfort by agreeing that this would be done in the quinquennial Act next year. This she sadly failed to do, saying only that her department would get down to what was an undoubted problem after that legislation had been introduced. Clearly, the Government need time.
A number of my noble friends, including my noble friends Lord Kingsland and Lord Campbell of Alloway, have drawn attention to the words of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor during Third Reading of the Human Rights Bill. His assurances that the ECHR posed no threat to the effectiveness of the Armed Forces have clearly been ignored in this Bill. It would have been agreeable to hear from the noble and learned Lord what he had to say on the subject, but we have not heard from him. Clearly, the Government need time to consider what he said then.
1342
All these points combine to cast doubt upon the effectiveness of the Bill and reinforce the suggestion that the Government would be well advised to wait and look at it again. As I began by saying at Second Reading and have said ever since, this is a bad Bill and I hope that the Government will put a wet towel round their head and think again. In the mean time, reluctantly I am content that this Bill should be passed to another place.
4 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, as this Bill passes I acknowledge with gratitude the constructive and courteous manner in which the noble Baroness has dealt with it. I also respectfully ask that the Government reconsider the amendment moved at Report stage to set up an Armed Forces human rights court when the services Acts are amended by primary legislation for consolidation. That amendment had the support of my noble friend Lord Kingsland, who pointed out that it was wholly consistent with the proposals of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor at the Third Reading of the Human Rights Bill. It also had the support of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, my noble friend Lord Renton and my noble friend Lord Burnham on the Opposition Front Bench. The object of the amendment was not, as stated rather ungenerously by my noble friend Lord Burnham,
"to get in first and to generate a full-blooded debate".—[Official Report, 18/1/00; col. 991.]
The true object was to test whether the MoD's solution was the best one as expounded and accepted by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley. At all events, is it not evident from the shape of the Marshalled List today and the short conduct of this debate that that amendment served to clarify the issues and the purpose for which it was designed?
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, I am sure that my noble friend Lord Wallace would wish me to thank the Minister on his behalf for the courtesy that she has extended to everyone who has taken part in the Bill, both in this Chamber and outside. The House will be aware that we have supported the passage of this Bill in general and in particular. For my part, the time that I have spent on the Bill has been extremely educational. I have learnt things that I never thought I would learn under any circumstances, and I am sure that I am the better for it. We wish the Bill well.
Lord Burnham: My Lords, with the leave of House perhaps I may rise to speak again. I have been more than ungenerous to the noble Baroness—I make no political point of any kind—in failing to mention the immense help that she has given during the passage of this Bill, for the letters that she has written on various points and her assistance throughout. I hope that the whole House will join with me in thanking her for all that she has done.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I too endorse the way in which the Minister has handled this Bill on behalf of

1343
the Government. We have not agreed with the noble Baroness, but we have found her open-minded and, within her limitations—I refer to the Minister's political limitations, not her ability—helpful. During Committee stage the noble Baroness said:
"I can assure the noble Lord [Lord Renton] that there is nothing in either the Act or the Bill to prevent proceedings against good order and discipline. It would clearly be of great concern to the services and to the Ministry of Defence if that were to be the case".—[Official Report, 16/12/99; col. 383.]
Having studied this matter and listened to all else that has been said in your Lordships' House during various stages of the Bill, I remain worried. I am concerned that the conflict between the Service discipline Acts and the Bill on the one hand and the Human Rights Act 1998 on the other does not appear to have been resolved. If it is the hope and expectation of the Government that somehow a finding by a commanding officer, court martial or appeal committee clearly shows that there has been a breach of military discipline and the accused person points to the relevant provisions of the Human Rights Act 1998, confusion will result.
I agree that these provisions would give rise to conflict and confusion only occasionally, and perhaps I may identify them. They are Article 10, Freedom of expression; Article 11, Freedom of assembly and association; and, if one considers it carefully, Article 14, Prohibition of discrimination. Article 14 states:
"The enjoyment of the rights and freedom set forth in this Convention shall be secured without discrimination on any ground such as sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status".
That is very wide. All kinds of circumstances could arise in which people would maintain that that is contrary to the attitude they had as members of the Armed Forces.
Despite all the Minister has done, I hope that the noble Baroness will listen to my noble friends' remarks about the need for further thought on the Bill. It would be terrible for us to risk giving rise to a conflict. When two Acts of Parliament are abundantly plain but in conflict, they must be reconciled with each other. It has happened in the past time and again. It will happen from time to time always. When national security is at stake, the conflict must be dealt with.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their kind words. The passage of the Bill through your Lordships' House has been an example of how the process of debate and scrutiny can illuminate the inner details of a piece of draft legislation. If I can dare to admit this—I think that I can; the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, has done so already—my understanding of the Bill has increased enormously as a result of participating in the debates.
I had the impression, in particular when listening to some of the contributions at Report stage, that others, too, had cause to examine even more closely than previously the fine detail of the Bill. It would probably be difficult to claim that we have achieved a true
1344
meeting of minds as regards some parts of the Bill. I thank your Lordships for the hard work on the amendments tabled and the well argued contributions which have helped to elucidate so much of the Bill.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Burnham, and the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, who have travailed so hard in the quest of the elusive grail of the opt-out clause. They have rarely appeared to be as convinced by my arguments as I would have hoped. I thank too the noble Lords, Lord Campbell of Alloway and Lord Renton. They have constituted an occasional autonomous but highly independent faction on the Opposition Benches. Some admirable probing amendments have shed light on the inner recesses of the Bill.
I thank, too, the noble and gallant Lords, Lord Bramall, Lord Carver, Lord Craig of Radley and Lord Inge, for the insights they have contributed based on the accumulation of a substantial number of years of experience. I hope that they now have greater confidence that what they value so much in Armed Forces discipline will not be lost.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, and their colleagues on the Liberal Democrat Benches for their welcome support. I thank warmly, of course, my noble friends whose presence was initially perhaps somewhat spasmodic but who have rallied to the cause as the Bill progressed. In particular I thank my Bill team: the combination of officials, lawyers, administrative people and military people who have helped so much in the passage of the Bill. I thank them for their patience with me, for looking again and again—and, I assure noble Lords, again—at whether we could meet some of the well expressed fears and criticisms of the Bill. They have worked extraordinarily hard. The noble Lord, Lord Burnham, urged them to work very hard over the Christmas period. They did, and have continued to do so since. I thank them for everything they have done towards the progress of the Bill. We can now send the Bill on its way. I, for one, shall be very interested indeed to see what another place makes of it.
On Question, Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

Nuclear Safeguards Bill [H.L.]
4.15 p.m.
Report received.
Clause 5 [Rights of access etc. for Agency inspectors]:
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved the amendment:
Page 5, line 47, at end insert—
("( ) It shall not be a defence for a person charged with an offence under this section that the actions of any Agency inspector infringe the European Convention on Human Rights.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, perhaps I may explain my concern to those noble Lords who did not join us in the Moses Room for the short Committee stage.
Clause 4 deals with the powers of authorised officers of the British Government to enter premises to see whether a person is producing something which could be sold to a country and used for the production of nuclear weapons. I am sure we are at one on the purposes of the Bill: to empower an agency to try to prevent such transfer taking place. But Clause 4 gives powers to officials of, I suspect usually, the Department of Trade and Industry to enter a person's house in order to look for material—objects, plans on computers—which that person may not own up to and which may breach this legislation and the convention.
Clause 4(4) provides that a justice of the peace has to be satisfied before a search warrant will be given. Your Lordships will not be surprised at that. In this country we believe that before an authority can enter someone's premises, and in particular his house, it should satisfy a justice of the peace on the merits of its case.
Clause 5 deals with officers of the international agency. They do not need any warrant to enter premises or houses in this country if they think that something is amiss upon which they need to check. There is a significant difference between the way we expect officials of our own Government to behave and the way we allow officials of an international agency to behave. First, is that right? Secondly, is that consistent with the European Convention on Human Rights and the Human Right Act 1998?
We discussed these matters in Committee. The Minister gave me fair and understandable answers to both questions. I am particularly concerned about my question on the European convention. In order to complete the picture for those noble Lords who were not present in the Moses Room, I shall say something about the Minister's answers to my first question. Is it right that those international agency inspectors should have powers of entry which we would not give to inspectors who are agents of our own Government?
The first of the noble Lord's arguments was precedent. He rightly pointed out that in the Chemical Weapons Act 1996, which was taken through this House by my noble and learned friend Lord Fraser of Carmyllie, the inspectors of the agency do not require a warrant. He also pointed out that that provision was replicated in the Landmines Act 1998. I, and I am sure other noble Lords, understand that. However, is it good enough to argue that because something was done in the past it must be done again, again and again? Can we allow precedent to be offered up as an excuse for failing to ask whether it is right? It looks almost as though the forces of conservatism are ruling the roost and that one must always accept what was done without question.
When my noble and learned friend Lord Fraser of Carmyllie introduced the Chemical Weapons Bill, he was proposing that for the first time such an international agency should have powers of entry in this country. After the passing of this Bill we shall have three such agencies. It is time to say, "Wait a minute! Is this the right thing to do?".
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, gave a second reason for not requiring the inspectors to seek the approval of a justice of the peace; namely, that if we set up a legal hoop for the agency's inspectors to jump through—even one which we view to be harmless as regards pursuit of someone who is breaking the law, but which we consider to be important as a safeguard for individual rights—other less scrupulous countries such as Iraq would use legal procedures to prevent entry in their countries; and while they were doing so they could secrete away whatever they were trying to hide.
I understand that requiring a justice of the peace to sign a warrant might make life difficult in other countries. However, should we set aside the standards which we apply to the liberty of the individual just because of the read-across to other countries which do not have such standards? If we took that view, we should be threatening our liberties over a wide field.
Thirdly, the noble Lord told us that as we have signed up to the treaty the imposition of any condition would be a breach. I understand that argument also. However, perhaps we should be saying to the Government, "All right, we understand all that and we will let you off this time. But, please, if you bring forward another Bill, another international agency and another protocol, remember that we have these rights and they ought to be kept in place for the protection of individuals in this country". I doubt whether the measure is right, but I am prepared to accept the third agency. Frankly, if another comes along I hope to be able to persuade your Lordships that it is a step too far.
I should probably have left the matter where we concluded it in the Moses Room. However, another aspect was raised there which—dare I say? —was answered less satisfactorily by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. That has been suggested to me in legal advice. I refer to the interaction between this Bill and the European Convention on Human Rights and the Human Rights Act 1998. The noble Lord pointed out that on the front page of the Bill—I am not sure that that will be the face of it when it becomes an Act—it is stated that,
"the provisions … are compatible with the Convention rights"
I am almost certain that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate thought that the way the Scottish legal system appointed temporary sheriffs was consistent with the convention. He would have said so had he been asked, but he suddenly found that it was not. That caused a great deal of chaos in the court system in Scotland. So although the convention can have —or perhaps intended—consequences, we cannot accept at face value ministerial assurances that a Bill does not breach convention rights.
In Committee, the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, told me that he had two answers to my question and that one was a cheeky answer. To be fair to him, he did not found on that cheeky answer, but I want to look al it. It was that, technically speaking, the agency was not a

1347
party to the convention and therefore its inspectors could not breach the measure. I shall return to that in a moment.
The question is whether an individual whose premises or home had been raided by an officer of the agency without a warrant has any grounds for legal action under the convention. As regards the powers granted to agents of the international agency, is the Bill a potential infringement of the convention? Section 1, Article 8, of the convention clearly states:
"Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence. … There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law".
The first protocol expands on that, stating in Article 1:
"Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law".
Those rights are subject to a public interest. That is clear and I accept it. However, how would the courts view that public interest? One could argue that the position of temporary sheriffs in Scotland was entirely in the public interest because it meant that justice was dispensed speedily and quickly. However, that did not hold much water. The fact that the Scottish Executive has not appealed suggests that it did not believe that a case could be made.
We all know that the convention rights protect individuals. I am not a lawyer and I may be casting the net wider than the definition of "possessions", taking it to business premises. However, it could include someone at home; ideas, plans or instructions on a computer held in someone's home. Such information might be helpful to a foreign power which wanted to manufacture nuclear weapons. Therefore, the measure may apply to homes as well as to office and factory premises. I know that the secondary legislation details what inspectors might look for and that, by and large, it appears on goods, tubes and pieces of kit. However, it could include ideas.
Taking those two parts of the convention, is the fact that agency inspectors do not require a warrant from a Justice of the Peace in breach of it? If not, why is a Justice of the Peace warrant required for DTI inspectors in this country? If the one is not a breach, is the other?
I turn to the question whether officers of the agency acting in the UK are bound by the convention and the 1998 Act. My first point is that Article 1 of the convention clearly states:
"The High Contracting Parties shall secure to everyone within their jurisdiction the rights and freedoms defined in Section 1 of this Convention".
That seems to me to be straightforward; that everyone within the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom is to have these rights. It does not state that anyone coming to this country who has not signed up to the convention can breach them. I am not a lawyer, but Article 1 suggests that whether the agency has signed is neither here nor there. In fact, it could not do so
1348
because it is not a country; it is not one of our contracting parties. I do not suppose Strathclyde police force has signed the convention, but it is still bound by it and rightly so. Therefore, I wonder whether the agency is bound by it.
My second point is that the agency is a public body and I suggest that its inspectors are bound by the 1998 Act. Section 6 clearly states:
"It is unlawful for a public authority to act in a way which is incompatible with a Convention right".
Subsection (3) states:
"In this section 'public authority' includes … any person certain of whose functions are functions of a public nature".
Again, reading that as a non-lawyer, it seems to me that an international agency must be considered a public authority, unless, of course, there is lots of small print stating that it is not.
What I am really asking here is whether we are absolutely certain that the Bill does not infringe the convention and that an individual will not be able to slip out of court proceedings against him because he pleads a breach of the convention. I should like the Minister to be sure in his own mind, and his officials to be sure in their own minds, not only that the legislation complies with the convention, as he asserts on the Bill's cover, but also that its exercise in the circumstances which we are considering would comply. Otherwise, we may actually be giving individuals with something to hide the possibility for the convention to be used to give them perhaps just enough time, by going to court, to remove whatever it is that they do not wish the inspectors to find.
My amendment is designed principally to allow your Lordships to consider those issues and also to offer the Government a possible belt-and-braces amendment which would make absolutely sure that no one could go to court to plead a breach of the convention against any agency inspector. I beg to move.
4.30 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, that was a remarkable speech. In nearly 15 minutes, the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, failed to remind the House that the amendment which he was moving was the exact opposite of the amendment he moved at Committee stage. In Committee he moved the following amendment:
"For the purposes of subsection (6) a certificate authorising entry by an Agency inspector shall be in a form published in regulations and of which due notification has been given in accordance with section 3(5)".
I must confess that when we looked at the new amendment that he tabled last week we were puzzled, because he had added the word "not" to his previous amendment. Now he is saying the exact opposite to what he said at Committee stage.
I had a brief and glorious career in the Royal Artillery many, many years ago, where such manoeuvres were called "bracketing". On the first occasion one shoots a long way short of the target; on the second occasion one hopes to get closer. Having

