Sitting of 27 January 2000

Preamble
The House met at half-past Eleven o'clock
PRAYERS
[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  BAXI PARTNERSHIP LIMITED TRUST BILL [Lords]
  Considered; amendments agreed to; to be read the Third time.
BILL PRESENTED
  COMHAIRLE NAN EILEAN SIAR (ERISKAY CAUSEWAY) ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
  Mr. Secretary Reid presented a Bill to confirm a Provisional Order under section 7 of the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act 1936, relating to Comhairle Nan Eilean Siar (Eriskay Causeway): and the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time, and to be printed [Bill 52].
Oral Answers to Questions
  TRADE AND INDUSTRY
  The Secretary of State was asked—
  TRADE AND INDUSTRY

    Regulation
    Mr. John Bercow: What recent discussions he has had with representatives of business about the regulatory burden on industry and commerce. [105749]
    The Minister for Trade (Mr. Richard Caborn): Regulation is one of the many issues that I discuss as part of my regular contacts with business.
    Mr. Bercow: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that spectacularly uninformative reply. Given that Labour has spewed forth more than 2,700 new regulations since 1 May 1997, adding £5,000 a year to the costs of the average small business, and that the number of business failures has soared by more than 20 per cent.—
    Madam Speaker: Order. I require questions, not explanations of questions.
    Mr. Bercow: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us now in which year Labour intends to honour its promise to stop lacerating small businesses and start liberating them?
    Mr. Caborn: We do that every year. The hon. Gentleman's tirade does not match the information in the
    560
    Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development "Economic Outlook" published last month, which said that the United Kingdom had fewer economic and administrative regulations than any other OECD country including the United States. That report covered 1998. Less than 5 per cent. of all regulations affect business.
    Mr. Barry Sheerman: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Opposition should start growing up when they talk about regulation? The Financial Services and Markets Bill, which is to be considered this afternoon, will do British commerce the power of good. Good regulation of the City of London means that we become an effective, better centre for international commerce. We have a good record—
    Madam Speaker: Order. I mean to go on as I began: I want questions, not explanations. I am trying to get through more questions in the House. Was the hon. Gentleman asking a question?
    Mr. Sheerman: Yes, Madam Speaker. Does my right hon. Gentleman agree that some regulation helps commerce and industry, and makes our economy profitable?
    Mr. Caborn: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. His comments concur with the British Chambers of Commerce document, which reports on confidence in profitability and turnover, and claims that it is the strongest it has been for three years. That view is supported by the CBI and the Chartered Institute of Purchasing and Supply. That shows that we have a healthy economy. Business welcomes our action on regulation.
    Mrs. Angela Browning: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House—in pounds sterling, not euros—by how much he intends to reduce the cost of regulation to business in this Parliament?
    Mr. Caborn: We have strengthened the operations that existed when we took over from the previous Administration. We have a new panel of Ministers, which will consider regulation—[HON. MEMBERS: "How much?"] Indeed, if the previous Administration had implemented some of their taskforce's recommendations, the system would have been more effective. We have had to clear up that mess. The taskforce is chaired by Lord Haskins and its members include David Irwin—[HON. MEMBERS: "How much?"] Madam Speaker, I am trying to show what the previous Administration did, and what we are doing about the 5 per cent. of regulations that affect business. If the Conservative party returned to power, would it remove from the statute book the regulations on the minimum wage or working hours?

    E-Communications
    Mr. David Stewart: What plans he has to ensure the confidentiality of encrypted material in electronic communications. [105750]
    The Minister for Small Business and E-Commerce (Ms Patricia Hewitt): On Tuesday, the House gave an unopposed Third Reading to the Electronic Communications Bill, which will promote cryptography support services that guarantee the confidentiality of electronic transactions.
    Mr. Stewart: Does the Minister share my view that the growth of e-commerce is immense, and has tremendous potential? Does she further agree that the constraint on its development is security for individuals and for business, and that cryptography exists? Does she agree that we must ensure maximum security for commercial transmissions through e-commerce?
    Ms Hewitt: I entirely agree. That is why we are working with the Alliance for Electronic Business to put in place the T scheme to help give companies and individuals the assurance that they need about the security of electronic transactions.
    Mr. Ian Bruce: I congratulate the Minister on the fact that it has only taken the Government three years to decide not to include in the Electronic Communications Bill the provisions on encryption, and on taking Conservative Members' advice about that. Will she assure the House that, as she has wisely not included those provisions in the Electronic Communications Bill, she will tell her colleagues in the Home Office to do the same in the measure on interception?
    Ms Hewitt: The previous Administration, whom the hon. Gentleman supported, made the proposal for mandatory key escrow. We refused to introduce that and have ruled it out from the Bill. On law enforcement, encryption—which protects all our credit card details, for example—also enables money launderers, paedophiles and other criminals to evade detection. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will be making proposals to ensure that when the police have the power to seize information they can get it quite properly, either in plain text or with the key to decode it.
    Mr. Alan Duncan: Further to the question of my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Mr. Bruce), will the Minister explain which aspects of confidentiality will fall within her responsibilities and which will fall within those of the Home Office? Now that the e-envoy is at his desk at last—we welcome him to his new job—may I ask to whom he will report on such matters? Exactly what are his responsibilities; what is his job description; and what is he expected to achieve?
    Ms Hewitt: The e-envoy's responsibilities are set out extremely clearly on his website, which I recommend the hon. Gentleman visits. He has responsibility as the lead official in Whitehall for co-ordinating across government our efforts to make the United Kingdom the best place in the world for e-commerce. My role is that of lead Minister in co-ordinating that work across government.

    Ice-cream (Impulse Buying)
    Mr. Bob Russell: On what date he received the Competition Commission's inquiry into the impulse buying ice-cream industry; and when he intends to publish its findings. [105751]
    The Minister for Energy and Competitiveness in Europe (Mrs. Helen Liddell): My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry received a copy of the Competition Commission's report on the supply of impulse ice-cream on 21 September. It will be published as soon as is practicable.
    Mr. Russell: That is not a helpful response for the independents in the ice-cream distribution industry who have been waiting months for the report, which has been completed. I have one such distributor in my constituency. What message can I take back to that gentleman—the appropriately named Mr. D. Frost—whose business is suffering? Does the Minister agree that the Wall's stranglehold is anti-competitive and not in the interests of consumers and retailers?
    Mrs. Liddell: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman finds my reply unhelpful, but it is the only one I can give. I am sure he is well aware that a number of companies in the ice-cream market are publicly quoted and I therefore cannot give any indication in the House on market-sensitive matters. The publication of the report is market sensitive. The Government are well aware of the difficulties, and I congratulate him on his endeavours, but he should know that it is not in the interests of the ice-cream industry to make statements in the House that could destabilise the market.
    Mr. David Drew: Much as I would welcome the publication of the report, does my right hon. Friend agree that there will be major repercussions for British jobs and the way in which customers perceive their ice-cream? There is no reason why we cannot have stability in the market, even though we need the report to be published as soon as possible.
    Mrs. Liddell: My hon. Friend makes a good point. He, too, has been vociferous on the matter, and all his points will be taken into account when the report is published.
    Mr. Nick Gibb: Under the Competition Act 1998, a company can be fined up to 10 per cent. of its annual turnover. Out of the blue last August, the Government announced that that could apply to three years' annual turnover, effectively tripling the fine to 30 per cent. Was that always their intention, before and during the passage of the 1998 Act, or is it a new policy departure?
    Mrs. Liddell: In all their deliberations on competition, the Government take into account best practice and the best possible conclusions that we can reach to achieve a truly competitive market. The hon. Gentleman of all people should know that it is very important to ensure that adequate and proper competition is in place in the United Kingdom.

    Minimum Wage
    Mr. Gordon Prentice: How many people have contacted the minimum wage hotline since it was inaugurated. [105752]
    The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Stephen Byers): There have been 150,000 calls to the national minimum wage hotline.
    Mr. Prentice: I suspect that a good number of that 150,000 came from Pendle and north-east Lancashire which is a low-pay black spot. Is the Secretary of State aware that when the national minimum wage came in last April, 8 per cent. of all adults in employment in Pendle received a pay increase, as did no fewer than 30 per cent. of all part-time women employees? Not only did that have huge practical importance: for the Labour party and the Labour Government it had huge symbolic importance. Will the Secretary of State let us know whether there will be an annual uprating of the national minimum wage which people in my constituency and across the land fully expect?
    Mr. Byers: I am delighted to hear that so many workers in my hon. Friend's constituency have benefited from the introduction of the national minimum wage. The important message that we can both put over to them is that they stand to lose that if the Conservative party is ever returned to office. In answer to his question, the Government have made it clear throughout that it is not their policy automatically to uprate the national minimum wage annually. Any increase will need to be considered in the light of the economic conditions at a particular time. I know that this cautious approach will be criticised in some quarters, but it is important that this radical change in the labour market is introduced successfully—as it has been. We must not take any steps which will disadvantage its successful introduction.
    Dr. Vincent Cable: Does the Secretary of State agree that despite reservations expressed about the national minimum wage, by me among other people, it has proved to be a success and has been accepted as such across industry? In the same spirit of consensus, will he agree that there needs to be a mechanism for increasing the minimum wage at least in line with inflation over the past two years and for removing discrimination against younger workers aged between 18 and 22?
    Mr. Byers: I welcome the Liberal Democrats' decision on the minimum wage. They described their own policy as being economically illiterate and politically inept, and that was absolutely right. Their policy was exactly that, in line with many of the policies that they pursue. The hon. Gentleman, who opposed the national minimum wage and the way it was introduced, is now calling for an annual uprating. It is important to remember that the national minimum wage is not a state benefit. It is paying people for work. That means that an increase will be linked to the economic circumstances of the day. It has made a break with state benefits, which are annually
    564
    uprated. The minimum wage is about making work pay for people. That is exactly what we are doing and what we will continue to do.
    Mrs. Alice Mahon: While I congratulate the Government on introducing the minimum wage, does my right hon. Friend agree that £3.60 an hour is too low? In view of the profits of various companies and the fat-cat increases, does he accept that it is time to increase the minimum wage and link it into a mechanism where it is increased annually, at least in line with the rate of inflation? I suggest that it should go up to £5 an hour.
    Mr. Byers: An increase from £3.60 to £5 an hour would be an increase rather in excess of the rate of inflation. I know that my hon. Friend has been a powerful advocate of the minimum wage for many years—and in the years when it may not have been so fashionable to support it. The Low Pay Commission was kept in being after it made its first recommendations partly to monitor continually the impact of the national minimum wage on the labour market, and levels of employment in particular. It has just reported to the Government and we are considering our response, which we hope to make in the next few weeks. We will undoubtedly need to consider the questions of uprating and the youth rate.
    Mr. Nick St. Aubyn: We know from previous answers that thousands of people have gone from low pay to no pay as a result of the Government's policies. Does the Secretary of State regard the thousands of people who have lost their jobs as a result of the minimum wage legislation as a sign of the success or failure of his Government's policy?
    Mr. Byers: As usual, the hon. Gentleman is allowing his prejudices to get in the way of the facts, which are that there is higher employment in this country than ever before and that our introduction of the national minimum wage has taken well over 1.5 million people out of poverty pay. All that would be put at risk by the policies that his party pursues.

    Debts (Late Payment)
    Mr. Desmond Browne: If he will make a statement about the use by businesses of the Late Payment of Commercial Debts (Interest) Act 1998. [105753]
    The Minister for Small Business and E-Commerce (Ms Patricia Hewitt): The latest review of credit management activity shows that 5 per cent. of firms have already used the legislation—up from 3 per cent. six months ago—and that 11 per cent. are planning to use it.
    Mr. Browne: Does my hon. Friend have any reliable survey evidence to show that there has been any improvement in Britain's historically lamentable payment culture since 1 November 1998, when the Act came into force?
    Ms Hewitt: There are several surveys, not all of them consistent. I am glad to say that the survey by Dunn and Bradstreet, one of the most comprehensive, shows that 60 per cent. of companies are paying on time, compared

    565
    with only 54 per cent. in 1997. That has taken us up to third place in the European Union league table on payment of debts. It is still not good enough, but we are going in the right direction.
    Mr. Nigel Evans: Has the Minister been able to do a survey or analysis of the sort of businesses that are using the legislation? What percentage of small businesses are using the legislation against other small businesses that are late in paying their debts?
    Ms Hewitt: I think the hon. Gentleman does not entirely understand the legislation. As currently in force, it allows small businesses to pursue large businesses because that is the real problem that we identified and set out to put right. The introduction of the rest of the law is being phased. The intention is that, from 1 November this year, small businesses will be able to use the law against other small businesses, and that, from 1 November 2002, all businesses and public sector organisations will be able to use the law, but we continue to keep those phasing arrangements under review.
    Mr. Brian Cotter: Does the Minister agree that the Government should take a lead in promoting early payment of debt, and that it is regrettable that the Bill did not reflect that? Will she provide us with statistics showing the Government's record at both local and national level?
    Ms Hewitt: Of course Government must take a lead and that is what we are doing. Every Government Department has signed up to the better payment practice code. Most paid almost 97 per cent. of their bills on time in the last financial year. The Department of Trade and Industry has substantially improved its payments record and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has asked officials to ensure that 100 per cent. of bills are paid on time.

    Mail Order
    Helen Jones: What recent discussions his Department has had with representatives of the mail order companies on consumer protection in that industry. [105754]
    The Minister for Competitiveness (Mr. Alan Johnson): The Department has met representatives of the mail order industry to discuss consumer protection issues concerning implementation of the European directive on the protection of consumers in respect of distance contracts, and the proposals in the consumer White Paper relating to codes of practice.
    Helen Jones: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Not only do many hon. Members shop by mail order because of lack of time, but, more important, many of my poorer constituents do so because it is the only way in which they can phase payments. There are many good mail order companies, but in dealing with some of them, people may encounter particular problems in arranging deliveries and making complaints: people often cannot get hold of anyone in a responsible position to deal with the matter that they wish to raise. Will my hon. Friend assure
    566
    me that, in future discussions, he will raise those topics with the mail order companies, so that our poorer constituents will be entitled to better protection?
    Mr. Johnson: My hon. Friend raises an important point. One of the reasons for introducing better consumer protection in the sector is that, although the vast majority of mail order companies behave in an exemplary manner, the most vulnerable people are sometimes exploited by a small minority. I will take her views into account and pass on to her the response of the Mail Order Traders Association of Great Britain next time we meet, but I remind her that we are consulting on the implementation regulations until 11 February. All submissions will be gratefully received.
    Mr. Michael Fabricant: Does the Minister accept that it is possible to receive junk mail not only through the post but by fax? What about introducing some consumer protection for the poor guy who owns the fax machine and ends up having to pay for the paper, the toner and everything else? What about some protection for hon. Members who return home to discover on the floor at least 200 yards of fax paper containing useless junk that has been faxed to us? We need such protection, too.
    Mr. Johnson: The hon. Gentleman's remarks strike a chord throughout the House. I remind him that the consultation that I mentioned earlier, on the European directive on distance selling, includes measures to ensure that people have a statutory right to choose whether to receive advertising mail, regardless of whether it is sent by e-mail, the post or fax. As I said, the consultation period finishes on 11 February.

    Debts (Late Payment)
    Mr. Kerry Pollard: What plans he has to strengthen legislation on the late payment of commercial debts in respect of its impact on small businesses. [105755]
    The Minister for Small Business and E-Commerce (Ms Patricia Hewitt): I am keeping the impact of the new law under close review, but currently we have no plans to amend it.
    Mr. Pollard: I thank the Minister for that answer. Does she support the European Union late payment directive, which allows the recovery of costs associated with the collection of commercial debts? Will she support domestic legislation on the matter?
    Ms Hewitt: We do indeed support the principle of the proposed directive, but we and some other member states are concerned that its scope is too broad. We are working together to sort that out. We have provision in current UK law to allow individuals to recover costs through county court proceedings.
    Mr. Andrew Robathan: Coming as she does from Leicestershire, is the Minister aware of the impact on small businesses in our area of the failure to pay and late payment of commercial debt by a company called

    567
    TransTec, in Coventry? Will she now answer the parliamentary questions tabled, more than two weeks ago, by me and other hon. Members?
    Ms Hewitt: Those questions have already been fully answered. The investigations are proceeding and will be dealt with in due course in the normal way.

    Poor Countries (Exports)
    Joan Ruddock: What progress he has made in persuading the UK's EU partners to fulfil their commitment to allow tariff- and quota-free access for all exports from the world's 48 poorest countries. [105756]
    The Minister for Trade (Mr. Richard Caborn): The European Union commitment is to provide duty-free access for essentially all products from the least-developed countries by 2005 at the latest. We expect the European Commission soon to make proposals aimed at implementing that commitment, giving both tariff- and quota-free access. More generally, the Government will continue to call for zero tariffs to be applied to all goods from the least-developed countries, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister promised in his speech at the Mansion House on 22 November 1999.
    Joan Ruddock: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Does he agree that tariff- and quota-free market access for the poorest countries should include all exports, and that there should not be exclusions on the grounds of any sensitivity? Does he also agree that there is no reason why those small concessions could not be made immediately, and that there should be no attempt to include them in any further trade rounds?
    Mr. Caborn: That is exactly the British Government's position and what we are trying to negotiate with the European Union. As I said, the Prime Minister stated the British Government's position on the issue in his Mansion House speech, and we have to convince our European Union partners to accept that position. Arguably, however, the European Union already offers probably the most generous preferential terms for developing countries. Nevertheless, I agree with my hon. Friend that we have to go that extra mile, and we shall be pushing very hard to do just that.
    Mr. Peter Lilley: Does the Minister agree that by far the best way of helping poor countries out of poverty is to enable them freely to export their goods to our markets? Will he condemn those who weep crocodile tears for the poorest countries, but spend all their time dreaming up ways of restricting their imports into the countries of the developed world on grounds that free trade is not in their view fair trade?
    Mr. Caborn: Yes. The Government's commitment on tariffs and quotas has been laid out by the Prime Minister, and my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has been working with the International Monetary Fund on trying to relieve the debt of the heavily indebted countries. We want to ensure that the least-developed countries have sustainable economies, and one of the
    568
    prerequisites in achieving that is to provide those countries with access to markets such as the European Union.

    Coal Industry
    Mr. John Grogan: If he will make a statement on the future of the coal industry. [105757]
    The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Stephen Byers): We are introducing reforms to the electricity market to remove distortions that worked against coal generation. The new electricity trading arrangements in the Utilities Bill published last week will change the way in which the generation market operates, with credit being given to coal for the flexibility that it offers to the system. In 1997, the industry asked for fairness not favours. That has been, and will continue to be, our approach.
    Mr. Grogan: Given the huge subsidies currently paid by the German, Spanish and French Governments to support their coal industries, will the Minister establish, with the European Union, which state aids might legally be payable to support the British coal industry? Is not a diverse energy portfolio in the interests of both Britain and Europe as a whole?
    Mr. Byers: My hon. Friend raises an important issue. First, we must study carefully the level of state aids given by other European Union member states to ensure that they do not achieve an unfair advantage. I know that my hon. Friend has considered very carefully the aid that the UK Government can give to the coal industry. He will know that the Government do not consider that we have the power to offer aid for operating costs, because of decisions taken by the previous Administration. However, given our concern about the coal industry, the Government will look closely at any alternative opinion.
    Mr. Owen Paterson: If the Government lifted the moratorium on gas-fired power stations, how many coal mines in this country would remain competitive?
    Mr. Byers: I said that our intention was to introduce fairness not favours. Our aim is to make the energy market fair. To achieve that, we are introducing changes through the Utilities Bill. However, we have introduced a stricter gas consents policy to protect industries in the energy sector that would be affected adversely by the fact that we do not at present have fair competition.
    Mr. Eric Illsley: May I urge my right hon. Friend to maintain the consents policy for gas-fired power generation? If that policy were relaxed, there would be another dash for gas and more consents would be issued for gas-fired power generation. That would wipe out what remains of the British coal industry. My right hon. Friend is correct to insist on a fair energy policy.
    Mr. Byers: Given his personal and constituency experience, my hon. Friend is a powerful advocate for the coal industry. We have put in place the stricter gas consents policy so that we can make the changes

    569
    contained in the Utilities Bill to secure a level and fair playing field for energy generation, which we do not have at the moment. Until we achieve that, the stricter gas consents policy will remain in place.

    British Nuclear Fuels
    Mr. David Chaytor: If he has decided on a process and a time scale for the privatisation of British Nuclear Fuels plc. [105758]
    The Minister for Energy and Competitiveness in Europe (Mrs. Helen Liddell): On July 13 last year, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said that the Government were looking to introduce a public-private partnership into BNFL before the end of the current Parliament, subject to BNFL's overall progress towards achieving a range of performance targets, as well as to further work by the Department and our advisers.
    Mr. Chaytor: When the Government are in a position to clarify the way forward for BNFL, does my hon. Friend agree that, given the size and sensitivity of the operation, there needs to be a full public debate about all possible ways forward for the nuclear industry, and for BNFL in particular? Does she also agree that that debate must be underpinned by the principles of open government, transparency and full freedom of information?
    Mrs. Liddell: I very much concur about the need for an open debate on the issues connected with BNFL and the public-private partnership. The Government have chosen to study the option of a public-private partnership because there are great international opportunities for BNFL, as is evident in the acquisition strategy involving Westinghouse and ABB. However, it is important that BNFL meet certain targets. The PPP will ensure that BNFL can benefit from commercial freedom, and from commercial disciplines.
    It is important that we have transparency of information, and that people join with the Government, and, indeed with the trade unions and management of BNFL, in looking at the international opportunities for British Nuclear Fuels to become market leaders.
    Mr. Michael Jack: In the light of the Minister's answer, it is evident that the Government remain the dominant shareholder in BNFL. Therefore, may I ask the Minister what discussions she has had with the board of BNFL about increasing its role in terms of nuclear power generation? As I understand it, closing one sixth of a major coal-fired power station saves the amount of carbon dioxide required by the climate change levy. More work in generating electricity by nuclear means could save us all an awful lot of trouble.
    Mrs. Liddell: The right hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point, but we have to see nuclear generation within the context of a balanced energy supply. My right hon. Friend has just referred to the measures that the Government are taking to ensure that the coal industry can play its proper part in an electricity market that is not distorted. It is important to point out that BNFL, through its acquisitions strategy, can now enter into a much wider range of commercial activities. The US arm of BNFL, Westinghouse, is well able to participate internationally
    570
    in the very important field of nuclear power. This is a sound decision for the Government to take. There are many commercial opportunities that would expand the opportunities for BNFL and its international subsidiaries in a way that ensures that internationally we have a sustained and mixed energy supply, to give us security and diversity of supply into the future.
    Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: May we have an assurance that the performance targets to which my right hon. Friend refers include nuclear waste disposal targets, which affect my constituents, and that there will be no partnership and no progress until we have absolute assurances in those areas?
    Mrs. Liddell: I can give my hon. Friend a guarantee on that. The issues surrounding nuclear waste and those connected with his constituency are much in our mind. We have set demanding targets for BNFL as we approach the public-private partnership. We wish to see those targets met, not just in commercial terms, but also in safety terms.
    Mr. Jeffrey Donaldson: This is an issue that is very important to people in Northern Ireland. The Minister will be aware of concerns about pollution in the Irish sea emanating from the reprocessing plant at Sellafield. Can the Minister give us an assurance that, should the Department proceed with privatisation, there will be no reduction in safety standards or in effective regulation, so that we can prevent pollution in the Irish sea in the future?
    Mrs. Liddell: The hon. Gentleman makes a point that he has made on a number of occasions. First, let me point out that this is not a privatisation; it is a genuine partnership, a public-private partnership, that has been accepted and welcomed across the board. Issues of public safety and pollution are very much at the heart of the nuclear industry. My colleagues in the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions are in the lead in relation to the environmental considerations, but I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the Department of Trade and Industry is most anxious to ensure that the PPP leads not only to the maintenance of safety and environmental standards, but to a continuing improvement in them.
    Mr. Lindsay Hoyle: Will my right hon. Friend also ensure that we do not lose the highly successful training centre for apprentices at Springfield in Preston, which represents many industries—not just BNFL, but all the leading companies? There is a danger that through privatisation we may lose it. Can we ensure that that will not happen?
    Mrs. Liddell: I stress again that this is not a privatisation. The aim of the public-private partnership is to develop BNFL as a centre of excellence. We believe there are substantial global opportunities for BNFL, which will require a highly trained work force. I would hope that throughout British Nuclear Fuels there would be an enhanced emphasis on training and skilling the work force to make sure that we are truly globally competitive. I pay tribute to the work that is done at Springfield in my hon. Friend's constituency.

    Dairy Industry
    Mrs. Ann Winterton: If he will make a statement about competition in the dairy industry. [105759]
    The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Stephen Byers): The members of Milk Marque have agreed to a voluntary separation into three independent successor bodies. I welcome that decision.
    Mrs. Winterton: What research did the Department undertake into the impact of the break-up? It should be borne in mind that, by the time the decision was made, Milk Marque's share of the market had dropped considerably, and the statistics used were therefore out of date.
    Mr. Byers: It would have been wholly inappropriate for my Department to intervene or to instruct a voluntary organisation such as Milk Marque. It was the members of Milk Marque who decided, voluntarily, to break into three successor bodies, in the light of the report by the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. I welcome that voluntary decision. I rejected the commission's recommendation for a break-up to be imposed on Milk Marque: I thought that it would be far better to leave the decision to its members. They have made their decision, and I look forward to healthy competition in the milk industry—and also to allowing processing in due course.
    Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: The recent report caused great dismay. At present there is no real competition; the only competition seems to be competition to offer farmers the lowest possible prices. The market is depressed, as the right hon. Gentleman knows. Something must be done: we are losing hundreds of farmers a year in places like Ceredigion. I urge the Secretary of State to speak to his right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.
    Mr. Byers: I will certainly do that, but the MMC report was such that the Government could not ignore it. I had to seek a remedy that was appropriate to the circumstances. I disagreed with the commission's recommendation for a compulsory break-up, but I am pleased that the members of Milk Marque considered the situation carefully and, on a voluntary basis, agreed to form three independent successor bodies. When they are competing effectively—I hope that there will be clear indications of that by April—I shall be able to allow them to start processing. That will enable them to produce products with a higher added value, which I think will make a real difference to the industry.
    Mr. David Heath: The agreement was voluntary only in the sense that the action of someone with a shotgun pointed at his head is voluntary. Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that the long delay before his decision, and the disastrous effects on milk processing, are much resented in the dairy
    572
    industry? Next time he considers it necessary to meddle in agriculture, will he talk to the primary producers—the people who get up at 5 am to milk the cows, who are losing money hand over fist?
    Mr. Byers: The hon. Gentleman talks of meddling in agriculture. What I did as Secretary of State for Trade and Industry was disagree with the MMC's proposal for a compulsory break-up, because I did not think that it was in the industry's best interests. Farmers have told me that that was absolutely the right decision. If the hon. Gentleman disagrees and thinks that I should have rubber-stamped the commission's report, let me tell him that I could easily have done that, but I did not; I put the industry's interests first.
    Mrs. Angela Browning: The Secretary of State has repeated today things that he said at our last Trade and Industry Question Time. On 9 December 1999, he told me—and my hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson), who is present—
    "It is the members of Milk Marque who have voluntarily agreed to break it up into three successor bodies."—[Official Report, 9 December 1999; Vol. 340, c. 982.]
    The right hon. Gentleman must know that, with viability in mind, the industry pressed repeatedly to be allowed to form two bodies, not three.
    Mr. Byers: All I know is that the members of Milk Marque voted for three independent successor bodies. That is exactly what I said on 9 December, and have said again today.
    Mrs. Browning: The members of Milk Marque were finally forced to accept that arrangement. After our last Question Time I wrote to the chairman of Milk Marque, who wrote back saying:
    "Contrary to the impression given by your letter, Milk Marque did not press for three regions rather than two; indeed when it became obvious that the way forward was for Milk Marque to split, our first proposal was a two-way split … the competition authorities insisted that three was the minimum acceptable number".
    The Secretary of State will know that the matter is now the subject of a judicial review. Why did he not use his powers to help the industry, and why does he not give answers at the Dispatch Box that tell Members exactly what is behind the decision making?
    Mr. Byers: The hon. Lady needs to be aware of the different responsibilities of the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and the Competition Commission. I would be justifiably criticised if I intervened with the Competition Commission. I do not do that—perhaps the previous Government to which the hon. Lady belonged used to.
    The correspondence between the Competition Commission and Milk Marque is a matter for those two bodies. I act in an independent capacity. But it is no secret that the MMC report said that between three and five would be an appropriate division. I decided that there will not be a compulsory break-up of Milk Marque, and that has been welcomed by the industry.

    Trade Union Recognition
    Mr. Vernon Coaker: What progress is being made in implementing the provisions of the Employment Relations Act 1999 relating to statutory trade union recognition. [105760]
    The Minister for Competitiveness (Mr. Alan Johnson): The Government are making the necessary preparations to bring these provisions into force in the near future.
    Mr. Coaker: May I urge my hon. Friend to bring the provisions into force as soon as possible? This is a radical piece of legislation, which is much needed. Workers in my constituency who are seeking to organise themselves on a trade union basis are looking forward to these measures. They need the strength of a trade union to protect themselves in the workplace.
    Mr. Johnson: My hon. Friend can be assured that we will put the legislation in place as soon as possible. He will understand that major pieces of subordinate legislation are also necessary, including codes of practice on union access to workers during a ballot on recognition, and on the right of individuals to be accompanied to each discipline and grievance hearing. The Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service is preparing those for us at present, and we shall need to consult on them. The important thing, as I know my hon. Friend will accept, is not the speed at which the measures will be introduced—although that is obviously an imperative—but to ensure that, once introduced, they are fair and balanced in accordance with the legislation.

    Textile Industry
    Mr. David Tredinnick: How many textile and clothing factories there are in (a) the north-east and (b) the east midlands; and if he will make a statement on the organisations which exist to promote economic development in each of those regions. [105761]
    The Minister for Trade (Mr. Richard Caborn): There are 360 textile and clothing companies in the north-east and 3,106 textile and clothing companies in the east midlands. There are many separate organisations whose task it is to promote economic development in those regions, the most notable of which are the regional development agencies—One North East and the East Midlands development agency.
    Mr. Tredinnick: Can the hon. Gentleman confirm that the textile and clothing strategy group has recently recommended that Government assistance beyond objective 2 area status be given to some companies in the east midlands? Secondly, does he not feel that now that there is an action plan for the north-east textiles industry, which was set up by his Department in December, something should be done on similar lines in the east midlands, given that that is where most of the companies are?
    Mr. Caborn: That has been under active discussion between the Government offices and the newly formed regional development agencies, and it is to be welcomed.
    574
    Going over the boundaries of the assisted areas would be very difficult, as the hon. Gentleman knows, and would break the European Union rules on dispersal of structural funds money. However, he could have discussions with the regional development agencies on how they can assist the continued development of this important sector. I believe that they are trying to develop a cluster around the textiles and clothing industry in the east midlands, bringing in academia and other strands of financial support. A positive attitude has been taken in the region, which the Department welcomes.
    Mr. Jim Cousins: May I congratulate the Government on their efforts in setting up a taskforce to look at the textile industry in the north-east of England? It is an excellent initiative. There is no future in protectionism, although some of us are concerned that the top management of companies such as Marks and Spencer appear to have callously sacrificed the jobs of British textile workers in an effort to save their own—which may well not work out for them.
    Will my hon. Friend be willing to meet Members of Parliament from the north-east to see whether we can make progress on the action plan and taskforce? We want to take up the Government's policies to promote small businesses, assist them with taxation and get new products, design and technology into our industry to give it a long-term future.
    Mr. Caborn: I fully agree with my hon. Friend. However, the new design and development will not be carried out in Departments—I can assure him of that: it will be done in the regions. The taskforce is operating in the north-east, with all the partners involved in a very creative way, and will deal with some of the questions raised by my hon. Friend.
    Yes, I will meet the Members of Parliament and, indeed, any of the partners in the taskforce, but the solutions to the problems will be found in the regions—in that partnership—rather than in Whitehall.
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I support the request made to the Government by my hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth (Mr. Tredinnick). Does the Minister agree that textiles and clothing are industries of strategic importance to the United Kingdom; that they remain substantial employers; and that they are frequently undermined by unfair competition? Is it not important that the existing systems for dealing with unfair competition should act more quickly than they currently do?
    Mr. Caborn: The hon. Gentleman makes a justifiable point. Several of the procedures for reacting to what he describes as unfair competition need to be questioned. That is one of the matters that we are taking up with the World Trade Organisation, and I am taking it up in the European Union in other ways. The hon. Gentleman is right. There should be a review of our responses to such claims and allegations. Information technology could be used much more effectively than has been the case hitherto. I accept the hon. Gentleman's comments.
    Mr. Andrew Reed: Areas such as Leicestershire have not secured objective 2 status or assisted area status, but still have a large number of textile jobs. What practical measures will my hon. Friend take to

    575
    work with the regional development agency? Will he also take a lead in the Government to ensure that those jobs are retained? A large number of jobs in the east midlands—especially in Leicestershire—still depend on the textile sector. We are keen that they should be retained.
    Mr. Caborn: My hon. Friend is aware that a taskforce is operating in his area, as I have just pointed out. The taskforce is considering matters such as education, trade policy, export and industrial sponsorship. Such partnerships consider opportunities, nationally and internationally, in a changing world.
    Many people realise that liberalisation of the global economy is taking place. We have to keep ahead of the game by retraining the work force, developing design and ensuring that academic institutions, as well as further education institutions, play a role in ensuring that we have the design skills and the skilled labour that are necessary to keep ahead in an extremely competitive market. The way forward lies in the partnerships between the regional development agencies, the Government offices and the partners in the regions.

    Car Pricing
    Mr. John M. Taylor: If he will make a statement on the pricing of cars in the UK and the rest of the EU. [105762]
    The Minister for Energy and Competitiveness in Europe (Mrs. Helen Liddell): The European Commission publishes a six-monthly comparison of pre-tax prices across the European Community. The most recent one covered prices at 1 May 1999; the UK was the most expensive market for 62 of the 75 models covered. Publication of the survey of prices taken on 1 November 1999 is expected shortly.
    The Competition Commission is currently investigating the supply of new cars in the UK; its report is due on 31 January. I have no doubt that the commission is looking at car prices as part of its investigation.
    Mr. Taylor: Has the Minister stopped to think of the enhanced foreign car penetration of the west midlands car market that will be brought about by the damage to local component manufacturers through the collapse of TransTec?
    Mrs. Liddell: My hon. Friend the Minister for Small Business and E-Commerce has already referred to matters connected to TransTec. However, I am sure that many people in the hon. Gentleman's constituency and throughout other areas that are dependent on the car industry will be interested to know how the Government are taking action to ensure that there will be a viable car industry in the future—hence our involvement with Rover BMW. We are trying to ensure that consumers have access to cars at prices that do not disadvantage them. At the same time, we are also ensuring that all the benefits from the single market in the EU are available to every UK consumer.
    Mr. Richard Burden: My right hon. Friend may forgive me if I return to the question asked by the hon. Member for Solihull
    576
    (Mr. Taylor). Does she agree that while genuine concern about differential pricing across Europe continues, when the commission's report—which we await with interest—becomes available, it is important that it be considered quickly and that decisions be made promptly? The worst thing for consumers and the motor industry would be inordinate delay.
    Mrs. Liddell: My hon. Friend makes a considered point on a subject of considerable interest—compared with the shallow attempt by the hon. Member for Solihull to use his question to suit the Tory Whips. We take speed of response very much into account and recognise the importance of the car industry in terms not just of primary manufacture but of components.

    Business Competitiveness
    Mr. Geraint Davies: What recent discussions he has had with other EU member states about improving the competitiveness of business. [105765]
    The Minister for Energy and Competitiveness in Europe (Mrs. Helen Liddell): My ministerial colleagues and I have held regular discussions with our opposite numbers on a wide range of issues related to competitiveness, in bilateral meetings with member states and European Council meetings. We will intensify those contacts as we approach the Lisbon special European summit in March. That will be a significant summit for the United Kingdom because the issues are close to the heart of this Government as regards promoting a knowledge-driven economy, economic reform and ensuring that the advantages of the single market are enjoyed by all citizens of the European Union.
    Mr. Davies: Manufacturing output in Britain is rising at its fastest rate since 1995, with particular success in computers, telephones, pharmaceuticals, chemicals and engineering—despite the level of sterling. In her discussions with our EU partners, will my right hon. Friend make it clear that the reason for our outstanding success is not just efficiency, added value and productivity, but a system of financial stability—as opposed to the boom-bust of the past—that gives certainty to the investment and export growth that is materialising?
    Mrs. Liddell: My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. In my discussions with industrialists, they frequently mention the advantages of a sound and stable economy based on a prudent fiscal framework and on engaging with the European Union to secure the advantages of the markets that are so important to British manufacturing industry. Opposition Members who scaremonger about our membership of the European Union do no service to our manufacturing industry—which makes the point that our exports to non-European Union countries are as nothing compared with exports to our fellow member states.
    Mr. Crispin Blunt: Does the Minister agree that it is difficult for businesses to be competitive if they

    577
    have their assets seized by the countries in which they have invested—particularly when those investments are protected by the GATT? Will the right hon. Lady instruct her officials to liaise with those from other European Union countries and EU institutions to ensure that the Department takes the fullest possible action to protect British investments—such as Wena Hotels Ltd, which had its assets seized in Egypt nearly 10 years ago?
    Mrs. Liddell: One of the great benefits of membership of the European Union is that where domestic companies encounter significant difficulties, member states can act together. My officials, as part of the step change in relationships with other member states, are able to raise difficult issues and seek a resolution. I will take on board the hon. Gentleman's point. If he wishes to communicate with me further, I will be happy to respond.

    Telecommunications
    Mr. Mark Todd: If he will place obligations on telecommunications providers to increase the availability of broadband technologies in rural areas. [105766]
    The Minister for Small Business and E-Commerce (Ms Patricia Hewitt): We want everyone to have access to affordable modern communications services. The market for broadband services is in the early stages of development and it would not be appropriate at this point to impose new service obligations.
    Mr. Todd: A critical foundation for diversification will be access to broadband technologies in the development of IT-based and media-based industry activity. The availability of such technologies for those purposes and for leisure is crucially important. Does the Minister share the view that the position must be kept under careful review?
    Ms Hewitt: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. We are taking immediate steps to auction third-generation mobile telephony spectrum, and Oftel has agreed with BT on a timetable to open up the local loop to competition, both of which will make a real difference to broadband access throughout the country. Finally, the Government are investing in ICT centres throughout disadvantaged parts of the country, including many rural communities.

Business of the House
12.30 pm
Sir George Young: Could I ask the Leader of the House to give us the business for next week?
The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Margaret Beckett): The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 31 JANUARY—Second Reading of the Utilities Bill.
TUESDAY 1 FEBRUARY—Conclusion of remaining stages of the Financial Services and Markets Bill.
WEDNESDAY 2 FEBRUARY—Opposition Day [4th Allotted Day]. Until about 7 o'clock, there will be a debate on immigration and asylum followed by a debate entitled "The Two Britains: the run down of Northern Cities and over-building in the South". Both debates will arise on Opposition motions.
THURSDAY 3 FEBRUARY—Motions on the Police Grant Reports (England and Wales).
Motions on Local Government (Finance) Reports.
FRIDAY 4 FEBRUARY—Private Members' Bills.
The provisional business for the following week will be as follows:
MONDAY 7 FEBRUARY—Motions on Social Security Orders.
TUESDAY 8 FEBRUARY—Second Reading of the Armed Forces (Discipline) Bill. [Lords].
WEDNESDAY 9 FEBRUARY—Second Reading of the Postal Services Bill.
THURSDAY 10 FEBRUARY—Second Reading of the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Bill.
FRIDAY 11 FEBRUARY—Private Members' Bills.
The House will also wish to know that on Wednesday 9 February there will be a debate on an unnumbered explanatory memorandum submitted by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office on 30 November 1999, relating to common strategy on Ukraine, in European Standing Committee B. Also on Wednesday 9 February there will be a debate on European Document No: 10948/99, "State Aid to the Coal Industry" in European Standing Committee C. Details of the relevant documents will be given in the Official Report.
[Wednesday 9 February 2000:
European Standing Committee B—Relevant European Union document: Unnumbered explanatory memorandum submitted by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office on 30 November 1999, Common Strategy on Ukraine; Relevant European Scrutiny Committee Report: HC 23-iv, (1999–2000).
European Standing Committee C—Relevant European Union document: 10948/99, State aid to the Coal Industry; Relevant European Scrutiny Committee Report: HC 34-xxx (1998–99).]
I should like to inform the House of business to be taken in Westminster Hall for the next four Thursdays when the House is sitting.
THURSDAY 3 FEBRUARY—Debate on children's social services.
580
THURSDAY 10 FEBRUARY—Debate on the Fifth Report from the Agriculture Committee Session 1998–1999 on Badgers and Bovine Tuberculosis.
THURSDAY 17 FEBRUARY—Debate on UK engagement in Africa.
THURSDAY 2 MARCH—Debate on the Twentieth Report from the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Committee on town and country parks.
Sir George Young: The House is grateful for next week's business and an indication of the likely business for the following week.
Next week is an important week for Northern Ireland, with the de Chastelain report expected. Can we expect a statement from the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland outlining the Government's response? Also, can we expect statements next week from the Home Secretary on his decision on Senator Pinochet, and from the Secretary of State for Culture Media and Sport on his proposals for a new tax on digital television?
When will we have a debate on the Wakeham report on reform of the House of Lords? Can the Leader of the House say when she will set up the promised Joint Committee to take that forward, and whether Ministers will sit on it?
Finally, can we have a debate in Government time on the Government's policy on the euro to clarify the growing confusion in the Cabinet, with those at the back shouting "Forward" and those at the front shouting "Back", and with the Prime Minister saying as little as possible? Is not a debate now essential, so that the House and the country can try to discover what on earth is going on?
Mrs. Beckett: The right hon. Gentleman will appreciate that neither he nor I—nor, indeed, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland—can yet know what is likely to be the content of the de Chastelain report. At present, I cannot say what the position will be, but I undertake to pass on to my right hon. Friend the right hon. Gentleman's request for such a statement, should that seem to be the right thing to do.
The right hon. Gentleman asked for a statement on Senator Pinochet. He will know that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has indicated consistently that, when he makes a decision, he has every intention of coming to the House to make a statement. However, the right hon. Gentleman and the House may not be aware that, apparently, there has been a challenge from the Belgian Government to the way in which the issue has been handled. It is my understanding that this may make the matter sub judice again.
As I said, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has always made it plain that he has every intention and desire to come to the House to give a full explanation of any decision that he is able to make, but he will now have to steer his way through that particular thicket. That is the best that I can do to inform the right hon. Gentleman of the position.
On digital television, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport is considering a report to him and not a proposal from the Government for anything, let alone a new tax. I am confident that my right hon. Friend will seek to make a statement to the House when he has something to announce.

581
I cannot tell the right hon. Gentleman when I anticipate that it might be possible to debate the Wakeham report, or when it is likely that the proposal for a Joint Committee will be taken forward. As for whether Ministers will serve on it, I freely confess that I had not given the matter a moment's thought. I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for notice of the fact that the idea had crossed his mind—it had not crossed my mind, I must admit.
Of course, Madam Speaker, it is for you to decide whether something is tedious repetition as opposed to just repetition. However, I say yet again to the right hon. Gentleman that there is no confusion on the Government's policy on the euro. It remains what it has always been. I know that it is a matter of great unhappiness for the news media and for the Conservative party that that is so, but there we are.
Dr. Brian Iddon: The Government have excellent policies to deal with social exclusion. In London, Louise Casey is taking people—including many with drug and alcohol problems—off the streets, but elsewhere in the country people are locked up for doing a similar job. Yet again, in London people are developing dual diagnoses for dealing with psychiatric cases who use drugs, but elsewhere people are locked up on psychiatric wards for using drugs. Will my right hon. Friend arrange, in the near future, for a debate on the way in which social exclusion policies are enacted on the ground?
Mrs. Beckett: I understand the concern that lies behind the issues that my hon. Friend has raised. He will know, I hope, that apart from what is being done in London, similar action is being taken across the country. For example, 4,000 new beds nationwide are being brought into use for people sleeping rough, compared with the 850 which are specifically in London. The Government are endeavouring to ensure that there is a consistent approach to both the prevention of the problems arising and to the matters that we hope will help to resolve them. I cannot give my hon. Friend the undertaking that we shall have an early debate. However, he will be aware that, these days, there are more opportunities for such debates and he may seek to pursue them.
Mr. Paul Tyler: I endorse the request for as early a statement on the decommissioning of arms as is physically possible from the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. As soon as the de Chastelain report is available to him, will he make a statement to the House?
In the light of the experience of the past two days, will the Leader of the House re-examine the case for a Business Committee to see whether—on some occasions at least—we can reach agreement with Back Benchers as well as with the usual channels on the best way to deal with business? I have seen the letter from the Leader of the Opposition to the Prime Minister, so will the right hon. Lady reconsider the possibility of opening new channels of communication with other parts of the Conservative party? Clearly, the Leader of the Opposition does not speak on behalf of his Back Benchers.
In that context, may I suggest that the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) is nothing like as bad as he is painted? It might be sensible
582
for the right hon. Lady to discuss with him the management of business in the House. His bark is nothing like as bad as his bite—he is a man of great charm. As a new business manager for the Conservative party, he might be able to deliver what he promises.
Mrs. Beckett: First, I have taken on board the hon. Gentleman's point about Northern Ireland. As I said to the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young), I shall take the matter up with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. I am sure that my right hon. Friend will be more than willing to make a statement, but my only caveat is that we must preserve some room for manoeuvre for him if, for some reason, he feels that that is not quite the right way to proceed. I shall certainly draw the concerns to his attention.
With regard to the proposal to have a Business Committee, my immediate reaction is that it is interesting. However, the problem is not that we cannot reach agreement—we do and, indeed, arrangements are made, as the shadow Home Secretary made plain only on Monday. The problem is that the agreement then falls into disrepair and is not heeded. When the hon. Gentleman made his suggestion, the thought crossed my mind that whether or not the committee served any useful purpose would depend on who sat on it.
I entirely take the hon. Gentleman's point, but I do not think that I have ever abused the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth)—although I have, from time to time, expressed happiness at not having been present for all his contributions. I do not doubt that he has some good points: most human beings do. While I understand the concern for the good order of the House that leads the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) to make his suggestion, I do not think that it is for the House to sort out the problems of the Conservative party. It is time that it sorted them out itself.
Mr. David Chaytor: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the negotiations on the biosafety protocol, held in Montreal last week and this week, are of enormous significance to future policy on genetically modified foods? Given the huge and continuing public interest in food safety and the impact of GM foods, does she further agree that it is time we had a statement on GM foods, especially following the discussions in Montreal?
Given that multilateral, international and environmental agreements are of increasing importance to domestic policy, does my right hon. Friend agree that, as a matter of routine, a statement should be made on the outcome of all such conferences?
Mrs. Beckett: Of course I have great sympathy with my hon. Friend's concern on those matters; he has expressed it on many occasions. I am aware of the importance of the discussions in Montreal, but I have not had an opportunity to see a report of any sort or to have a conversation with my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment, who led for the Government in those discussions. Therefore, I do not know whether sufficient conclusions were reached to enable my right hon. Friend to make a report to the House on anything other than that discussions are continuing.
I share my hon. Friend's view that it is a good thing for the Government to keep the House informed of what is happening when there are practical outcomes to report.

583
However, I fear that I cannot undertake always to have a statement on all such meetings, because, as I am sure he appreciates, there are dozens, if not hundreds, of them.
Mr. Peter Brooke: Given the Leader of the House's confidence in the enthusiasm of the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport to make a statement on his response to the Davies report, can the right hon. Lady remind the House of when her right hon. Friend received the report?
Mrs. Beckett: I cannot recall—there are so many such reports—but I believe that it was in the summer. I am aware that the report made some interesting and, in some ways, controversial suggestions. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman would want my right hon. Friend to give it proper consideration and to come to the House when he has firm decisions to announce.
Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: Can we have a debate on the need to review the arrangements for the chairmanship of debates in Westminster Hall, especially in the light of what happened in the Chamber last night, when two Deputy Speakers came into conflict and, in my view, undermined internationally the credibility of the United Kingdom's arrangements?
Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend raised that matter last night. I accept that unfortunately it sometimes happens in the House relatively late in the day—especially when that day has extended over two chronological days—that hon. Members do or say things which, with the benefit of more mature thought, they would not have done or said. I accept my hon. Friend's point that the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) has certain responsibilities, but I know that the hon. Gentleman is always very conscious of those responsibilities. As I said, these things happen from time to time; I hope that we can all move on.
Mr. Graham Brady: I am sure that the Leader of the House is familiar with recommendations 19 and 20 of the sixth report of the Committee on Standards in Public Life, especially with the strong recommendation, No. 20, which states:
"Pending the enactment of the Civil Service Act, the Government should put before both Houses of Parliament for debate a limit on the total number of special advisers that can be appointed within Government."
I do not think that the right hon. Lady said that such a debate would be held in the next fortnight. Does she have plans to hold such a debate in the next fortnight? If not, when will it be held?
Mrs. Beckett: I certainly have no plans for such a debate in the next fortnight. I am aware of the recommendation and I am also aware—contrary to what Conservative Members seek to imply—that nothing was said to suggest that there is anything wrong with the number of special advisers that the Government have at present. As I have reminded the hon. Gentleman before, the amount of money received by the Conservative party has been trebled, so it is now able to employ more advisers.
I cannot tell the hon. Gentleman when a debate will be held. When I am ready to tell him, I shall do so from the Dispatch Box.
Mr. Andrew Dismore: Today is the anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz-Birkenau by
584
allied forces in 1945. Yesterday, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister announced that from next year this date will be commemorated as national holocaust memorial day. Can my right hon. Friend find time for a debate so that we can discuss the objectives of the day, which are to commemorate all the victims of the holocaust, to educate today's generations on the lessons of that defining moment in world history and the relevance of it to today's world, and to reaffirm our national commitment to confront racism, anti-semitism and genocide whenever and wherever those issues raise their ugly heads?
Mrs. Beckett: I am aware of the Government's proposal for a holocaust memorial day. I am aware also of how much work my hon. Friend has done in this regard and of his strong support and advocacy for such a commemoration. I share his view, as do the Government, that it is important that we learn lessons from some of the most dreadful events that have happened in human history, so that we may do our utmost to strive to avoid any circumstances in which they are repeated. I cannot undertake now to find time for a debate, but I share his view that this is an important issue.
Dr. Julian Lewis: Given the importance of decommissioning in the Opposition's support for the Good Friday agreement, may I add my support for the requests for a statement on the de Chastelain report? In asking the Secretary of State for such a statement, will the right hon. Lady convey to him the concerns of those of us who are worried that if all arms are supposed to be decommissioned by the end of May, there seems to be no progress in decommissioning any of them by the end of January?
Mrs. Beckett: As the hon. Gentleman rightly identified, that is a matter for the decommissioning commission and for General de Chastelain. We are awaiting his report. We have precisely charged him with the responsibility of assessing the circumstances that he finds and reporting on them to the Government. I know that the hon. Gentleman will have taken on board the fact that I am not in any sense resisting the notion of a statement on this matter. I am simply seeking to reserve some freedom of manoeuvre for my right hon. Friend to do what he believes is in the interests of the peace process, which is supported on both sides of the House.
Mr. Gordon Prentice: On Monday, we debated at some length a private Bill, the City of London (Ward Elections) Bill, which gives votes to owners of property—more buildings, more votes. I discovered during the debate that private legislation does not need to be certified as being in accordance with the Human Rights Act 1998, unlike public legislation. The Bill, to which many of my right hon. and hon. Friends deeply object, will return to the House at some stage. Is my right hon. Friend able to reassure me that there is a possibility of a one-line Bill coming before the House that will put private legislation on the same footing as public legislation?
Mrs. Beckett: Of course I take my hon. Friend's point. However, the fact that a Bill is a one-line Bill is no guarantee of anything. I will share with my hon. Friend and the House the information that, having read Madam Speaker's selection of amendments, which were debated