1349
shot short of the target, the noble Lord has now shot long of the target, but he has not got any closer to it. I am not inviting him to try again at Third Reading, but I am truly puzzled by the way in which he has chosen to address this important issue. I do not wish to denigrate or to deny the importance of the issue. Having had my small amount of fun, I propose to address the issue seriously.
The noble Lord is quite right to say that the Government and I should think carefully about the assurance given over my signature on the face of the Bill that, in my view, the Bill's provisions are fully compliant with the European Convention on Human Rights. I am therefore sorry to see that, although he appeared to be concerned to uphold the principles of the convention, the noble Lord is now prepared in his new amendment to defy the convention.
The amendment that he has now tabled would have far wider effects than I imagine he intended and which the Government believe to be undesirable. Specifically, it would prevent anyone prosecuted under Clause 5(7) of the Bill from using the defence that an agency inspector had infringed the European Convention on Human Rights. As I explained in Committee—in what the noble Lord, quite rightly, reminded me was my "cheeky" answer—technically speaking, an inspector could not infringe the convention because the International Atomic Energy Agency is not a party to it. The IAEA and its inspectors cannot breach something to which they are not formally subject. However, we did not rely on that argument in Committee and I do not rely on it now.
We are confident that the rights given to agency inspectors by Clause 5 are consistent with Article 8 of the convention—which the noble Lord read out—to the extent that those rights are exercised in relation to premises within the scope of that article. Article 8 of the convention is, understand, principally concerned with domestic premises, and it is unlikely, although I concede not impossible, that the rights under Clause 5 would ever be exercised in relation to domestic premises. We are confident also that the rights are consistent with Article 1 of the first protocol to the convention on peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
However, if an inspector acted in a way which was—to use a neutral phrase—inconsistent with the rights protected by the convention, we believe that the courts should be able to decide for themselves whether that inconsistency was relevant to any offence with which a person was charged under the Bill; and if it was relevant, what effect, if any, that should have on the outcome of the prosecution. For example, if an agency inspector's actions were inconsistent with a person's rights under the ECHR, that could be relevant to whether the inspector was indeed acting,
"in the exercise of a power under",
Clause 5, for the purposes of an offence under Clause 5(7); or to whether the person charged with an offence under Clause 5(7)(b) or (c) had a "reasonable excuse"
1350
for failing to comply with a request of an agency inspector, authorised officer or constable or for interfering with things placed on land by an agency inspector. The defence of "reasonable excuse" is already set out in paragraphs (b) and (c).
Under Clause 5 as drafted, an action by an inspector which was inconsistent with the ECHR could—and should—be capable of providing a defence to such a prosecution if that particular action were relevant to the subject matter of the charge. But the amendment before us would remove from anyone prosecuted under Clause 5(7) any opportunity to rely in his defence on the fact that the inspector's action was inconsistent with the rights protected by the convention, even if the impact on the person's human rights justified the action taken.
Like Amendment No. 10—which I quoted—tabled by the noble Lord at Committee stage, this amendment would cause confusion about the extent to which breaches of the ECHR could be taken into account in deciding whether offences had been committed under other provisions of the Bill and, indeed, possibly under other legislation. It is much better to let the courts decide on normal general principles when, and how far, infringements of human rights are relevant to whether any given offence has been committed under Clause 5(7) or other offence provisions in the Bill or, indeed, elsewhere, instead of trying to tie them down in advance by a provision in the Bill which takes no account of the individual circumstances of each particular case.
In introducing his amendment, the noble Lord correctly described the three arguments I used about the earlier provisions of the Bill concerning enforcement other than by agency inspectors. First, he quite correctly reminded the House of the precedent set by the Chemical Weapons Act 1996. Secondly, he quite reasonably argued that we should not be setting aside our own liberties because of the need for strict enforcement in other countries unless that is absolutely necessary.
That point leads me on to the noble Lord's third argument about the breach of treaty, which is the fundamental point. It is incumbent on all nuclear weapons countries to act in accordance with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and to be seen to do so, because that is the way in which the non-nuclear weapons countries may effectively be deterred from becoming nuclear weapons countries. That is a great prize before us: the full implementation throughout the world of the non-proliferation treaty. It could be put at risk—I put it no higher than that. It could be put at risk not only if we fail to comply fully with our obligations under the treaty and the Vienna protocol but if we fail to be seen to do so. I do not believe that that prize should be thrown away for this purpose. I do not believe that the amendment should be supported, even if it were not defective in its wording. I hope that the noble Lord will not press it to a Division.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, perhaps he can answer a question. If, let us say, a court decides that an agency inspector has infringed the convention rights of an individual and throws out a case against that individual, would not that be in danger of being a breach of the convention and therefore put us in the difficult position which he and I certainly would not want to see?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I do not believe so. We must do our best within our own and international law to follow the protocol to the letter and, if necessary, follow the spirit. If we fail to do so because of international obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights, that will be widely understood. However, we must make the effort.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his response. I may resist the temptation to ignore his tease at the beginning. I believed that I was being reasonable. By tabling my amendment, I was trying to be sure that the Government were absolutely right in their assertion in Committee that the Bill squared with the convention. The amendment states that one cannot plead the convention if one is charged.
I believe that the noble Lord knows, and I hope that the House realises, that I shall do nothing to hinder the passage of the Bill. That does not mean that we should not scrutinise these matters carefully and make sure that we are proceeding in the proper manner. I accept the answers which the noble Lord gives. I hope that he takes my point that if this Government or any future government look for a fourth time at another international agency—an agency which may be set up of which as yet we know nothing—we should be a little more careful. We should try to find a way to ensure that inspectors in this country, who are forced to act within our traditions of respect for civil liberties and the rule of law, do not find themselves in a more difficult position than inspectors of an agency which can come into this country and not have to go through the same "hoops" as our own inspectors.
Frankly, it is not a great problem for the authorities to go to a justice of the peace and persuade him of a case. No one knows that they are going to a justice of the peace to do so. The police do so quite happily all the time, asking constantly for warrants to search premises and homes. It does not impede their investigations in any way, shape or form, and it would not impede the investigations of those international agencies.
It is a pity that we have decided to go down this route and I hope that we shall not go down it too often in the future. I certainly hope that the noble Lord is right in his assertions about the relationship between the Bill and the convention and that no one finds that the convention provides a screen behind which to hide. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Limited Liability Partnerships Bill [H.L.]
4.43 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: 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 McIntosh of Haringey.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Lord Brougham and Vaux) in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Limited liability partnerships]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 8, after ("is") insert ("a body corporate (with legal personality separate from that of its members) which is").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 1, I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 2, 3 and 4. I know that the amendments appear complicated. However, strictly speaking, they are drafting amendments in the sense that, with them, the drafting of Clause 1 is, we hope, very much clearer than it would have been without them. I hasten to say that these amendments were not proposed by the department but by parliamentary counsel in the interests of clarity.
For the benefit of those noble Lords who took part at Second Reading, this morning I have sent to them—I hope that they will find it helpful—a copy of the Bill marked with the government amendments in their place. I do not recall this having been done before but it seemed sensible. If the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, does not have one, I am sorry. A copy will be whisked across the Chamber to her from the Box via the Doorkeepers so that she has it in front of her. I believe that noble Lords on the Liberal Democrat Benches have had copies, as has my noble friend Lord Goldsmith, who is not in his place.
If we look at the marked copy, we find that the wording is simply moved around so that the clause starts with reference to the,
"body corporate (with legal personality separate from that of its members)",
which is the key to the understanding of Clause 1. In all other respects, the meaning of Clause 1 is not affected by the amendments. I beg to move.
4.45 p.m.
Baroness Buscombe: First, I thank the Minister for giving me and Mr Nicolas Gibb MP the opportunity to discuss a number of key issues which we and other Members of this House raised at Second Reading.
I thank the noble Lord for a most helpful meeting, for the accompanying notes, and for giving them to me now. However, on behalf of so many people with whom we and, I understand, the Government have consulted, I feel that it is my responsibility to make a plea with regard to Clause 1. Our concerns relate to a general application of partnership law. We are

1353
interested in retaining the partnership ethos. With that wish, we begin to question the value of a limited liability partnership. Without a partnership ethos which is clear on the face of the Bill, it becomes in a sense something of a hybrid without the culture of a partnership; that is, neither a partnership nor a company. I question whether that is what the Government intend.
Yes, an LLP can enter into contracts and it can hold property. It is a body corporate, separate from its members. I am grateful to the Minister that the amendments help to clarify that point. However, without express application to partnership law on the face of the Bill, I ant still unsure of its worth. That is why I have tabled an amendment to Clause 5 relating to the members of an LLP. That amendment tries to re-establish the relationship of members to differentiate them, if not the body corporate itself, for example, from employers, subject to company and employment law. In a sense, that is intended to demonstrate the existence of the partnership ethos.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am most grateful to the noble Baroness for what she says. I repeat my apologies that the marked Bill did not reach her in time for her to consider it at greater leisure. I am grateful for what she says in the particular sense that it enables me to set out what became clear to me in the course of the discussions which we had last week with a number of noble Lords. It became clear that the principle on which we must insist all through the Bill is that we are changing as little other law as possible. We are responding to pressure, particularly from professionals, that there should be some way for them to achieve the goal of limited liability. We are considering the pride at which that achievement should be made. Everybody except the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, agreed with the validity of that goal. However, I may not have expressed as clearly as I would want the way in which we seek to achieve that.
We seek to achieve that by creating a new entity—the limited liability partnership—which falls under company law as far as possible and changes company law as little as possible except in respect of taxation. It falls under partnership law as little as possible and changes partnership law as little as possible except in respect of those matters which are the concern of company law.
The taxation of limited liability partnerships will be on the partnership analogy; every other aspect of the limited liability partnership will be on the companies analogy. The bulk of the text of the Bill consists of amendments to company law which are absolutely necessary in order for limited liability partnerships to be established and no further than that.
Similarly, we do not seek in any way to change the law or practice in respect of professional liability. That is a matter for the law and for the professions themselves. We do not want to diminish or increase it in any way. We do not seek to change the law except in so far as it is absolutely necessary in relation to insolvency. We are doing as little as possible in order to achieve this new entity. If we look at all the
1354
amendments in the light of those pillars of the temple, perhaps, which are built around that small change in the law, I believe that we shall understand it, as I have come to understand it, rather better than we did at the beginning.
I am grateful for what the noble Baroness said about the amendments to Clause 1. I commend Amendment No. 1 to the Committee.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendments Nos. 2 to 4:
Page 1, line 10, after first ("in") insert ("the following provisions or).
Page 1, line 14, leave out ("a limited liability partnership so incorporated") and insert ("such a body corporate").
Page 1, line 16, leave out from ("partnership") to first ("to") in line 18 and insert ("has unlimited capacity.
( ) The members of a limited liability partnership have such liability").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 2 [Incorporation document etc.]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 1,1ine 27, after ("persons") insert ("associated for carrying on a lawful business with a view to profit").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 48, 50 and 51. These amendments follow on the consultation document which was published originally in 1997 and which said that to secure incorporation as a limited liability partnership, founding members would have to submit to the registrar a document which included a statement in prescribed form that the business was being formed with a view to profit. That follows the scheme of partnerships. Again, as I said a few moments ago, we do not intend to alter that scheme.
Partnership law refers to,
"carrying on a business in common with a view of profit".
Instead of "in common" we have used the word "associated" and instead of "a view of profit" we have used the phrase "with a view to profit". That is the change between 1890 and 2000. I do not believe that it has any other impact. I am always reminded of the sign which appears in some company offices which says, "This is a non-profit company. It wasn't intended that way but that's the way it's worked out". That is why we must use the words "with a view to profit" instead of "non-profit".
The wording did not appear in the intervening draft since 1997, but we believe that it is necessary to restore those words. We do so for two reasons. First, we want to make it clear that, in our view, limited liability partnerships are unsuitable for charitable organisations. In view of the expertise of the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, in that area, I have written to him on that subject. I hope that he will agree that that is' he right course to take. Again, it does not extend the

1355
scope of partnerships, but seeks merely to make available this business entity for partnerships under the existing scope. Secondly, we want to discourage not-for-profit organisations—for example, members' clubs—from using the limited liability partnership vehicle.
There was no intention in the genesis and evolution of limited liability partnerships to provide for their use by organisations which were not operating with a view to profit and we do not see the entity as appropriate for that purpose. No interest has been expressed in limited liability partnerships by such entities in any of the consultations.
As a result of requiring the founding members to associate for the carrying on of a lawful business with a view to profit, it will be necessary on registration for them to present a statement that they have complied with the requirements for incorporation. There will be a penalty for making a false statement, and the registrar may accept the statement as sufficient evidence of their compliance. That follows the treatment of companies.
I could say more about charities and not-for-profit organisations. Indeed, if any Member of the Committee has any questions about that, I shall be happy to respond. But on the basis of what I have said, I hope that it will be recognised that those amendments do go back to the original intention of the exercise which was first consulted on in 1997. They make it explicit, as perhaps it will be said it always should have been, and I hope that the amendments will find favour with the Committee. I beg to move.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: I thank the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, for the remarks that he has made vis-à-vis the amendment to exclude charities from the purview of the Bill. Perhaps I may say that his thinking is impeccable. Although charitable status in this country does not attach to a particular format, which sets us apart entirely from the Napoleonic code countries, I believe that it is absolutely right to exclude charities from the provisions of this Bill.
I should like to raise a rather boring point on Amendment No. 6. Perhaps the Minister will consider whether the wording in the proposed paragraph (c) does not give a slightly wrong idea of what is intended. At present the amendment refers to,
"either a solicitor engaged in the formation of the limited liability partnership or anyone named in the incorporation document as a person who is to be a member'",
and then it goes on. That gives a futuristic intention or meaning which is not intended. What is intended is that,
"either a solicitor engaged in the formation of the limited liability partnership",
or anyone who subscribes to the incorporation document is capable of signing that statement. I draw that to the Minister's intention and hope that it will be dealt with in due course.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: There are two possible answers to that. The first is that the wording comes
1356
from other legislation and is therefore sanctioned by precedent. Indeed, that is the answer. It follows the wording in Section 12 of the Companies Act.
However, that does not absolve me from giving my second answer, which is that I shall look at it again to see whether anything further needs to be done. I commend Amendment No. 5 to the Committee.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 2, line 3, at end insert (", and
(c) there must have been so delivered a statement in the form prescribed by regulations, made by either a solicitor engaged in the formation of the limited liability partnership or anyone named in the incorporation document as a person who is to be a member, that the requirement imposed by paragraph (a) has been complied with").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury Lord Phillips of Sudbury moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 2, line 11, after ("and") insert ("home address and business").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 31. I do not wish to inflict on the Committee a repetition of what I said on Second Reading, although it is quite true, as the Minister said a few moments ago, that apparently I am the only Member of this House who finds the whole of this measure superfluous and, indeed, contrary to the public interest.
It is interesting that only last week I was sitting round a board table of one of the very large firms of chartered accountants which are, of course, the main progenitors of this matter. At that meeting, the directors were required to sign to a limitation of their liability in respect of any claim arising out of their services. Indeed, that is what they do—and what they could and should continue to do. I shall not burden the House with the background to the matter. It would be improper to do so. These two amendments are small, but disproportionately effective if, like me, the House seeks to discourage anyone from abusing the limited liability privilege that the Bill will bestow upon partners. The same point is raised in Amendment No. 31 to Clause 9.
As a long-practising solicitor who has been engaged in commercial and partnership work all his practising life, I know that there is a peculiar sensitivity about declaring home addresses on the part of those who sign up as partners. I believe it is because people want to retain a separation between their business lives and the rest of their lives.
The simple requirement that any partner under a limited liability partnership should have on record his or her business address and his or her home address would be desirable and proper and would act as a minor but significant incentive to the partners concerned to run the partnerships properly. More importantly, I believe that it would give members of the public who had claims against any such person a better prospect of seeing such claims met.
Although it has been said that large solicitors' and accountancy partnerships are the main promoters of this Bill, when passed the Bill will apply to a vast number of small and very small businesses. My expectation is that accountants will advise small businesses—for example, small building businesses—to utilise the LLP precisely because, as the Explanatory Notes indicate,
"The essential feature of an LLP is that it combines the organisational flexibility and tax status of a partnership with limited liability for its members".
That organisational flexibility will be of tremendous appeal to small businesses, some of which are recklessly and incompetently run, to take that part rather than the full limited liability part which is infinitely more onerous in its regulatory requirements.
We already have the slackest limited liability regime in the world. Only in this country can one walk into a law stationers arid purchase a limited liability company "off-the-shelf", and undoubtedly, that will be the case with these LLPs. In Germany, it takes at least 13 weeks to get through the paperwork and quite a considerable effort is required to ensure that everything is done properly and with due solemnity.
I believe that those two requirements, and a couple of others to which I shall speak later, will act as minor but significant deterrents to those who inevitably will abuse the new limited liability arrangements. I beg to move.
5 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am interested in what the noble Lord says. The complaint that I heard about our provisions was that they were too draconian, rather than not draconian enough. There has always been a trickle, rather than a flood, of complaints by company directors that their security is put at risk by having to give their home addresses in legal documents. However, I do not hear that from the noble Lord, Lord Phillips.
This is a perfect example of what I said in relation to Amendment No. 1. We are making as few amendments to company legislation as possible, not least because the company law review, which started in 1998, is under way. We shall go out to full consultation within the next few months and we shall consider all these matters in great detail.
Here we have required that the incorporation document gives the names and addresses of all members of a limited liability company and that the registrar is notified of any changes in a member's address. That mirrors exactly the provisions of the Companies Act 1985, which in Section 289 requires directors to disclose their "usual residential address". That will be the case for members of a limited liability partnership because Clause 17 of the Bill says,
"'address', in relation to a member of a limited liability partnership, means … his usual residential address".
We do not think that there is a case for members of a limited liability partnership to be treated any differently from a company director by requiring them to give both their home address and their business address.
1358
I know that the objections of the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, go further and that he describes our regime as the slackest limited company regime in the world. However, I am not tempted by his example of Germany where he said that it takes a minimum of 13 weeks to set up a limited company. That does not seem to me to be a desirable objective. If parts of our company legislation are slack and, therefore, damaging, and if there are problems about giving addresses, they can be dealt with in the company law review. In the mean time, it seems right for us to mirror company legislation in this Bill. I ask the noble Lord not to press his amendment.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: Before the Minister sits down, can he give me a positive reason why it would not be a good idea to require the business address and the residential address? We are not talking about precisely the same animal as a limited liability company. This is an extension of state privilege to a class of business that hitherto has never been thought to be entitled to it—non-capitalist businesses.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: This refers to the relationship with a body corporate which has not existed before. If the noble Lord relies on the analogy with partnerships, a person carrying out business with a partner in a partnership clearly carries out business directly with one person. It is common sense to seek a proper co-ordinate in order to track down that person if there is a problem. Here a body corporate is being created, which is exactly analogous to a limited company and it seems proper that we should mirror the requirements of company legislation.
The noble Lord asked for a positive reason. I suppose it is true to say that already there is a certain amount of work for the Registrar of Companies in recording changes of residential address. That work would increase substantially if he had to record changes of business address as well. Such changes cost money; they would cost the taxpayers money. However, I do not advance those arguments as overwhelming reasons.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: I am not surprised by the Minister's reply, but I am disappointed. I believe that the Minister underestimates the degree of reckless incompetence and fraud at the bottom end of the business market behind limited liability. I do not accept his argument that too much expense would be involved. Too many people try to get away with secreting their business addresses as well as their residential addresses.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I do not want to prejudge what the noble Lord wants to do with his amendment, but is it not true that a lot of business addresses are concealed as box numbers? People can give a business address and they would still be covered legitimately by the amendment and it still would riot do any good.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: With respect, that is not the case. As a result of this amendment, they would

1359
have to give their real business address and not some fictitious business address. However, I withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 2, line 15, at end insert—
("(3) If a person makes a false statement under subsection (1)(c) which he—

(a) knows to be false, or

(b) does not believe to be true,

he commits an offence.
(4) A person guilty of an offence under subsection (3) is liable—

(a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a period not exceeding six months or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum, or to both, or

(b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a period not exceeding two years or a fine, or to both.").