585
over the previous two days, and seeing that there was a reference to clause 4, I hunted for the clause for some considerable time before I could find it. It is one short and unimportant line in the Bill, which nevertheless was debated for some hours by Opposition Members yesterday.
I return to my hon. Friend's point of substance. I am aware that there are those who oppose the City of London (Ward Elections) Bill. It is for right hon. and hon. Members to express their points of view. However, my hon. Friend will know that agreement has been reached among—I think I am correct in saying—Labour local authorities in that part of London that the balance of arrangements in the Bill is something that they would support.
Rev. Martin Smyth: I understand the right hon. Lady's position on giving the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland freedom of movement, but perhaps she does not realise that speculation is rife in the media in Northern Ireland. Will there be an early statement in the House so that we can understand what will happen after General de Chastelain makes his report? I hope that we shall not have to wait as long as we have awaited a statement on Indonesia, where people continue to perish and where trade routes in the area could be put in jeopardy.
Mrs. Beckett: The hon. Gentleman is correct to say that he has been pressing for a statement on Indonesia. I am sorry that it has not been possible to find time for it.
For good or ill, there will always be speculation in the media. I take the hon. Gentleman's point that it lends weight to his request for a statement on decommissioning.
Helen Jones: Can my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on the role and powers of the Charity Commission? My request arises from a problem with a charity called Integrate Services in my constituency. The Charity Commission has been slow to investigate the problem, or, has lacked the necessary powers or has been reluctant to use existing powers. The only people who have suffered are those with learning difficulties, for whom the charity cares, and the whistleblowers who made allegations about the running of the charity.
Other hon. Members have experienced similar problems. On some occasions, the Charity Commission has been as much use as a chocolate fireguard, as we say in my neck of the woods. Is it not time we reviewed charity law so that vulnerable people can be properly protected?
Mrs. Beckett: I am aware of the anxiety that my hon. Friend expresses and the concern that she shows for vulnerable people. I understand her anxiety about the difficulties that she outlined. However, I fear that I cannot undertake to find time for an early debate. I suspect that Governments of all political shades have contemplated a fresh look at charities law, winced and turned away for the time being because of its enormous complexity. I suggest that my hon. Friend seeks other opportunities
586
for a debate. The Charity Commission is based in Liverpool. My hon. Friend may find that a visit and a discussion helps.
Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: Have the Government abandoned the practice of holding an annual road safety debate? Is the right hon. Lady aware of the growing concern about the way in which police forces investigate motor cycle accidents that involve fatalities? I am involved with two cases: one in Leicestershire and one in Derbyshire. There is grave concern about the way in which the police have investigated those accidents. Is not it time that we reinstated the annual road safety debate in the Chamber?
Mrs. Beckett: I freely confess that the notion that such a debate is held annually rather than from time to time had passed me by. I shall draw the hon. Gentleman's remarks to the attention of my right hon. and hon. Friends. However, I suspect that, as a major Transport Bill is to be considered this Session, the hon. Gentleman will have ample opportunity to air those matters.
Mr. Mike Gapes: Has my right hon. Friend had an opportunity to study the debates in Westminster Hall recently, especially the debate that was introduced on 11 January by my excellent right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) on poverty in London? Can we have an early debate in this Chamber on the future of London and its government to enable my right hon. Friend and others to point out the need for team work and co-operation between all those elected in London to make this great city effective and to tackle the problems of poverty, crime and poor health in our capital city?
Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend is entirely right and I am aware of the debate that was held in Westminster Hall. Indeed, I have a feeling that I have heard my right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson)—whose concern on such matters is well known and whose very real feel for them has been evident throughout his career—speak about them in the Chamber, possibly in the Queen's Speech debate. Although I share my hon. Friend's admiration for our right hon. Friend's record, I fear that I cannot undertake to find time in the near future for such a debate. However, I am confident that, whenever the opportunity arises, he will continue to express those concerns as effectively as he always has done.
Mr. Stephen O'Brien: Will there be time for an urgent statement on the chaotic state of asylum in Britain so that the debate announced for next week will be better informed and we will know the background to the arguments for no more amnesties, more international co-operation and increased use of detention to deter bogus applications?
Mrs. Beckett: I do not see the need for a special debate or a statement at the moment because we are to have a debate. The hon. Gentleman says that we need to know the background, but the House is already familiar with it. The Government continued to operate the Asylum and Immigration Act 1996, which was introduced by the previous Government. It was not working and we

587
tightened its provisions. The only two proposals made by the Conservative party would weaken the controls that the Government have announced so far. In consequence, we know quite as much as we need to know about the background to the debate, on which the Conservative party's record is totally inconsistent and totally incompetent.
Mr. Tony McWalter: Has my right hon. Friend seen the extraordinary and possibly even alarming recent statements that human life expectancy might stretch to 140 years? Will my elderly constituents have to wait that long before we debate the Sutherland report on care for the elderly, which was published in March 1999? Does she agree that we should have an early and urgent debate?
Mrs. Beckett: I was not aware of that forecast, which is slightly daunting, but I fear that my hon. Friend is uncharacteristically not quite accurate, as we have debated the issues that underlie and surround long-term care. I can assure him that the Government continue to pursue those issues and over the ensuing year—various proposals are already before the House—there may be opportunities to air them. I fear, however, that I cannot give him further news about the special debate he seeks.
Mr. Owen Paterson: With the polls today showing plummeting public confidence in the Government's ability to run the health service and the country's transport system, the Prime Minister dragged the Chancellor off to Southwark last week, and the Deputy Prime Minister off to Southall last night, in an increasingly desperate and apparently unsuccessful campaign to block the mayoral ambitions of the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone). Was that an appropriate use of the right hon. Gentleman's time? Could we please have a statement next week confirming that he will stop gallivanting around London after the mayoral appointment has been made, and that Ministers will concentrate on their portfolios, as they are paid to do by the taxpayer?
Mrs. Beckett: Clearly, the hon. Gentleman is unaware that it is almost my right hon. Friend's habit—there is certainly a consistent pattern—to continue to maintain a dialogue with members of his party. He holds many meetings up and down the country, and has always done so—and very successful they are. In view of the events of the past couple of days, I suggest that maintaining a dialogue with one's party is perhaps something that the Leader of the Opposition should consider.
Mr. John Cryer: Is my right hon. Friend aware of early-day motion 277, which stands in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore), on staff shortages in the London fire brigade?
[That this House is concerned that the London Fire Brigade is currently 132 persons under strength; believes that these positions should be filled by recruitment rather than by members of the Fire Brigade Union working excessive overtime; is very concerned indeed that the management of the London Fire Brigade have suspended 11 FBU members at Homerton Fire Station for supporting their union's ban on overtime; believes that the action of
588
management was both provocative and unnecessary; and calls on the Chief Fire Officer for London to reinstate the 11 members and get on with the business of recruiting the shortfall in staff so as to protect the public.]
During that suspension, a fire call came to Homerton fire station and those 11 firefighters were physically prevented from attending by senior officers. That bullying and intimidation comes when the London fire brigade is dangerously under strength and has undergone cuts year on year. Could we have an urgent debate on fire safety and the London fire brigade?
Mrs. Beckett: I know of my hon. Friend's longstanding concern about firefighting and safety. I was not aware of the events to which he referred. These issues are managed locally by the fire authority. I understand that there is an intention to have an intake of firefighter recruits at the end of this month. The whole House will share my hon Friend's concern for fire safety and will hope that this will continue to be addressed.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I did not intend to rise during business questions today, but I feel obliged to do so because of the intervention of the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) who referred to an exchange last night between myself and a Deputy Speaker when I sought to express my concern about the Government's misrepresentation of a letter sent by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition to the Prime Minister. Is it not time that the House was made aware of the difference in the role, responsibilities and status of Deputy Speakers who serve directly under you and of the newly appointed additional Deputy Speakers for sittings in Westminster Hall? Perhaps the Leader of the House could make a statement at an early date to ensure that all hon. Members are aware of the difference so that such questions would be unnecessary.
Mrs. Beckett: The hon. Gentleman knows that these matters were aired when we decided how Westminster Hall would be brought into being and the nature of the arrangements for chairing its sittings. I accept that not all hon. Members have studied the distinctions closely. He knows that I take the view, as he usually does, that it is important that we strive at all times to lower the temperature here and to do our business expeditiously and with some fairness. I was sorry and surprised to learn that he believed that the Government had misrepresented the Leader of the Opposition's letter since I had an enjoyable few hours yesterday showing it to journalists and Members who had no knowledge of its contents. Every one of them interpreted it entirely spontaneously in precisely the same way as the Government did. I have re-read it since his remarks because I could not understand why he thought that we had misrepresented the Leader of the Opposition—I am not saying that I am unwilling to do so, but I was not aware of having done so on this occasion. If the hon. Gentleman is right, I struggle to see how we have misrepresented the Leader of the Opposition. Perhaps it would help if the right hon. Gentleman sent another letter.
Dr. Howard Stoate: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there was great concern in my constituency about the planning legislation surrounding the siting of mobile phone masts and that 160 hon. Members from all

589
parties have signed an early-day motion on the matter? Would it be possible to find time for a debate on the health, planning and environmental consequences of mobile telephony, particularly as the technology has far outstripped the legislation, which is looking more and more out of date as time goes on?
Mrs. Beckett: I am aware of the great interest and concern about these matters. Indeed, having had such an issue raised in my constituency I, probably like my hon. Friend, have ploughed through the literature and am well aware how far from clear the position is. The matter is being kept under review, but I shall certainly draw his remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry.
Mr. John Bercow: Can we please have a full debate as soon as possible in Government time on cancer services? Does the Leader of the House agree that it would be made particularly timely by tonight's palace of varieties' concert in which no fewer than 21 parliamentarians from across the political spectrum are participating, including the right hon. Lady, my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack) and me? Does she accept that members of the public would think it appropriate that, whatever our views about the solutions to the problem, the House should have a full debate as early as possible about a disease from which at some stage in life no less than one person in three has the misfortune to suffer?
Mrs. Beckett: The hon. Gentleman is right. The whole House shares the concern about cancer services and is anxious that they are provided to the highest possible standards. I am not sure that I am entirely grateful to him for drawing attention to the fact that such a large number of us are making fools of ourselves in a good cause. My participation is not entirely voluntary as the invitation was accepted by my husband without consulting me, but there you go.
Mr. David Winnick: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, although I profoundly disagree with what the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) said yesterday—there was no justification for his remarks—I also disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours)? The trouble with the hon. Member for Macclesfield is that, unlike me, he is an excitable person.
Remembering the exercise that was organised by Opposition Back Benchers yesterday, when, clearly, Opposition Front Benchers were not in control of matters, will she bear it in mind that, as we near what could be a crisis point over Northern Ireland, many Members on the Opposition Back Benches—not the Front Bench—together with some Unionists, are determined to do what they can to undermine the Good Friday agreement? They are not just arguing about the lack of decommissioning. They were against the Good Friday agreement from the beginning.
Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend is correct—I do not think that any hon. Member would dispute it—that some of those who took part in the activities of the past couple
590
of days oppose many of the things that have taken place in Northern Ireland, as they have made plain in the House. I do not think that anyone would argue that that is a misrepresentation. However, my hon. Friend will be aware, as we all are, that the official Opposition have continued to say that they support the Good Friday agreement.
Mr. Winnick: Front Bench.
Mrs. Beckett: Indeed. That is what I mean when I say the official Opposition. Most Members in every party support the Good Friday agreement and wish the peace process to succeed. We all understand that anxieties and fears are raised. That is inevitable when there are such difficult issues to be resolved in a dispute that has gone on for so long, but we must all hope that those matters are resolved—that, in future, in the House, as elsewhere, they are no longer matters of dispute.
Mr. Douglas Hogg: The right hon. Lady referred to the debate on Thursday on the police grant. She will know that, in the Home Office, there is a working party report on sparsity. The Home Secretary sent me a copy. Will she ensure that it is generally available by putting it in the Library before the debate? She says that she will talk to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland about a statement. Will she urge on him the desirability of telling the House what the genesis of the Disqualifications Bill was because, most of us believe that we have not yet been told the facts?
Mrs. Beckett: The right hon. and learned Gentleman makes an important point about the working party report. I do not know whether it is possible for it to be placed in the Library. I undertake to draw his request to the attention my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, who, as he knows, is always keen to keep the House informed. I am sure that the Home Secretary will carefully consider that proposal.
I am sorry to hear the right hon. and learned Gentleman returning yet again to the issues that have been discussed over the past couple of days. I am not entirely sure whether he was here for the Second Reading debate on Monday.
Mr. Hogg: I spoke in it.
Mrs. Beckett: In that case, I beg his pardon, but if he spoke in it, he will have heard the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe), the shadow Home Secretary, say on behalf of the official Opposition that they did not object to the Bill and that the rest of the discussion would be given a fair wind. It is unfortunate that that did not happen. However, it is not for us to grieve when the Conservative party insists on shooting itself in the foot.
Mr. David Drew: Will my right hon. Friend consider a debate in the House on rural policy? I gather that the Prime Minister will make some statements in the next week, which would be useful. [Interruption.] I should welcome such a debate, if for no other reason than to clear up the misrepresentations that characterise the comments of Conservative Members and inform the debate in the run-up to the White Paper on rural policy.
Mrs. Beckett: I cannot undertake to my hon. Friend to find time for a special debate in the near future, but he is

591
right that a White Paper is in train and to seek to highlight the extra investment in, for example, rural buses that has been made under the Government. I am sure that there will be opportunities for such a debate.
I hope that I will not offend you, Madam Speaker, if I briefly take the opportunity to tell Opposition Members—who, not for the first time, are heckling hon. Members such as my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) who make serious and sensible points by making remarks about a Tory gain—that the last person I heard say that before the general election was the then Conservative Member for Wirral, West. He said it to my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Chapman). The one who is still here is my hon. Friend.
Mr. Peter Viggers: Do the Government have any intention to bring before the House legislation to amend the Oath sworn by hon. Members?
Mrs. Beckett: No.
Mr. Geraint Davies: A constituent of mine claims that his son was abused in a McDonalds restaurant, by a McDonalds employee, in the McDonalds play-zone for children. When will there be an opportunity to debate the screening of prospective employees of organisations that look after our children, when our children may be at risk, so that such incidents do not occur in future?
Mrs. Beckett: I am sorry to hear about the experience of my hon. Friend's constituent. I can certainly tell him that, in the very near future, there will be a debate in Westminster Hall in which he may find an opportunity to raise such issues.
Mr. Patrick Nicholls: If the right hon. Lady is minded to reconsider the request made by the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler), will she bear it in mind that, throughout the recent debates on the Disqualifications Bill, Liberal Democrat Members both voted and spoke, and that one of the speakers was the hon. Gentleman himself?
Will the right hon. Lady therefore reject that idea, but consider instead a debate on the proposals by the Lord Chancellor to reduce the number of magistrates courts in Devon by more than half? Would not such a debate give us the opportunity to realise that what the Lord Chancellor should be doing is providing a proper criminal justice
592
system as expeditiously and cheaply as possible—rather than simply working out the tiny sum that he is prepared to throw at the system and producing whatever criminal justice system results? That is not in the tradition of this country, and it is not how criminal justice should be administered.
Mrs. Beckett: Leaving aside the issues yet again of what was discussed in the past couple of days, the hon. Gentleman makes an important point on rural courts. He may be aware that the matter was debated last week, in Westminster Hall. I can only say that the Lord Chancellor fully shares the goals and principles that the hon. Gentleman expressed of having an efficient and effective justice system and believes that his proposals will assist in achieving them.
Mr. Tim Loughton: The Financial Services and Markets Bill is to be allocated two days on Report. Is the right hon. Lady aware that, in those two days, we shall have to consider no fewer than 464 amendments, 43 new clauses and two new schedules, the vast majority of which were tabled by the Government? Although I realise that parliamentary scrutiny is unfashionable with the Government, will she guarantee that if two days prove to be insufficient to debate a highly technical and detailed Bill which has been in Committee since July, she will make extra time available, rather than using the guillotine and thereby denying the House the opportunity properly to scrutinise an entirely new raft of clauses?
Mrs. Beckett: No, I shall give the hon. Gentleman no such undertaking. He is right that the Bill has been the subject of considerable debate and discussion. However, he should know that the Bill's provisions and passage on to the statute book are much sought by those whose interests are affected by it. They are anxious for it to be dealt with as expeditiously as is reasonably possible.
The hon. Gentleman should also know that there has been extensive discussion about how much time should be needed to deal with those matters. The proposals that I put before the House today were made by agreement. He talks about the number of amendments, but he did not draw to the House's attention the fact that, although two thirds of the amendments are Government amendments, many of them deal with matters that arose in Committee, where the Government made a commitment to table them on Report. He also did not mention the fact that one third of the amendments were tabled by the Opposition.

Points of Order
1.15 pm
Mr. Paul Tyler: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I apologise for the fact that I was unable to give you advance notice of this point of order, but you will appreciate that Hansard is extremely full after the debates of the past two days.
I draw your attention to column 557 of the edition for Tuesday 25 January, in which there appears to be a serious error in the report of the exchanges between the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) and the Deputy Speaker. No withdrawal of the hon. Gentleman's allegation that Ministers were misleading the House is recorded.
Clearly, there must have been such a withdrawal as, however senior the hon. Gentleman involved, he would have been drawn to the attention of the Deputy Speaker, who presumably would have named him. Can you assure me, Madam Speaker, that the Hansard record will be re-examined and that you will receive a report from the Deputy Speaker?
Madam Speaker: I have looked at Hansard already, and have received a report from the Deputy Speaker. I thought that that exchange last night was extremely disappointing, but the Deputy Speaker accepted what the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) said. The matter must rest there.
Rev. Martin Smyth: I appreciate that hon. Members must use accurate terms when they speak in this House. Four times during business questions, I heard reference made to a Good Friday agreement. For the purposes of accuracy, I understand that that agreement should be referred to as the Belfast agreement. I for one consider the Good Friday agreement to be the occasion when Pilate and Herod joined together to crucify the carpenter of Nazareth, whom I and others recognise as the Lord Jesus Christ.
Madam Speaker: I am sure that the House has heard the hon. Gentleman, who is correct to say that the proper way to refer to the agreement in question is as the Belfast agreement. Sometimes we give it perhaps a rather more colourful description.

BILL PRESENTED
  POSTAL SERVICES
  Mr. Secretary Byers, supported by Mr. Secretary Prescott, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Secretary Milburn, Mr. Secretary Darling, Mr. Secretary Reid, Mr. Secretary Murphy, Mr. Secretary Mandelson and Mr. Alan Johnson, presented a Bill to establish the Postal Services Commission and the Consumer Council for Postal Services; to provide for the licensing of certain postal services and for a universal postal service; to provide for the vesting of the property, rights and liabilities of the Post Office in a company nominated by the Secretary of State and for the subsequent dissolution of the Post Office; to make further provision in relation to postal services; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed. Explanatory notes to be printed [Bill 54].

Financial Services and Markets Bill
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That the Financial Services and Markets Bill, as amended, be considered in the following order, namely, Amendments to Schedule 1 relating to the separation of the roles of chairman and chief executive of the Financial Services Authority; Amendments to paragraph 7 of that Schedule requiring the complaints scheme to make provision for complaints to be investigated quickly; Amendments to paragraph 8 of that Schedule; Amendments to paragraph 19 of that Schedule; New Clauses relating to the legal assistance scheme; New Clauses relating to reports by the Director General of Fair Trading; New Clauses relating to restrictions on powers of Treasury; New Clauses relating to conduct by the Authority of reviews of rules made under Part IX; New Clauses relating to judicial review; Amendments to Clause 52; Amendments to Clause 10; remaining New Clauses; remaining amendments to Clauses; New Schedules; remaining amendments to Schedules.—[Miss Melanie Johnson.]
1.17 pm
Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory (Wells): I want to make a few remarks about the motion, which seeks to order the Report stage debate that we are about to have into a form that is more manageable for the House. I always approve of motions aimed at facilitating debate.
However, this motion does not rectify the basic problem, which is that we are about to embark on discussion of what can only be described as a new Bill. There are about 500 amendments and new clauses, covering about 100 pages. I do not know whether that is unprecedented, but this Bill has been a long time in preparation. The problem is that the importance of the Bill lies in its detail. In our proceedings on the Bill so far, we have discovered that Government assurances are not always reflected in the wording that follows, so we shall want to look carefully at the amendments and new clauses.
The Bill has had a very long gestation period. Its subject was announced for legislation soon after the general election, and the Government introduced a draft Bill for consultation in July 1998. That was considered by a Joint Committee of both Houses under the chairmanship of Lord Burns, which produced reports in April and May last year. After that, the Bill was modified extensively in a number of important respects. For example, as originally drafted, it was incompatible with the European convention on human rights. We believe that it is still vulnerable to challenge, but that is a matter for later debate.
After those reports, the Bill was given a Second Reading, and it went into Standing Committee last July. We sat pretty well continuously, when the House was sitting, until December. There was a carry-over provision so that the Bill did not have to start all over again when the House reconvened after the summer recess. Despite that long process, however, which has enabled draftsmen and the Treasury to examine and re-examine the Bill, we are now faced with some 500 new clauses and amendments.
We do not believe that that is a good way to legislate, nor that it is really the purpose of a Report stage—certainly as I have always understood that term. To give just one example, we shall shortly consider an entire new competition regime, which will affect the relationship between the Financial Services Authority, the Director-General of Fair Trading and the Treasury. This was announced as a subject for legislation when we were in

595
Standing Committee, but the details were not given, and the details are very important. The clauses giving effect to the new competition regime were only recently drafted. Therefore, we have a problem, with which we shall seek to deal.
Another feature of the Bill is that it relies heavily on secondary legislation, again perhaps to an unprecedented extent. In many respects, it is still only a framework Bill, large areas of which will be enacted subsequently by regulations issued by the Treasury. Even now, those are largely unseen. The consultation documents—over 30 of them—have all gone out, but we have not had reports back on more than a few.
I remind the House that regulations, particularly those dealt with under negative resolution procedure, will be almost entirely unscrutinised by the House. The great majority of statutory instruments introduced to give effect to this secondary legislation will be dealt with under the negative resolution procedure, whereby the matters are almost certainly not debated at all, and whether they are debated is solely at the Government's discretion. Even if the statutory instrument or order is objected to by the Opposition, or by an interested hon. Member, the Government can refuse a debate of any sort.
Although statutory instruments that have to be introduced by affirmative resolution are debated in Committee, that debate is only on a formal and unamendable motion, which is then simply reported to the House and put forthwith. The Bill is therefore the last chance that the House has to build in the necessary checks and balances and to ensure that the powers are properly circumscribed and the details are right. It is therefore difficult that so many amendments have been produced at short notice on Report.
The order of consideration before us tries to make sense of that large volume of amendments. It brings to the front for debate today many of the issues of principle. We will certainly not oppose it, but I thought that I should explain our misgivings, not about the motion but about how the Report stage is being conducted—a lot of material has been brought forward late, despite the fact that the Government announced their intention to legislate more than two years ago.
1.24 pm
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Miss Melanie Johnson): This is probably one of the most technically complex Bills with which the House has dealt. Certainly, it concerns an enormously technical subject, which has been considered at length not only in Committee but by many outside organisations, not least the Burns committee.
Naturally, we tabled amendments after noting the views of the Burns committee and the interim report produced by Don Cruickshank in July—too late for the tabling of amendments at the Committee stage—and, not least, in response to what Opposition Members said in Committee. Opposition Members cannot have their cake and eat it. If they raise legitimate concerns, the Government will listen, as they always do, and try to respond positively; but when we respond positively, they complain about the number of amendments that have been tabled.
The Opposition tabled some 500 amendments for the Committee stage, and I believe that the Government have tabled 288 for the Report stage. The Financial Services
596
Act 1986, although less complex, covered some of the same territory. The then Conservative Government tabled 250 amendments and 14 new clauses for the Report stage of that Bill, which was rather shorter than this one. It is as well to put one's own house in order before criticising others.
Mr. Tim Loughton: Will the Minister give way?
Miss Johnson: No, because I do not want to speak for long.
The Bill contains many matters of substance, all of which were considered in Committee, at least in outline. I hope that we shall spend our time today discussing not how we should consider matters, but the matters themselves—matters that Opposition Members would claim to want to discuss. I shall enjoy that debate on the substance of the issues.
1.27 pm
Mr. Howard Flight: I thank the Minister for acknowledging the substantial contribution made in Committee by the Opposition, who wanted to get the Bill right, especially in practical and operational terms. It is clearly not the stuff of red-hot party politics. The objective of all of us is to achieve good law for our largest industry, employer and exporter.
The motion divides the territory between issues of principle, and practical and technical issues. As I trust the debate on the technical issues will show, the Government have addressed many of the matters that we have raised; but I must point out, as we embark on the 10 crucial areas of principle, that not only the industry but the regulators support much of what we have said. We look to the Government to accept our key points, at least in principle. Co-operating to produce good law for the country does not mean that we are willing to agree to arrangements that we and many others feel are not yet right.
1.29 pm
Mr. Tim Loughton: I had not intended to prolong proceedings, but the Minister refused to let me intervene earlier. The hon. Lady referred to the Financial Services Act 1986. In 1986, of course, financial services regulation was an entirely new subject, so it is not surprising that an awful lot of corrections needed making on Report. I am prepared to admit, however, that the Government have outdone themselves by tabling 288 amendments for the Report stage of this Bill. Furthermore, the 1986 Act did not have the benefit of a long scrutiny procedure under Lord Burns, whose committee took many professional witnesses and made many detailed recommendations, giving the Government a long period of notice in which to act.
My complaint is that we are faced today with just two days to consider what my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) referred to as effectively a whole new Bill. The Government have tabled 36 new clauses, two new schedules and 288 amendments, most of

597
which we have had less than 72 hours to consider. We did not have the time to discuss many of these matters in Committee.
Miss Melanie Johnson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Loughton: I will in a minute. If the hon. Lady had been more generous in allowing me to intervene earlier, I would not have had to speak now.
We have had less than 72 hours in which to examine details that were not available to us in Committee. For example, I asked a series of detailed questions in Committee about the legal aid scheme, and was simply told that the Government were considering it. Detailed new clauses and amendments have now been tabled, and as we did not have the benefit of examining them in Committee, we are coming to this technical subject pretty fresh.
Yesterday was another good example. One criticism of the Bill is that it does not limit the Government's powers in deciding what and who should be regulated. That is the sort of definition and capping detail that we spent many months in Committee trying to tease out from the Government. Only yesterday, the Minister announced that mortgages would now be regulated under the aegis of the Financial Services Authority. As my right hon. Friend pointed out, no extra legislation will be required to bring an enormous new raft of the financial services industry into the remit of the FSA, with all the technicalities about charges access terms standards and so on.
Throughout the entire Committee proceedings, we were given very little notice for scrutiny. There was so little meat to get to grips with. We have not seen the results of consultation exercises, which is the source of our complaint today. I hope that the Government will pay some attention to the fact that we have had very little notice of much new legislation that is being shoved into this already enormous Bill. If we need more time to debate this than the two days allocated, I hope that they will be sympathetic and not simply steamroller the Financial Services and Markets Bill mark II through its remaining stages at this late stage.
1.34 pm
Sir Nicholas Lyell: I agree with what my right hon. and hon. Friends have said. I welcome the Economic Secretary's comment that the Government always listen carefully to what is said in debate. It is a great pleasure to see the Chief Secretary to the Treasury in his place.
As we consider the ordering of our debates—it is sensible to put the matters of principle up-front—I draw attention to some of the key points with which we are dealing. As the Minister rightly said, the broad objectives are matters of agreement.
The objective of the Bill is to create an updated framework for the financial services industry. However, our debates need to focus on the checks and balances. I should thought have that the Government would agree that there should be checks and balances. If they agree, they should be aware that there are few of them in the measure.
598
The Bill gives enormous—almost unfettered—power to the FSA and to the Treasury. Many of the provisions are imprecise, because they will have to be dealt with in secondary legislation. A constant criticism has been the lack of accountability to Parliament and to the courts. Under one group of amendments, we shall debate the fact that the new authority will have complete immunity. As hon. Members will be aware, I support a substantial measure of immunity, but there is no compensation for mistakes by the FSA, except on an entirely ex gratia basis.
The Bill has been drafted in such a way that it is plain to lawyers who have looked at it—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. I am sorry to interrupt the right hon. and learned Gentleman, but, based on his remarks so far, I must point out to him that this is not a Second Reading debate. We are debating a motion that relates only to the order in which items are taken. I cannot permit him to go into matters of substance.
Mr. Andrew Tyrie: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I shall be careful in what I say, because I am sure that you carefully considered the Bill overnight and that you will have noticed that we are faced with—in large part—a new Bill. I think that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell) is trying to flag up those matters that he feels should be included higher in the order for consideration of this, in effect, new—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The right hon. and learned Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell) has sufficient experience of the House to know exactly what he wants to say without the help of his hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr. Tyrie). It is not a point of order for the Chair to determine the matters before the House.
Sir Nicholas Lyell: I am most grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because you enable me to focus on the importance of the order in which we take these matters.
Ministers will recognise the importance of allowing sufficient time to consider carefully the degree to which the Bill is being made judicial review-proof. Obviously, I shall not expatiate on that matter at this stage.
However, it is helpful to flag up that we need time to focus on the fact that it is unnecessary to draft a Bill so that it minimises the courts' ability to see whether the way in which the legislation is created and put into effect is reasonable. The Government would claim reasonableness for their legislation. However, they must examine the measure, in the time that we have available, to see whether it would lead to reasonableness.
I am glad that time has been found for discussion of the important matter of competition. However, before we debate the amendments on that subject, the Government will want to reflect on the fact that they may have entirely missed the point about competition and competitiveness.
If you study the amendments, Mr. Deputy Speaker—as I am sure you have—you will notice that those relating to the Competition Commission, according to list, deal wholly with matters connected to competition within the United Kingdom. I have been unable to find an amendment that provides for the worldwide competitiveness of our

599
financial services industry. That matter causes us much concern. I hope that the order of consideration of the amendments will enable the Government to concentrate on those crucial points, which, about 18 months after the publication of the first draft of the Bill, continue to elude them.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Financial Services and Markets Bill, as amended, be considered in the following order, namely, Amendments to Schedule 1 relating to the separation of the roles of chairman and chief executive of the Financial Services Authority; Amendments to paragraph 7 of that Schedule requiring the complaints scheme to make provision for complaints to be investigated quickly; Amendments to paragraph 8 of that Schedule; Amendments to paragraph 19 of that Schedule; New Clauses relating to the legal assistance scheme; New Clauses relating to reports by the Director General of Fair Trading; New Clauses relating to restrictions on powers of Treasury; New Clauses relating to conduct by the Authority of reviews of rules made under Part IX; New Clauses relating to judicial review; Amendments to Clause 52; Amendments to Clause 10; remaining New Clauses; remaining amendments to Clauses; New Schedules; remaining amendments to Schedules.

FINANCIAL SERVICES AND MARKETS BILL [WAYS AND MEANS] (No. 2)
Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Financial Services and Markets Bill, it is expedient to authorise—

(a) the imposition of charges to income tax and corporation tax by provisions of that Act relating to the treatment for the purposes of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 of payments made to any person as a result of any provision made by the Financial Services Authority for the distribution of money repaid to it by the Lord Chancellor in respect of the legal assistance scheme;

(b) the imposition by the Authority on authorised persons of requirements to make payments to it in connection with the legal assistance scheme;

(c) payments into the Consolidated Fund.—[Mr. Timms.]

Orders of the Day

  Financial Services and Markets Bill
  [1ST ALLOTTED DAY]
  As amended in the Standing Committee, considered.

  Financial Services and Markets Bill
    Schedule 1

      THE FINANCIAL SERVICES AUTHORITY
      1.40 pm
      Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory (Wells): I beg to move amendment No. 19, in page 196, line 24, at end insert—
      "(aa) a chief executive; and".
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 20, in page 196, line 41, leave out "Authority" and insert "Treasury". No. 54, in page 197, line 8, at end insert—
      "(aa) reviewing and approving the Authority's annual budget of income and expenditure,".
      No. 21, in page 197, line 10, leave out "and".
      No. 22, in page 197, line 13, at end insert—
      ";and
      (d) providing an independent perspective on the overall running of the Authority, scrutinising and monitoring the approach of its executive management, the Authority's performance and its standards of conduct".
      Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: This group concerns the powers of the chief executive and chairman and whether they should be combined or separated. The amendments also make provision for changes in connection with the non-executive directors.
      The Bill gives statutory backing to the Financial Services Authority, which relies in most cases on powers derived from the Financial Services Act 1986. The FSA can rely in some respects on more recent legislation such as the Bank of England Act 1998, which provided for banking supervision to be given to the FSA.
      In many respects, the Bill gives statutory backing to an authority and concentrates executive authority in a way not seen before in regulatory legislation. The FSA will not only be a strong executive body but will make rules that will have the force of law. Those rules will be consulted on and I am sure that the FSA will not bring them forward without proper care and attention—but Parliament will be delegating that rule-making and, in effect, law-making process to another body. We ought to be careful of the conditions under which we do that, and need to put checks on any abuses that could occur.
      The FSA will also enforce its rules. It will investigate breaches and discipline those found to be breaking them—if necessary with large fines. The authority's power to fine will be unlimited. The FSA is not part of government, so not directly accountable to the House. It is a private company limited by guarantee but has statutory functions conferred by the Bill and other measures. The authority enjoys a considerable degree of statutory immunity, which we shall debate in due course.

      601
      Even from that brief and inadequate description of the FSA, it is clear that its accountability is an important issue. The authority must be accountable to the market it serves; to those who have paid its expenses through the levy; and to consumers and Ministers—and it must be accountable at law. One safeguard is to ensure the correctness of the FSA's internal management structures—the powers of the directors and chairman and their relationship with each other and the outside world.
      1.45 pm
      The amendment provides for a separate chairman and chief executive. It has been pointed out that good corporate governance now requires the separation of chairman and chief executive. That was a recommendation of the Greenbury committee, and is still accepted to be how large public companies should be structured.
      Against that, it is said that the FSA is not a commercial company in the normal sense of the word. It is a company, of course, but it certainly does not have normal shareholders. On the other hand, many public bodies do have different chairmen and chief executives, the BBC being one. We can all be grateful that there is not a concentration of power in a single person at the BBC. Instead, the director general is, in some senses, accountable to the chairman and the governors. A number of regulatory agencies are similarly structured—the Environment Agency, for example, has a separate chief executive and chairman.
      Against that, it has been argued fairly that most foreign financial regulators have combined the two tasks of chairman and chief executive. However, not many overseas regulators have brought together so many powers in one body. It is comparatively unusual for banking supervision to be conducted by the same body as regulates the rest of the market. Clearly, the debate could go to and fro almost indefinitely, and I am not sure if the issue can be decided in that way.
      I prefer to look instead and be influenced by more long-term considerations about how the FSA should be run. Also, we should not be too influenced by any particular holder of the office. Howard Davies is the present executive chairman of the FSA. I have a high regard for him, and it is no criticism of him that we believe, as a development in the longer term, that the roles should be split. That was the recommendation also of the Joint Lords and Commons Committee which examined the issue last year.
      I emphasise that we are legislating for the longer term. People come and go, personalities change and the regulatory environment alters. We must set up the necessary internal checks and balances to prevent any abuse of power, while ensuring that the FSA is a strong and effective regulator.
      Mr. Jim Cousins: It seems from the amendment that what is being sought is for the chief executive to be appointed as a member of the governing body by the Treasury. Is that seriously what the right hon. Gentleman intends?
      Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: Absolutely. The chairman is appointed by the Treasury at present, so the chief executive should be. The hon. Gentleman has interpreted the amendment correctly.
      602
      I was about to refer to the powers and role of the non-executives; it would enhance their role if they came under a non-executive chairman. That is an important part of the thinking behind our amendments. In other amendments, we want the Treasury, and not the FSA, to appoint the members of the non-executives committee.
      Liz Blackman: Would the amendment not split the role as soon as the Bill is enacted and not in the long term? Is the right hon. Gentleman not arguing against his original point?
      Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: As I have said, it is not my intention to do anything to change the position of the current chairman, who has another two and a half years in the job. If the Government accepted the amendment, I am sure that they could devise a form of words to give clarity to the thought that the proposal is for the longer term and would not upset the present managerial structure as it affects the chairman.
      I conclude by dealing with the role of the non-executive directors. The other amendments in the group are designed to give them and the committee of non-executive directors the additional and stronger functions that they need. Specifically, they should be given the tasks of reviewing and approving the annual budget and of explicitly scrutinising and monitoring the executive management. As the Bill stands, they have several specified functions, but they are somewhat insipid.
      I contrast the wording in the schedule with what the FSA believes non-executives should do in the rest of the market. Consultation paper No. 35 helpfully lays out what it believes they should do. Their role should include
      "assisting their executive colleagues within the firm's governing body in setting, and monitoring, the firm's strategy;
      providing an independent perspective to the overall running of the business, scrutinising the approach of executive management, the firm's performance and standards of conduct".
      That is a fairly good description of what non-executives should do and it should be reflected in the functions required of the FSA's non-executive members. The amendments would bring the Bill's wording into line with the FSA's view of what non-executives should do.
      I hope that I have said enough in this brief introduction to give our thinking about the roles of chairman and chief executive and to put that in the context of what we believe non-executives should do when they are headed, as they should be, by a non-executive chairman.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: I call Mr. Jim Cunningham.
      Mr. Cousins rose—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: I apologise to the hon. Gentleman. I got his name right earlier, so there is no excuse for getting it wrong now. I call Mr. Jim Cousins.
      Mr. Cousins: As long as you do not compare me with our famous mouse, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
      I shall be very brief in urging Ministers to resist these strange amendments. Their ostensible purpose is to ensure greater accountability to the markets and an independent voice in the FSA. However, the means that they adopt to achieve that objective would increase the Treasury's power of appointment. That cannot be sensible. It cannot

      603
      be right that the post of chief executive should be set up as a Government appointment on the FSA; nor is it right, as one amendment suggests, that the members of the non-executive committee, which has the scrutiny role, should also be appointed by the Treasury.
      It is absurd that the Opposition should move an amendment that increases the Treasury's power of appointment over the FSA. If their objective is—I can see why it might be and I have some sympathy with it—to strengthen the FSA's accountability to the markets, then the amendments are wholly misconceived.
      Sir Nicholas Lyell: I ask the Government to think again on the amendments. They are not about personalities. Howard Davies is widely respected; much is hoped from him and will, no doubt, be delivered. However, history is littered with errors made under the aegis of distinguished, able and well-thought-of people; what is important is to get the structure right in the first place.
      The Greenbury report stated that large commercial organisations should have both a chairman and chief executive. There are fundamentally good reasons to have two people at the top, one with the executive role and the other with the non-executive role of chairman. The post of chief executive carries enormous power and responsibility; it is therefore a function that one is happy to see Howard Davies performing. However, where there is both a chairman and a chief executive, the latter has the opportunity to consult the former.
      In addition, there are greater opportunities for the world at large and those who are regulated to approach the chairman. It is difficult to make suggestions directly to someone who is doing his best as chief executive at a time when the going is rough and the climate hot. When the chief executive is embroiled in controversy, it is difficult for him to listen as open-mindedly as a chairman can. The chairman has the advantage of being one step back, as well as one rung above. That is a valuable structure, recognised by Greenbury, from which the FSA would benefit.
      The same reasoning underlies our amendments dealing with the role of the non-executive directors. A problem at which I hinted during our debate on the order of consideration is that the Bill is inclined to be far too restrictive in terms of the accountability and the opportunity for supervision of the FSA, and of the accountability through the FSA of the Government of the day for the general good management of our financial services industry. Those elements will be strengthened if the role of non-executive directors includes the power to give an independent overall perspective on the running of that enormous institution.
      Liz Blackman: Would not the proposals create duplication? Is not what the right hon. and learned Gentleman describes the board's job? Are not non-executive directors members of the board?
      Sir Nicholas Lyell: I am not sure whether duplication would result. However, reading the parts of the Bill that our amendments would amend, especially schedule 1, it is striking that the functions of the non-executive directors are deliberately boxed in, largely confined to matters of financial efficiency. I want their role to extend beyond such matters, to that of providing an overall perspective.
      604
      I cannot imagine that there will be any objection in principle to the amendments. This debate offers the Government an opportunity to change their mind here and now, or to set the scene for the debate in another place, where such matters will be carefully scrutinised. Our proposals in respect of the chairmanship and the role of non-executive directors are thoroughly sensible and constructive. I hope that they will find favour.
      Mr. Tim Loughton: I echo the comments of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell). The amendments in respect of the role of the board, especially the chief executive and chairman, are in no way personal to Howard Davies. Everyone who has followed the Bill and dealt with the FSA will have great respect for the job that he is doing and the amount of work that he is putting into it. It could be said that he is already doing the jobs of two men—or two women—and I calculate that he is being paid the equivalent of the combined salaries of the Treasury Ministers now present to do them. We are not arguing with the person now in the job. However, the point of principle goes to the heart of our problems with the thrust of the Bill. That is why we laboured it greatly and, I think, usefully in Committee.
      As we know, Howard Davies's contract comes to an end in July 2002. Before or after that date, we may or may not be dealing with a different head of the Financial Services Authority. That is one of the reasons why the report of the Burns committee clearly and unequivocally, and with no objection, as I recall, from the members, recommended that the post of chairman and chief executive be separated and that a non-executive chairman be appointed. That is clear in black and white and there was no dispute about the recommendation at the time.
      2 pm
      I hark back to the comparison with good corporate governance, which my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) mentioned, and the terms under the Cadbury recommendations that there should be
      "a clearly accepted division of responsibilities at the head of a company which will ensure a balance of power and authority such that no one individual has unfettered powers of decision."
      We are dealing with an immensely powerful body—some of us might say too powerful—the head of which, inevitably, can wield a substantial degree of power. The FSA annual report boasts that the FSA, as a structure, complies with Cadbury. That is rather curious given that we have two roles embodied in one person. I gather that in its defence the FSA has complained that having dual heads would complicate matters with the FSA and might compromise the position of the head of the organisation when dealing with overseas counterparts.
      I do not see why the FSA should be any different from other organisations, be they companies or Government agencies, which comfortably deal with foreign counterparts with a split of roles at the top. There may be a case for saying that it was justified to have one supremo during a period of turbulence and reorganisation, but not when that period came to an end.
      When the Bill is enacted and becomes law, we would like the roles to be split. We would very much welcome Howard Davies staying on in the key role. We are concerned that having one head at the top affects

      605
      relationships between that head and the members of the non-executive board. It has implications also for the setting of agendas for board meetings if that is down to one individual.
      Mr. Nigel Beard: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the flaw in the argument that he and his colleagues are advancing, is that they are making an analogy between a normal commercial company and the Financial Services Authority? If a chairman and a chief executive of the FSA had to consider a major investigation, there would be every incentive for investigators at all levels to try to drive a wedge between them. If there were not one authority at the top, there would be a standing invitation to do just that. The circumstances are quite different from those of a commercial organisation. The FSA is far nearer being in the position of an army in the field. No sensible person would consider that the commander of an army in the field should have a chairman above him.
      Mr. Loughton: That is an interesting point. I sense a slight change of tack since the hon. Gentleman debated this issue in Committee. I recall that he said then that, unlike the case with commercial companies, the head of a regulatory organisation needs to be able to act swiftly, overnight or whatever. I disputed that. A regulatory organisation is no different from a large multinational company, which needs to act quickly in a takeover. However, the hon. Gentleman now takes the tack that there may be division between the two people at the top.
      If the FSA does its job properly, it will be able to agree cabinet and committee responsibility, and the chairman and the chief executive should be singing from the same song sheet. If there were two roles, there would be two views, at least behind the closed doors of the FSA, in the committee meetings to decide policy. Those views could provoke a proper, full debate, and a single resolution, which would become the FSA's policy.
      Mr. Cousins: The hon. Gentleman has already drawn attention to the chairman's appointment by the Treasury and made a point of mentioning his substantial salary. The amendment suggests that a chief executive should be appointed by the Treasury, also on a substantial salary. He suggests that in public, the chief executive and the chairman should agree, but that they should be allowed to disagree privately. If a Labour-controlled Much Binding in the Marsh district council did that, the hon. Gentleman's view would be different.
      Mr. Loughton: I appreciate that Labour Members are not given much opportunity to disagree. They are given a line, which they have to feed to everybody. There is no problem if non-executive directors, chairmen, or executive managing directors of the FSA want to disagree among themselves. That is how policy is made, although events in the House in past few days suggest that the Government do not like policy to be made in that way. I do not understand the problem that the hon. Gentleman tried to identify.
      There is a danger of the financial services industry becoming personified in the figure of Howard Davies because he is such an important one. I wanted to discover
      606
      why the FSA should be different not only from commercial companies but from other quangos and Government agencies and companies, so I did some research. There are numerous examples of bodies—for example, the Environment Agency—which have a chairman, a deputy chairman and a chief executive. My right hon. Friend the Member for Wells mentioned the BBC. Divisions of responsibility between chairmen and chief executives exist in other regulatory bodies—for example, in the Investment Management Regulatory Organisation, the Securities and Investment Board and the Securities and Futures Authority.
      Much of the Bill was based on the experience of self-regulating organisations. Why should the FSA be different? Logic tells us that it should not be different because it is much more powerful than the other organisations that I mentioned. Investing so much power in one person in that more powerful body is dangerous.
      A host of other organisations routinely divide responsibilities; for example, the New Millennium Experience Company Ltd, which the Government would doubtless like to support, the new opportunities fund, the Occupational Pensions Regulatory Authority, the Criminal Cases Review Commission and the Youth Justice Board for England and Wales. Those organisations have regulatory powers, albeit not on the scale of the FSA, and have always divided responsibilities between chairmen and chief executives.
      One has to do a great deal of research to uncover organisations that do not have such a split. The Library provided me with only two examples: Trinity House Lighthouse Service and the Central Laboratory for the Research Councils, whose chairman and chief executive are embodied in the same person.
      The Bill provides for an exception. That is why we argued so hard, but fruitlessly, given the attention that the Government paid to our arguments, in Committee. I strongly support amendment No. 19, because its principle goes to the heart of the FSA's accountability.
      The other four other amendments in the group deal with the appointment of non-executives by the Treasury. The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Cousins) thought it more dangerous for the Treasury to have the power to appoint all those people, but if a system is working properly—which it should be, but which it does not always do under the Government—the Treasury is scrutinised by Parliament. We have the power, through debates in the Chamber or Select Committee procedure, to scrutinise the Ministers who make those decisions as to whether appointments are just and efficient. I do not see why the hon. Gentleman fears that process, because the House already has such powers and we are trying to open them up to even more scrutiny.
      Mr. Cousins: The hon. Gentleman must see that the issue here is accountability to the markets, which must feel that they have some influence on the conduct of the FSA. Such close, fine-grain operational intervention by the Treasury—to the extent that even the members of that important non-executive committee are also appointed entirely by it—is wholly absurd.
      Mr. Loughton: The hon. Gentleman holds an interesting personal view, but if he had followed our discussions in Committee he would not necessarily take

      607
      such a line. I am afraid that the FSA, certainly in respect of the Bill, is not accountable only to the industry by any manner of means. We have tabled amendments and new clauses, to make it more accountable in terms of the charges and additional regulation that it might place on the industry.
      I fear that the vast majority of our deliberations in Committee have not been taken up by the Government, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman agrees with my concern. If they do not want to make the people running the FSA more accountable to the industry they are regulating, we must make sure that they are accountable not behind closed doors, but to the House. That is the whole point of amendment No. 20.
      As my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells said, amendment No. 54 would give the non-executives a greater role in reviewing and approving the budget. It is essential that other people—the non-executive directors—have greater powers of scrutiny over the value for money offered to the industry by the FSA and over whether its budget is either sufficient to do its job properly or too generous, resulting in the industry's being penalised by excessive regulation.
      Amendments Nos. 21 and 22 do no more than echo the words of consultation paper No. 35 from the FSA on senior management arrangements, systems and controls. Their wording is almost identical to section 4 of the paper. If the FSA seeks powers and the Government want to give it powers to meddle—some might say—in the internal structures used by member firms to arraign their management and go about their business, surely one should at the very least expect the senior FSA board members who are setting down the regulations to adhere to the same standards and requirements. That is purely a matter of consistency, which is why we were surprised that the Government did not wish to take it up when we raised it in Committee and before.
      We are considering important amendments—some might say the most important—at this early stage because they go to the heart of the accountability of the organisation and, in particular, the people who will be responsible for it and keeping a check on its budgets and the number of regulations it produces. The person who runs it now has charge of at least 2,000 people, and if mortgages are to be regulated as well, he will have charge of an awful lot more. That person has enormous power and it is only right that it be properly shared and scrutinised, and, more important, that it should be seen to be properly shared and scrutinised. Ultimate accountability should be to the House.
      Mr. Andrew Tyrie: I have just been given a redraft of part of the Bill, which those on the Treasury Bench have kindly provided. This gives a feel for the scale of the redrafting, which is being done on the hoof. None of us has had the remotest chance to absorb the draft—we are receiving it as I speak, which is extraordinary. Frankly, it is disgraceful and disrespectful to the industry that we are trying to regulate.
      The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Cousins) was on the right track, but not with respect to schedule 1. He is absolutely right that the Treasury has huge power under the Bill, and that that power should be diminished. He is not right that the Treasury power of appointment over a chairman and a chief executive is necessarily wrong. [Interruption.] I shall give the hon. Gentleman the opportunity to intervene in a moment.
      608
      2.15 pm
      I strongly support the sentiment behind the hon. Gentleman's interventions and urge him to read the last subsection of clause 10. He will see the extent to which the Treasury is being given powers. He should also consider clause 372—a jumbo, omnibus, sweep-up clause that ensures that the Treasury can do exactly what it likes, notwithstanding the preceding 371 clauses. If he looks at the last subsection of a number of other clauses, he will find that, in case the draftsmen have got it wrong, the Treasury can vary matters by order without interference from anybody else, least of all the House or the hon. Gentleman.
      I want to discuss a few matters that have not been articulated by my right hon. and hon. Friends. We need to be clear that we are creating a leviathan—an institution of unprecedented power and authority. If it had not been for the Burns committee report—which flagged up the extent to which the Financial Services Authority was effectively becoming judge, jury and executioner—we should have had an even more inadequate tribunal procedure. None the less, the chairman of the authority will still be able, in the mere blink of an eye, to close down businesses, destroy reputations and impose heavy fines. While doing all that, he will have virtually complete statutory immunity. We shall have a new tier of the judicial system—the court system will have a new financial judiciary system sitting alongside it. I am not yet convinced that that is the right way to go.
      We are creating the most powerful body in this country after the Government, which is why it is crucial that there should be some check on the powers of the chief executive or chairman of such an authority. Someone to whom aggrieved parties can explain their concerns independently should be looking over the Executive director's shoulder, acting as a long-stop in the event of illness or something more serious. Leaving all that power in the hands of one man is not a reasonable way to go. My hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Mr. Loughton) referred to a passage from the Cadbury report, which is very relevant, which says that it is certainly right for companies and corporate bodies to have a division at the top between a chairman and a chief executive.
      I reiterate the point made by my hon. Friend that Howard Davies is a very good chap. I have known him a long time and am I sure that he does an excellent job. I more or less took over from him as special adviser in the Treasury to Nigel Lawson. In those days, he was identified as a political adviser to the then Conservative Government, but is now a much more neutral figure, particularly as he attached his name to the Rowntree report on inequality when Director General of the Confederation of British Industry. He has done, and will continue to do, an outstanding job. He, among others, has articulated three arguments as to why he does not see why he should have someone looking over his shoulder.
      The first argument is that comparable international bodies do not have somebody looking over their shoulders. The only remotely comparable body is the Securities and Exchange Commission in the United States, but it deals with a small proportion of what the FSA will be required to deal with. That is not a genuine comparison. We are dealing with something new and we