On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 3 [Incorporation by registration]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 2, line 16, leave out ("requirement imposed by paragraph (b) of subsection (1) of section 2 has") and insert ("requirements imposed by paragraphs (b) and (c) of subsection (1) of section 2 have").
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 9 was spoken to with Amendment No. 5. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendments Nos. 10 and 11:
Page 2, line 18, leave out from ("unless") to end of line 19 and insert ("the requirement imposed by paragraph (a) of that subsection has not").
Page 2, line 23, at end insert—
("( ) The registrar may accept the statement delivered under paragraph (c) of subsection (1) of section 2 as sufficient evidence that the requirement imposed by paragraph (a) of that subsection has been complied with.").
The noble Lord said: With the leave of the House, I shall move Amendments Nos. 10 and 11 en bloc. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 4 [Members]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 2, line 38, at end insert—
("(4) A member of a limited liability partnership shall not be regarded for any purpose as employed by the limited liability partnership unless, if he and the other members were partners in a partnership (rather than members of a limited liability partnership), he would be regarded for that purpose as employed by the partnership.").
The noble Lord said: The noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, raised at Second Reading the need to have an express clause in the Bill to ensure that members are
1360
not employees of the limited liability partnership; indeed, she was reflecting views expressed during the public consultation exercise that a member would be an employee and thus be entitled to protection under employment law. I am happy, therefore, to bring forward an amendment which makes it clear on the face of the Bill that a member is not an employee of the limited liability partnership. I beg to move.
Baroness Buscombe: I thank the Minister for that explanation and for bringing forward this amendment. However, notwithstanding that I am a lawyer, I find it difficult to understand this clause. I have read it more than half a dozen times and wonder whether we can improve on the wording, if I may be so blunt.
Is the clause saying that members can be employed so partners can be employed? What about designated members? I confess that I prefer—although I know the Minister will not warm to this—Amendment No. 17 wherein it becomes clear that the members are as partners and therefore subject to partnership law unless both the incorporation document makes it clear to the contrary together with the provisions of any agreement express or implied between the members of the LLP. As I have heard the Minister say in relation to Clause 1 that there is a move to exclude partnership law as far as possible in preference to company law, I therefore feel that I shall not get far with that amendment either.
However, I suggest that we look again at the wording, wherever possible, to simplify the legislation so that people in the community who want to take part in, and establish, a vehicle such as an LLP can understand with relative ease the parameters of a limited liability partnership and what it really stands for.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: I identify myself with the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe. Amendment No. 12 is work for lawyers, however well intentioned.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Two issues arise here. The first is where the amendment should be placed in the Bill. The noble Baroness rightly identified our wish to have it placed here rather than where it can be seen as an amendment to partnership law more generally.
On the issue of the wording, I only wish it were possible to have a simple definition of an "employee". The noble Baroness did not have the misfortune of sitting through as much of the Employment Relations Bill last summer as I did. We spent many happy hours discussing the definition of "employee" and I fear that this is not the legislation to resolve those questions which could not be resolved at that time.
There is not a single test to determine whether or not a person is an employee. Many factors are taken into account. Sharing profits, for example, is prima facie evidence that a person is a partner. If the losses as well as the profits are shared, the presumption is even stronger. But when a person receives both a salary and

1361
a share of the profits, there is strong evidence that he is an employee. That was an important consideration when we dealt with employment relations legislation.
There have been requests that any statutory provision should state that members are not employees unless there is an express agreement to the contrary. I believe that is what the noble Baroness is getting at in Amendment No. 17. We feel that that is going too far. If a person receives a salary, does not share profits and exhibits all the characteristics of an employee, it is inappropriate for the LLP to exclude the employee's rights in relation to that person. In addition, such an approach would be inconsistent with the employment law approach under which the description which the parties apply to the relationship—again coming back to Amendment No. 17—is not conclusive.
The noble Baroness referred to designated members. A designated member is a member and is therefore covered by the clause. The intention is not to put a member of an LLP in a different position from that of a partner in a partnership. I found the wording difficult and I promise to look at it again to see whether it can be made clearer. However, I insist on the thinking behind the amendment which is that much different from Amendment No. 17.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Goodhart Lord Goodhart moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 2, line 38, at end insert—
("( ) Subject to any agreement with the other members to the contrary, a member of a limited liability partnership may cease to be a member on giving not less than 28 days notice to the limited liability partnership.").
The noble Lord said: Since this is the first amendment to which I have spoken, I should like to make it clear that, speaking for my party as a corporate body although clearly not for all the individual members of it, we regard this as a good Bill—
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I would not even describe the Liberal Democratic Party as a "partnership", let alone a "corporate body".
Lord Goodhart: Despite the words of the Minister, we regard this as a good Bill, but a Bill capable of improvement and that is why we tabled a series of amendments to it.
Amendment No. 13 is concerned with the right of an individual member of an LLP to retire from an LLP on giving notice. At present the position under partnership law is that any partner can retire from the firm on giving notice unless the partnership agreement specifies otherwise. Clause 4(3) of this Bill provides that,
"A person may cease to be a member of a limited liability partnership (as well as by death or dissolution) in accordance with an agreement with the other members".
Presumably that agreement can either be a membership agreement which specifies the circumstances in which a member can retire, or it could
1362
be an ad hoc agreement when one member wishes to go and the other members consent to his or her going. But what is the situation if there is no agreement which allows a member to retire and the other members do not consent to that specific member going? That member will be locked into a business, perhaps for life, in which he or she no longer wishes to participate. That cannot be right.
The Government's answer in the otherwise helpful letter which the Minister sent to the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, and copied to me, was that regulations would be made incorporating certain provisions of partnership law including, in the absence of an agreement to the contrary, the right to withdraw from a firm on notice.
I shall look at the whole question of fall-back provisions when we come to Amendment No. 16. But Amendment No. 13 is essential in any case. The right to withdraw on notice in the absence of a partnership agreement specifying otherwise is a basic principle of partnership law and there is no reason why that should be changed in the case of LLPs. Being locked in for an indefinite period may be all right in the case of a Companies Act company where many shareholders are often just investors, but it is not appropriate i n the type of corporation such as an LLP where members are expected to be working members. The right to withdraw should not be left to be dealt with in consequence of regulations and should be brought on to the face of the Bill.
Further, it appears to be possible to read Clause 4(3) as an exhaustive list of the ways in which a person may cease to be a member. If that is so, regulations which authorise someone to retire in the absence of an agreement might themselves be ultra vires. I hope that the Minister will be prepared to look at the issue again. I beg to move.
Baroness Buscombe: I very much took on board the Minister's response to my suggestion on Second Reading that, in the event of a member wishing to retire, notice should be given to the LLP rather than to the other members. I appreciate that it does not make good sense to allow an individual to opt out of his or her responsibilities. In the event, say, of there being fundamental problems with the partnership, that could be avoided simply by a member tendering his or her resignation by notice to the body corporate.
There are concerns in this respect. I hope that the Minister will be able to give us some reassurance that there is a way round the problem by, on the one hand, making sure that people respond to their responsibilities and liabilities and, on the other hand, ensuring that they are not locked in against their will ad infinitum.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I certainly recognise that there are concerns, and I am very sympathetic to them. Indeed, I want to see the same result as noble Lords opposite. We want to be sure that we deal with the case where a member wishes to cease to be a member of an LLP but where, due to a disagreement

1363
within the firm, the other members fail to give their agreement. That is the problem that the noble Lord has identified.
When the agreement is drawn up the terms and conditions for ceasing to be a member are very likely to be dealt with at that time. Therefore, if there were to be a disagreement, the agreement would come into force. However, I recognise that that is not good enough. There must be some mechanism that comes into play if the LLP fails to have an agreement or has an agreement that does not adequately deal with the departure of a member.
Therefore, we shall be including a default provision, along the lines of Section 24 of the Partnership Act 1890, which will deal with the problem. We shall be including such provision in regulations. This was not published with the draft regulations in July of last year, but our suggestions for that were published on the website in October or November of last year. Such proposals are subject to consultation and are still being consulted upon. We are considering whether something along the lines of Section 24 of that Act would be appropriate for a default, following Section 26, to cover retirement.
If necessary, we can deal with this when we reach Clause 5. However, perhaps I may indicate the areas that we propose to include in default provisions: the right to share equally in capital and profits; the right to be indemnified by the LLP for activities in the course of business; the right to take part in the management of the firm; no entitlement for remuneration; the right to have access to books and records; expulsion and retirement of members; decisions by majority vote; and the application of Section 459 of the Companies Act—protections against unfair prejudice. Members of the Committee should take note that retirement of members is included in that list.
In simple terms, "default provision" means that if the agreement does not contain provision for retirement and for all the other matters to which I referred, the default provisions that will be provided will come into force under the regulations and the member seeking to retire will be protected by them. I hope that the noble Lord will agree that that is a better way to do it than putting the provision on the face of the Bill, as proposed by his amendment. However, it will have the same effect.
Lord Howie of Troon: Before my noble friend the Minister sits down, perhaps he can clear up a slight problem that I have. We are discussing an important amendment and my noble friend said that certain information relating to the matter was published last October or November on the website. However, can he tell the Committee whether it was published anywhere else?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: No, not to my knowledge. However, I shall check on the position and write to my noble friend.
Lord Goodhart: I recognise the Minister's goodwill and good intentions in the matter. At this point I shall deal only with the question of retirement because the other rather wider questions regarding Section 24 of the Partnership Act can be dealt with when we discuss Amendments Nos. 16 and 17.
As far as concerns retirement, it seems to me that this is in a rather special position as it is of particular importance. Unless the partnership agreement provides for the contrary, someone going into an LLP needs to be quite certain that he can get out of it. I wonder whether the Minister will agree to look again at the question of possible difficulties with vires because of the likely interpretation of Clause 4(3) as being an exhaustive list of the circumstances in which it is possible to cease being a member of the partnership. However, subject to that, I am happy to beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 2, line 38, at end insert—
("( ) A limited liability partnership shall maintain at its registered office a current list of the members of the partnership which shall include an explicit description of any limitations on the authority of each member to act for the limited liability partnership in any matter.").
The noble Lord said: In these amendments I am seeking to explore the way in which a third party who wishes to deal with a member of a limited liability partnership, or someone he believes to be a member—
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The noble Lord referred to "these amendments". We had not proposed to group this with any other amendments, but I am happy to do so if the noble Lord so wishes. Without trying to put any pressure on him, and unless he is thinking of pressing his amendment to a Division, I wonder whether it might be easier if we dealt with this amendment and Amendment No. 25 when we reach Clause 6?
Lord Lucas: I apologise to the Committee. I should have said at the beginning that I intended to speak to Amendment No. 25 when moving this amendment. That is what is on my grouping list. I apologise for arriving here in some haste, almost late, and therefore not being as clear as I might have been.
The two amendments certainly go together because they both bear on the substance of Clause 6 and the question of how a third party dealing with a member of an LLP is able to treat that person and, indeed, what assumptions he is allowed to make about the powers that that person has to bind the partnership. As the Bill stands—and we shall deal later with some proposed government amendments—Clause 6 falls into two principal sections; namely, subsections (2) and (3).

1365
Under Clause 6 (2), which relates to the ordinary circumstances of dealing with a member of an LLP, "the person" who is dealing with someone has the right to treat him as an "agent" in all respects of the limited liability partnership if he believes him,
"to be a member of the limited liability partnership".
There will be legal precedents that I do not pretend to be expert in as to what substance lies behind "belief', and that is what I am addressing in Amendment No. 14.
How does a person establish that someone is a member of a limited liability partnership? There will be a list at the registrar's office, but those concerned are not being asked in this subsection to look at that list. Indeed, they a re allowed a more generous interpretation; namely, a belief. However, when we turn to subsection (3), which is where a partner has ceased to be a partner, the third party is supposed to consult the registrar to make sure that the person with whom he is dealing, and whose word he is about to rely on, is still a member of the partnership.
This is a very odd dichotomy of systems to find within one clause of the Bill: we have the ordinary circumstances under which a person can act on the basis of reasonable belief; but if the person with whom he is dealing happens to have retired as a partner and he does not know, he will not be able to act on the basis of reasonable belief because a notice has been delivered to the registrar which he is supposed to have seen. I find that an odd combination. I think that it ought to be made consistent by requiring that a limited liability partnership has at its offices a list of members which includes any restrictions on the ability of those members to bind the partnership. I hope that that is what these two amendments achieve, but I should not be at all surprised to be told that they do not achieve that effect.
Amendment No. 14 requires the list to be kept and for data to be held as to how each member may be able to bind the partnership. In a brig accountancy partnership, this is likely to be quite fluid and quite detailed. Different members will have different capacities. It is not something which would easily be held by a registrar. My view is that it is quite sufficient if it is held at the partnership. It also then becomes something which is easily and commonly available to anyone dealing with that partnership and something which under Clause 6(2)(b) he might reasonably be supposed to have consulted in coming to the belief that a person was entitled to act for the partnership on the particular matter that he was discussing with that person.
Amendment No. 25 constitutes another way of looking at this matter. If we are to have Clause 6(3) as it is at present, it should not be possible for this third party access, which relies on dealing with someone, to be cut off at a moment's notice just because a document has been delivered to some remote registrar. There must be a time delay. If someone is to have the whole basis of his o r her dealings with a firm regulated by what has been filed with a registrar, he must be sure that if he looked at the information the registrar had a
1366
week ago that is still valid, and that he does not have to check with the registrar every waking moment to see whether or not the person he is dealing with has retired.
Therefore, the proposal in Amendment No. 25 is that if the Government insist on this dichotomy, there must at least be some protection for third parties so that they do not continually have to go back and forwards to the registrar. As I say, I have difficulties with that concept. A list at the limited liability partnership's offices would be commonly available to people to use under subsections (2) and (3) of Clause 6. We would then have just one method of establishing whether a person was entitled to hind the partnership. However, I do not lay any great store by the wording that I have chosen to achieve either of the aims I have mentioned.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, will know that my particular interest in this clause comes from a wish to see this Bill in a form which can be used to fund venture capital funds, which are commonly made up of a group of institutions or rich individuals and a single managing partner. We need to find a practical way of informing a member of the public who is about to deal with someone who is a member of such a limited liability partnership that an individual may not be entitled to bind the partnership in all respects. That member will have an active role in the management of the partnership but it will not be the universal role that the managing partner would take. He or she would not, for instance, be authorised to make investments on behalf of the partnership.
As I said, the big accountancy partnerships commonly have great variations in what an individual partner can do. From my discussions with them it would appear that if there is an easy way in which they can make that information available in a standard form that does not involve having to do it through a registrar, they would feel happy with such a change to the Bill. I look forward to what the Minister may say on these points. I beg to move.
5.30 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I hope that there is less difference between us on this matter than I had originally suspected. I am grateful to the noble Lord for discussing Amendment No. 25 with Amendment No. 14. I had not recorded that provision in the groupings. I hope that he will forgive me if I say that there is a difficulty here in that he keeps referring to Clause 6 of the Bill as it stands; I have tabled amendments which seek to make substantial changes to Clause 6. I have sent the noble Lord a marked copy of the Bill showing the effect of those changes. I believe, and hope, that the changes that we seek to make to Clause 6 of the Bill—which, of course, we cannot debate yet—will address some of the points that the noble Lord makes.
My understanding has been that the intention behind Amendment No. 14 is to make it easier to allow for "passive" members of a firm, who will not bind the

1367
limited liability partnership with their actions. I believe that that has been confirmed by what the noble Lord said about venture capital funds.
Clause 6—this is absolutely fundamental to the Bill—determines that all members are agents of the entity. I understand the concern that a passive member may, inadvertently or otherwise, bind the limited liability partnership when it may not wish to be bound. However, the amendments that we are discussing would provide poorer protection for the third party than we intend.
As I said, agency is fundamental to the principles of a limited liability partnership. It is a necessary protection for creditors that their position should not vary depending on which member they deal with, unless they know that a member does not have authority to act in a particular matter, which is, of course, what our proposed new drafting of Clause 6 allows for. We do not believe that this is an unreasonable requirement—the third party should not be expected to be pro-active; in other words, to go and search the register in order to establish the authority or otherwise of a member. It would, in any case, be possible for the members of an LLP to safeguard their position further by contractually agreeing that a fellow member will not take any action which would bind the firm, and so provide that a member would be contractually liable to the firm if he breached that position.
I believe that Amendment No. 25 expresses a concern that a passive member may, inadvertently or otherwise, bind the limited liability partnership when it may not wish to be bound. However, as I said, agency is fundamental to the principles of a limited liability partnership. We think that it is far more important that the member should have the responsibility of saying to the person with whom he is dealing that he is a member of the partnership, rather than requiring the person outside to refer to the list in the registered office.
The noble Lord said that although third parties are not expected to be pro-active in establishing the authority or otherwise of a member, they are expected to be pro-active in discovering whether someone is an ex-member. We believe the need for this apparent disparity to be clear when one imagines the situation in which a third party may be dealing with an ex-member of a limited liability partnership. If the ex-member was purporting to the third party that he was still a member of the firm, he would be being dishonest, presumably for his own gain. The question here is whether it is right that a limited liability partnership should be bound by the ex-member's actions in such circumstances. We concluded that the limited liability partnership should not be so bound. It would create a risk that any ex-member purporting still to be a member of an LLP could bind that firm by his actions. However, in the situation where a third party is dealing with a bona fide member of an LLP, it is right that the firm should be bound by its member's actions unless the third party is told the extent, or otherwise, of that member's authority.
1368
The noble Lord proposes a "cooling-off" period of 21 days during which an ex-member may still be treated as a member by a third party if he so claims himself to be. I think that that is unfair. The firm can have no control over a person once that person has ceased to be a member and any "cooling-off- period would, in practice, give carte blanche to an ex-member to undertake any act in the name of his old firm. I still hope and believe that we are not that far apart on this issue provided it is understood that the fundamental principle of the Bill is agency; in other words, interaction between the members of the limited liability partnership.
Lord Lucas: The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, was kind enough to allow me a meeting with him before Committee stage. He made plain then that agency was not to be challenged; hence the way in which I have phrased the amendments. I do not intend to challenge agency. What I sought to get at here is how a member of the public comes to be in a position where he can reasonably believe a person who is a member of a partnership to have any particular level of authority. There are ways of doing so. If there are only a limited number of partners in the firm, it could put something on its letterhead. But suppose it is one of the big accountancy firms, with 1,000 or 2,000 partners scattered around the UK. How do the Government envisage that the limitations on an individual member's powers will be brought to the notice of a third party dealing with that member?
My proposal in Amendment No. 14 seeks to place a requirement on a limited liability partnership to have a public record which would be easily available and to which it might be assumed a third party would have recourse. If not, presumably something must be stated on a business card or a letterhead which indicates the limitation of a particular partner—otherwise there is no limitation. I should be grateful for the noble Lord's thoughts on that issue.
So far as concerns Amendment No. 25, that is certainly not challenging agency. I understand everything that the noble Lord has said, but he understands what I mean about the third party being in two very different positions under the two subsections. The fact that the Government have conceded Clause 6(3) should allow some flexibility under Clause 6(2) for provision to be made as to what a third party should ordinarily expect to do to arrive at the belief that he is required, presumably reasonably, to reach under Clause 6(2).
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am in some difficulty. I think that our rewording of Clause 6 in Amendments Nos. 18 to 24 and Amendment No. 26 covers the points made. I shall deal with the points in detail when I come to the amendments but it is not easy for me to do so now. Perhaps the noble Lord and I can agree that if he is not satisfied he can still come back to the

1369
substance of Amendment No. 14 on Report. We should then be able to make progress by having a single debate rather than two.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I may well come back to it when the noble Lord deals with his amendments to Clause 6, but I shall I wait until I have listened to him on those. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 14.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 4 agreed to.
Clause 5 [Relationship of members etc.]:
Lord Phillips of Sudbury Lord Phillips of Sudbury moved Amendment No. 15:
Page 2, line 39, leave out subsection (1).
The noble Lord said: Perhaps I may remedy a defect. Before I spoke first this afternoon I failed to thank the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, for letting us have a marked copy of the Bill showing the Government's amendments. It was extremely helpful and we are grateful for that. It would be nice to think that it could be a precedent for future Bills.
The amendment is a probing one which seeks to get to the root of what Clause 5(1) of the Bill achieves. In the Explanatory Notes it says that,
"Subsection (I)) deals with the relationship between members".
On these Benches we do not understand why the subsection is necessary if that is all that it does. Incidentally, nowhere does it make clear that, whatever the members decide to do among themselves or as between themselves and the limited liability partnership, it cannot affect the rights of third parties.
Finally—again as part of the probe—the end of Clause 5(1) stipulates that it shall,
"have effect subject to the provisions of the incorporation document".
We do not see why this should be drawn in. If it is, surely it should be "the provisions of the incorporation document as may be amended and registered". I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am sorry. I am not sure that I understand the noble Lord. I thought that Amendments Nos. 15 and 16 had to go together in the sense that Amendment No. 15 seeks to take out subsection (1) and. Amendment No. 16 seeks to put something in its place. I have clearly misunderstood.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: I am dealing with the list as it has been marshalled.
Lord Goodhart: Ishould explain that I asked for the Marshalled List to be changed this morning. The two amendments are not dependent on each other. As my noble friend explained, Amendment No. 15 is a probing amendment to find out what the subsection means. Amendment No. 16 is much wider.
5.45 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am grateful. A limited liability partnership allows its members to have the freedom to regulate the internal affairs of a limited
1370
liability partnership with the agreement of the other members. One of the key differences between a limited liability partnership and a company is that by allowing the members the freedom to agree how the internal affairs will work, it will be free of the bureaucratic structure of a company. The agreement will remain private between the members.
However, it has never been our intention to allow the agreement between the members to be able to alter what goes into the incorporation document. This is because the incorporation document is published and sets out the public face of the LLP; that is, its name, its address, its initial members and its designated members. So Clause 5(1) imposes a limitation on the freedom of the members to regulate their rights and duties. It does not impose a limitation on their rights to have at any time agreements between themselves about the way in which the business should be conducted.
As I said to the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, in response to an earlier amendment, we recognise that that does not in itself necessarily provide adequate protection for the outside world; that is, for the people doing business with the LLP. That is why I talked about the default provisions for an agreement which will be established to ensure that not only the interests of members on retirement are protected but, perhaps more importantly, the interests of the outside world are also protected. That is the distinction we seek to make in Clause 5(1).
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: I am grateful to the Minister for that explanation. I should be grateful if he would read what I said in Hansard and consider whether it might not be of advantage to all to make clear in Clause 5(1) that, whatever is clone under its provisions, it cannot affect the rights of third parties. That is not explicitly stated.
The incorporation document is changeable. If one looks at the provisions of Clause 2(2), there are various aspects of the incorporation document which will be subject to change. Again, I am not sure that Clause 5(1) as drafted takes that into account.
These are all very technical matters and at the moment I am happy to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Goodhart Lord Goodhart moved Amendment No. 16:
Page 2, line 44, at end insert—
("( ) Subject to this Act and to the provisions of the incorporation document and of any such agreement as is mentioned in subsection (1), the mutual rights and duties of the members of a limited liability partnership shall be governed by the rules and principles which would apply if the law relating to partnerships applied to them and the property of the limited liability partnership were partnership property.").
The noble Lord said: This is an important amendment—one of the most important that have been tabled to this Bill.
Up until now, partnership law has been made in Part by the Partnership Act 1890 and in part by decisions of the courts. The 1890 Act is a classic of parliamentary draftsmanship: it is clear, simple and concise. Would that modern statutes were as effectively and briefly

1371
drafted as that. It has worked with almost no amendments and to general satisfaction for 110 years. It is showing some signs of age but it has still been the effective foundation on which partnership law has been based.
As has been pointed out, it contains a number of important default provisions—rules which apply to partnerships if the partnership agreement does not cover a particular issue. This Bill, however, is completely lacking in default rules—and it needs them, especially because many existing partnerships will convert into LLPs and they will need to know whether or not, and how far, the laws which have governed them as partnerships will continue to govern them as LLPs.
If one wants to look at the default rules, one has to look primarily at Section 24 of the Partnership Act. That provides default rules which are subject to agreement to the contrary. Those include the fact that members are entitled to equal shares in the capital and profits of the partnership; that they are entitled to indemnity for liabilities personally incurred in the course of conducting the firm's business; and all members are entitled to take part in the management of its business. No person may become a member of the firm without the consent of all the other partners. Business decisions shall be taken by a majority of the partners, but any change in the nature of the business must have the consent of all the partners. Lastly, all members have the right to inspect the firm's books.
Other important default provisions are provided for. Section 25 provides that there is no power to expel a member unless the agreement so provides. Section 26, which has already been discussed, provides for a right to retire from the firm on notice where no other provision has been made in the agreement. Section 30 provides that members are under a duty not to compete with the firm. There are also important rules of common law and equity that apply to partnerships, in particular the duty of partners to act in good faith towards each other. I should like to refer to a quotation from what I believe is the best known textbook on the subject, first published in the name of the famous judge, Lord Lindley. It states that:
"Perhaps the most fundamental obligation which the law imposes on a partner is the duty to display complete good faith towards his co-partners in all partnership dealings and transactions".
That is an important principle. It is vital that default rules for the conduct of LLPs should be provided, especially because LLPs will be used as a simple and informal way of incorporating small businesses where it is likely that members' agreements will be defective and incomplete in a way that the agreements of substantial accountancy firms or solicitors' practices will not be defective.
The wording of Amendment No. 16 is based on an earlier text in a draft government Bill. I believe that Amendment No. 17 is intended to achieve the same purpose but with different wording. Powers are provided to include default provisions by regulations under Clause 14. The Government have stated their
1372
intention to do so in so far as that is appropriate. However, in spite of their intention, I have tabled the amendment for three reasons.
First, proper default provisions are of central importance to the working of LLPs and I believe that they should be set down on the face of the Bill, as was done in the case of the Partnership Act 1890. Secondly, although it may be easy to provide default provisions where they are based on existing statutes, they will be much more difficult to formulate where they are based on common law. The duty to act in good faith to fellow members is central to a partnership and should remain central to LLPs. The Government have objected to this in the letter to which I referred earlier. It is said that there may be a potential conflict between duties to fellow members and duties to the LLP. I do not believe that to be a real problem. The courts created the duty of good faith and I believe they are entirely able to apply that concept to a new context. For example, the suggestion that members might be held liable to account for a private profit to both the LLP and the members of the LLP is, in my view, simply fanciful.
Thirdly, we have not yet had sight of the draft regulations that will apply the partnership principles. I hope that we shall do so before the Bill is enacted, in the same way as we have seen the effective draft regulations the Government propose to introduce as regards winding up and insolvency. I beg to move.
Baroness Buscombe: I wish to speak briefly to Amendment No. 16 and then move on to speak to Amendment No. 17. The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, and I are seeking to achieve similar results here, albeit using different wording. In that sense I concur with much of what the noble Lord has already said as regards Clause 5 of the Bill. However, I shall repeat what I said during the Second Reading debate on the Bill; namely, as presently worded, the members of a limited liability partnership will be subject to company law or employment law if no specific provision is made in this clause to the contrary. That would radically alter the nature of the limited liability partnership.
I appreciate that the Government have sought to clarify this in part, certainly with Amendment No. 12. However, I believe that Amendment No. 17 deflects any possible confusion between whether members are employees or partners while enunciating, by reference to the Partnership Act 1890 and the rules of equity in common law applicable to partnerships, the partnership ethos we are endeavouring to maintain on the face of the Bill. Furthermore, as the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, has already said, we wish to recognise those areas that should be expressed in terms of default provisions modelled on Section 24 of the Partnership Act 1890; or, if not, we would appreciate the opportunity to review the draft regulations setting out those default provisions.
I shall refer briefly to the Minister's letter to me of 10th January 2000. He kindly clarified a number of issues, in particular in relation to Clause 5 of the Bill. He made it clear that there are a number of areas where the Government, through secondary legislation, would like to ensure that the relationship of the

1373
members of an LLP is clarified: the right to share equally in capital and profits; the right to be indemnified by the LLP for activities in the course of business; the right to take part in the management of the firm; no entitlement for remuneration for acting in the business of the LLP; the right to have access to books and records and decisions by a majority vote. In essence, we would appreciate some reassurance in relation to Clause 5 that such provisions will be set out in regulations. To that end, we would be grateful to have sight of those draft regulations before final decisions are made.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: I should like to make one simple point. The Title of the Bill is thoroughly misleading unless the purport of one of these two amendments is accepted by the Government. The issue of ethos, as the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, called it, is crucial. I have been a member of a partnership for ever 30 years and I must say to the House that the spirit of a partnership can in fact be far stronger and more effective than the dry, technical provisions of a limited company. For that reason I do not think that this is a minor matter and I agree entirely with my noble friend Lord Goodhart that the amendments are fundamentally important. I hope very much that the Government will listen to the point being made here.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I thought that we had covered the point of the Short Title of the Bill during the Second Reading debate. I believe that there are two ways in which the Title may be read. The first is that limited liability with the word "partnerships" tacitly held in brackets provides for limited liability to be applied to partnerships. The second is actual limited liability partnerships; namely, the entity that will be created by the Bill before us. That is a completely new entity embodying elements of a partnership and of a limited company.
However, I appreciate the force of the points that have been made from both of the Opposition Benches and I do not wish in any way to underestimate their importance. However, I must return to what I said in response to amendments tabled much earlier this afternoon. The point of the creation of a limited liability partnership is that it is a body corporate which is treated as a partnership only for tax purposes. In other words, in every other respect it is not a partnership. If the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, who told the Committee that he has been a partner for over 30 years, wishes to continue being a partner with unlimited liability, he is entirely free to do so. It is only because members of many partnerships have expressed a wish for limited liability that we have gone to the extent of putting the Bill forward. The only basis on which we can put the Bill forward is to say that, in return for the benefit of limited liability, a price has to be paid.
The price that has to be paid is the price of transparency and, in general, of the application of as many as possible of the rules applying to limited companies. If a director of a company or a partner in
1374
a partnership does not like it, they are free not to do it. We are not imposing limited liability partnerships on anyone. We are trying to respond to a legitimate request and, at the same time, to protect the public who deal with these new business entities.
The attempt to provide a default provision that applies partnership law seems to go against the principles that I set out earlier today, and set out, perhaps not entirely clearly, at Second Reading. If we look at the matter in terms of the professional advisers who will be relevant, I take it that it will be tax lawyers with experience of partnerships who will be advising LLPs, and in all other respects corporate lawyers will deal with the issues which LLPs raise. However, as these amendments are drafted, they would create substantial uncertainties in seeking to apply partnership law by default to a corporate body. We are applying the Companies Act provisions by regulations made under the Bill and the application of partnership law in general would lead to confusion as to how they would interact. For example, the rules for winding-up and insolvency for a company are entirely different from those for a partnership. That is why we have decided not to apply partnership law as a default.
After very considerable thought and after the steps that I described in relation to earlier amendments, we have decided that the most practical option is to have this set of default provisions in the regulations which would apply subject to any agreement, express or implied, between the members. In other words, they would come into effect if an agreement did not cover the point. The noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, read out the list of areas which we propose to include; as indeed I did in response to an earlier amendment. I said that they are available on the website. They are. I shall take them off the website and send them in hard copy to everyone taking part in this debate, and by e-mail to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, who does not like to see things in hard copy. He has proper concern for the forests of Scandinavia. Whether we can go further right now in providing drafts of the regulations, I do not know. We will certainly have them available before Royal Assent. But we are in the middle of consultation on them and it might be misleading to send draft regulations now. I will do my best. If we can get draft regulations to noble Lords before Report stage we will certainly do so. I can confirm that they cover the points made. I can confirm that we intend that they should be applied and that they should be available to be debated by Parliament as early as possible. I cannot agree with the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, that they should be on the face of the Bill. Indeed, the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, recognised that she might not be able to persuade us of that. We think it is better to provide flexibility for the amendments in case they need to be amended after the Bill has been enacted. A limited liability partnership is not a partnership, and it would be wrong to restrict its future evolution.
I want to say a few words about good faith, as the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, quite legitimately referred to that. Although he described what I said at Second Reading as "fanciful", nevertheless I am going to have to repeat it. Even though no express duty of