      609
      are in uncharted territory. We are dealing with a rule-making, self-sustaining body on a scale that we have never had in the United Kingdom.
      Liz Blackman: Why does the hon. Gentleman persist in minimising the considerable expertise and distinction of the board members, executive and non-executive? His line of argument seems to suggest that the board is a mere puppet. That is not and will not be the case. Does he accept that argument?
      Mr. Tyrie: I have not yet mentioned the board, but I promise to do so before I sit down. If I may, I shall deal with that point when I come on to our other amendments that would strengthen the hands of the non-executive directors.
      The second argument made by Howard Davies and others is that to make the memorandum of understanding between the Treasury, the FSA and the Bank of England work, we must have one clearly identifiable person in charge to deal with problems if they turn swiftly into crises. It is argued that we must not have responsibility so split that nobody knows who is responsible for what. I have read the memorandum and that argument does not remotely wash.
      There is indeed a division of responsibility, but the main problem with the memorandum is not a putative division of responsibility within the FSA, but the division of responsibility between three groups. It will often be the FSA's job to spot early when trouble may arise in a particular firm which may generate a serious prudential or systemic problem. It is the Bank of England's responsibility to suggest and put in place a support operation and to take any action that may be required to deal with systemic risk, which may include the adjustment of interest rates in conjunction with the Monetary Policy Committee. The Chancellor is responsible for all of that to Parliament.
      Furthermore, in a provision tucked in the middle of paragraph 13 of the memorandum, which has not been given remotely enough attention, we discover that the Chancellor has the option of refusing to support a given action. In other words, he has the power of veto over the other two bodies. We have, then, real scope for confusion built into the memorandum. As yet it is wholly untested. If it is tested, I worry that it might be found wanting. That is the real division of responsibility that could create problems, not any putative division of responsibility between a chairman and a chief executive of the FSA.
      The third and often heard argument is a general point about accountability—that nobody would be sure to whom they should go. That is highly implausible. It does not seem to obstruct the workings of all the institutions listed by my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham. They seem to be able to cope well. Indeed, so far as I know, none of them has made representations to the effect that they want to do away with the chief executive- chairman split because it makes their work difficult. Nor, indeed, did Howard Davies seem to find it difficult with such a split when he was at the Audit Commission. When he was Controller of Audit of that powerful institution, he had a chairman above him who was looking over his shoulder and to whom ultimately he
      610
      was answerable. It is a well-established, intelligent and effective structure, not only for all businesses and many public sector bodies, but for the nearest we have to a powerful institution which has been headed up by Howard Davies.
      Mr. Beard: Having had the responsibility in the Treasury under the previous Government that he mentioned, can the hon. Gentleman say why it was appropriate to have regulators for all the public utilities—single people regulating in similar circumstances to the head of the FSA—with no equivalent chairman, whereas when it comes to a general responsibility for the City there is suddenly perceived to be a need for a chairman to provide safeguards? Why is there that distinction?
      Mr. Tyrie: There is a massive difference between a water regulator and a regulator of the financial services industry. For those who are interested, a large part of that debate took place in Committee, where the hon. Gentleman made exactly the same point. Rather than go through all the arguments now—
      Mr. Beard: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Tyrie: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I will not give way a second time. I should like to get on.
      The Joint Committee report is unequivocal in its recommendation that for the longer term we must have a split. I do not know whether anyone has read out the exact words—
      Mr. Loughton: Yes, I did.
      Mr. Tyrie: My hon. Friend says that he did. The recommendation is clear. However, we should not take that as gospel or writ. It is an indication—a group of people thought carefully about the subject and came to that conclusion. We should be able to judge for ourselves. We need to ask ourselves a few simple questions. Do we really think that the head of the FSA will be hamstrung if he has a chairman above him? Do we think that foreign regulators will look down on him because he has a split role—because there is a chairman and a chief executive? Will it demean in any way our system of financial regulation? Do we think that having a split will increase problems in a financial or systemic crisis, given the huge lacuna in the memorandum of understanding which would cause that confusion and which is of far greater proportions than any conceivable consequence of the chairman-chief executive split?
      The arguments are all the weaker given the drafting of schedule 2(4), which sets out the functions of the non-executive directors. I will not linger on this point for long because I want to be brief, but it is clear from the drafting that it is intended to exclude the non-executive directors from fundamental scrutiny and monitoring of the overall workings of the authority. The amendment would put that back. We are trying to act on both issues with our amendments. That must be the way forward, and I commend the amendments to the House.
      The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Miss Melanie Johnson): As hon. Members have persisted in their remarks about amendments and the degree of change

      611
      in the Bill, I must make one point in response. The vast majority of Government amendments were tabled last Friday. Although this week we missed Wednesday officially in this House, its 24 hours nevertheless existed in reality, so the calculation of 72 hours made by the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Mr. Loughton) is a gross understatement of the amount of time that the Opposition have had to deal with the matters before us today.
      2.30 pm
      Mr. Tyrie: We were not here on Friday. More fundamentally, will the Minister explain why it was not possible to table the amendments a little earlier, or have the debate a week later, to give us a fortnight to consider what are serious matters, particularly as we have tried, as much as possible, to move forward on the basis of all-party agreement? Discussion of the Bill has not been highly adversarial.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. If those matters were to be raised at all, they should have been raised under an earlier item on today's Order Paper. That debate has taken place. Perhaps the Minister might return to the substance of the amendments.
      Miss Melanie Johnson: I am forced to take that advice, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but we co-operated with the Conservative Front-Bench team. As Front Benchers know full well, there has been considerable co-operation on all these matters. I see the right hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) nodding.
      On the issues of substance, first, there is accountability. It is important that there is a single public face of the FSA, a single chief point of contact who is accountable to the Treasury and can be called before parliamentary Committees—a single person with whom the buck stops.
      Conservative Members have argued that accountability is important. I agree, but my experience is that, where roles are confused and more than one person could be said to be responsible for something—as might happen with the proposed split between a chairman and a chief executive—it can easily confuse the clear chain of accountability, blur the lines as to who is responsible for what, and create doubt as to the authority of any one person to represent the FSA and, ultimately, to carry the can, including being accountable to the Treasury and hon. Members.
      Secondly, we need to ensure that there is a person with the wherewithal and authority to lead the FSA both in its daily business and in the international arena. The FSA is a major player on the international regulatory stage. We want it to stay there. That is an important aspect of its current role.
      Virtually all other major international financial regulators—Conservative Members skated over the point hurriedly—are represented by full-time executive board chairmen. Those are the arrangements. They are public representatives of those organisations. It is important that the FSA is represented by a person of appropriate and equivalent stature in those arenas.
      Some have suggested that the roles of chairman and chief executive could be split to reflect current thinking on corporate governance. Several Conservative Members dealt with that question, but parallels with ordinary
      612
      companies are far from exact. The combined code is designed for companies with shareholders who do not benefit from the various accountability checks and balances provided for by the Bill.
      The spirit of the code is that there should be a strong non-executive element on the board. We have more than provided for that. There will be a majority of non-executives. The non-executives will form a committee to keep under review whether the FSA is discharging its functions in the most efficient and economic way; to review the FSA's financial controls; and to determine remuneration. On top of that, there is a range of other accountability measures that a normal company would not have.
      The board will be appointed by the Treasury and subject to transparent appointment procedures. There will be an annual report to Parliament, which is an important part of the accountability mechanism, and an open annual meeting, at which stakeholders can air their concerns. We have built in practitioner and consumer panels, which will be consulted on FSA general policies and practices. Last, but by no means least—it is one of the most important aspects—there are the principles and objectives that guide the way in which the FSA, and hence its governing body, will act.
      Mr. Howard Flight: The Minister said that the board would be appointed by the Treasury. Will she clarify the matter? Our amendment was intended to achieve that, but surely the schedule requires the authority to appoint the governing body. If the authority does that, it will be able to appoint its chums.
      Miss Johnson: I confirm that the Treasury appoints the board and will do so in line with transparent Nolan-type procedures, if that helps the hon. Gentleman.
      There are other reasons why I will not accept the amendments. First, the tripartite arrangements between the Treasury, the Bank of England and the FSA are based on relationships between the organisations and their heads. It is hard to see how the FSA could easily be represented in the forum by a person with appropriate stature—
      Mr. Tyrie: Further to the Minister's statement about who will appoint the non-executive committee, may I seek clarification? Paragraph 3(2) of schedule 1 reads:
      "The members of the non-executive committee are to be appointed by the Authority."
      Do the Government intend to table an amendment to change that, so that henceforth they will be appointed by the Treasury?
      Miss Johnson: I will come back to that point. May I finish the points that I was making because I started with a "first"? I want to round off my comments about the special factors to be taken into consideration.
      Secondly, as the non-executives on the FSA board have said, the organisation is mature enough not to be merely a creature of its chairman. I am grateful for the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Erewash (Liz Blackman) about the way in which Conservative Members suggested that the board was a mere cipher and rubber stamp for the organisation. Quite the contrary; I have been to board meetings and met board members on several occasions.

      613
      It is not the case that board members are anything other than extremely competent and professional. Many views are expressed at the meetings.
      Sir Nicholas Lyell: This is the moment for me to ask the Minister to clarify the point that I raised in my speech. I described paragraph 4(3) of schedule 1 as boxing in the non-executive functions: the non-executive committee will review simply whether the authority is using its resources in the most efficient and economic way. She is speaking as though the committee had an overall remit of the type that we recommend in our amendment. What is she saying? Are they boxed in by paragraph 4(3) or are they not?
      Miss Johnson: Perhaps I could come to the point that the hon. Member for Chichester (Mr. Tyrie) raised before coming to the right hon. and learned Gentleman's point? The Treasury appoints the members to the board. The FSA has to ensure that they form a committee under paragraph 3. Paragraph 2(3) is the one that the hon. Gentleman should look at. The FSA appoints the non-executives. Perhaps that clarifies that point. [Interruption.] I am looking at the text of the Bill. Paragraph 2(3) states:
      "The chairman and other members of the governing body must be appointed, and be liable to removal from office, by the Treasury."
      Sir Nicholas Lyell: Hansard will record that the Minister said that that was done by the authority. Now she has rightly read out that it is done by the Treasury.
      Miss Johnson: I am talking about the non-executive committee, which must have the paragraph 4(3) functions. It will also be open to the FSA to confer functions on the committee. Therefore, paragraph 4(3) does not box in the committee; it does quite the reverse.
      Sir Nicholas Lyell: Will the Minister please explain why it does not box in the committee? She has received a note from those who are assisting her saying that it does not box in the committee, but why is the provision so carefully confined?
      Miss Johnson: I shall deal with that point in a moment but should like first to deal with the point made by the hon. Member for Chichester on how the Government have dealt with some of the matters.
      Amendment No. 19 is worded very flexibly, so that the split between the chairman and the chief executive could be undertaken in the longer term—I see the hon. Member for Chichester nodding. However, I still do not agree with the amendment, as it raises the real issue of who would allocate the roles and how they would be allocated. We have other objections to splitting the roles of chairman and chief executive, but Opposition Members have not dealt with them in their amendments.
      Mr. Tyrie: Will the hon. Lady explain briefly why the FSA is such a unique structure that it cannot have a division of roles? It would be done by the Treasury if the flexibility provided in the paragraph to which she referred
      614
      were used. Why are all the other bodies that have been mentioned perfectly able to cope with such a split and function happily, whereas the FSA cannot?
      Miss Johnson: Will the hon. Gentleman repeat his last sentence?
      Mr. Tyrie: Why are all those other bodies able to cope with a division of roles and find a way of dividing responsibilities between chairman and chief executive, whereas the FSA is held to be so unique that it would be incapable of doing so?
      Miss Johnson: The Financial Services Authority is unique in many respects. However, it is not unique among regulators. Nor is our proposal unique among arrangements made for other international regulators. Our proposal is exactly in line with the structure of other major international regulators, which are not splitting the roles. The roles should remain combined, as we have proposed.
      I should like to deal with some of the points that Opposition Members have made about the current incumbent of the post, Howard Davies. I share their enthusiasm for him and the way in which he is discharging his role, although I was a little alarmed by some of their remarks that he might leave after his contract ends, if not before. Nevertheless, the Government's arguments depend not on the current incumbent and his many undoubted qualities, but on the fact that we do not think that it is appropriate or right to make the split.
      I should like briefly—I may test your patience temporarily, Mr. Deputy Speaker—to point out to the hon. Member for Chichester that the redrafts of explanatory material on amendments that he was waving deal with specific matters in which Opposition Members had expressed an interest in Committee. It is highly technical material, and we expect to deal with it not today, but on Tuesday. I regret that however helpful the Government have been on the Bill—we have tried to be extremely helpful, recognising as we do the many helpful contributions made by Opposition Members—some of them, such as the hon. Member for Chichester, seem unable to deal with that helpfulness.
      2.45 pm
      I tell the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell) that paragraph 4(3) does not box in the committee because the FSA can confer further functions. Paragraph 4(3) simply specifies the minimum functions. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman still thinks that the provision boxes in the committee, perhaps he would like either to raise the issue later in the debate or to write to me.
      Mr. Flight: Hon. Members on both sides of the House seem to be joining in the love-in for Howard Davies and the good job that he has been doing. After publication of the Bill, it was reported that the Treasury had taken the view that it was better to have a split between non-executive chairman, chief executive and principal, but that the Government were leaving the provision as drafted largely in deference to Howard Davies. Indeed, after the Bill was published, Lord Burns confirmed his judgment that the Government would have to look again at the unified role.

      615
      I do not want to repeat other arguments, but shall deal with the crucial points. The Investment Management Regulatory Organisation model worked extremely successfully. A non-executive chairman is not someone competing to be chief executive or to be accountable, but a person of wisdom and experience whom the chief executive can consult on difficult issues, and someone who could protect the chief executive if he or she were being leant on by Government.
      I cannot resist raising a fairly major issue that is currently in Howard Davies's hands for decision. As the House will know, IMRO launched a major investigation into London and Bishopsgate, the Maxwell investment management company. Quite correctly, the investigation was not published at the time, as proceedings were pending against the Maxwell brothers. Now, the decision on publication must be taken. The Opposition argue that, in the interests of accountability and openness, it should be published. That is precisely the type of matter in which a chief executive should be able to draw on the wisdom of a non-executive chairman before taking a decision, and to seek support in dealing with Government attempts to lean on him or her.
      Mr. Barry Sheerman: I was the Deputy Chairman of the pre-legislative inquiry. Before the hon. Gentleman assumes too much—that there was a clear political split on the issue—I should tell him that several Committee members had reservations about splitting. I took Lord Burns's view, and rather reluctantly came to the conclusion, as it was shared by the majority of Committee members, that, for now, the role should be kept as one.
      Mr. Flight: We know that there are arguments on both sides. The Opposition accept that, during the reign of the great Howard Davies, it is sensible to keep the role unified. We accept that there is much to be done in establishing the body and addressing all the issues.
      We tabled amendment No. 18 because, after examining all the issues, we believe that Parliament should signal that, in the longer term, it would be wiser to have a non-executive chairman. We had thought that the Government shared that view because, as hon. Members will note, the Bill uses only the word "chairman", thereby leaving the door open to a subsequent split.
      Liz Blackman: The hon. Gentleman should be aware that, although many of the witnesses appearing before the Joint Committee were practitioners who favoured not splitting the role, none of them cited Howard Davies's personality as a factor in forming their view. They said that the position should remain one for reasons of accountability and clarity.
      Mr. Flight: I thank the hon. Lady for that intervention. I was not a member of the Joint Committee, and it was not my impression from the report that its contribution was so large. The issue is simple, and we concede that both sides of the argument have merit. We prefer the IMRO model and believe that the non-executive chairman position has advantages and does not damage the authority of the chief executive. However, others argue otherwise.
      The case that the authority of a chief executive is damaged by the appointment of a non-executive chairman is not proven by experience. However, the opposite
      616
      case—that a chief executive without a non-executive chairman may have too much power and be unaccountable in the absence of a person to consult with—can be illustrated by experience.
      If amendment No. 22 is not accepted, the role of the excellent non-executive board will be emasculated because it will not be given the normal duties and responsibilities—as set out under the Cadbury guidelines—to scrutinise and monitor the work, performance and standards of conduct of the FSA executive management. We see no reason why those activities should have been excluded from the non-executive board's role.
      The question of who appoints whom deserves consideration. As I thought, the authority, not the Treasury, will appoint the non-executive members. Our objection to that is that a chief executive without a chairman clearly has the power to appoint his cronies. Despite all the problems described earlier, the Treasury should make those appointments, not the FSA. Perhaps it would be better if industry representatives were to nominate members, but the Government's intention was to move away from self-regulation. Therefore, we believe that, for the time being at least, the Treasury option is to be preferred.
      Mr. Beard: Where in the Bill are the powers of the board circumscribed in the way that the hon. Gentleman has set out?
      Mr. Flight: My point is that the roles and duties of non-executive directors that I described—and which appear in the standard list recommended by the FSA—are not included in the Bill. That is not to say that they could not be added in the future, but why on earth exclude now what are the proper and normal roles of non-executives?
      Mr. Cousins: I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to paragraph 5(1) of schedule 1, which deals with this matter. It correctly leaves to the authority the responsibility for devolution of function and powers in the authority.
      Mr. Flight: That reinforces my point that it should not be for the authority to make its own constitution. Schedule 1 deals with the constitution of a body entrusted with running the financial services industry. I do not see how what the hon. Gentleman said interferes with the straightforward proposition that the constitutional role of the non-executives should be set out clearly in the relevant part of the constitution.
      We wanted to put on record what we consider to be the right constitutional structure, which we hope the FSA will move towards. That will have to await the end of the reign of Howard Davies, and can be dealt with subsequently. The Government do not want to admit it, but the Bill is drafted with enough flexibility to cover that. However, we have not been persuaded by the arguments advanced by the Government and Howard Davies in favour of having a single chief executive.
      Sir Nicholas Lyell: With permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am afraid that the right hon. and learned Gentleman cannot speak a second time. Only the person who has tabled the amendment can automatically speak a second time on Report.

      617
      Is the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight) pressing the amendment?
      Mr. Flight: I thought, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I had indicated in what I just said that we would not press the amendment to a vote.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Is the hon. Gentleman therefore withdrawing his amendment?
      Mr. Flight: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Miss Melanie Johnson: I beg to move amendment No. 480, in page 197, line 47, at end insert—
      "() The complaints scheme must be designed so that, as far as reasonably practicable, complaints are investigated quickly.".
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 186, in page 198, line 27, leave out "reference" and insert "submission".
      No. 187, in page 198, line 27, leave out—
      "which the Authority is investigating".
      No. 23, in page 198, line 33, leave out "and".
      No. 32, in page 198, line 36, at end insert—
      ;and
      (iv) to recommend to the Authority the award of such sum as appears to him to be fair and reasonable in all the circumstances of the case in relation to any maladministration by the Authority.".
      No. 188, in page 198, line 36, at end insert—
      "(iv) to make an award against the Authority of such amounts as he considers fair compensation for loss or damage resulting from the subject matter of the complaint".
      No. 189, in page 198, line 37, leave out "Authority" and insert "investigator".
      No. 190, in page 198, line 37, leave out—
      "it must notify the investigator"
      and insert "must notify the complainant".
      No. 191, in page 198, line 39, leave out sub-paragraph (4).
      Government amendments Nos. 437 to 441.
      Miss Johnson: The complaints scheme is an important part of the accountability package delivered by the Bill. The Bill should deliver an open and transparent mechanism that will allow people's complaints to be dealt with quickly, cheaply and informally.
      However, the Bill delivers other important protections as well. For example, firms will be able to go to the financial services and markets tribunal to challenge the FSA's decisions. The Government introduced amendments to the complaints scheme provisions following the Joint Committee's recommendations, to make it clear that the investigator should be fully independent of the FSA. That independence will include having adequate funds and staff.
      The investigator's appointment is also to be approved by the Treasury, and he or she cannot be removed from office without the Treasury's consent. It is important that
      618
      everyone is happy with the independence of the arrangements, and the FSA will consult further on them fairly shortly. I understand that the issues to be studied are likely to include ways to secure the investigator's independence through the appointment arrangements and the provision of independent support staff. I recognise how important it is to secure the investigator's independence. The Government amendments, together with the provisions already in the Bill, will achieve that.
      I shall not respond to the Opposition amendments now, Mr. Deputy Speaker, in the hope that I will have the opportunity to do so later.
      Mr. Flight rose—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Perhaps I can help the Minister. By leave of the House, she is able to speak a second time, as she would be were she tabling her own amendment. However, it may be for the convenience of the House were she to say all that she wishes to say on this occasion, in case she wishes to come back a second time later.
      Miss Johnson: Thank you for your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I shall take this opportunity to make some brief remarks about the Opposition amendments in this group.
      The amendments would partly take the FSA out of the process—or at least, they would not give it the opportunity to deal with complaints in the first instance. The Government consider that it would not be sensible to take the FSA out of the process in the way proposed. Most complaints arrangements—such as those relating to regulating firms under the current system—give the subject of the complaint the chance to put his house in order before an independent investigator is brought in. What would be the implications for the time and resources of the investigator if he or she were to investigate all complaints in the first instance? We are trying to set up a mechanism for cases which the FSA cannot resolve with complainants, not a first port of call, and not a port of call for every single case that might arise.
      3 pm
      The scheme nevertheless ensures transparency, so if the FSA decides not to investigate a complaint, the investigator should know about it; and if the authority decides to go ahead and investigate, again, the investigator should be informed. The investigator can then take up the complaint if he or she sees fit.
      Of course, if the FSA does not sort out a complaint satisfactorily, the independent investigator comes in. Taking the FSA out of the picture in the first instance would not be right or efficient.
      The Joint Committee suggested that we consider the possibility of ex gratia payments. We have been doing that, and we continue to do so, but it is not appropriate to come to a decision until we see the FSA's consultation paper on the proposed arrangements for the complaints scheme. Amendment No. 188 argues for just such compensation.
      It is important that the complaints scheme is not seen as a means of circumventing the FSA's statutory immunity. We do not want to encourage people to take

      619
      pot shots at the FSA and distract it from its proper business of regulating. As the scheme is not part of the Court Service—indeed, the investigator need not be a lawyer—he or she would not necessarily come to a decision based on legal principles that a court would apply. The complaints scheme is an informal mechanism for investigating complaints and, where appropriate, bringing shortcomings into the open; it is not a court, nor is there a right of appeal for the FSA if the investigator makes an adverse finding against it.
      Although the Bill does not give the investigator the power to award damages, the complaints scheme will have real teeth. The investigator can publish his or her reports and has the power to name and shame the FSA—or, if he or she sees fit, individuals within it. Therefore, the strength of the arrangements should not be underestimated. The FSA will also need to include details concerning complaints in its annual reports to the Treasury and to Parliament.
      I hope that, once they have considered my remarks and the Government amendments, hon. Members may see fit to withdraw their amendments in this group.
      Mr. Flight: Government amendment No. 480 is quite acceptable. It responds to an issue that we raised about speeding up the handling of complaints.
      We are now in the single most important territory of principle. As the Burns committee set out in its doctrine, and as has been the universal response from the industry, if there is to be effective legal immunity, there must be a clearly independent system of complaints—if not with the ability legally to award compensation, with the ability to recommend and suggest fair recompense when businesses have been damaged by incorrect or wrong conduct by the FSA.
      As the Minister has just said, in Committee the Government accepted the principle that the investigator could suggest ex gratia payments. There is no Government amendment to that end, and the Minister has said that the matter is still under consideration, awaiting the FSA's comments. We ourselves have had discussions with the FSA on this issue. It pointed out that, if the payments were compensation, there would be a potential problem of legal disputes, particularly over matters such as the refusal of applications, but it is perfectly happy with the principle of ex gratia payments being recommended to it. Amendment No. 32 has been worded deliberately to accommodate that. It proposes that the investigator recommend suitable sums for payment by the FSA, so that it will ultimately be an ex gratia regime.
      We will wish to withdraw amendment No. 188, which is clearly stronger, and sets out a specific proposal for compensation. Our other amendments seek to create a complaints regime that is fully independent. While there may be something in the argument that the complaints investigator's time should not be wasted with minor issues, the bigger argument is that it is inappropriate for all complaints to come to the FSA first. The FSA has the power of life or death over businesses in terms of authorisation. There is considerable fear of the FSA in the industry—fear that, if offence is given or a foot is put out of line, a business may suffer. It is therefore inappropriate that complaints should first be vetted by the FSA. The investigator needs to be fully independent to receive and consider complaints, and recommend recompense if a business has been genuinely damaged by a wrong action by the FSA.
      620
      We shall come in due course to the issue of legal immunity. The two issues might best have been debated together, but it is absolutely clear that, in achieving a fair and sensible balance of power—if there continues to be effective legal immunity, as the Bill at present prescribes—it is essential, as the Burns committee made clear, to have an independent system of complaints, and for the body concerned to be able to recommend, if not award, fair payments for damage suffered by businesses as a result of the FSA's mistakes.
      Sir Nicholas Lyell: I agree with the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight), including those about the importance of having an independent investigator who can award compensation, of at least a reasonable nature.
      My hon. Friend pointed out that our amendments are in two forms—amendment No. 188, which requires that the investigator be able to award compensation, and amendment No. 32, which requires that he or she be able to recommend an award of compensation, leaving the ultimate decision to the authority. To that extent, it would be ex gratia. We put that in to water down our recommendation, to make it easier for the authority, and to stop it being frightened that its immunity would thereby be completely undercut.
      We are the Opposition, not the Government. The Government need to reflect seriously and carefully on exactly how to handle this matter. I echo my hon. Friend's statement that the recommendation was made by the Burns committee, which gives it great weight, just as the committee's views on the chairmanship and the question of chairman and chief executive gave that great weight. I hope that both those matters will be reflected on extremely carefully.
      This group of amendments and the next group, on immunity, hang together, as my hon. Friend rightly said. The Minister knows that I support a substantial degree of immunity for the FSA. I think that it is necessary, for the reasons that my hon. Friend stated. We do not want to see the authority undercut, and, as the Minister said, we do not want unreasonable pot shots. They may be much more than pot shots; they may be major attacks by extremely powerful institutions.
      That is one side of the picture. The other side is that the FSA is being given immense power over the livelihoods of thousands of people whose own money is at risk. If it performs its functions badly, it should be capable of being held to account. If it does significant damage to individuals working in the market through its own fault, there should be some comeback and some financial compensation. The authority is big enough to be able to behave properly to those whom it has a duty to regulate, but whom it has let down as a result of inadvertence, stupidity or worse.
      I hope that that will not happen very often, but I would feel much more confident about its being a rare occurrence if I knew that the authority was aware that it must look over its shoulder, at least to a limited extent, and realise that if it messes up those working in the market or others through its own incompetence or error, it can be held reasonably to account for at least reasonable sums to return them to the position in which they ought to have been.
      We are setting up a huge institution. What we are doing is unprecedented. We really must be big about it: we must not be frightened—Governments, whatever their