1375
good faith is included in the Bill, we believe that as a LLP is a body corporate and the members are agents, the courts would find that a fiduciary duty existed between members and the LLP. If the rules and principles of the Partnership Act were applied to LLPs and the courts were to find that a fiduciary duty existed between members and the LLP, it would mean that an individual member was faced with parallel fiduciary duties: duties that were owed to the LLP and duties owed to fellow members. In such an event the Bill would not be able to provide a mechanism to decide which duty would prevail, even when there was a conflict.
That could result in particular difficulties with regard to the duty contained in the Partnership Act to account for private profits. To whom should the account be made; to the LLP or other members? There would be the potential for double jeopardy and the need to prioritise between the rights of the members and the rights of the LLP.
I know that I have not convinced the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, on that point. Perhaps it is a subject that we can discuss between now and Report stage. But that is the considered view of the Government. It is also our considered view that we can best deal with these matters by regulation, as I suggested, rather than on the face of the Bill. I invite the noble Lord not to press his amendment.
6 p.m.
Lord Goodhart: I have to say that I find the Minister's response somewhat unsatisfactory. I am concerned particularly that the Government have approached this matter on the footing that a LLP is essentially a company similar to the Companies Act companies rather than anything which is in the nature of what we now know as a partnership. It seems to me that it would have been much better to approach the issue from the other direction, and to say that there are partnerships which need protection in the form of limited liability, and that that limited liability should be given to them in a way that does as little damage as possible to existing partnership law.
I accept that the provisions for the winding-up of partnerships are fundamentally inconsistent with the idea of limited liability and that one needs to incorporate the provisions from the Insolvency Act relating to winding-up. I accept also that, given the existence of limited liability, there has to be a great deal more transparency in connection with the financial information about the firm. But it does seem to me that there are a great many principles in partnership law which can, and should, be applied to relations, particularly to the relations between the members of an LLP. I think it is important to preserve what both the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, and my noble friend Lord Phillips said about the ethos of the partnership system. I fear very much that that will be lost when we come to LLPs.
I should say that the argument that flexibility is necessary in this case is not correct. It seems to me that what we are looking at is principles of partnership law
1376
that have been established, at least since the Partnership Act 1890, and in many cases earlier. Those principles are well-established. It is easy to identify those which are appropriate to LLPs and to weed out those which are not. Certainly I would not expect to see the regulations which apply to parts of partnership law have any need of change. In that case it would have been appropriate for the Government to have introduced these default provisions on the face of the Bill rather than by way of regulation. There is of course a problem with timing. I can understand that it is not easy for the Government, having reached where they are, to go back and have a different approach. It would certainly be much easier for us if we were at least able to see what the Government are actually proposing and not merely what they are consulting about. That is why I regret that it is suggested that the draft regulations will not be available until possibly Royal Assent.
Having said that, at this stage I shall certainly ask leave to withdraw the amendment. We shall have to consider whether, either in this or another form, the amendment should be brought back on Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 17 not moved.]
Clause 6 [Members as agents]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 18:
Page 3, line 7, leave out from beginning to ("member") in line 8 and insert ("But a limited liability partnership is not bound by anything done by a member in dealing with a person if—
(a) the").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 18, I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 19 to 24. These are amendments to Clause 6 to which I referred in discussing earlier amendments. They seem complicated on the Marshalled List, but I hope that the marked copy of the Bill which I supplied makes it possible for me to say that these are largely technical or drafting amendments. However, there is an issue of substance here which I want to set out.
Concerns were expressed, particularly by the professional consultees, that the effect of the drafting of Clause 6(2) goes further than was intended by removing the agency of the member in the circumstances described at Clause 6(2)(a) and (b). Paragraph (a) refers to where the member has no authority to act and paragraph (b) refers to where the person with whom he is dealing believes that he has no authority to act or does not know or believe him to be a member of a limited liability partnership. The amendments respond to those concerns and ensure that the Bill meets the agreed intention. It is important that the member should continue to be an agent of the limited liability partnership for all purposes, even if his acts do not, in certain circumstances, bind the LLP. The agent—the member—owes fiduciary duties to the principal—the LLP. Those should apply even if, in a particular case, his acts do not bind the firm.
Amendment No. 20 provides that third parties—the outsiders, if one likes—who have knowledge which bears on a member's status cannot rely on the member being an agent of the LLP. The circumstances in which that would apply would be where, first, the third party knew or believed that the individual with whom he was dealing was not a member of the LLP; and, secondly, the third party knew or believed that the member with whom he was dealing had no authority.
We have gone further in the second provision than was originally the case in the Bill by saying that a third party cannot rely on the member being an agent where he believed that the member had no authority. The specific change is intended to cover the situation where a member of an LLP does something wholly unconnected with the LLP; for example, a member of an LLP of solicitors who goes into the business of selling second-hand cars. It would not require absolute knowledge; belief would be a sufficient test.
I believe that Clause 6, as amended by Amendments Nos. 18 to 24, is not only clearer than it was originally but also more precisely reflects our intentions. I beg to move.
6.15 p.m.
Baroness Buscombe: I rise to speak in support of this group of amendments. For my part, the amendments help to clarify the, meaning of Clause 6. Having cast aspersions on previous amendments in relation to the drafting of the Bill, it is only fair that I say that the drafting in this instance has helped to clarify the parameters of the agent. The Minister is already aware that, in relation to Clause 6 as a whole, we regret the dropping of subsection(1)(c), as it appears in the earlier draft of the Bill. That made specific reference to the law relating to partnerships. Following all that has been said today, it is clear that since the earlier drafting of the Bill the Government have very much moved on in terms of the accent on company law as opposed to partnership law.
Lord Goldsmith: I agree that the wording of the clause is much improved, but I want to raise one issue in relation to it. It relates to the particular words to which my noble friend the Minister referred—that the person knows or believes that the member has no authority. It is right to contrast that with Section 5 of the 1890 Act, which uses the expression,
"and the person with whom he is dealing either knows that he has no authority or does lot know or believe him to be a partner".
The concept of belief in relation to "partner" makes a good deal of sense. If one does not believe someone to be a partner, one has no business believing that he has authority to act on behalf of anyone else. But the more I look at it, the more I am troubled by the watering down of knowledge in relation to paragraph (a)—in relation to the question of whether the person who otherwise ought to be able to assume that the member has authority is to be deprived of the benefit of that; that is to say, not to be able to hold the limited liability partnership to account.
1378
If he knows that the person does not have authority, I have no difficulty with the provision at all. That is what the Partnership Act 1890 provided. My question concerns belief. What is it that would justify saying that someone cannot rely on the member binding the firm because he does not know that he does not have authority—yet he believes that to be so? I am worried that that expression should not be taken in any way as amounting to, for example, simply suspicion. I wonder whether it is worth further considering precisely what the expression adds to the wording which otherwise I entirely endorse.
Lord Lucas: I should be grateful if the Minister could help me by clarifying one or two points on this revised wording. First, under Clause 6(1)(b)., the important thing for a partnership to do if a partnership has such a member—for instance, my accountancy partnership has a member who is not entitled to sign audit reports—is to ensure that third parties dealing with that partner know that he does not have that authority; otherwise, it will be caught by this revised wording. The revised wording takes agency to the point where, if one is dealing with an accountancy firm, one can presume that any individual party with whom one is dealing is omnipotent; that there are no restrictions on his ability. One has every reason to believe that he has the power. He is a partner of the firm and therefore he can do it. However, in order for the revised wording to bite, one must know that he does not have the power.
How does the Minister envisage that a large accountancy firm will bring to the attention of its myriad of clients the restrictions on the ability to act which affect its partners? Will it be sufficient to have a general notice at the bottom of the note paper saying that people ought to consult the partnership about what powers individual partners have? How does he envisage this happening in practice so that a limitation on the partner's ability to act may be made manifest to third parties with whom the person is dealing?
Under Clause 6(3), where a person has been dealing habitually with a partner of a firm and that person then ceases to be a member of the firm, what duties does the limited liability partnership have to inform the client that the person with whom he was dealing is no longer a member? If it neglects to do that, is it still free of all liability just by sending a notice to the registrar? That would seem to be a little unfair.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: I absolutely agree with the last point made by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. I believe that it will be a much more common occurrence than the Committee may think—namely, the active attempt by people to avoid liability under this legislation by chopping and changing registrations of members. If the Committee thinks that I am unduly cynical, I can only say that it is a cynicism born of long experience. I am afraid that in certain sectors of the economy there is a great deal of jiggery-pokery and every advantage will be taken.
I should also like to speak in support of remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Goldsmith. He is correct in drawing a distinction between knowing and

1379
believing. I merely point out that these days solicitors do a multiplicity of things. I refer to them as one example of the professional bodies that will take advantage of the LLP. They sell property; they act as attorneys; they are very often partners and non-executive directors of companies of which their firm is also the solicitor. I suggest that it is extremely difficult to know what someone believes, or believed, given that a court will have to construe that.
A large firm of solicitors or accountants is in an extremely powerful position over and against an individual member of the public in sidelining or derailing a perfectly proper claim brought by an individual by pretending—I use the word advisedly—that they did not believe that the partner concerned did not have authority. In considering the Bill, we need to be extremely careful to give no help at all to those who will, I fear, be unscrupulous in seeking to take undue advantage of what is the extension of an immense public privilege via limited liability.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I have certainly got the big guns raising questions about the new drafting. I acknowledge that. My understanding as we went through the amendments last week was that what we were doing was providing a failsafe on the side of the client—in other words, the provision would make it more difficult for a limited liability partnership to evade any responsibilities. But several noble Lords, including my noble friend Lord Goldsmith, have suggested that the failsafe might be in the other direction. It was certainly not in my mind that that should be the case. However, if the introduction of the words, "or believes", in the part of subsection (2)(b) which refers to authority does go in the other direction and weakens the rights of the third parties, those with whom the LLP is doing business, that is not what is intended.
This is a genuinely difficult issue. I recognise that we have sprung the new wording on the Committee at relatively short notice. I should like to include the wording because I believe it is clearer to do it that way. However, I should like to write to all noble Lords and, if that is their wish, meet with noble Lords before Report stage to make sure that we are of one mind about this matter. I believe that we are all here on the side of the customers rather than on the side of the professionals. I hope that on that basis noble Lords will not resist the amendments which have been agreed to be an improvement in terms of clarity, if not entirely in effect.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendments Nos. 19 to 24:
Page 3, line 9. leave out ("in a particular matter") and insert ("by doing that thing").
Page 3, line 10, leave out ("with whom he is dealing in that matter either knows") and insert ("knows or believes").
Page 3, line 13, leave out ("person deals with a limited liability partnership after a").
Page 3, line 14, leave out ("the") and insert ("a").
1380
Page 3, line 14, leave out ("he is entitled to treat the former member") and insert ("the former member is to be regarded (in relation to any person dealing with the limited liability partnership)").
Page 3, line 17, leave out ("he") and insert ("the person").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 25 not moved.]
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 26:
Page 3, line 20, at end insert—
("( ) Where a member of a limited liability partnership is liable to any person (other than another member of the limited liability partnership) as a result of a wrongful act or omission of his in the course of the business of the limited liability partnership or with its authority, the limited liability partnership is liable to the same extent as the member.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 6, as amended, agreed to.
Baroness Buscombe Baroness Buscombe moved Amendment No. 27:
After Clause 6, insert the following new clause—
MEMBERS: SUPPLEMENTARY
(" Unless otherwise agreed between members and the limited liability partnership, a member is not an agent for another member, is not liable for debts of the limited partnership and is not an employee of the limited liability partnership").
The noble Baroness said: This is a probing amendment designed to ensure clarity with regard to the relationship between members and the limited liability partnership. Based on present English legal authorities, the fact that the LLP is incorporated with limited liability, has a separate legal personality and no mutual agency of members should be sufficient to protect non-negligent members where the LLP is the contracting party. In essence, the amendment seeks to reinforce limited liability. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I had assumed that other noble Lords with more expertise than I would wish to intervene. There are three elements in the amendment. I am duty bound to deal with all three. The first provides that, subject to the agreement between members, the member is not an agent for another member. We do not believe that the provision is necessary. There is nothing in the Bill to provide that one member is an agent of another. The member is only an agent of the LLP.
The second provision is that, subject to the agreement between members, a member is not liable for the debts of the limited liability partnership. Again, we believe the provision to be unnecessary. The LLP is a body corporate and a separate legal person from its members. Under the common law as it applies to corporations, the members of a corporation are not in general liable for its debts. That is subject, of course, to the caveat that our intentions are to ensure, by regulation, that if an LLP becomes insolvent, a member may be required to repay withdrawals made from the LLP in the two years prior to winding up if it is proved that at the time of the withdrawal he knew or had reasonable grounds for believing that the LLP was at the time of the withdrawal unable to pay its debts.

1381
I refer to the proposed new Section 214A of the Insolvency Act which we published twice in draft for consultation, most recently in July last year, and which is the subject of a subsequent amendment by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart.
The third part of the amendment provides that, unless otherwise agreed, a member is not an employee of the limited liability partnership. We dealt with that point in government Amendment No. 12, which has been agreed, by providing that a member of an LLP shall not be considered an employee simply by virtue of being a member. I hope that at that time I explained why it was that we did not believe that this matter should be subject to an agreement of the LLP; it should, in contrast, be part of normal employment law, however opaque that may sometimes be.
For those three reasons, I am afraid that the Government cannot accept the amendment.
Baroness Buscombe: I thank the Minister for responding to what I made clear was a probing amendment. I thank him for addressing each of the three areas in detail. I am content to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Goldsmith Lord Goldsmith moved Amendment No. 28:
After Clause 6, insert the following new clause—
MEMBERS' LIABILITY
(" Any member of a limited liability partnership shall be personally liable in tort (or in Scotland in delict) to any person for his own acts or omissions (but not for the acts or omissions of any other member of the limited liability partnership or for the acts or omissions of any employee of the limited liability partnership except such as are under his supervision or control) to the same extent as he would have been liable if the limited liability partnership had been a partnership subject to the provisions of the Partnership Act 1890 and of which that member was a partner.").
The noble Lord said: I raise this amendment to air an issue about the effect of the Bill if enacted. Paragraph 10 of the Explanatory Notes states that,
"The LLP and not its members will be liable to third parties. However, a negligent member's personal assets will still be at risk. By way of example, under the general law, a professional person owes a duty of care to his client. Negligent advice given in breach of that duty by a member of an LLP will, in general, give rise to a potential liability on the part of that member as well as the LLP".
As I have understood the Explanatory Notes and remarks made in this place, it has been regarded as an important part of the Bill that, although partners will not be liable for their partners' acts, they will remain liable for their own acts or omissions. I have a concern, however, as to whether it can be said with the degree of confidence which the Explanatory Notes imply that that is what the common law will provide.
At the moment the liability of a partner may arise either in contract or in tort. The liability in contract arises where the partner is one of those persons with whom an individual has contracted to provide services. That liability will plainly not arise in future where a limited liability partnership is involved. The whole point is that it will be a separate body corporate
1382
that makes the contract, not the individual partners. The position in relation to tort is that an individual may owe a duty in certain circumstances. In relation to acts which cause personal injury or loss of property there is no real difficulty. Someone who drives down the road is liable for his acts whether he is conducting his own business or that of his employer. Where economic loss is caused, over the past 10 to 15 years the courts have devoted much time to considering the precise circumstances in which a duty of care may arise. The case of Caparo to which reference has already been made is one such example, but not all of these cases are at first sight always easy to reconcile.
The present position can be stated as follows: a person's liability to another for economic loss, for example by reliance on the spoken or written word, will depend on the court determining in all the circumstances of the case whether such a duty is found to exist. That may sound somewhat circular, and to an extent it is. The court looks at all the facts. The present test most often used, although not always, is whether the person assumed a personal responsibility for the particular act.
A special difficulty arises when a legal entity is interposed between the third party and the act of the individual. That matter has been most recently considered in the decision of this House in Williams v Natural Life Ltd. It is important to emphasise that that case concerned an ordinary company. Putting it at its shortest, the test appears in the speech of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Steyn:
"The inquiry must be whether the director, or anybody on his behalf, conveyed directly or indirectly to the prospective franchisees that the director assumed personal responsibility towards the prospective franchisees".
In that case there was discussion about the circumstances in which the director of a one-man company might be liable. In its judicial capacity this House took the view that it did not necessarily follow that, because a company was a one-man business, that individual owed a personal duty; it would depend on whether on the facts he had assumed a personal responsibility. The extent to which this is a difficult area can be shown by the fact that in that case the Court of Appeal and this House differed as to the result: the Court of Appeal held that there was a duty of care; this House held that there was not.
My concern, therefore, is that the statement in the Explanatory Notes may give the impression that undoubtedly the common law will give rise to a personal liability on the individual person who has done the act or omission when I am not confident that that is the effect. It will depend on the circumstances. I can think of cases where it is likely that the courts will find such a duty and cases where that is much less likely. By way of example, in the simple case of a solicitor who sees a client and directly gives particular advice on which the latter relies, it may very well be that the court will find that the client relied on that particular solicitor and that he had assumed a personal duty.
But what of the case where it is not a question of spoken advice being given but a failure to act? What if one's solicitor fails to file one's claim on time? Does the individual partner one sees first assume a personal responsibility to file the writ or does one rely on the firm to do it, in which case that partner may not have a personal duty? Of greater complexity and perhaps importance in the context of accountants is the team job. What about a case where the job is done by a team of partners, managers and assistants who together negligently, regrettably, make an error which causes substantial loss? Which of those members owes the personal duty, or does any of them? In those circumstances, does one rely on the individual partner or the well known firm? What of the case where the letterhead says that no individual partner assumes any personal responsibility for any act and one must look to the LLP alone?
The reason for moving the amendment is to raise this issue in the sense of asking whether, if this matter is fundamental to the Bill, words can be found that give effect to that intention, or whether it is something with which one is prepared to live and in certain circumstances the common law may not provide the remedy which the Explanatory Notes seem to suggest. The wording of the amendment is not perfect. I confess that it is not easy to formulate an amendment which gives that effect. I suggest that it is inappropriate to table an amendment which changes the general law. This is a difficult area. The amendment seeks to put the individual partner in the same position as he would have been in had it been an ordinary partnership. I have tabled the amendment to explore that issue and the basis of the Explanatory Notes. I beg to move.
Lord Sharman: I rise to support the amendment. In so doing I repeat the declaration of interest that I made at Second Reading: to wit I was a partner in a large firm of accountants for many years and I continue to act as a paid adviser to that firm.
Of late I have frequently used the words in the Explanatory Notes to explain and justify the Bill. It is very important that the issue which has been raised is specifically addressed. I do not seek to defend the Bill on the footing on which I have defended it; namely, to say that this is a necessary development of the legislation but that nothing in it will in any way change the individual responsibilities of a partner. That is widely believed to be the case outside this House. The point that the noble Lord raises is a valid one, and I support the amendment.
Baroness Buscombe: I also support the amendment. I do not seek to repeat everything that the noble Lords, Lord Goldsmith and Lord Sharman, have set out with such clarity. This is a tremendously important matter. During Second Reading there was brief debate on the clarity of the parameters of the liability of the members of a limited liability partnership. Any clause such as this, however difficult to draft, that makes clear on the face of the Bill the general parameters of limited liability, and that individuals will be liable in the same
1384
way as they would be liable in certain circumstances as the partners in a normal partnership, can only benefit all those who seek to establish limited liability partnerships following the passing of this Bill.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I agree with a number of the observations that have been made. This is a very important issue and we should see to it that professional liability is not watered down by the Bill. I also agree that it is difficult to see how to achieve that. I do not believe that to apply the law of partnership, as the amendment seeks to do, is the right solution to the problem. My noble friend has highlighted our reliance on the duty of care enshrined in common law to achieve the liability of the negligent member of an LLP. He questions whether that is right or safe.
I recognise that there are concerns about the treatment of professionals and their freedom to operate with limited liability. But with this member we do not want to change the regulation of professionals. We intend to create an alternative corporate form which will be available to anyone carrying on a lawful business with a view to profit—that is, not just to professionals.
My noble friend and others have queried the statement in paragraph 10 of the Explanatory Notes that,
"Members benefit from limited liability because the LLP is a separate legal person. The LLP and not its members will be liable to third parties. However, a negligent member's personal assets will still be at risk. By way of example, under the general law, a professional person owes a duty of care to his client. Negligent advice given in breach of that duty [of care] … will, in general"—
I emphasise the words "in general" because that is meant to be in the form of a qualification—
"give rise to a potential liability on the part of that member as well as the LLP".
We think that that is indeed the case. A negligent member's assets will be at risk. The risk for members of a limited liability partnership may be smaller than for partners in a partnership, but the risk is still there. That is why the Explanatory Notes are worded in that way. It is justifiable because of the additional liability of the partnership as a body corporate. That is where the protection of the third party comes in.
Lord Goodhart: Will the Minister explain the alleged additional protection? The additional liability of the LLP adds nothing to what the liability would have been if it had been operating simply as a partnership.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The intention is for the assets of the LLP to be available to compensate the complainant—I think that that is right term, not the plaintiff—against any claim. I know that the noble Lord is sceptical about that because of the issue of joint and several liability. However, I remind him that from many points of view joint and several liability is a difficult concept to sustain.
We have approached the creation of this entity, therefore, on the basis that it will be a body corporate, and that the principles and regulations applied to companies are the most appropriate ones to apply to

1385
the LLP. We see significant disadvantages to what is being proposed. The limited liability partnership will be an entity which can be used by professionals and non-professionals alike. It will create a choice of limited liability entity between a company or an LLP. We believe that it is important to ensure a level playing field between the two entities.
Responsibility and the assumption of responsibility to a third party is a general question which runs through the law of tort. Were we to make a statutory provision, as the amendment suggests, we would be freezing the law for members of a limited liability partnership by putting it into statute law whereas common law would continue to evolve. This is particularly dangerous in the context of the ongoing company law review, to which I have referred. It would create the prospect of an undesirable disparity of treatment.
Further, we do not believe that this Bill is the right way to amend the scope and application of the law of tort. We tread on dangerous ground. Should the courts have to consider whether a member of an LLP had been negligent, they would consider, among other things, whether that member had assumed responsibility sufficient to give rise to liability for economic loss flowing from the reliance placed on that. That is the point of Williams v Natural Life to which my noble friend referred. In Williams it was found that there had been no personal dealings between the director and the plaintiffs and no exchanges or conduct between them which could have conveyed to the plaintiffs that the director was willing to assume personal liability to them. indeed, there was no evidence even that the plaintiffs had believed that the director was undertaking personal responsibility towards them. The point here is that the assumption of responsibility was to be determined objectively so that the primary focus had to be on exchanges between the parties.
Clearly, the courts' decision cannot be forecast with absolute certainty, since their decision in any case would depend not only on the general nature of the relationship between the member of an LLP and his client, but also on the exact facts of that relationship, as is made clear from Williams.
I accept that a consequence of relying on common law is the possibility of a greater degree of evolution through the comet on law than where express provision is made in statute. But we see no reason to make special provision for a limited liability partnership where it does not exist in company law.
In the context of the company law review which will undoubtedly have to consider the important issues raised by the amendment, I hope that my noble friend will not pursue an amendment which would lead at least in the short term to an imbalance between the law for companies and the law for limited liability partnerships.
Lord Goldsmith: I confess to being somewhat disappointed and not persuaded by the Minister's reply. I understand that after the Bill becomes law
1386
there will be three types of entity: an ordinary partnership; a limited liability partnership; and an ordinary company. In an ordinary company, the shareholders are liable only to the extent of their contributions—the capital—they have put into the company. In an ordinary partnership, the partners are liable for all their assets because of the joint and several liability principle.
I had understood that the principal purpose underlying limited liability partnership was to provide a hybrid in which one did not have all the consequences of an ordinary company but excluded the joint and several liability principle. Therefore, the partner would not be liable for the acts of his partners save to the extent, as in a company, that he had contributed to the assets of the partnership. At present if one sues a partnership, one looks first no doubt to the assets the partnership has built up—its buildings, offices, cash balances, and insurance policies—before turning to the homes and cars of individual partners.
As the noble Lord, Lord Sharman, said, it is understood outside this Chamber that the Bill intends to keep the individual responsibility of the partner as still his personal responsibility. Perhaps that would assist towards maintaining the professionalism and ethos of partnerships to which the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, and the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, referred.
One can argue about and differ on the interpretation the courts may give. I have expressed my position in relation to that. In tabling the amendment, I have sought not to change the general law but to give the member of the limited liability partnership the same liability he would have had for his own acts—not others' acts— those circumstances.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Before my noble friend concludes his remarks, I repeat the difficulty which we see. I shall be glad to meet him again to discuss the issue—and indeed any other noble Lords who would care to do so before Report stage. Of course, if we were persuaded, we would put forward appropriate amendments.
I do not know whether I am grossly oversimplifying the issue. We seem to be talking about two aspects of common law: the law of contract; and the law of tort. The law of contract applies to the body corporate; and the law of tort remains applicable to the individual members. That is where negligence comes in. That is why there is a sense in which the individual responsibility of a member is reduced: it is reduced only to obligations under the law of tort. But the important point to establish—we have to arrive there in the end—is that the protection of the clients., the customers, is not diminished in total.
Lord Goldsmith: I agree with my noble friend that there are two distinct issues. As regards his first point, I was about to say that I do not intend to press the amendment. I have heard the remarks made by other Members of the Committee and I am happy that the Minister is willing to consider the matter further. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 7 agreed to.
Clause 8 [Designated members]:
Baroness Buscombe Baroness Buscombe moved Amendment No. 29:
Page 3, line 39, at beginning insert—
("( ) Each limited liability partnership shall have a minimum of two designated members who shall be responsible for complying with the administrative and filing provisions of this Act and regulations made pursuant to this Act.").
The noble Baroness said: The amendment seeks to clarify the role of a designated member. As currently drafted, the Bill does not appear to explain what a designated member is. I might sound a little like a rusty record, but I am reading the Bill from the point of view of someone considering establishing an LLP and wanting to know what the parameters are and who deals with what.
Clause 8 launches into provisions for designated members, stating that anyone can become one. An incorporation document specifies who they are, but not what they are. Therefore, the amendment attempts to overcome that by explaining their role and providing that, in any event, there must be a minimum of two in order to ensure proper compliance with the administrative and filing provisions of the Act and regulations made pursuant to it. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Clause 8(2) provides that:
"if there would otherwise be no designated members, or only one, every member is a designated member".
That is supposed to mean that there should be at least two designated members. I do not believe that the amendment makes the role of the limited liability partnership any clearer than the current provisions included in the Bill and the regulations. It provides an inaccurate paraphrase of their function because the amendment adds the requirement that designated members should be responsible for complying with the "administrative and filing provisions" as set out in the Act and regulations.
I understand the difficulty with Clause 8. It sets up all the conditions under which designated members are to be appointed and changed and how notification is to be given, but it does not state what they will do. I apologise for that, but on questioning it appears that the drafting is not uncommon. The reason is that the role and responsibility of designated members is analogous to the phrase "an officer of the company" under the Companies Act. Under that Act, the obligations on an officer of the company appear all over the place in many aspects of company legislation. If we were to say that the role of a designated member is analogous to the role of an officer of the company, we might be trapped into going through company legislation and finding hundreds of instances where we should have to specify what the officer of the company, and therefore the designated member, does. For the sake of saving ink and paper, we did not want to do that.
1388
It is right that in general a designated member has administrative and filing functions, but it would be wrong to limit his role in that way. In some provisions, he is given a task which goes beyond the mere administrative and in which he would take action that is significant for all the members. For example, designated members sign the accounts, appoint the auditors for the first financial year in respect of which auditors are appointed, and may apply to the Registrar of Companies for the LLP's name to be struck off the register.
It would be complicated, and I believe unnecessary, to include this additional provision in the Bill. Despite the clause being counter-intuitive in the sense that it does not spell out the functions, there is a good and rational reason for it and I hope that the noble Baroness will not press her amendment.
Baroness Buscombe: I thank the Minister for that explanation, but I remain unconvinced that there is an explanation of a designated member. The difficulty is in the drafting. I agree that the drafting of the amendment is unsatisfactory, but it is important that wherever possible it is clear as to who is what. I am disappointed that the Bill launches into what someone can and cannot do without explaining why a designated member differs from a member. However, I accept the Minister's response and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 8 agreed to.
Clause 9 [Registration of membership changes]:
Baroness Buscombe Baroness Buscombe moved Amendment No. 30:
Page 4, line 22, leave out ("fourteen") and insert ("28").
The noble Baroness said: The amendment seeks to allow more time when a person becomes or ceases to become a designated member. The Bill currently provides that notice shall be delivered to the registrar within 14 days. Where there is any change in the name or address of a member, notice is to be delivered to the registrar within 21 days.
I propose that in both instances 28 days should be allowed in order to give the LLPs more time to register the change. Some global partnerships have as many as 8,000 members; for example, some of the major accountancy firms. We believe that the 14 and 21 days could be increased to 28 days, providing a more comfortable period within which to register. It was discussed at the Trade and Industry Select Committee (paragraph 59 of its 4th report), which stated that the largest LLPs will have many hundreds of members. I believe that that should read "hundreds of thousands". Each year, one might have 100 new members, 150 moving house and 10 name changes due to marriage or divorce.
The amendment is designed to allow for a little more leeway in registering a change and complying with the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am pleased to say that I can meet the noble Baroness half way. We will split

1389
the difference. I cannot agree to Amendment No. 30 because the 14-day limit on the notification of changes to members is the same as for the notification of changes to directors. It is an important protection for those having business with them that they should be able to know quickly what changes have taken place in the identity of members. We do not see any reason why it should be any different for LLPs and companies.
However, the noble Baroness has a point in Amendment No. 32. Indeed, in our response to the trade and industry committee, we said that we should allow returns to be made within one month of any change and her stipulation of 28 days is closer to one month than ours of 21 days. It is longer than we provide for companies but I take the noble Baroness's point about large partnerships with hundreds of members and I am willing to accept Amendment No. 32.
7 p.m.
Lord Lucas: I should like to return to something the Minister has just said: that the matter of registering members' names and addresses was an important protection for those who deal with an LLP. In what way does Clause 6 not cover that to make such registration unnecessary? There is no obligation on someone dealing with a partnership to inquire into the register at all. As long as he believes the person to be a partner, he is safe. I cannot see what additional protection is afforded by having the register updated so frequently.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: If I said that, I was giving the wrong impression. I did not say that registration is unimportant; it is clearly important. I said that we must have a better protection and one which is available without the proactive step of going to the register. That is why I said that, for example, on the letterhead and in any business correspondence, the members of a limited liability partnership must indicate that they are members. The fact which matters in that respect is that we are providing in the Bill a better protection than registration. It does not in any way remove the necessity to have an efficient registration system, which is what is provided for here.
Lord Lucas: I understand that, but my understanding of the Bill at present is that having the members' names on the register is not important as part of the protection of third parties and therefore it should be perfectly possible to make that time limit 28 days. Third parties gain nothing by the speedy updating of the register. Twenty-eight days would be quite sufficient because the protection is elsewhere in other clauses of the Bill.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The noble Lord may believe that it is belt-and-braces; that nothing is taken away by providing for 14 days. Fourteen days seems to work for limited companies. In a way, it is in the LLP's interest to notify the registrar, but the position must be the same as that for limited companies and there is no reason why it should not be.
Baroness Buscombe: I thank the Minister for his response to Amendment No. 30. I apologise for not making it clear at the outset that I would be speaking also to Amendment No. 32. I believe that the Minister judges from my inexperience here, but he obviously realised that I was referring to both amendments. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 31 not moved.]
Baroness Buscombe Baroness Buscombe moved Amendment No. 32:
Page 4, line 25, leave out ("21") and insert ("28").
The noble Baroness said: I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Goodhart Lord Goodhart moved Amendment No. 33:
Page 4, line 42, at end insert—
("(5A) If a limited liability partnership fails to comply with subsection (1), the person who becomes or ceases to be a member or designated member or whose name or address has changed may deliver notice to the registrar.
(5B) Any person who delivers a notice under subsection (1) or (5A) which is materially incorrect shall be guilty of an offence unless he had reasonable grounds for believing the notice to he correct.").
The noble Lord said: This is a short point. It is clearly desirable that a former member who ceases to be a member of an LLP should be able to dissociate himself as quickly as possible from his membership. One way in which that is done—an important method—is by having his name removed from the membership list on the register. As now provided under Clause 9, that notice may be given only by the LLP itself. The LLP may, particularly if there is a membership dispute or if the administration of the LLP is in some degree of chaos—which may happen with small organisations—either refuse or fail to give the necessary notice. As the Bill now stands, a former member who wishes the fact that he has left the membership to be recorded on the register would have to go to court to seek an injunction ordering the LLP to give the necessary notice. That would involve time and money, and it would surely be better to give the former member the right to give notice himself personally if the LLP fails to do so.
There is, of course, a risk that someone might give notice of retirement when he was in fact not entitled to retire. The second half of the amendment is intended to cover such a situation, where the proposed amendment to the register is known to be incorrect. I added the words "materially incorrect" to exclude problems with minor errors such as an incorrect postcode given on a change of address. There is nothing more that I can say on the matter; it is a short point, which I ask the Minister to consider. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I certainly do not feel strongly about that as an issue of principle. The amendment creates a requirement for an LLP additional to that placed on companies. Under company law, when the details of a director change, the company has the responsibility for informing the

1391
registrar. In situations of default, the company and officers are in default and liable to a fine. There is no expectation that the director whose details change needs to inform the registrar and face the risk of a fine if the information is materially incorrect.
If we were to allow a member to inform the registrar of changes there might be confusion both within the LLP and with the registrar, as a member is unlikely to be aware whether or not a registrar had been notified. Therefore, the same notification could go to the registrar twice and a situation could arise where the registrar did not know which to believe; for example, if a member left the LLP and informed the registrar of the fact when the LLP had already done so. That could result in additional work for the registrar and confusion for the outside world. As I said, I do not feel strongly about the matter, but, if the noble Lord has a point, it is one which applies to company law more generally. Since it is not an urgent point, it might be as well for it to be included in the company law review rather than introduced separately for LLPs and not for companies.
Lord Goodhart: I thank the Minister. I accept that this is not the most important amendment that we are discussing today, but it is not right to treat LLPs and ordinary companies on the same footing here, because there is a distinction between membership of a company and directorship in the case of ordinary companies which does not apply to LLPs, where membership and directorship are a single combined function. In those circumstances I believe that there is a justification for treating LLPs differently from directorships. Indeed, there may be cases where a member is more anxious to dissociate himself from a company than a director would be. However, certainly for today I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No.34 not moved.]
Clause 9, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 10 [Income tax and chargeable gains]:
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 35:
Page 5, line 6, after first ("partnership") insert (", or any other activity or function of such a partnership,").
The noble Lord said: In moving the amendment I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 37 and 38. When I discussed the Bill with the Minister in his office, we covered the subject of tax transparency. Certainly in the publicity about the Bill it has been said to be a vehicle which is tax transparent. However, in the wording of the Bill, the tax transparency is limited to that which a partnership would have because it is limited in the same way as is a partnership to the carrying on of a trade or business.
I discussed with the noble Lord why that might be and what problems that might create; for example, if a large limited liability partnership sold its trade and was
1392
left with various assets which were then disposed of, it was said—I believe quite rightly—that that would be very much a borderline case. It was said also that under those circumstances there would be an argument for the limited liability partnership to trip into tax intransparency and become liable to tax on its own account. In addition, it was said that circumstances existed where that kind of transformation would be desirable, such as in the compulsory winding-up of a limited liability partnership. In those circumstances, it would be better if the partnership were dealt with as an entity on its own and subject to its own tax rather than continuing to refer to the members, because they, in a way, would have ceased to be associated with the partnership.
As I said before, I have an interest in seeing whether we can make this a suitable vehicle for venture capital partnerships. Certainly the role of partners who do not undertake the active management of the individual investments in such partnerships is on the borderline between trade and investment. If those partners are going to use this type of provision—which, I believe, would be worth while from the point of view of the United Kingdom economy—it seems undesirable that they should be left in the rather unattractive hinterland between tax transparency and no tax transparency.
Admittedly from a relative state of ignorance, I see no difficulty in expressing the tax transparency the other way round. With these amendments, I have sought to ensure that this is a tax-transparent vehicle except in certain circumstances. Amendment No. 38 serves to illustrate a particular exception which would provide circumstances under which the vehicle was not tax transparent. It seems to me that members, whether of an accountancy firm or of a venture capital partnership, could rest easy knowing that that was a tax transparent vehicle, that they would pay tax as it was due on them through the limited liability partnership, and that they would not suddenly wake up to find that a tax inspector somewhere had decided that they were no longer trading and that under those circumstances the whole tax treatment of their investment had changed. I beg to move.
7.15 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I have two kinds of difficulty with these amendments. One is a technical difficulty and the other is a difficulty of principle. I shall deal first with the difficulty of principle. The purpose of the Bill as a whole is to ensure that businesses which are currently carried on in partnership can continue to carry on those activities without the disadvantage of unlimited liability. The amendment would mean that activities which cannot be carried on in partnership would be able to be carried on through the medium of an LLP. Therefore, they go beyond the scope of the policy that was behind the introduction of the Bill. The noble Lord has been quite open about that point in saying that he is interested in opening up the matter to venture capital partnerships and, I believe, also to property. I believe that he said that at an earlier stage. I may be wrong.

1393
I do not believe that the noble Lord was present when we debated the earlier part of the Bill this afternoon. We carried Amendment No. 5 to Clause 2. The definition of the purpose of an L LP is,
"carrying on a … business with a view to profit".
That is more explicitly in line with the provisions of the 1890 Act than it was before. I am afraid that what the noble Lord proposes in the amendment would extend the availability of LLPs beyond that which was originally intended with partnerships. Therefore, that is the difficulty of principle.
There is quite a big technical difficulty. As Clause 10 is currently drafted, the special tax treatment of LLPs as though they are a partnership is given only when the LLP carries on a trade, profession or business. When those conditions are not met by an LLP, it will be taxed as though it was a company. The amendments would have the effect that LLPs were taxed as partnerships, irrespective of the activities that they carry on. However, they could then encounter the technical difficulties which I shall set out.
From the point of view of calculating and collecting tax, there would be no difficulty. But taxing LLPs as companies is undesirable to those who believe that they may wish to set up LLPs, and we have agreed to tax them, for the most part, as partnerships. However, the reason that there are no technical difficulties in taxing an LLP as a company is important. That is because, by and large, companies can receive any type of income, and the Taxes Acts have evolved to be sufficiently flexible to deal with that. But Taxes Acts have evolved differently to tax partnerships established under the Partnership Act 1890. Because of the way that that Act defines partnerships as,
"the relationship that exists between persons carrying on business in common with a view of profit",
that, with some updating of wording, is what is now in Clause 2. The Taxes Acts have evolved to tax the income, and only that income, that can arise from such a partnership. As a result, the Taxes Acts provide for the taxation of income received by partnerships from carrying on businesses, which is a wide term that includes trades or professions.
Therefore, it we accepted the amendments, the Taxes Acts would have to be extended (by amendment through this Bill) to provide for taxing partnerships that had been established for purposes beyond those for which they currently cater. We should need to have a special tax regime for LLPs based on that for partnerships but covering non-business LLPs and their non-business activities. That would not be easy. We should need to identify, and probably widen, all the current Taxes Acts provisions that deal with partnerships. In addition, further tax rules for non-business LLPs might need to be created.
I do not want to claim administrative convenience as my only objection to the amendment. However, it is quite a serious objection. I believe that such a provision would make a lot of money for professionals
1394
in interpreting it and would involve much time for parliamentary counsel in framing it. Therefore, I rely rather on my objection of principle.
Lord Lucas: I am grateful for that explanation. Quite clearly, I am overwhelmed and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 36:
Page 5, line 10, at end insert—
("( ) In section 362(2)(a) of that Act (loan to buy into partnership), after "partner" insert "in a limited partnership registered under the Limited Partnerships Act 1907".").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 36, I should like to speak also, if I am allowed, to Amendment No. 39 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, because I believe that we are trying to achieve the same objective.
As matters stand at present, a partner who borrows money at interest to provide working capital for him to invest in a partnership in which he is a member can claim tax relief for that interest. That is dealt with in Section 353 of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 (ICTA). That is a general provision which provides for tax relief to be given in respect of interest paid in certain circumstances. Section 362 of the ICTA provides for relief to be given under Section 353 where interest is paid on a loan to buy into a partnership or by a partner to provide working capital for a partnership in which he is a partner. Section 362 sets conditions that must be satisfied for relief to be available. The particular condition which is the subject of these two amendments is that the individual must have been a member of the partnership,
"otherwise than as a limited partner".
During consultation, some respondents were concerned that that relief might not be available to members of an LLP in circumstances that would otherwise be similar. Amendment No. 39 proposes inserting a new subsection into Section 362 that would read:
"For the purposes of subsection (2), an individual who is a member of a limited liability partnership shall be deemed to be a member of the limited liability partnership otherwise than as a limited partner".
I do not find that particularly easy to read out and understand.
This is saying that in considering a claim by a member of a limited liability partnership to relief for interest, the restriction of relief for a limited partner does not apply as partners in LLPs are deemed not to be limited partners in relation to their membership of the limited liability partnership. Our amendment proposes to modify the reference in Section 362(2) by inserting after the words "limited partner",
"in a limited partnership registered under the Limited Partnerships Act 1907".