      621
      complexion, must not be frightened—to be prepared to pay compensation to those who suffer when misregulated. There is no reason why the whole regulatory system should collapse as a result of that balance.
      If we do not get this right, Strasbourg may eventually force us to get it right. One of the problems of this Bill is that it is so defensive about the idea of judicial review. Nearly every provision that could be drafted so as to inhibit the opportunity for judicial review is thus drafted. It will not prevent judicial review on the part of financial institutions that are rich and powerful enough to afford that expensive and complex process, but judicial review would be far less necessary if the system involving the investigator and reasonable compensation were established properly.
      I am in favour of that system. I am in favour of a comparatively formal process. However, if it is so boxed in—if I may use another contentious phrase—that it is not effective, people will look outside it. Eventually, they will take the cases to Strasbourg. They will rely on article 6 of the European convention on human rights in relation to lack of due process, on article 7 in relation to the right not to be punished except in accordance with the law, and on the first protocol of article 1, which relates to the right to possession of property. If someone is running a business that is also his property, and if that business is seriously damaged as a result of the authority's incompetence, possession of the property may be denied him. In one way or another, people will find a way of bringing a case outside the confines of this country.
      Let us get the legislation right. Let us ensure that it is reasonable and balanced.
      Miss Melanie Johnson: We are still considering the issue of ex gratia payments. The FSA is consulting on it, and I do not think it appropriate to pre-empt the results of its consultation. I am not saying that we will decide one way or the other; I am saying that we are waiting for the results.
      I do not think that people should view the complaints investigator as a potential first port of call, as the Opposition seem to suggest. In any event, the post is not being established for the purpose of financial redress; the point is for the focus to be on the process, and on the importance of transparency.
      3.15 pm
      Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: We have had a short but important debate on some important amendments.
      The Opposition consider the investigator's role to be crucial in providing a check on any abuse by the FSA, and any negligence or incompetence on its part. We may have regard for, or even confidence in, the authority's senior management, but that is not always reflected in people's experience of its staff at the coalface, as it were.
      Hon. Members receive many complaints about regulators. It is important for complaints to be dealt with promptly by an independent inspector who is seen to be independent, and who can receive them separately from any filter mechanism that may exist in the authority. The inspector must be properly resourced, and able to respond to complaints—including, we believe, complaints involving financial awards against the authority.
      622
      Our proposals would also establish an essential counterbalance against statutory immunity. We shall debate that shortly, so I shall not go into it now, but I want to quote one sentence from the report of the Joint Committee on Financial Services, of which I was a member last year. It concluded, among other things:
      "We agree with those who see a robust complaints procedure as the central counterbalance to the FSA's statutory immunity."
      It asked the Government to give serious consideration to the issue of financial awards.
      I do not think that it is enough simply to refer to the possibility of ex gratia payments that are not mentioned in the Bill. That is not an assurance at all. I know that the Government do not want to allow the FSA to get into a legal tangle in regard to what might be compensation, and that that might have to be judged against some objective criterion. I think we should leave open exactly how awards are to be measured and made, but they must be referred to in the Bill. That is the thrust of the Joint Committee's conclusions, and it is the strong view of the Conservative Members who have spoken. We do not intend to press the other amendments, but we will press amendment No. 32.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Amendment proposed: No. 32, in page 198, line 36, at end insert—
      ";and
      (iv) to recommend to the Authority the award of such sum as appears to him to be fair and reasonable in all the circumstances of the case in relation to any maladministration by the Authority.".—[Mr. Heathcoat-Amory.]
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 141, Noes 267.

      Division No. 52]

      [3.18 pm

      AYES

      Allan, Richard

      Donaldson, Jeffrey

      Amess, David

      Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

      Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

      Duncan, Alan

      Baldry, Tony

      Duncan Smith, Iain

      Ballard, Jackie

      Evans, Nigel

      Beggs, Roy

      Faber, David

      Bercow, John

      Fabricant, Michael

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Fallon, Michael

      Blunt, Crispin

      Fearn, Ronnie

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

      Flight, Howard

      Brady, Graham

      Forth, Rt Hon Eric

      Brake, Tom

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Brazier, Julian

      Fox, Dr Liam

      Breed, Colin

      Fraser, Christopher

      Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

      Gale, Roger

      Browning, Mrs Angela

      George, Andrew (St Ives)

      Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

      Gibb, Nick

      Burns, Simon

      Gill, Christopher

      Burstow, Paul

      Gillen, Mrs Cheryl

      Butterfill, John

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Cable, Dr Vincent

      Gray, James

      Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

      Greenway, John

      Grieve, Dominic

      Cash, William

      Hague, Rt Hon William

      Chope, Christopher

      Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

      Hammond, Philip

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Hayes, John

      Collins, Tim

      Heald, Oliver

      Cotter, Brian

      Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

      Curry, Rt Hon David

      Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

      Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

      Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

      Day, Stephen

      Horam, John

      623

      Howard, Rt Hon Michael

      Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

      Hunter, Andrew

      Prior, David

      Jack, Rt Hon Michael

      Redwood, Rt Hon John

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Robathan, Andrew

      Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Robertson, Laurence

      Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

      Key, Robert

      Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)

      King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

      St Aubyn, Nick

      Kirkbride, Miss Julie

      Sanders, Adrian

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Laing, Mrs Eleanor

      Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Shepherd, Richard

      Lansley, Andrew

      Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

      Leigh, Edward

      Soames, Nicholas

      Letwin, Oliver

      Spelman, Mrs Caroline

      Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

      Spring, Richard

      Lidington, David

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

      Streeter, Gary

      Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

      Swayne, Desmond

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Syms, Robert

      Luff, Peter

      Stunell, Andrew

      Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      McIntosh, Miss Anne

      Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

      MacKay Rt Hon Andrew

      Taylor, John M (Solihull)

      Maclean, Rt Hon David

      Taylor, Sir Teddy

      Tredinnick, David

      Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert

      Trend Michael

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Tyrie, Andrew

      Madel, Sir David

      Viggers, Peter

      Major, Rt Hon John

      Walter, Robert

      Maude, Rt Hon Francis

      Waterson, Nigel

      May, Mrs Theresa

      Whitney, Sir Raymond

      Moore, Michael

      Whittingdale, John

      Moss, Malcolm

      Willetts, David

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

      Norman, Archie

      Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

      O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

      Yeo, Tim

      Öpik, Lembit

      Young, Rt Hon Sir George

      Page, Richard

      Pace, James

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Paterson, Owen

      Mr. Keith Simpson and

      Pickles, Eric

      Mr. John Randall.

      NOES

      Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

      Butler, Mrs Christine

      Ainger, Nick

      Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

      Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

      Caborn, Rt Hon Richard

      Alexander, Douglas

      Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

      Allen, Graham

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

      Campbell-Savours, Dale

      Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

      Cann, Jamie

      Ashton, Joe

      Caplin, Ivor

      Atkins, Charlotte

      Casale, Roger

      Austin, John

      Cawsey, Ian

      Banks, Tony

      Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

      Barnes, Harry

      Chaytor, David

      Barron, Kevin

      Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

      Beard, Nigel

      Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

      Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

      Bell, Martin (Tatton)

      Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

      Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

      Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

      Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

      Clelland, David

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)

      Clwyd, Ann

      Bennett, Andrew F

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Benton, Joe

      Cohen, Harry

      Berry, Roger

      Coleman, Iain

      Blackman, Liz

      Colman, Tony

      Blears, Ms Hazel

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Blizzard, Bob

      Corbett, Robin

      Bradley, Keith (Withington)

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

      Cousins, Jim

      Brinton, Mrs Helen

      Cranston, Ross

      Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

      Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

      Browne, Desmond

      Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

      Burden, Richard

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      624

      Davidson, Ian

      King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

      Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

      Kumar, Dr Ashok

      Dawson, Hilton

      Ladyman, Dr Stephen

      Dean, Mrs Janet

      Laxton, Bob

      Denham, John

      Leslie, Christopher

      Dismore, Andrew

      Levitt, Tom

      Dobbin, Jim

      Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

      Donohoe, Brian H

      Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

      Doran, Frank

      Linton, Martin

      Dowd, Jim

      Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

      Drew, David

      Lock, David

      Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

      Love, Andrew

      Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Edwards, Huw

      McCabe, Steve

      Ellman, Mrs Louise

      McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)

      Ennis, Jeff

      Field, Rt Hon Frank

      McDonagh, Siobhain

      Fisher, Mark

      Macdonald, Calum

      Fitzpatrick, Jim

      McDonnell, John

      Flint, Caroline

      McGuire, Mrs Anne

      Follett, Barbara

      McIsaac, Shona

      Foster, Rt Hon Derek

      McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

      McNulty, Tony

      Gapes, Mike

      MacShane, Denis

      Gardiner, Barry

      Mactaggart, Fiona

      Gerrard, Neil

      McWalter, Tony

      Gibson, Dr Ian

      McWilliam, John

      Godsiff, Roger

      Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

      Goggins, Paul

      Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

      Gordon, Mrs Eileen

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Martlew, Eric

      Grocott, Bruce

      Maxton, John

      Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

      Meale, Alan

      Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

      Merron, Gillian

      Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

      Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

      Heal, Mrs Sylvia

      Miller, Andrew

      Healey, John

      Mitchell, Austin

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      Moran, Ms Margaret

      Hepburn, Stephen

      Mountford, Kali

      Heppell, John

      Mowlam, Rt Hon Marjorie

      Hewitt, Ms Patricia

      Mudie, George

      Hill, Keith

      Mullin, Chris

      Hodge, Ms Margaret

      Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

      Hope, Phil

      Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

      Hoyle, Lindsay

      Naysmith, Dr Doug

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Norris, Dan

      Humble, Mrs Joan

      O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

      Hurst, Alan

      Olner, Bill

      Hutton, John

      O'Neill, Martin

      Iddon, Dr Brian

      Organ, Mrs Diana

      Illsley, Eric

      Pearson, Ian

      Ingram, Rt Hon Adam

      Pendry, Tom

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      Perham, Ms Linda

      Jamieson, David

      Pickthall, Colin

      Jenkins, Brian

      Pike, Peter L

      Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

      Plaskitt, James

      Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

      Pollard, Kerry

      Pond, Chris

      Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

      Pound, Stephen

      Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      Prosser, Gwyn

      Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

      Purchase, Ken

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

      Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce

      Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa

      Quinn, Lawrie

      Keeble, Ms Sally

      Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

      Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

      Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

      Kelly, Ms Ruth

      Roche, Mrs Barbara

      Kemp, Fraser

      Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff

      Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

      Roy, Frank

      Khabra, Piara S

      Ruddock, Joan

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

      King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

      Ryan, Ms Joan

      625

      Salter, Martin

      Tipping, Paddy

      Sarwar, Mohammad

      Todd, Mark

      Savidge, Malcolm

      Touhig, Don

      Sawford, Phil

      Trickett, Jon

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Truswell, Paul

      Shaw, Jonathan

      Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

      Sheerman, Barry

      Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      Turner, Neil (Wigan)

      Shipley, Ms Debra

      Twigg, Derek (Halton)

      Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

      Tynan, Bill

      Singh, Marsha

      Walley, Ms Joan

      Skinner, Dennis

      Ward, Ms Claire

      Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

      White, Brian

      Smith, Angela (Basildon)

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Smith, John (Glamorgan)

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Snape, Peter

      Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

      Soley, Clive

      Wilson, Brian

      Southworth, Ms Helen

      Winnick, David

      Starkey, Dr Phyllis

      Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Wise, Audrey

      Stewart, David (Inverness E)

      Wood, Mike

      Stinchcombe, Paul

      Woolas, Phil

      Stoate, Dr Howard

      Worthington, Tony

      Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

      Wray, James

      Stuart, Ms Gisela

      Wright Dr Tony (Cannock)

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

      Mr. Clive Betts and

      Timms, Stephen

      Mr. Greg Pope.

      Question accordingly negatived.
      3.30 pm
      Amendments made: No. 437, in page 198, line 41, leave out "sub-paragraph (2)" and insert "the complaints scheme".
      No. 438, in page 198, line 42, leave out "arrangements" and insert "complaints scheme".
      No. 439, in page 198, line 48, leave out from beginning to second "the".
      No. 440, in page 198, line 49, leave out "it" and insert "the Authority".
      No. 441, in page 199, line 33, leave out "for an injunction" and insert "under sub-paragraph (5)".—[Miss Melanie Johnson.]
      Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I beg to move amendment No. 33, in page 201, line 39, after "faith" insert "or due to recklessness".
      The amendment relates to the extremely contentious issue of statutory immunity. All hon. Members should be alert to any proposal to exempt any outside body from the force of law. For that reason, we have paid special attention to schedule 1. Part IV of the schedule will exempt the authority—both the corporate body and anyone who works for it—from legal action, except in certain narrowly defined circumstances.
      The matter needs careful scrutiny. It is objectionable in principle for any body or person to elevate themselves above the law. It is ironic that the Bill extends the law—indeed, it creates new law—bringing people within its ambit, in many cases for the first time, while the FSA is retreating behind the wall of statutory immunity.
      The Government must explain why the FSA is taking that degree of immunity, when the trend of political development over recent years has been to remove
      626
      statutory immunity. I remember a time when Crown immunity meant that if health and safety provisions were being ignored—in hospitals, for example—the law offered complete immunity from any legal action. Since that time, much has happened to bring public bodies within the law, making them accountable; for example, neither the police nor the Serious Fraud Office are statutorily immune.
      However, the FSA, which has an incredible concentration of executive and law-making power, will be statutorily immune, except where it is acting in bad faith. The authority can be subject to judicial review, but the possibility of that has been considerably tightened by the wording of the Bill. Some hon. Members will discuss that matter at greater length.
      The question is whether it might be wise slightly to loosen the statutory immunity, at least so as to ensure that it cannot be claimed if the authority acts recklessly.
      Mr. Cousins: The amendment would insert the concept of recklessness. Will the right hon. Gentleman define recklessness? If the amendment is accepted, his definition of recklessness could have a considerable effect on how that concept is interpreted.
      Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: The interpretation of all these matters is for the courts. However, the concept of recklessness is well known in the legal system. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman has a driving licence, but I hope that he has never been accused of reckless driving. If he has, he will know that the penalties are severe.
      The concept of recklessness—a good old English word—should not create any difficulties, especially as the Bill already includes concepts such as acting in bad faith or negligence. Those mean slightly different things, but they are not new departures within the legal system.
      If the hon. Gentleman wants to develop his argument against recklessness, I shall listen to it with interest. We discussed the matter in Committee and encountered no problems with the concept of recklessness—only with the Government's belief that the FSA should be immune in respect of reckless behaviour.
      That part of the law runs up against the European convention on human rights. Several cases of negligence in which attempts were made to claim immunity did not succeed; and some court cases brought under the convention resulted in the public bodies—the police, in one case—being made liable for negligent behaviour.
      However, we shall not touch on those matters. Our aim is more modest: to net the FSA within the ambit of the law, if it acts recklessly. That is a reasonable proposition. There is a certain symmetry in the Bill. A market participant—a registered firm or an individual—would certainly be found guilty, and could be fined, if it acted recklessly or negligently. An oversight by a firm or an individual will, in some circumstances, render that body or person liable to a fine, or to the disciplinary processes outlined elsewhere in the Bill.
      Intent does not necessarily have to be proved. An oversight—reckless or not—could land the regulated person on the wrong end of a fine. However, that does not apply to the FSA. As matters stand, it can act negligently or recklessly and no one can take legal action

      627
      against it. If the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Cousins) finds that fair or reasonable, we shall be interested to hear his speech.
      Earlier, we discussed compensation—or the financial penalty that could be levied on the FSA, or paid to the firm or individual concerned. However, the Government have turned that down in favour of the much looser concept of ex gratia payments, which are not covered in the Bill. Last year, in the Joint Committee—
      Liz Blackman: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us to which financial regulator the concept of recklessness applies?
      Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: The Financial Services Authority is the regulator to which the provision will apply. I am not interested in other regulators, but if the hon. Lady will enlighten me, I am sure we shall have another Bill to cover them.
      Liz Blackman: Which other financial regulator, financial or otherwise, has incorporated the concept of recklessness as a test whereby an authorised person can sue that body? Is the right hon. Gentleman seeking to incorporate an entirely new concept in the FSA test?
      Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I have just explained that the concept of recklessness is not a novel proposition for British courts.
      Mr. Oliver Heald: My right hon. Friend made the point that the concept of recklessness is not surprising in the context of the Bill. Clause 352 makes it clear that it is an offence recklessly to make a statement in certain circumstances. That concept is already in the Bill and obviously has a meaning.
      Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: My hon. Friend makes an extremely helpful intervention which reinforces my point that recklessness can incur penalties when the public are guilty but not for the FSA when it behaves recklessly. That is precisely what I mean by the asymmetry in the Bill, which the amendment seeks to correct.
      Mr. Cousins: I invite the right hon. Gentleman to comment on the fact that the amendment applies the concept of recklessness not only to the authority but to the investigator.
      Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: Exactly the same should apply. It is a modest request to make that if people in authority behave recklessly in the course of their duties, a penalty should apply. In the case of the FSA, that would be done through the investigator. In the case of the investigator behaving recklessly, the penalty would be imposed through legal action.
      I find it objectionable that firms can have their reputations ruined even if an investigation is launched but does not reach the point of a fine being levied. Even if it is shown that the FSA was reckless in launching such an investigation and destroying the livelihoods of the people concerned, there is no redress at law. If the independent investigator reaches the same conclusion, the FSA cannot be made to pay any financial compensation—which we seek to correct. The Joint Committee took the same view last year, when it made it clear that statutory immunity in
      628
      the form proposed would only be tolerable if a number of changes were made to the complaints and investigation system. Those changes, which are set out on page 40 of the Joint Committee's first report, have not all been accepted and enacted by the Government.
      It therefore becomes even more important to restrict statutory immunity. I am not seeking to remove it entirely. Where the FSA makes a difficult judgment after looking at all the evidence and reaches a reasonable conclusion, it should not be open to legal challenge. Nevertheless, it should not have immunity when it acts recklessly. Removing statutory immunity entirely could inhibit the FSA from taking necessary action, but some erosion of the degree of statutory immunity in the Bill is important.
      3.45 pm
      Sir Nicholas Lyell: I follow my right hon. Friend in commending the amendment to add recklessness to the concept of bad faith, which would render the authority liable to civil action and damages. It is only a small step from bad faith to recklessness. In some common law definitions, an element of bad faith is one of the ingredients of recklessness. That was so in the leading case of Derry v. Peek, but bad faith is not a necessary element of recklessness.
      The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Cousins) asked for the meaning of "recklessness". In civil cases over the past 30 years it has meant the following. In 1961, it meant, with gross carelessness, or unacceptable indifference to the situation of the purchaser—here one might say, of the person being regulated. In the Trades Descriptions Acts, a reckless statement is a statement made without regard for its truth or falsity. In that case, it is made recklessly whether or not there is any dishonest intention. Sometimes there has to be dishonest intention, sometimes not.
      If there were dishonest intention, the authority or investigator would be caught. One hopes that dishonesty would be exceptionally rare. In cases where there was no dishonest intention but something was done without regard to the truth or falsity of the basis on which it was done, or with unacceptable indifference to the situation of the person being regulated, it is right that the authority should be answerable.
      Mr. Cousins: Given comments by Opposition Front Benchers and the right hon. and learned Gentleman's own references to the possible meanings of "recklessness", if the bundle of concepts being advanced—from driving licences and trade descriptions to legal decisions in a number of discrete cases—were imported to the meaning of recklessness in the Bill, would that not seriously undermine the rightful level of immunity to which the right hon. and learned Gentleman referred in the previous debate as something he wants to respect, and is that not something from which he wants to protect the FSA?
      Sir Nicholas Lyell: No. We are struggling to strike the right balance and I am sure the hon. Gentleman is anxious to achieve that balance. I am confident that rarely would the FSA successfully be attacked on the ground of recklessness. There is a benefit in having the FSA under an obligation to look over its shoulder at least to that extent.
      Any large organisation is likely from time to time to be negligent. It is human nature to be negligent. To place such a burden on the FSA would be to go too far.