1395
In other words, otherwise than the limited partner, which is the threatening bit, it is made clear that it applies only to the 1907 Act and not to the 2000 Act.
I know that our amendment is not very clear but it is slightly shorter and it achieves the same effect as Amendment No. 39. Therefore, I urge the Committee to accept our amendment.
Perhaps I may take this opportunity to say something about a proposed amendment to the tax provisions that we shall be making on Report. In the consultation process, we discussed a number of issues relating to the tax provisions, one of which resulted in Amendment No. 36. However, it became clear that there is a possibility that LLPs may be used for a particular form of tax avoidance.
That avoidance would take the form of loss relief being available to the partners in excess of the loss that they might have to bear. That is because loss relief is available for a loss "incurred" which may not always be the same as a loss "borne". Legislation already exists in Section 117 of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 to stop that happening with limited partnerships under the 1907 Act. The amendment will ensure that loss relief will not be available to members of a limited liability partnership beyond the loss that they could have to bear.
The provision has been discussed with consultees who are content that it is justified. I commend Amendment No. 36 to the Committee.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 37 and 38 not moved.]
Clause 10, as amended, agreed to.
[Amendment No. 39 not moved.]
Clause 11 agreed to.
Clause 12 [Stamp duty]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 40:
Page 5, line 46, leave out from ("partnership") to end of line 4 on page 6 and insert ("in connection with its incorporation within the period of one year beginning with the date of incorporation if the following two conditions are satisfied.
(1A) The first condition is that immediately before its incorporation the person—

(a) is a partner in a partnership comprised of all the persons who subscribe their names to the incorporation document (and no-one else), or

(b) holds the property conveyed or transferred as nominee or bare trustee for one or more of the partners in such a partnership.

(1B) The second condition is that—

(a) the proportions of the property conveyed or transferred to which the persons mentioned in subsection (1A)(a) are entitled immediately after the conveyance or transfer are the same as those to which they were entitled immediately before its incorporation, or

(b) none of the differences in those proportions has arisen as part of a scheme or arrangement of which the main purpose, or one of the main purposes, is avoidance of liability to any duty or tax.

1396
(1C) For the purposes of subsection (1A) a person holds property as bare trustee for a partner if the partner has the exclusive right (subject only to satisfying any outstanding charge, lien or other right of the trustee to resort to the property for payment of duty, taxes, costs or other outgoings) to direct how the property shall be dealt with.").
The noble Lord said: Clause 12 deals with stamp duty. The purpose of Clause 12 is to ensure that the transfer of the business and partnership assets of an existing partnership to a limited liability partnership would be free from stamp duty. Without a special exemption, it is possible that a stamp duty liability could arise on such a transfer. The exemption is consistent with the principle behind the tax clauses as a whole which ensure that LLPs are taxed as partnerships and that conventional partnerships can convert themselves into LLPs without incurring one-off tax charges.
In practice, it is unlikely that all a previous partnership's property will be conveyed or transferred to the limited liability partnership on incorporation. It is likely that transfers of some assets will take place after completion of the formal incorporation procedures. As it was introduced, Clause 12 did not take account of that and we thought it necessary to bring forward an amendment to ensure that that procedural issue is dealt with.
There may also be genuine reasons for changes in membership of the partnership between incorporation of the limited liability partnership and the conveyance of property; for example, death, incapacity or retirement. We believe that such changes should not cause the withdrawal of relief provided that they occur within a reasonable time, which we take to be a year, and have no avoidance motive. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 12, as amended, agreed to.
Lord Goodhart Lord Goodhart moved Amendment No. 41:
After Clause 12, insert the following new clause—
INSOLVENCY: CONTRIBUTION BY MEMBER TO PARTNERSHIP ASSETS WHERE PROPERTY WITHDRAWN
(" . In the Insolvency Act 1986. after section 214 insert—
Contribution by member to assets of limited liability partnership where property withdrawn.
214A.—(1) This section has effect in relation to a person who is or has been a member of a limited liability partnership where, in the course of the winding up of that limited liability partnership, it appears that subsection (2) of this section applies in relation to that person.
(2) This subsection applies in relation to a person if—

(a) within the period of two years ending with the commencement of the winding up, he was a member of the limited liability partnership who withdrew for his own benefit property of the limited liability partnership, whether in the form of a share of profits, salary, repayment of prepayment of interest on a loan to the limited liability partnership or any withdrawal of property, and

(b) it is proved by the liquidator to the satisfaction of the court that at the same time of the withdrawal he knew or had reasonable grounds for believing that the limited liability partnership—

1397

(i) was at the time of the withdrawal unable to pay its debts within the meaning of section 123 of the Act, or

(ii) I became so unable to pay its debts after the assets of the limited liability partnership had been depleted by that withdrawal taken together with all other withdrawals (if any) made by any members contemporaneously with that withdrawal or in contemplation when that withdrawal was made.

(3) Where this section has effect in relation to any person the court, on the application of the liquidation, may declare that that person is to he liable to make such contribution (if any) to the limited liability partnership's assets as the court thinks proper.
(4) The court shall not make a declaration in relation to any person the amount of which exceeds the aggregate of the amounts or values of all the withdrawals referred to in paragraph (a) of subsection (2) made by that person within the period of 2 years referred to in that paragraph.
(5) The court shall not make a declaration under this section with respect to any person if it is satisfied that, after each withdrawal referred to in subsection (2), he had reasonable grounds for believing that there remained a reasonable prospect that the limited liability partnership would avoid going into liquidation.
(6) For the purposes of this section a limited liability partnership goes into insolvent liquidation if it goes into liquidation at a time when its assets are insufficient for the payment of its debts and other liabilities and the expenses of winding up.
(7) In this section "member" includes a person in accordance with whose directions or instructions (otherwise than by way of advice given by him in a professional capacity) the members of the limited liability partnership are accustomed to act.
(8) This section is without prejudice to section 213."").
The noble Lord said: With certain changes, this amendment brings a clause onto the face of the Bill which at present appears in draft regulations published by the Government.
We do not object to the application of existing corporate insolvency rules to LLPs by way of regulations. But this clause creates a new and distinct form of liability which applies only to members of LLPs. We do not disagree with that in principle but we believe that a matter of such importance should be on the face of the Bill.
In the Government's letter of 10th January to the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, to which reference has already been made several times, reasons are put forward as to why the new Section 214A of the Insolvency Act should not be on the face of this Bill. The argument seems to me to be extremely weak. It says, for example, that putting a new Section 214A on the face of the Bill would result in the new clause appearing in the Insolvency Act when that Act contains no other reference to LLPs. That is perfectly true but my answer to that would be: so what?
The argument that new Section 214A means that the Bill would then have to define a "shadow member" is the feeblest argument of its kind that I have ever come across. I draw attention to what seems to be a satisfactory form of words to cover that particular problem in subsection (7) of the amendment.
I suggest also to the Minister that the powers in Clause 13(1) are not sufficient to support the creation by regulation of the new Section 214A. The power in
1398
Clause 13(1) is to apply the provisions of the Insolvency Act with such modifications as appear appropriate. Therefore, I ask of what is Section 214A a modification? It is not a modification of Section 214 because that is incorporated quite independently by a separate regulation. It seems clear to me that Section 214A is not a modification of any existing provision of the Insolvency Act but is a wholly new provision. Therefore, it cannot be included by virtue of the regulations which give power only to modify existing provisions. Therefore, I believe that the Government should look again at that matter.
As regards the drafting, the amendment is different from the draft regulations in two respects. The first is subsection (7) to define "shadow member", which I have already mentioned. The other, which is rather more substantial, is a change to the proposed subsection (5). That is raised in answer to what seems to me to be a fair point put forward by the Law Society.
Section 214A applies if the member who makes the withdrawal knew or had reasonable grounds for believing that the limited liability partnership was insolvent when he made that withdrawal. Subsection (5) then disapplies the section if there was in fact a reasonable possibility of avoiding insolvent liquidation; for example, by trading out or by raising fresh capital.
The subsection (5) test is wholly objective, even if the relevant facts are not known to a member. So let us assume that a firm of solicitors suffers loss as a result of a claim against it of professional negligence. As a result of that claim, the firm is just insolvent and its members are willing and able to raise enough capital to cover that loss.
But unknown to the members, there exists another and very large liability of the firm for professional negligence where the claim is not made until after the withdrawal. The partner, other than the individual one at fault, has no way of knowing that such a claim exists because, ex hypothesi, it has not yet been made. But objectively, of course, if one looks at the facts, there is no prospect of avoiding the liquidation.
It seems to me that in such a circumstance, it would be wrong to penalise a withdrawal. Therefore, I suggest that the wording of my version of subsection (5), which makes it dependent on what is or should be known to the partner making the withdrawal, is better than the wholly objective test applied in the Government's version of subsection (5). I beg to move.
7.30 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I should make it clear that I do not base my resistance to the amendment on the amendments to Section 214A introduced by the noble Lord. On the face of it, they appear to be helpful and we shall consider them along with the other representations that have been made when considering

1399
the form that this provision shall take in regulation. My resistance is only on the issue of whether the matter should be in regulation or on the face of the Bill.
At Second Reading the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, said that he wanted a debate on this matter and now he has it. He has conducted it well and I congratulate him on it. However, on a wider basis, we want to resist attempts to include this matter and matters like it in the Bill rather than in the regulations. We believe that it would be peculiar to include on the face of the Bill this provision alone of all the insolvency provisions that we intend to apply. The noble Lord rightly referred to Clause 13(1). As we made clear during the course of consultation and as I explained at Second Reading, we intend to apply to limited liability partnerships, with appropriate modifications, the Insolvency Act 1986.
Whether this amendment is a modification is a matter of semantics. Clearly, the proposed new clause is linked to Section 214 of the Insolvency Act, and if it were put on the face of the Bill it would cause a muddle. There would be some primary legislation and some secondary legislation and this element would be set apart in the Bill from the remainder which will be in regulations. In case the response of the noble Lord to that is to suggest that we should include all the insolvency provisions on the face of the Bill, that would make the Bill very long and, more seriously, it would create insolvency legislation for LLPs that would be separate from that for companies.
We believe that there is a greater advantage in having the existing Insolvency Act modified in its treatment of LLPs. Of course, the Insolvency Bill will come before Parliament in the course of this Session. One reassurance I can give the noble Lord is that the regulations will be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.
The insolvency regulations will not rewrite the Insolvency Act of 1986 for all purposes. They will make amendments only in so far as the Act is applied to LLPs. Putting Section 214A into the Bill, as this amendment does, the Insolvency Act would be amended for all purposes. That would look odd, as none of the other amendments to the Act exist for all purposes. It is sensible to keep all the insolvency provisions together.
We do not disagree with the noble Lord on an issue of principle. We are grateful to him for his suggestions about the wording and we shall certainly take account of them. However, as a matter of drafting and as a matter of consistency in legislation, it is better that the matter should be dealt with by regulation rather than on the face of the Bill.
Lord Lucas: On a matter of semantics, can the Minister enlighten me as to the limitation of the word "modifications"? There must be an ultra vires question here somewhere? Where is the borderline?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: That is an interesting point of semantics. I would be interested to have the
1400
views of "grammarians" on whether a modification can take the form of an addition rather than of a change that involves subtraction. I shall not get involved in this matter on the Floor of the House, but I shall gladly write a learned letter to all interested noble Lords.
Lord Goodhart: I am grateful to the Minister for his reply. The basis for treating Section 214A differently from anything else is that it is unique in that it creates a new form of liability which has no parallel in the existing liabilities under the Insolvency Act. Therefore, it seems to me to justify different treatment. I suggest that there really is a potentially serious problem here as regards vires under Clause 13(1) of the Bill. There is a legitimate question of whether this constitutes a modification. It is not for me to get the Government's legislation right.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: This is a revising Chamber!
Lord Goodhart: The noble Lord would be well advised to consult the Parliamentary Counsel Office as to whether this is in fact within the powers granted by Clause 13(1). I welcome what the Minister has said about my amendment to Section 214A and I shall wait with interest to see whether it bears any fruit. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Sharman Lord Sharman moved Amendment No. 42:
After Clause 12, insert the following new clause—
("Insolvency: preferential debt liability
INSOLVENCY: LIABILITY FOR PREFERENTIAL DEBTS
.—(1) Subject to subsection (2), the members of a limited liability partnership or overseas limited liability partnership which has been wound up (including persons who ceased to be members before the commencement of the winding up) shall be liable for its preferential debts (within the meaning given by section 386 of the Insolvency Act 1986) so far as such debts have not been discharged in the winding up.
(2) Subsection (1) shall apply in relation to any member only to debts incurred while he was a member.").
The noble Lord said: The purpose of the amendment is to draw attention to an anomaly which appears to arise as a result of the combination of the application of the tax law to a limited liability partnership as though it were a partnership and insolvency law to a limited liability partnership as though it were a corporation.
The position of preferential creditors in both cases—I apologise for being somewhat technical—is complex on the bankruptcy of a partnership. Nevertheless, preferential creditors—unpaid VAT and PAYE and particularly employees—rank ahead of all other debts. If one looks at a limited company that becomes insolvent—I stress that I am talking of a situation in which there is no evidence of wrong-doing and of circumstances in which Section 214A would not apply—the pool of assets is available to the creditors

1401
in total, but the preferential creditors rank first and tax on the profits earned previously are unsecured and rank behind the preferential creditors.
In the case of a limited liability partnership, because it is taxed as a partnership with fiscal transparency, the tax arising on the profits which have been earned remains the liability of the individual partners and they, quite rightly, may well withdraw funds from that partnership to satisfy that liability. The result is that the total pool of funds available in the insolvency may have been diminished by withdrawals to satisfy what would be unsecured creditors, thereby diminishing the claim of preferred creditors.
I am particularly concerned about the position of employees in such a situation. The employees could see themselves disadvantaged. At present, when a partnership suffers insolvency the employees have a right of claim against the individual partners' assets, which provides some recompense, but in the case of insolvency law applying to a limited liability partnership as if it were a corporation, employees would be in a different and a somewhat disadvantaged position. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am anxious to achieve the same kind of result as that achieved by the amendment, but I do not think that this is the right way to do it. First, the noble Lord referred to employees and to the fact that certain debts of insolvency are ranked as preferential; in other words, payable before non-preferential debts as set out in Schedule 6 to the Insolvency Act 1986. They include debts due to the Inland Revenue, as the noble Lord said, but also to employees by way of remuneration.
This amendment would make all members and former members of an LLP liable for the preferential debts incurred during their membership. I do not believe that they should be liable to make those payments. It would be against the principle of limited liability which is at the heart of the Bill. In other words, it would extend the privileges of preferential creditors over those of non-preferential creditors and I am sure that that is not what the noble Lord wishes to do. Also, it means that LLPs would be treated differently from companies for insolvency purposes. There really should be consistency in the law in this area and members of an LL P should not be in a worse position than their company counterparts. It would make it a less attractive vehicle.
I question also the fairness of the amendment. If we take into account the position of the unsecured creditors, what justification can there be for government departments, which would be the major beneficiaries of the amendment together with employees' remuneration, being repaid in full when it is likely that unsecured creditors will receive little or nothing? Though I am sure the amendment is moved with the best of motives, I do not believe it will achieve the objectives required. I hope therefore that the noble Lord will not press it.
Lord Sharman: I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation. The whole principle of preference in
1402
insolvency is to place one class of debtors—or creditors, depending on which side of the fence one sits—ahead of the others. That is precisely what the law sets out to do. The preferential creditors, so far as they are government departments, are government departments where the entity collects money on behalf of the Government. They are not debts to the Government for income or corporation tax; in that sense they are VAT and PAYE. It is important therefore that we should not, as we have with this legislation, effectively place in regard to a pool of assets unsecured creditors ahead of preferred creditors. I recognise from the Minister's explanation that this is an immensely complex subject. I do not propose to press the amendment. I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 13 agreed to.
Clause 14 [Application of company law etc.]:
Lord Goodhart Lord Goodhart moved Amendment No. 43:
Page 6, line 34, at end insert—
("( ) requiring limited liability partnerships and oversea limited liability partnerships or any category of limited liability partnership or oversea limited liability partnership to effect and maintain policies of insurance on such terms and for such amount as may be specified against such risks as may be specified (including risks of negligence by a member, agent or employee of the limited liability partnership or oversea limited liability partnership),").
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 43, somewhat unusually, proposes to give an additional power to the Government. Solicitors and chartered accountants are required by their professional rules to carry professional indemnity insurance. Personal liability of partners arises only if the damages exceed the insurance cover or there is some non-disclosure which entitles the insurers to disclaim.
That means that victims are unlikely to obtain compensation unless the claim against the partners is extremely large. But a requirement to carry professional indemnity insurance does not apply to all businesses or professions which are likely to be carried on as LLPs. There is therefore a risk of moral hazard. If the members of the firm know that in the event of a large claim they can simply wind up the firm and start again, they may be tempted to reduce their insurance cover or indeed not to insure at all. This may or may not turn out to be a problem. But the Government should have reserve powers to require LLPs to comply with minimum insurance requirements for professional negligence.
That would not be appropriate across the board. For example, it would not be appropriate for an LLP which is running a corner shop. But, in general, firms offering skilled services to the public should insure against the negligence of their members or employees. There should therefore be a flexible power for the Government to say that in certain categories, where adequate insurance is not a requirement of their professional bodies, the carrying of insurance is a

1403
necessary condition for obtaining limited liability. The Government should therefore have the power to insist on insurance being carried. I beg to move.
Baroness Buscombe: I should like to speak briefly in support of this amendment. It is a good thing to require the members to carry professional indemnity. I hope that the knock-on effect will be a reduction in fees on the part of professional firms which now claim that the extent of their fees is in relation to the high cost of indemnifying their partners because there is no limited liability.
7.45 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am interested to find both opposition parties in favour of giving more power to government. Adam Smith would turn in his grave, if not Friedrich von Heich.
Unfortunately, the amendment would go a lot further than giving power to government. It would place responsibilities on government which would be impossible to achieve. The amendment would provide that the regulations should not just say that insurance shall be provided; that is one thing. By the way, this is all kinds of indemnity insurances, not just professional indemnity insurance. It would also say that the regulations should set the appropriate levels for the insurance and define the risk which should be covered. It asks not only that the Government should intervene but also that the Government should go into the insurance business by defining risks and setting appropriate levels for insurance. After all, what may be appropriate for one business is not necessarily appropriate for another.
In any case, who is to say that insurers will find that all the risks are insurable. For example, a small architectural practice winning a major contract for a bridge or building would find it impossible to obtain insurance for that. It may be impossible to obtain insurance for new areas of professional activity.
If we are talking of professional indemnity—that is what the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, is talking about, even if the amendment is not—surely it is right for the professional body to insist on the professional indemnity insurance rather than the Government to ensure it through legislation. There are no other examples of business entities being required to provide indemnity insurance.
For professions where professional indemnity is required, cover is required no matter what entity the professional operates through, and there is no reason to think that it will be different for LLPs. We have been told by consultees that the experience of the construction industry is that there is no reduction in insurance cover when firms change from a partnership to a company. Insurance policies are carefully worded. It is not necessarily the case that the insurer would pay out in every situation, particularly where the situation was simply business failure. To include a provision of this kind would give a false sense of security to those
1404
who deal with LLPs, quite apart from my major objection of turning the Government into an insurance company.
Lord Goodhart: I am grateful to the Minister for his reply, even if it was somewhat unhelpful on this subject. There are of course precedents for insurance being required—not indemnity insurance but, for example, liability insurance against injury to employees is a government requirement. The reason we provided for this to be in regulations is that it gives a great deal of flexibility to government to make the decisions and say what level of insurance should be required. It seems to me that there may be a breach of the provision which a future government will be unable to do anything about. However, I do not intend to press the matter. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Buscombe Baroness Buscombe moved Amendment No. 44:
Page 6, line 43, at end insert—
("(2) Regulations under this section shall in relation to the acquisition of, or merger with, a business by a limited liability partnership, make provision enabling the limited liability partnership to elect to account for that acquisition either using merger accounting or acquisition accounting methods, as its members see fit.").
The noble Baroness said: This is a probing amendment. Its purpose is to access the draft regulations to ensure that they distinguish between accounting practices for limited liability partnerships and those for mergers and acquisitions of a business.
As I stated at Second Reading, the merging and accounting provisions set out in paragraphs 10 and 12 of Section A of Schedule 4 to the Companies Act 1985 deal with equity shares being purchased for equity consideration. Such an exchange—share for share—cannot exist in a partnership and the Minister has already made clear that we will assume that no shareholders exist.
However, having said that, this amendment recognises that distinct merger and accounting methods do exist. Perhaps I may make a brief reference to the Minister's letter to me of 10th January wherein he makes it clear—we discussed this point—that it is the Government's intention to ensure that LLPs are able to make use of merger accounting provisions. Clearly, a completely different kind of scrutiny is required for merger and for acquisition accounting. Therefore, we feel it important that this should be made clear. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: This Bill is certainly an educational process for me because I had no idea that there was any difference between merger and acquisition accounting. Indeed, I have had to learn about it from scratch. Therefore, anything I get wrong is entirely my fault and not that of my advisers. Because merger accounting is generally done by agreement, my understanding is that the result of the merger accounting process is that the profits are likely to be higher and that net assets are likely to be rather lower than under acquisition accounting.

1405
In any case, even if I am not right about that, there is a difference in the reported value of the LLP and the way in which it would be presented in the best light according to which method of accounting is appropriate. Because the reported value of a business can be different according to which accounting measure is used, the choice of merger or acquisition accounting is a very hot topic. It is a matter that has to be defined in great detail in legislation.
Our draft regulations include conditions that would need to be complied with before merger accounting could be used. Perhaps I may point out to the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, that my letter to her did not say tout court that merger accounting could be available; it said that it could be available under certain conditions. The conditions are based on those that apply to companies with provision for appropriate adaptation when one of the parties is not a company. These conditions are supplemented by additional conditions in an accounting standard.
Given the significant difference in results and financial position of an LLP that could arise from giving it the choice of accounting methods, I am sure that Members of the Committee will agree that it would not help to make comparisons between the accounts of different LLPs. It would also enable LLPs to have the opportunity to select the method that portrayed them in the best light. We are convinced that there should be some regulation of the accounting method to be used by LLPs for business combinations. The most important argument here is that this choice is not available to companies; that it is not available for very good reason; and that there would need to be a very good reason why the LLPs concerned should be able to choose between the two accounting methods. I hope that the noble Baroness will not pursue the amendment.
Baroness Buscombe: I agree with the Minister in that I, too, have found this to be something of a learning curve. I should like to have the opportunity of reading his response in Hansard tomorrow and of revisiting this matter. However, in the light of what the noble Lord said, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 14 agreed to.
Clause 15 [Consequential amendments]:
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 45:
Page 7, line 2, at end insert—
("( ) Regulations may provide for the manner in which the accounts of a limited liability partnership are to be consolidated in the accounts of a member who is a body corporate.").
The noble Lord said: My interest here is to gain some elucidation from the Minister as to how the Government see these new animals being consolidated, or otherwise, in the accounts of other corporate bodies that hold a share—if one might use that general term—in these limited liability partnerships. Is it intended that they should always be accounted for as investments, or will there be occasions when the credits and debits (or, as we accountants call them, the figures on the side nearest
1406
the window and those on the side nearest the door) should be shown in full in the "parent" body corporate's accounts? Alternatively, will there be occasions when there is no necessity to publish separate accounts for an LLP because it is regarded as being a subsidiary of a body corporate? I am just hoping that the Minister will be able to give me some indication of the direction in which the Government are thinking on these matters. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I hope that I have understood the amendment properly. However, having listened to the noble Lord, I am not sure that I have. The amendment is not about the accounts of the limited liability partnership; it is about the accounts of the member who is a body corporate. The first thing to be said is that we are dealing here with a special case. Not all LLPs will have bodies corporate as members. Indeed, I imagine that most of the professional LLPs will not have bodies corporate as members. Therefore, the amendment will not apply.
However, where there is a corporate body that is a member of an LLP, regulations will provide for the way in which the accounts of the LLP are consolidated in the accounts of the member who is a body corporate. At present, the accounting treatment to be used by the corporate member would vary according to its relationship and interest in the LLP. As a company, the treatment of its accounts is governed by the Companies Act. Therefore, as with companies, if the LLP is a subsidiary, the corporate member would usually consolidate the accounts of the LLP in its own group accounts, in accordance with the provisions of the Companies Act. If the relationship is less than a subsidiary—for example, if it is an associated company, an investment or a general investment—different accounting treatments would be appropriate.
However, whatever the relationship with the corporate member, the LLP would still have to prepare its own accounts for its members and for filing at Companies House. Therefore, I do not believe that there is any need to provide in regulations for the accounting treatment to be used by the corporate member. There is no proposal to change the provisions of the Companies Act. I suggest that we leave the law as it stands.
Lord Lucas: I am grateful to the Minister for that explanation and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 15 agreed to.
Clause 16 [General]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 46:
Page 7, line 16, after ("regulations") insert ("(whether or not together with other provisions)").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 47. I find the drafting of these amendments extraordinarily difficult. It is to some extent helped by the marked copy of the Bill, which I have provided for noble Lords. I should

1407
point out here that the amendments were instigated by parliamentary counsel, not by the department. The intention behind them is to ensure that there is no risk of any subordinate legislation requiring both the affirmative and the negative procedure.
The amendment makes it clear that the regulations made under Clause 16(4) and which require the affirmative resolution can be made if what is approved in draft is an instrument containing them, together with regulations that require only the negative resolution procedure. The amendment also makes it clear that an instrument that has been laid in draft and approved under the affirmative resolution procedure does not require to be approved under the negative resolution procedure. I should tell the Committee that I have not come across this problem before. But if parliamentary counsel think that it is a problem, clearly we must take it seriously. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
8 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 47:
Page 7, line 31, leave out ("subsection (4) applies to the regulations)") and insert ("a draft of it has been approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament)").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 16, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 17 [Interpretation]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 48:
Page 7, line 39, at end insert—
(""business" includes every trade, profession and occupation,").
The noble Lord said: This was spoken to with Amendment No. 5. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to. Clause 17, as amended, agreed to. Clause 18 agreed to.
In the Schedule:
Lord Phillips of Sudbury Lord Phillips of Sudbury moved Amendment No. 49:
Page 9, line 41, at end insert ("but shall for a year after the change show the replaced name (prefixed by the words "formerly registered in the name") on all invoices, contracts, accounts, notepaper and such other documents of the partnership and representations and in such media and manner as the Secretary of State may by regulations prescribe").
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 49 is in the same vein as some of the earlier amendments concerning requirements for registration particulars of members of LLPs. This amendment is also designed to protect members of the public against the shenanigans—as I am afraid there will be—of those who seek to abuse the LLP status.
I cannot help resisting the earlier remark of the Minister about Adam Smith turning in his grave. Before Adam Smith reached his grave, limited liability
1408
was extremely rare indeed. I think that he would be turning in his grave over and over again at some of the consequences that are likely to flow from this Bill.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: But was it not Adam Smith who also said that all professions were a conspiracy against the laity?
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: That is precisely why I have opposed this Bill stock, root and branch. I am a great admirer of my own profession. I am afraid that this measure is a conspiracy against the public interest from start to finish. However, I am more concerned with the small traders who will take advantage of the special privileges of this Bill. Let us make no bones about it; this will provide your two-man cowboy building outfit with a uniquely flexible and light framed means of screwing the public, to put it in Anglo Saxon terms. One of the most common methods of doing that is by changing the name of the entity concerned. It is all very well to say that people should search in the register before they get Mr Brown and Mr Trant to build their porch. But we all know that they do not. We all know that the general public will get nowhere near this register. We all know that the great firms of accountants and solicitors will be impeccable in the way they use the provisions of this Bill. I am solely concerned with those who will not.
The amendment is self-explanatory. The Government may think that the requirement period of a year after the change of name is too long, but I think that the principle is a sound and common-sense one. The fact that it may not be required in other parts of the corporate law at present does not impress me at all. The fact that there may be great machinations afoot to change the law of limited liability companies does not impress me at all. We have here a particularly privileged entity that we are in the course of creating which will—I am sure that all Members of the Committee will agree with me—be used wholesale by small traders. The amendment is the only practical way that I can think of alerting members of the public with no business access or particular knowledge to whom they are dealing with. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am a paid up member of the conspiracy theory party. I agree with the noble Lord, in that I think that it is much more likely that there is conspiracy than cock-up in most aspects not just of history but of public policy. However, I think that on this occasion the noble Lord goes a little too far. I am sorry that he rejects the notion which he knows perfectly well will form my answer; namely, that if the provisions of his amendment do not apply to limited companies, there is no good reason why they should apply to limited liability partnerships.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: I thank the Minister for giving way. Does he not agree none the less that one of the commonest ways of defrauding the High Street

1409
public is by changing the names of limited liability businesses? Is not that reason enough for considering this amendment?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: It is certainly an argument for bringing forward one part of the company law review. Indeed, there are occasions—for example, in corporate governance—where we believe that it may be necessary to bring forward issues which form part of the company law review. We have never set our face against urgent matters having to be dealt with in a shorter time-scale than is permitted by the company law review. However, I do not think that the matter we are discussing is one of them. I do not think that the differences between LLPs and limited companies are sufficient to justify the special treatment which is proposed by this amendment.
Limited liability partnerships as bodies corporate are governed almost entirely by company law rather than by partnership law. The only exception concerns the tax treatment. All of the abuses which the noble Lord describes are possible, as he rightly says, as regards limited companies. That is true whether they are phoenix limited liability companies or phoenix limited liability partnerships. The main features of a phoenix limited liability partnership would be that an LLP would go into liquidation and a successor company continue the business with the same members, the same trading address and the same assets. These are offences when committed by companies, and they will be offences when committed by LLPs.
An insolvency practitioner who holds office as liquidator is required to report these offences to the Director of Public Prosecutions. If there is evidence that there has been fraudulent or wrongful trading, there is the power to apply to the court for an order that those responsible should make a personal contribution towards the assets of the limited liability partnership. If the DPP forms the view that the conduct of a member has been such as to make him unfit to be involved in the management of an LLP, he is required to make a report to the Secretary of State who will then have the power to apply to the court for a disqualification order if he thinks that it would be in the public interest to do so.
The noble Lord is sceptical as regards the efficacy of some of these provisions. I do not know whether the events I have described happen more often in Sudbury than in other parts of the country. I would not dream of casting any aspersions on the worthy burghers of Sudbury and I do not think that the noble Lord practises there anyway! Despite the noble Lord's
1410
rejection of this argument in advance, the argument must be that the provision should be the same for companies as for LLPs.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: I am grateful for at least some of the Minister's remarks. I shall report his remarks to the mayor and corporation of Sudbury. However, to be serious, I must say that it is disappointing to hear the Minister concede that there is a real problem here with limited liability companies and then effectively to say that the Government are not prepared none the less as regards a new limited liability animal to do something about it. It could take years for any changes pursuant to the present review to come into effect.
Although there are statutory protections 'with regard to wrongful trading, phoenix company provisions and the rest of it, the Minister must accept that this area of law is singularly ineffective. It is honoured in the breach. One of my jobs is that of legal adviser on the "Jimmy Young Show". Over 25 years I have heard of hundreds of thousands of cases of abuse in relation to small, local companies that get nowhere near the attention of the DTI and get nowhere near being addressed by the various provisions to which the Minister refers.
It depresses me that in this House we are so far out of touch with public opinion, if I may put it this way, at the bottom end of the social spectrum. People are ripped off, day in, day out, by the easy availability of limited liability for off-the-shelf companies and the protections provided for them, and with no real remedies.
I shall withdraw my amendment, but I urge the Minister to consider that it is not too late to review this issue. I hope that he will do so.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendments Nos. 50 and 51:
Page 11, line 10, leave out ("trades or").
Page 11, line 15, after ("name,") insert ("commits an offence. (2) A person guilty of an offence under sub-paragraph (1)").
The noble Lord said: I spoke to Amendments Nos. 50 and 51 with Amendment No. 5. I beg to move them en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with amendments.
House adjourned at eleven minutes past eight o'clock.

  Ridgeway National Trail
  Ridgeway National Trail
  Multi-storey Car Parks
  Multi-storey Car Parks
  River Wye Navigation Order
  River Wye Navigation Order
  Eurocontrol: Charges
  Eurocontrol: Charges
  Anti-personnel Mines Stocked in UK
  Anti-personnel Mines Stocked in UK
  Nuclear Deterrent
  Nuclear Deterrent
  Organophosphates: Long-term Low-level Exposure
  Organophosphates: Long-term Low-level Exposure
  Gulf War: Biological Warfare Immunisation Programme
  Gulf War: Biological Warfare Immunisation Programme
  Alleged Chemical Warfare Incident, Al Jubayl, 19 January 1991
  Alleged Chemical Warfare Incident, Al Jubayl, 19 January 1991
  Gulf Veterans' Medical Assessment Programme Audit
  Gulf Veterans' Medical Assessment Programme Audit
  Objective 2 Areas
  Objective 2 Areas
  A & E Facilities, City of London
  A & E Facilities, City of London
  NHS Trusts: Waiting List Reduction
  NHS Trusts: Waiting List Reduction
  "Epidemic": Definition
  "Epidemic": Definition
  Private Intensive Care Beds Available to NHS Trusts
  Private Intensive Care Beds Available to NHS Trusts
  Criminal Justice (Mode of Trial) Bill [H.L.]
  Criminal Justice (Mode of Trial) Bill [H.L.]
  Criminal Justice System and Ethnicity
  Criminal Justice System and Ethnicity
  Income Support and Lone Parents
  Income Support and Lone Parents
  Minimum Wage
  Minimum Wage
  Reduced Benefit Directions
  Reduced Benefit Directions