      629
      The Association of Private Client Investment Managers suggests that the authority should be liable in respect of negligence. Although I respect many of the association's submissions, it goes too far in that. I feel sure that the FSA will supervise those working on its behalf sufficiently well to make the occasions on which it acts with gross carelessness rare. It will not be an undue burden on the FSA or its finances if occasionally it has to pay compensation.
      Liz Blackman: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman accept that under his vague and multiple definition, it is likely that the FSA would be challenged by large firms with lots of money, which could tie up the authority in court for many years and restrict proper regulation?
      Sir Nicholas Lyell: No, I do not accept that. I recognise the danger that, occasionally, large firms might seek to tie up the authority, but restricting the liability of the authority to bad faith or recklessness provides adequate protection. It is a question of judgment, but I think that it is adequately protected. The authority will wish to be astute and, at least, not reckless. It will try hard not be negligent, and it ought to try hard. Members on both sides of the House think it right to make the authority immune from charges of negligence, but the likelihood of a case being successful on grounds of recklessness is much smaller, and the circumstances in which cases are successful are much less justifiable from the point of view of the authority. To draw the line there would seem to be reasonable.
      As my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) pointed out, other large bodies of a prosecutorial or regulatory nature are not given this type of immunity. I do not know to what extent all regulatory bodies have absolute immunity under existing law—it would be helpful to know. We are seeking to reconsider where the line ought to be drawn, and I believe that making the authority liable for recklessness is sensible, and part of that package.
      I shall be comforted if the Government accept that the investigator will be able to award compensation, either directly or in a way that will effectively shame the authority into granting it—even though there is an element of ex gratia discretion there. That is one place at which the line should be drawn. Here, we are asking whether the line should not be drawn a little more in favour of the industry and a little less in favour of this immensely powerful authority.
      I believe that the authority will be adequately protected if its liability is confined to bad faith and recklessness, and I commend the amendment to the House.
      Miss Melanie Johnson: This subject has aroused considerable interest and was considered in detail by the Joint Committee, which broadly approved the immunity proposed by the Bill, subject to certain proposals to strengthen the complaints arrangements. We have followed those where appropriate. It is essential that we have a structure that allows the FSA to get on with its work efficiently and effectively, and the House recognises that that is important. A strong and accountable regulator must be in the interests of the industry and consumers alike.
      630
      Immunity is vital for delivering that aim. Without it, the FSA could be frustrated by potential law suits and red tape. It would be very easy to have frivolous litigation or to distract or hinder the regulator from carrying out its duties, which could have a detrimental impact on firms as well. The absence of immunity could make the FSA more risk averse and engender a more formalistic regulatory environment. I am grateful to the House for supporting the notion of immunity in that context.
      There has been much discussion about the nature of recklessness and the contribution that the amendment would make to the Bill were it to be accepted. I have to say that I oppose the amendment. We want the FSA to be a dynamic regulator, and that might mean taking some difficult or finely balanced decisions in cases where the answers are not black or white. The authority should not have to run the risk of being sued as well.
      Sir Nicholas Lyell: I entirely agree with the hon. Lady's last sentence, but she must recognise that finely balanced decisions are a million miles from recklessness. We are discussing, to use the language of the courts, decisions reached with gross carelessness or with unacceptable indifference to the situation of the person affected. That is very different from a finely balanced decision.
      Miss Johnson: Like some of my hon. Friends, I am not sure what recklessness means in this context. It is a term with different shades of meaning in different contexts, and is primarily a concept in criminal law. The right hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) mentioned reckless driving, and recklessness does enter into driving matters. However, my recollection—from being on the bench as a magistrate—is that most charges relate to driving without due care and attention and driving dangerously, and do not feature the notion of recklessness.
      Mr. Tyrie: Will the hon. Lady give way?
      Miss Johnson: The hon. Gentleman has only just come back into the Chamber, so I am not going to give way. Had he wanted to participate in the debate on the amendment, he would have been here at the start.
      Mr. Heald: The Bill contains within it the concept of recklessness, as clause 352 proposes to make it an offence for an individual recklessly to make a statement. Is not the main concern that a big important body such as the FSA will act in a high-handed way? In other words, it will recognise that there is a risk of damage to an individual but will go ahead anyway. That is the essence of recklessness. Why should there be immunity for acting in that way—the very thing we do not want the authority to do?
      Miss Johnson: The circumstances in which this matter could arise, were we to accept the amendment, may involve occasions when financial regulators and the FSA might have to make rapid decisions or decisions that could involve a difficult question of judgment which could have serious consequences for firms and for the wider regulatory environment. They must be able to do that without fear of being sued, either by a firm or by that firm's customers. I am sure that the House accepts

      631
      that the interests of the FSA and of others who may wish to pursue the authority through the courts will not always coincide.
      The right hon. Member for Wells asked why the police did not have immunity for negligence. However, I have given the reasons why immunity from suit is important and I am not convinced that cutting back immunity, as the amendment suggests, is right. The police do not have immunity from damages claims for negligence. If we make a comparison with other countries and financial regulators overseas, we see that they have similar immunity to that proposed by the Bill. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Erewash (Liz Blackman) for her remarks on that point.
      Sir Nicholas Lyell: Am I not right in thinking that, in France, the regulator is liable for what is known as faute lourde? Is not faute lourde very similar to recklessness?
      Miss Johnson: I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for his considerable knowledge of legal systems around the world, and I agree that comparisons are difficult to draw in all cases. However, in the United States, the Securities and Exchange Commission is immune from suit for anything done in carrying out its functions or duties—regardless of whether the actions are in good or bad faith—so long as it does not violate a clearly established constitutional right. That would be established by a court ruling. Probably the strongest comparison—France is not the strongest comparison—is with Commonwealth countries such as Canada and Australia, where the immunities are similar to that proposed in the Bill.
      Were the amendment to be accepted, it would potentially restrict the ability of the FSA to go about its business in the way that we want it to. Indeed, the present provision is similar to that provided for in the Financial Services Act 1986 and the Banking Act 1987, and the previous Government were instrumental in introducing the provisions for immunity in those Acts. That immunity was also supported by the late Lord Denning.
      4 pm
      Mr. Quentin Davies: It sounds as though the Economic Secretary is about to complete her summary of the amendment. However, not only has she failed to deal with the issue of faute lourde, the French analogy to which my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell) referred: she has not provided any rationale justifying the distinction between the Government's approach to the liability of the police and their approach to the liability of the FSA. What is the rationale for the distinction? The whole purpose of Report is to go through the Government's proposals and to learn their rationale for departing from existing practice in this country. Will she answer our concrete, precise question?
      Miss Johnson: I said clearly that I thought that comparisons with the French system did not hold water—there are too many differences. I thought that I had adequately covered the point about the police. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman does not think that I did, but the police are in a very different position from the FSA for so many reasons that it is not difficult to imagine them.
      632
      I shall wind up my remarks—the hon. Gentleman has almost invited me to do so—by pointing out that core principle 1 of the Basle principles on banking regulators recognises the need for the immunity of banking supervisors. We fully support that principle. We would weaken the FSA's ability to deal effectively and quickly with difficult and finely balanced decisions if we accepted the amendment.
      Mr. Flight: There is a huge body of law on the definition of recklessness. It is pointless our seeking to define it—we are not lawyers. However, to pretend that recklessness is not a clear legal concept is not right. As was pointed out, the concept occurs elsewhere in the Bill. In addition to the example given, it appears in clause 149, which deals with offences. Subsection (4)(b) refers to one who,
      "recklessly provides information which is false or misleading in a material particular".
      The French concept of faute lourde means literally "heavy failing". Translated lawyer to lawyer, that means virtually the same as "reckless". As the Economic Secretary said, the United States Securities and Exchange Commission system is different, but it is by no means impossible to sue the SEC under the US constitution. That is a different approach to the one that we are discussing, but, as any US lawyer will say, the idea that the SEC enjoys immunity is false. There is a particular US approach to the issue.
      Sir Nicholas Lyell: Does my hon. Friend agree that if the Government do not give some ground, they are likely to fall foul of articles 6 and 7 and article 1 of protocol 1 of the European convention on human rights?
      Mr. Flight: I thank my right hon. and learned Friend. He is a lawyer, and that point has been made to me by other lawyers. The Government's hands will, in due course, be forced when an appropriate case is taken to the European Court.
      As was made clear in the previous debate, the position of the Burns committee is perfectly sensible. Either the exemption from immunity should be limited or there should be a full and proper system of complaint, award and recompense. The Government are resisting on both counts, and the one on which they should concede ultimately is debatable. However, a decision will be forced on the Government in due course.
      We shall not press the amendment to a vote because we made a point in the previous debate. The Law Lords are legally well qualified to sort out the issue in the other place and to insist on the point made by my right hon. and learned Friend. Although the issue will have to be resolved by one of the two routes that we have proposed, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

    New Clause 8

      LEGAL ASSISTANCE SCHEME
      ".—(1) The Lord Chancellor may by regulations establish a scheme governing the provision of legal assistance in connection with proceedings before the Tribunal.

      633
      (2) If the Lord Chancellor establishes a scheme under subsection (1), it must provide that a person is eligible for assistance only if—

      (a) he falls within subsection (3); and

      (b) he fulfils such other criteria (if any) as may be prescribed as a result of section (Provisions of the legal assistance scheme)(1)(d).

      (3) A person falls within this subsection if he is an individual who has referred a matter to the Tribunal under section 101(4).
      (4) In this Part of this Act "the legal assistance scheme" means any scheme in force under subsection (1).".—[Mr. Timms.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Stephen Timms): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
      Government new clause 9—Provisions of the legal assistance scheme.
      Government new clause 10—Funding of the legal assistance scheme.
      Government new clause 11—Tax treatment of levies and repayments.
      Government amendments Nos. 135, 182 and 183.
      Mr. Timms: The purpose of new clauses 8, 9 and 10 is to provide the Lord Chancellor with the power to establish a subsidised legal assistance scheme in cases before the tribunal that involve the imposition of penalties for market abuse. They fulfil a commitment that my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary made to the Standing Committee on 2 November 1999 and will be widely welcomed.
      In the light of consultation responses and evidence given to the Joint Committee chaired by Lord Burns, the Government reviewed the question of whether the market abuse regime should be categorised as criminal or civil for the purposes of article 6 of the European convention on human rights. We think that there are good arguments for characterising the regime as civil. Nevertheless, as a precautionary measure, we decided to introduce the convention's criminal protections for market abuse penalties. They include the provision of subsidised legal assistance where a person has insufficient means and where the interests of justice so require it.
      New clause 8 will give the Lord Chancellor power to establish the scheme by regulations and that will result in a free-standing scheme for legal assistance rather than an extension to the existing legal aid scheme. It also sets out the coverage of the scheme. Assistance is to be provided to individuals who have referred to the tribunal a decision of the FSA to impose a penalty for market abuse. That reflects the category of cases where we think the convention might require assistance to be provided.
      Mr. John Bercow: New clause 8 may be entirely unobjectionable and could even be productive, but I am always anxious when reference is made, especially by this Government, to things being done by regulations. Will the Minister assure me that, when the draft regulations are issued, there will be an adequate
      634
      period for consultation upon them before they are finalised and those associated with them have to come to terms with them?
      Mr. Timms: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for what I thought was his welcome for the arrangements in the new clause. The Lord Chancellor will establish the scheme by regulations and I have no doubt that he will go through the normal procedures and provide adequate time for the discussion that the hon. Gentleman is quite right to say should take place.
      My hon. Friend the Economic Secretary told the Standing Committee that it was not our intention to make legal assistance available for tribunal cases across the board. Legal assistance is not generally available in tribunal proceedings, which are intended to be speedier and less formal than court proceedings.
      The Lord Chancellor's Department is currently considering the eligibility criteria; it is likely that the current conditions for legal aid in criminal cases will broadly be followed. If the criminal regime is adopted as a model, there will be two tests: first, an interests of justice test and, secondly, a means test.
      New clause 9 gives further examples of the sorts of matter that will have to be covered by the Lord Chancellor's regulations. For example, we envisage the scheme being administered by the Court Service, which will run the tribunal. Therefore, subsection (1) of the new clause allows the regulations to specify who is to determine applications for legal assistance. Other detailed matters will have to be set out in the regulations and it will be necessary for the Lord Chancellor's Department to specify the form that legal assistance may take.
      The funding of the scheme is dealt with in more detail in new clause 10. My hon. Friend the Economic Secretary told the Standing Committee that the scheme would be paid for by levies raised by the FSA from authorised persons. That is the effect of subsections (1) to (4). The Lord Chancellor will determine the cost of the legal assistance scheme and set the total amounts of the levy for a specified period—normally one financial year—required to be paid for by the levies; the FSA will decide on the distribution of levies on authorised persons.
      Because the levy will be raised through FSA rules, the distribution of the levy among different groups of authorised persons will be a matter on which the FSA will be required to consult in the usual way under clause 127. The Government have tabled separately several amendments in that respect.
      The cost of administering the scheme will come out of the running costs of the tribunal. In subsection (1), we have provided that the levy may cover anticipated or actual costs. The forecast of costs might prove to be an overestimate or an underestimate, so the arrangement we have made allows such matters to be sorted out at the end of the appropriate period.
      New clause 11 deals with the treatment for tax purposes of levies payable to the compensation scheme, the ombudsman scheme and the legal assistance scheme, all of which are to be set up in accordance with the Bill. It specifies that payments from those schemes to relevant firms are to be treated as trading receipts. That is achieved by inserting into the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 the provisions set out in new clause 11.

      635
      We have had to make that change because the current provision, clause 198, deals only with the tax treatment of payments to and from the compensation scheme. It does not cover the ombudsman scheme or the legal assistance scheme. Amendment No. 135 would remove clause 198, which is replaced by new clause 11, which covers all three schemes. Amendment No. 182 makes some consequential amendments to the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988. Amendment No. 183 repeals provisions in that Act and the Finance Act 1991. As the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) said, it is likely that the series of changes we are making will be welcomed.
      Mr. Flight: We were advised of the new territories with which the new clauses deal, but we received details of the new clauses only recently. While we broadly support the intention behind the new clauses, they contain some deficiencies.
      Legal assistance is to be given only if the accused person has already gone through the FSA warning notice procedures and made representations. A person who carries out that process is likely to incur major legal expenditure. The Government have, in effect, accepted the probability that market abuse cases will be viewed as criminal under the European convention on human rights, but it strikes us that the scheme does not provide adequate legal aid for the whole process.
      4.15 pm
      Also at issue is the fairness of the rather convoluted funding arrangements. Market abuse is an offence that can be committed by anyone, even if not an authorised person, and by firms outside the United Kingdom. Therefore, it seems rather unfair that the legal assistance scheme should be funded entirely by authorised persons, and strange that the FSA can require payments to the scheme to be paid only by a particular class of authorised person.
      We regard as unfair the FSA being able to make rules that excess receipts paid to it under the scheme should be distributed among only some of the authorised persons on whom the levy was imposed during the period in question. It is also unfair that sums can be applied to reduce amounts that those persons are, or will be, liable to pay to the FSA under the funding requirements "or otherwise". That wording appears to give the FSA the authority to apply excess receipts if a firm is liable to pay a fine—say, for market abuse or a disciplinary offence—but cannot afford to do so. Authorised persons will, in effect, have to pay the fines of defaulters. I doubt that that is what the Government intend.
      New clause 11 is fine up to a point. However, an award of costs under costs rules can be deducted in the case of an investment company, but apparently not in the case of insurance companies. What is the reason for that difference? Will similar provisions apply, under normal taxation rules, in the case of all other classes of authorised person? The new clause appears to deal only with the tax position in respect of investment companies.
      The big issue is clearly that of not providing legal assistance in respect of other offences. It is strange that the Government have accepted the risk on market abuse, but not on other matters in respect of which substantial fines can be imposed and individuals can lose
      636
      their livelihood. Proceedings involving matters other than market abuse will be regarded as criminal proceedings under the European convention on human rights.
      The requirement in respect of legal assistance is spelled out expressly as a protection in cases of criminal charges, but it is also an aspect of the convention's requirement for a fair hearing. Therefore, legal assistance should be available, and not only because many cases other than those involving market abuse would be regarded as criminal proceedings under the convention.
      As the Government are aware, many eminent lawyers are of that view. Lord Hobhouse, who is a Law Lord, Lord Lester, who is a senior QC, and others in their chambers have made clear their belief that the FSA's disciplinary powers as they stand are in breach of the European convention. Lord Burns stated:
      "Large fines imposed by the FSA could look punitive and that takes you into the world of criminal proceedings. In that case, it would be in breach of the ECHR."
      Lord Poole, chief executive of the Lloyds group, Ockham Holdings, has made similar comments.
      In our view, the Government are taking a considerable risk. When the Bill is enacted, it might be undermined completely by a case brought under the European convention on human rights. It would be wiser to address the issues up-front.
      The other technical defects and issues that I have raised will no doubt be addressed, debated and corrected in the other place. Without sounding petty, it would have been useful if this territory had been addressed in Committee, where amendments could have been tabled before reaching this stage of the Bill's consideration.
      Mr. Timms: I thought that the hon. Gentleman might be more welcoming of the changes that we have made, which arose from commitments made in Committee. I do not agree that we are taking a high-risk approach. Indeed, I think that we are taking a precautionary approach by ensuring that legal assistance will be available in instances where conceivably it could turn out to be required.
      The hon. Gentleman asked me a number of questions, which I shall attempt to answer. First, he asked why authorised persons should be those who pay the levy and not others. Authorised persons stand to benefit most from the improved functioning of the market that will be brought about by the market abuse regime. They will be the beneficiaries of any penalties that the FSA imposes. We suggest, therefore, that it is right that authorised persons should be the ones who pay for the costs of legal assistance. I do not think that there is any reason for that burden to be shouldered by the general taxpayer, which I suppose would be the alternative.
      The hon. Gentleman asked about what happens if there is a surplus. In that situation the Lord Chancellor might either repay the excess to the FSA or reduce the amount that it has to levy the following year. If the excess is repaid to the FSA, it might distribute the money among those on whom the levy was imposed, or it might be offset against future levies or fees that those persons have to pay. I think that that is a sensible way to manage matters.
      The hon. Gentleman asked, "Why not go further and extend legal assistance elsewhere?" That was the central issue in his speech and he described it as the most important. I re-emphasise that the additional protections

      637
      against market abuse are in place as a precautionary measure. There is not a need to extend the scheme further. We are clear that the disciplinary regime is not a criminal regime for conventional purposes, so a wider scheme of legal assistance is not needed. That issue was addressed fully in the memorandum that went to the Joint Committee on 14 May and in the evidence given on that occasion by the then Economic Secretary, with Sir Sydney Kentridge QC and James Eadie. We have stated our position clearly and unambiguously, and that remains our view today.
      Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I am grateful for the Minister's response to the questions raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight). However, I am not entirely satisfied because I think the Government are running a big risk in not extending subsidised legal assistance to those accused of serious offences under the disciplinary regime. We welcome the fact that the Government are bringing forward this assistance for market abuse cases, which is important. However, they seem to be relying heavily on their assertion that the disciplinary regime will not be judged to involve matters of a criminal nature, so that the appropriate protection for those accused of criminal offences will not apply in such cases.
      In reaching that conclusion, the Government have relied heavily on the fact that, potentially, market abuse offences can cover virtually the entire population. Anyone—even someone not regulated under the Bill—can be judged to be engaging in market abuse. As I understand it, however, disciplinary offences apply only to the regulated community. That gives the regime the character of disciplining a club; that is why a civil regime is appropriate. It is a large club, however. If anyone wants to earn their living in the financial services industry, they must register or, as it were, become a member of the club.
      As a layman, I rather doubt whether courts will continue to take the view that all fines, however large, that are levied on the regulated community are of a civil nature. The fines can be extremely large, and I believe would imply a penalty or punishment. If that is the position, I believe that at some stage a court will judge a matter subject to the disciplinary regime to be of a criminal nature. If that is the case, other safeguards must apply under the European convention on human rights. For example, if those accused are unable to pay for professional defence, they must be subsidised. That is natural justice. If someone is to be prosecuted by a professional, he must be defended by a professional. If the individual cannot pay for one himself, there is the legal aid scheme. That is what it is for.
      In setting up something akin to the legal aid scheme in the Bill, the Government are most unwise not to make provision to extend it.
      Mr. Bercow: I have no means of knowing whether my right hon. Friend is right in his anxieties. Surely the logic of what he is saying, if he is correct, is that the Government lawyers are not giving value for money.
      Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I hesitate to criticise lawyers. We never know when we will need one. My hon. Friend makes a good point in that there is no doubt that the Bill
      638
      has evolved under the impact of external legal advice. When the Bill was published in July 1998, it was undoubtedly at variance with the requirements of the European convention. I do not know whether that was because of faulty legal advice in drawing up the Bill. Better-qualified legal advice, or advice provided by more specialised quarters, has persuaded the Government to amend the Bill to bring it more into line with the requirements of the convention. That is why the Government have radically amended the market abuse provisions to provide greater clarity and to provide other safeguards.
      The Government have not, however, provided for safeguards in respect of subsidised legal advice and defence to be applied to the disciplinary regime as well. I feel that that leaves the Bill wide open. When the European convention becomes fully applicable in English law, which I think will happen later this year, it will be serious if a challenge succeeds.
      There is a mechanism for the Government to bring forward in short order an amendment to change the legislation, but meanwhile any cases that are before the courts, or pending, must fail. It would be a serious matter for the City, and the financial services industry generally, to be without proper legal cover. In that respect, the regulatory system would have failed while the Government brought forward further and better clauses. The Government are running a risk not only with their reputation but with the stability of the market. That is why the matter is serious.
      We did not debate the Ways and Means resolution. We allowed it to go through on the nod at the beginning of our proceedings in order to make progress. It is relevant to our discussion because the Government are to introduce a new tax on the regulated community through the resolution and the new clauses in the form of a levy. The money will go into the consolidated fund, and, somehow, come out again, when the Lord Chancellor will pay some of it back to the FSA, which may redistribute it back to the authorised firms and individuals if there is a surplus. That is an amazingly cumbersome system, and the Government have not explained why it is necessary.
      4.30 pm
      If the provisions are accepted, the House will delegate the power to tax to the FSA. We must be cautious about that because an authorised individual—for example, an independent financial adviser—will be subject to a levy. That money will be used not necessarily for legal help for that adviser if he is accused of market abuse, but for his clients—members of the public who will pay nothing. That will happen because the scheme is not funded through general taxation but through the levy. People and firms will have to pay a form of taxation into a fund, which will be used in unspecified ways.
      We do not know the details of the scheme. It is another item that will be delegated to secondary legislation through our old friend the negative resolution procedure. This debate is our last opportunity to hear and agree the details, or at least to be told more about them. The way in which a legal aid scheme works, the sources of the funds, their application, and the criteria for eligibility for assistance are important matters of justice. The scheme will never come before the House because the order will be made under the negative resolution procedure.

      639
      If anyone objects, the Government can say, "That's very interesting, but we won't debate it," and the scheme will become law.
      The Minister's comments have been light on substance. We knew that the scheme would be included on Report, but the details remain sketchy. As I said earlier, they involve the redistribution of money, compulsorily levied from people in the financial services industry. The Government owe us a slightly longer explanation.
      Mr. Loughton: I am sorry that I was not present for the earlier discussions on the new clause—I was called away. I want to add a few comments to those of my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory).
      As I said when we started the debate, the details of the legal aid scheme were not available to the Committee that considered the Bill. As my right hon. Friend said, although great chunks of new clauses are being added at a late stage, an enormous amount of detail about the workings of the scheme is simply unavailable. I am especially worried about new clause 10, which outlines a large part of the new scheme. It establishes a strange, cumbersome structure whereby the FSA will raise a levy from members to pay the Lord Chancellor the relevant sum, which will then go into the consolidated fund. The Lord Chancellor will then fund the cost of legal aid from money provided by Parliament. That necessitates an equalisation fund for the refund to the FSA, and a complicated redistribution to its members. By the time everyone has had a pound of flesh, and taken a cut for the administration of the scheme, one wonders whether any money will be left for the scheme, or to refund the people who paid in the first place.
      There is a basic anomaly and injustice in the provision. It is unfair that authorised people alone will pay the levy for the misdemeanours of unauthorised people. There is also confusion about the period in which the Lord Chancellor decides how the equalisation repayments to the FSA and member firms will be made. Much can change in a year, and manipulation can occur.
      New clause 10(7)(a)(ii) poses a question about the equality of the redistribution to authorised persons because it refers to:
      "such of those persons as it may determine".
      On what will such a decision be based? Will it be based on someone having the head of the FSA round for a rather nice lunch and his then deciding that that person should get a slice of the cake for which they paid in the first place? That is iniquitous and leaves the provision open to challenge concerning the equality of the treatment of member firms that have to stump up money. The method of redistribution could be entirely arbitrary. We need far more details.
      Decisions about refunds that are paid on account before the amounts are calculated also seem arbitrary. The excess receipts could be calculated against a firm's potential fines. Contrary to the rule that one is innocent until proven guilty, a firm is considered a potential member of the sin-bin pool before being identified as possibly having committed some misdemeanour that may be investigated
      640
      by the FSA. That turns the code of natural justice on its head and will be open to challenge under the convention on human rights.
      Mr. Timms: Who, in the hon. Gentleman's opinion, should pay for the legal assistance scheme, if not the authorised persons?
      Mr. Loughton: It is not my job to specify that. I have not objected to a levy for a legal aid scheme. I have not said whether I believe that the scheme is right or wrong. Throughout our proceedings in Committee, I did not say whether it was right or wrong in principle. I simply questioned how it would work. I do not say that we should not have such a scheme. It has great merit, and, if run properly, is probably fair. However, the scant proposals that we have been given do not provide for equality.
      In the old days of the stock exchange, there was a mechanism called the PTM levy—I must be careful to get the initials in the right order. It stood for the panel of takeovers and mergers. A levy would be added to everyone's contract. That was considered a fair way of raising money for a group that operated in part of the City's structure. People did not object to it. Could the levy that new clause 10 proposes function in the same way? How will firms pay for it? Is there a mechanism to prevent firms that have to pay an indeterminate levy from adding a legal aid fund levy to contract charges for their clients? If that happened, the clients would pay, quite transparently, for the legal aid process. Is that permissible? It is an obvious way of proceeding. As with so much of the measure, the clients, who apparently need extra regulation, will end up paying for it. How does the Minister envisage companies funding payment of that levy, and could they issue a contract surcharge on their business, whatever sort of business, equity transactions or insurance business they carry on? Is the cost of the levy completely open ended? Will it be capped or could it double one year and treble the next? An awful lot of money could be involved, depending on the amount of legal activity that is to be financed. Smaller firms could have to find a considerable sum, which would affect their ability to carry on their business.
      I wanted to raise those questions, but the fundamental point is that we still lack an awful lot of detail. It is all very well for the Minister to say, "What would you do?", but I am not criticising the basic structure or the basic approach that the Government appear to be adopting. I want to be convinced that the proposal will work properly and fairly and that its extent can be properly defined, but I fear that nothing I have heard suggests that I can be assured on any of those questions.
      Mr. Timms: I am still listening eagerly for a welcome from Conservative Members for the changes that we have made in response to points raised with us. Their welcome still sounds rather grudging, although the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Mr. Loughton) said that the arrangement could be fairly fair so perhaps we are making progress. He asked about the details, and the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow), who was present earlier, was absolutely right about them: it is important that there should be consultation. That is a matter for the Lord Chancellor, who will consult in due course.
      I do not want to go back over old ground, but I shall respond to some of the points made by the right hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) and the hon.

      641
      Member for East Worthing and Shoreham. The arguments pushed in two conflicting directions: we were being urged to give the scheme a wider embrace and criticised for the way in which it will be paid for, but no alternative was suggested.
      I think we have the balance right, but I want to address the serious charge that there is risk in what the Government are doing. I do not believe that that is the case. The right hon. Gentleman fairly and accurately described our position, which is that the disciplinary regime does not deal with criminal conduct, but suggested that we were treating it like club. The right analogy is with the regulation of professions, on which the jurisprudence is absolutely clear: such regimes are civil. That is the basis on which we are proceeding.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

    New Clause 9

      PROVISIONS OF THE LEGAL ASSISTANCE SCHEME
      ".—(1) The legal assistance scheme may, in particular, make provision as to—

      (a) the kinds of legal assistance that may be provided;

      (b) the persons by whom legal assistance may be provided;

      (c) the manner in which applications for legal assistance are to be made;

      (d) the criteria on which eligibility for legal assistance is to be determined;

      (e) the persons or bodies by whom applications are to be determined;

      (f) appeals against refusals of applications;

      (g) the revocation or variation of decisions;

      (h) its administration and the enforcement of its provisions.

      (2) Legal assistance under the legal assistance scheme may be provided subject to conditions or restrictions, including conditions as to the making of contributions by the person to whom it is provided.".—[Mr. Betts.]
      Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

    New Clause 10

      FUNDING OF THE LEGAL ASSISTANCE SCHEME
      ".—(1) The Authority must pay to the Lord Chancellor such sums at such times as he may, from time to time, determine in respect of the anticipated or actual cost of legal assistance provided in connection with proceedings before the Tribunal under the legal assistance scheme.
      (2) In order to enable it to pay any sum which it is obliged to pay under subsection (1), the Authority must make rules requiring the payment to it by authorised persons or any class of authorised person of specified amounts or amounts calculated in a specified way.
      (3) Sums received by the Lord Chancellor under subsection (1) must be paid into the Consolidated Fund.
      (4) The Lord Chancellor must, out of money provided by Parliament fund the cost of legal assistance provided in connection with proceedings before the Tribunal under the legal assistance scheme.
      (5) Subsection (6) applies if, as respects a period determined by the Lord Chancellor, the amount paid to him under subsection (1) as respects that period exceeds the amount he has expended in that period under subsection (4).
      (6) The Lord Chancellor must—

      (a) repay, out of money provided by Parliament, the excess to the Authority; or

      (b) take the excess into account on the next occasion on which he makes a determination under subsection (1).

      (7) The Authority must make provision for any sum repaid to it under subsection (6)(a)—

      (a) to be distributed among—

      (i) the authorised persons on whom a levy was imposed in the period in question as a result of rules made under subsection (2); or

      (ii) such of those persons as it may determine;

      (b) to be applied in order to reduce any amounts which those persons, or such of them as it may determine, are or will be liable to pay to the Authority, whether under rules made under subsection (2) or otherwise; or

      (c) to be partly so distributed and partly so applied.

      (8) If the Authority considers that it is not practicable to deal with any part of a sum repaid to it under subsection (6)(a) in accordance with provision made by it as a result of subsection (7), it may, with the consent the Lord Chancellor, apply or dispose of that part of that sum in such manner as it considers appropriate.
      (9) "Specified" means specified in the rules.".—[Mr. Betts.]
      Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

    New Clause 11

      TAX TREATMENT OF LEVIES AND REPAYMENTS
      ".—(1) In the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 ("the 1988 Act"), in section 76 (expenses of management: insurance companies), for subsections (7) and (7A) substitute—
      "(7) For the purposes of this section any sums paid by a company by way of a levy shall be treated as part of its expenses of management.
      (7A) "Levy" means—

      (a) a payment required under rules made under section (Funding of the legal assistance scheme)(2) of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 ("the Act of 2000");

      (b) a levy imposed under the Financial Services Compensation Scheme;

      (c) a payment required under rules made under section 209 of the Act of 2000;

      (d) a payment required in accordance with the standard terms fixed under paragraph 18 of Schedule 14 to the Act of 2000."

      (2) After section 76 of the 1988 Act insert—

      TAX TREATMENT OF LEVIES AND REPAYMENTS

        Levies and repayments under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000
        76A.—(1) In computing the amount of the profits to be charged under Case I of Schedule D arising from a trade carried on by an authorised person (other than an investment company)—

        (a) to the extent that it would not be deductible apart from this section, any sum expended by the authorised person in paying a levy may be deducted as an allowable expense;

        (b) any payment which is made to the authorised person as a result of a repayment provision is to be treated as a trading receipt.

        (2) "Levy" has the meaning given in section 76(7A).
        (3) "Repayment provision" means any provision made by virtue of—

        (a) section (Funding of the legal assistance scheme)(7) of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 ("the Act of 2000");

        (b) section 188(1)(e) of the Act of 2000.

        (4) "Authorised person" has the same meaning as in the Act of 2000.

        Levies and repayments under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000: investment companies
        76B.—(1) For the purposes of section 75 any sums paid by an investment company—

        (a) by way of a levy, or

        (b) as a result of an award of costs under costs rules, shall be treated as part of its expenses of management.

        (2) If a payment is made to an investment company as a result of a repayment provision, the company shall be charged to tax under Case VI of Schedule D on the amount of that payment.
        (3) "Levy" has the meaning given in section 76(7A).
        (4) "Costs rules" means—

        (a) rules made under section 205 of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000;

        (b) provision relating to costs contained in the standard terms fixed under paragraph 18 of Schedule 14 to that Act.

        (5) "Repayment provision" has the meaning given in section 76A(3)." ".—[Mr. Betts.]
        Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

    New Clause 27

      REPORTS BY DIRECTOR GENERAL OF FAIR TRADING
      ".—(1) The Director must keep the regulating provisions and the Authority's practices under review.
      (2) If at any time the Director considers that—

      (a) a regulating provision or practice has a significant anti-competitive effect, or

      (b) two or more regulating provisions or practices taken together, or a particular combination of regulating provisions and practices, have such an effect,

      he must make a report to that effect.
      (3) If at any time the Director considers that—

      (a) a regulating provision or practice does not have any significant anti-competitive effect, or

      (b) two or more regulating provisions or practices taken together, or a particular combination of regulating provisions and practices, do not have any such effect,

      he may make a report to that effect.
      (4) A report under subsection (2) must include details of the anti-competitive effect.
      (5) If the Director makes a report under subsection (2) he must—

      (a) send a copy of it to the Treasury, the Competition Commission and the Authority; and

      (b) publish it in the way appearing to him to be best calculated to bring it to the attention of the public.

      (6) If the Director makes a report under subsection (3)—

      (a) he must send a copy of it to the Treasury, the Competition Commission and the Authority; and

      (b) he may publish it.

      (7) Before publishing a report under this section the Director must, so far as practicable, exclude any matter which relates to the private affairs of a particular individual the publication of which, in the opinion of the Director, would or might seriously and prejudicially affect his interests.
      (8) Before publishing such a report the Director must, so far as practicable, exclude any matter which relates to the affairs of a particular body the publication of which, in the opinion of the Director, would or might seriously and prejudicially affect its interests.
      (9) Subsections (7) and (8) do not apply in relation to copies of a report which the Director is required to send under subsection (5)(a) or (6)(a).
      (10) For the purposes of the law of defamation, absolute privilege attaches to any report of the Director under this section.".—[Miss Melanie Johnson.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      4.45 pm
      Miss Melanie Johnson: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Government new clause 28—Consideration by Competition Commission.
      Government new clause 29—Role of the Treasury.
      Government new clause 32—Misleading the Director General of Fair Trading.
      Amendment No. 30, in clause 2, page 1, line 22, at end insert—
      "(bb) the maintenance of a vigorous and effective market in financial services;".
      Amendment No. 192, in page 2, line 2, at end insert—
      "(e) the maintenance of competition and promotion of United Kingdom competitiveness."
      Amendment No. 49, in page 2, line 3, leave out from "must" to end of line 18 and insert "seek to—

      (a) use its resources in the most efficient and economic way;

      (b) take into account the responsibilities of those who manage the affairs of authorised persons and ensure that it does not intrude unnecessarily into their management of the commercial affairs of such persons;

      (c) impose burdens or restrictions on a person, or on the carrying on of an activity, only if they are proportionate to the benefits, considered in general terms, which are expected to result from the imposition of that burden or restriction;

      (d) facilitate, and not unnecessarily impede, innovation in connection with regulated activities;

      (e) maintain the international competitiveness of the United Kingdom and authorised persons;

      (f) impede or distort competition between authorised persons only to the extent that such impediment or distortion is necessary.".

      Government amendments Nos. 240, 316 and 317.
      Amendment No. 231, in clause 132, page 61, line 3, leave out—
      "may, if he thinks fit"
      and insert "shall'"
      Government amendment No. 447.
      Amendment No. 232, in clause 133, page 61, line 23, after "information", insert "relevant to the investigation".
      Government amendments Nos. 318 and 319.
      Government new schedule 2.
      Miss Johnson: These new clauses and amendments are part of the package of changes that we are making in response to Don Cruickshank's interim report on banking services, which helped us to identify a number of useful amendments that we could make to improve the FSA's internal processes in taking account of competition and to strengthen the external scrutiny arrangements. I set out what we intended to do in Standing Committee A on 9 November. We shall also table similar amendments to the analogous regime for recognised bodies and that proposed for the competent authority for listing. I could run through, at great length, how the process will work, but it might be helpful if I focus on particular aspects. If Conservative Members have queries that are not resolved, perhaps they will raise them.
      I begin with the role of the Treasury in respect of new clause 29. The Competition Commission, when it has considered a report from the director general, will produce its own report, except where it feels that that is not necessary. If the commission concludes that there is no significant anti-competitive effect, that will be the end of the matter. If it concludes that there is significant anti-competitive effect and that is justified, it will state that in its report. Where the commission concludes that the anti-competitive effect is not justified, it will recommend changes to the FSA's regulating provisions or practices in its report.
      The Competition Commission's conclusion will not be subject to routine second guessing by Ministers. It will stand, except where the Treasury considers that exceptional circumstances cause it to reach a different view. We can envisage a Treasury override being triggered when it is necessary to meet our international obligations—for example, to give effect to European Community legislation—or when the Treasury thinks that there would be significant implications for the operation of the financial system as a whole if the changes were to be made. In the unlikely event of its exercising that override, the Treasury will have to publish a statement of its reasons and lay that before Parliament.
      Mr. Tyrie: Those remarks are close to those the Minister made in Committee when we did not have time to absorb them, although we have subsequently done so. New clause 29(3)(a) says that the Treasury may set a direction aside if it considers it
      "unnecessary for them to give a direction"
      as a result of action taken by the authority. Can she explain the purpose of new clause 29? No reference was made to it in Committee.
      Miss Johnson: I am looking for the new clause in my amendment paper; perhaps I can return to that matter.
      When the commission finds that an anti-competitive effect is not justified and there are no grounds for an override, the Treasury will do whatever it thinks necessary in the light of the Competition Commission report.
      646
      In taking action, the Treasury must have regard to the Competition Commission's opinion when deciding what to direct the FSA to do. The Treasury must also have regard to the views of the FSA and other interested persons when considering whether to give a direction.
      Those new arrangements will ensure that, other than in exceptional circumstances, it will be the Competition Commission, not Ministers, who will come to the decisive view on whether anti-competitive effects are justified.
      Sir Nicholas Lyell: Can the Minister clarify what seems to be a fundamental question? When we talk about competition and anti-competitive effects, are we talking about the competitiveness of the United Kingdom financial services market as against the French, New York or Frankfurt markets, or are we talking about distortions of competition within the UK market?
      Miss Johnson: Basically, we are talking about distortions of competition within the UK market. I shall come to the issue of international competitiveness, which the right hon. and learned Gentleman raised earlier, when I reach Opposition and other amendments that relate more closely to that issue.
      As I said, generally, it is not Ministers who will reach the decisive view on whether claims of anti-competitive effects are justified. Where exceptional circumstances cause Ministers to override the Commission, the Bill provides for a high degree of transparency. Of course, we expect that the relevant Select Committee would wish to question Ministers in more detail about use of the override, but who in this House would wish to suggest that a Select Committee did anything in particular?
      The other part of this package of amendments is a change to the competition principles in clause 2. These principles are at the heart of the processes that the FSA goes through when making regulatory provisions and otherwise discharging its general functions. If the processes work as they should, the external scrutiny arrangements should be academic.
      Perhaps I can come on to the "have regard to" phrase in the chapeau to clause 2(3). We undertook in Committee to look at whether this is the right formulation and carries sufficient weight to ensure that the FSA takes full account of the principles in discharging its general functions. As I explained in Committee, the objectives and principles must be considered together. The objectives are about the aims and purpose of regulation. The principles are about the manner of regulation. They are, in effect, statements about good regulatory practice and act as constraints on over-regulation.
      In determining how to discharge its general functions, the FSA will go through a single process in order to come up with the right result. It will consider the clause 2(1) objectives together with the clause 2(3) principles in discharging its general functions—that is, in making rules and guidance and in coming up with its general policies.
      We have explored with the draftsmen whether the "have regard to" formula is the right one to describe what we want the FSA to do in respect of the principles in this process. We want something that requires the FSA to give proper weight to the principles and to ensure that it takes them properly into account but, at the same time, does not expose the regulators to tactical litigation on individual regulatory decisions. Exploration of these issues has led

      647
      us to the conclusion that the current formulation strikes the right balance and that it is clear that the FSA must give proper weight to the principles. To pay lip service to them will not be enough.
      Clearly, however, it would be nonsense if the FSA were under an obligation to go through the objectives-principles balancing process every time it takes a decision on an individual case. As well as being pretty much an impossible task, it would open up the scope for judicial review of individual decisions. For example, the FSA could be challenged on whether it is right to engage in an advertising campaign to improve consumer awareness or whether it is employing too many people on the pensions review.
      If there were a significant risk that the FSA would have to contest actions for review at every turn, it would be a serious impediment to good regulation. The Joint Committee agreed with this when it concluded that the objectives and principles should apply at the level of general policy and principles, rather than directly to every single act and decision of the FSA. Naturally, it is important that the FSA is accountable for its decisions. Judicial review of whether it is carrying out its legislative and general functions in accordance with the requirements of clause 2 will be possible.
      Our carefully considered view is that the current formulation and structure is the right one. It will not be enough, as some have suggested, for the FSA to pay lip service to these principles. The FSA must give the best effect it can to them. That is the nature of the duty.
      The "have regard to" formulation is not new. It applies in other legislation in similar contexts, for example, in the Coal Industry Act 1994 and the Civil Aviation Act 1982. It is fair to say that the statute book is peppered with requirements for people to "have regard to" X or Y when carrying out their duties, and have regard to these things they must. It is a strong requirement.
      We also undertook to look again at the competition principle in clause 2(3)(f). We agree with Don Cruickshank that it is vital that competition concerns are given proper weight by the FSA. Amendment No. 240 introduces changes and does three things. First, it introduces a more positive principle as regards the adverse effects of competition. Rather than the principle being that the competition should not be impeded or distorted unnecessarily, it now makes it clear that the FSA must consider how to take active steps to minimise the adverse effects on competition.
      Secondly, the amendment removes the reference to authorised persons. In exercising its general functions, the FSA can do things that impact on other groups. For example, it could make a rule requiring authorised persons to use the services of a particular software provider or telecommunications firm. Where things do impact on other groups, the FSA should take care to minimise the adverse effects on competition.
      Thirdly, the amendment requires the FSA to have regard to the desirability of facilitating competition between those subject to regulation. That recognises that there are things that the FSA can do in regulating which are sensible for a financial services regulator to do and which will make it easier for firms to compete.
      The new principle is designed to make the FSA think hard about what it can do to facilitate competition between those it regulates. It makes it clear that it will
      648
      have to address the question of how, through different ways of regulating, it could remove unnecessary barriers as well as not erecting them in the first place.
      On amendment No. 30, there is no doubt about the importance to the economy of the financial services sector. I share the concern that it should continue to be vigorous and effective. I understand and fully agree with the aim, but the amendment is not the way to achieve it. It would not be appropriate to give the FSA such an objective.
      Although the FSA is responsible for creating and maintaining a regulatory framework in which a vigorous and effective market can exist, it is up to the market itself, through competition and innovation, to maintain its vigour and effectiveness.
      The FSA must not, of course, put up unnecessary barriers in the way of that, or rip down necessary barriers. Under-regulation and over-regulation both have adverse effects, but the regulatory objectives and principles that the Bill gives the FSA are aimed at ensuring that it arrives at the right level of regulation, which keeps costs down while maintaining the confidence of consumers and the integrity of the markets. That is what the FSA can do to help to maintain the vigour and effectiveness of the UK financial services industry. The rest is up to the industry itself.
      On amendment No. 192, as I said in Standing Committee a number of times and as I am sure everyone accepts, competition and competitiveness are different. The amendment seeks to combine them. The bodies responsible for competition regulation in the UK are the Office of Fair Trading and the Competition Commission. Their responsibilities extend throughout the economy. It would be their responsibility to investigate and to deal with, for example, a suspected cartel of insurance companies in the same way as a suspected cartel of supermarkets.
      The FSA is not a competition regulator, but is concerned with the prudential supervision of the financial services industry and the protection of consumers. If it had a competition objective, it would have to duplicate and, potentially, interfere with the job that is already done, and done well, by the OFT and the Competition Commission. That would be a recipe for total confusion.
      That does not mean that the FSA has no interest in competition. It must always be aware of the danger that, in regulating, it might unnecessarily restrict competition. That is why we have provided in subsection (3) that it "must have regard to" that matter and why we have backed that up with the special competition scrutiny regime in part IX.
      Mr. Tyrie: The hon. Lady says that competition and competitiveness are fundamentally different. In a sense, they are because competitiveness is concerned with overall economic performance, but could any action be taken to improve competition that would be deleterious to competitiveness?
      Miss Johnson: I do not think the two things link in that simple way. I should like to come back to another point that the hon. Gentleman raised with me, but it does not fit very well here, so may I finish dealing with competitiveness?

      649
      Competitiveness is another area where primary responsibility does not lie with the FSA. Instead, the international competitive position of the UK financial services industry will be maintained by the same people who built it: financial service businesses.
      5 pm
      It is not clear what role the FSA will have to take on in promoting competitiveness, but if it entailed the FSA trying to pick winners among United Kingdom firms or telling them how to run their businesses, it would be more likely to do harm than good. However, I am not saying that the FSA has absolutely no interest in competitiveness. We realise that, as with competition, the way in which the FSA regulates can have an impact on competitiveness, and subsection 3(d) requires the FSA to have regard to that fact. However, as I said, such a requirement is very different from a competitiveness objective.
      The hon. Member for Chichester (Mr. Tyrie) asked about the purpose of subsection 3(a) of new clause 29. The paragraph deals with situations in which, as a result of a Competition Commission report, the FSA decides to abandon the rule or practice that has been condemned. If the FSA acts to abide by the commission's conclusions, there is no need for the Treasury to give a direction. New clause 29(3)(a) allows for that position. It deals with situations in which action has been taken.
      The Opposition have suggested, in amendment No. 49, a formulation to be inserted in the "seek to" formula. That formulation would require the FSA to take action to try to achieve the objectives in clause 2(3). I agree that that is what we want the FSA to do, and I am grateful to Opposition Members for confirming that that is also how they want the Bill to work. However, that is also the effect of the "have regard to" formula, and the "seek to" wording does not really work with the other provisions of clause 2. It makes no sense, for example, to talk about the FSA "seeking to impose burdens or restrictions on a person" or "seeking to impede or distort competition", regardless of the wording that follows.
      The second change that the amendment would make is to require the FSA to seek to ensure that it does not intrude unnecessarily in the commercial affairs of authorised persons—I assume that "such persons" refers to authorised persons. Although that is certainly part of what the principle is about, it is not the only thing. Additionally, I am not convinced that it would be very helpful to spell out the various elements in that manner.
      Amendment No. 49 also seeks to address the issue of facilitating innovation, and the desirability of doing so. It would provide that the FSA should seek to ensure that it does not unnecessarily impede innovation. Although that is clearly an important consideration, it is covered adequately by the existing principle in the Bill and by other principles. If the FSA has regard to the desirability of facilitating innovation, it should not do things that unnecessarily impede it.
      Earlier, I said that I was sympathetic to the general provisions of Opposition amendment No. 232. Although I ask the House to reject that version of the provision, I repeat my assurance that similar provision will be made—requiring that the director can request only
      650
      information that is relevant to his investigation, and reproducing a provision on documents currently in the clause—and that, later in the Bill's passage, we shall return to the issue and make changes if we think that they are necessary.
      I hope that hon. Members will support the Government's new clauses and amendments in this group and oppose the Opposition amendments.
      Sir Michael Spicer: Collectively, the Government new clauses and amendments in this group are quite admirable in their intent. The problem is that they are completely in conflict with the majority and thrust of the Bill. Clause 2 lists market confidence, public awareness and consumer protection as the regulatory objectives. Clauses 3 to 6 set out the details of the regulatory objectives. I still do not understand what promoting awareness will mean in practice for the FSA, but clause 5 covers the protection of consumers and specifies that the FSA must have regard to
      "the differing degrees of risk involved in different kinds of investment or other transaction … the differing degrees of experience and expertise that different consumers may have in relation to different kinds of regulated activity … the needs that consumers may have for advice and accurate information".
      In other words, the Bill conflicts with the Government amendments and new clauses that we are discussing. It gives the FSA powers to intervene in the market, and even to promote and develop particular products, in the interests of consumer protection.
      If the new clauses and amendments are passed, the Director General of Fair Trading will go rushing off to promulgate competition, but he will be pulled back because the Bill will require the FSA to intervene and distort the market—the opposite of competition.
      The regulatory regimes that the Government are imposing right across the commanding heights of the British economy use the words—and often the institutions—of the previous, Conservative Administration. The Government amendments use words such as "consumer" and "competition", but they would achieve and impose the opposite of what the previous Government had in mind. The concept of fuel poverty, for example, is no doubt admirable, but it is being imposed as an overriding objective for the electricity regulator. Similarly, Oftel has been burdened with the concept of total coverage, and the Post Office with that of social obligations. Even the FSA is required to engage in the concept of social banking.
      Such notions conflict with the objectives that the Conservative Government set for the regulatory bodies. The amendments are a perfect example of how we are seduced into believing that the Bill is about competition rather than its opposite. The intervention proposed in the Bill is the exact opposite of what is proposed in the amendments.
      The previous Administration set up the regulatory bodies with competition as the primary objective. When I took the Bill to privatise the electricity industry through Standing Committee, it was clearly understood that competition and the protection of competition was the Bill's primary objective. The Conservative Government privatised the utilities across the board. The intention was that, once they began to benefit from competitive pressure, the regulatory bodies would begin to withdraw and retract. Control of the utilities and the interests of consumers would be left to market forces.
      In the electricity industry, for example, the regulatory regime became lighter as competitive pressure built up. However, the exact opposite is happening under this

      651
      Government, and that is illustrated by the Bill: as competitive pressures increase, the Government's objectives move away from allowing the marketplace and competition to work and towards greater intervention.
      It is precisely because these clauses will be made totally ineffective—I would say because of their hypocritical nature—that I object to them. They form, as the whole Bill forms, part of a panoply of new parallel government which is being set up throughout the commanding heights of the economy. It is socialism by the back door, nationalisation by the back door, and control and intervention by the back door, through the regulatory regime.
      Mr. Beard: The clauses that so aggravate the right hon. Gentleman are there to provide for a watchdog over the Financial Services Authority, so that nothing it does unnecessarily impedes competition. That seems to be entirely reasonable. It divides the role on competition between the FSA and the Director General of Fair Trading. I do not understand why the right hon. Gentleman sees such dire consequences arising from what is plain common sense.
      Sir Michael Spicer: For the precise reasons that I have given, the entire thrust of the Bill is in opposing directions. The objectives set for the FSA, in particular, are entirely opposite to that of competition. To have a fig leaf in the form of the new clauses will make it extremely difficult for the bodies that exist to oversee the tribunals and the various review arrangements in the Bill for overseeing the FSA. It will be extremely difficult to come to a judgment in terms of the law that we are passing, because the whole thrust of the Bill is in the opposite direction to competition; it is in the direction of protectionism and interventionism. Therefore, at the very best it will make it extremely difficult for the tribunals, other bodies and fair trading organisations to take a view, because, if we pass the Bill, they will face legislation the thrust of which is in opposing directions.
      The Bill does not mention competition at all among the objectives of the FSA set out in clauses 2, 3, 4 and 5. I would argue that the objectives are exactly the opposite to competition, for the reasons that I have given.
      At the very best, the Bill makes it impossible for the adjudicating bodies—there are one or two points where they are in the Bill—to take a view. At worst, it provides a fig leaf for the continuation of a regime that the Government are setting up across the board of regulation, which has as its objective not competition—though it uses the word often, just as it uses the words "consumer protection" and "consumer"—but the opposite: the imposition of political objectives that have to do with income redistribution, protectionism and interventionism. I object to the new clauses being introduced as a fig leaf for a policy that thrusts in the opposite direction to that which the Government profess.
      Mr. Flight: Even the Government must have perceived some of the fundamental truth in the comments of my right hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire (Sir M. Spicer). I recollect a conference organised just before Christmas by the Treasury to focus on the arguments about the regulation of mortgages, where it was duly noted that the large players in the industry were asking to be regulated. An ironic comment was made by a certain senior Treasury official.
      652
      The large players welcome regulation. It raises the threshold of entry enormously. The innate tendency on regulation is towards consolidation and cartels. This point has been grasped very powerfully by Don Cruickshank, which is why he, like us, has called for the competition theme to be included in the key territory of objectives.
      Let me get rid of one Government argument in the other direction, which is invalid. It is nothing to do with the concept of the FSA's being a regulator of competition. It has to do with the simple proposition that the objective of the rules and conduct of the FSA, and the way in which it handles them, should be to avoid doing things which damage either domestic competition or the UK's international competitiveness.
      5.15 pm
      The Government seek to buy off Don Cruickshank by means of what strikes me as an over-complicated mechanism, proposed in new clauses 27, 28, 29 and 32. The first reference to the proposals was made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his green Budget statement. This is yet another example of spin that turns out to be different from the reality. The Chancellor suggested then that the Competition Commission would be established as an independent body to direct the FSA to change rules that were damaging to competition, adding the footnote that the Treasury would have a reserve power.
      The Bill, however, makes it clear that the commission will be piggy-in-the-middle between the Office of Fair Trading and the Treasury, and that only the Treasury is empowered to tell the FSA to change rules. Moreover, that power is hedged around. If the Treasury considers that there is a case for retaining a rule that protects consumers in regulatory terms, it will opt for retaining it even if it is uncompetitive.
      That brings us full circle. Unless one of the FSA's key instructions from the public via Parliament is that it must do its best not to produce anti-competitive rules and regulations, it will tend to do anti-competitive things. It is ludicrous to set up all this complicated machinery involving the OFT, the commission and the Treasury without giving the FSA the right brief in the first place. While I hope that the machinery will lead to some useful analysis, it will undermine itself unless the FSA is given the right brief. Amendments Nos. 192 and 30 deal with that.
      We will not press amendment No. 30, which I confess was tabled in the fear that amendment No. 192 might not be accepted. Amendment No. 192 makes our point. It deals with both domestic competition and international competitiveness, an issue that the OFT/Competition Commission machinery ignores. The United Kingdom's financial services industry has become our biggest employer, biggest exporter and biggest contributor to gross national product.
      Sir Nicholas Lyell: When my hon. Friend said that the proposals for the Competition Commission ignored the issue of international competitiveness, the Minister shook her head, suggesting that he was wrong. I believe that he is right. Perhaps he will elaborate.
      Mr. Flight: I thank my right hon. and learned Friend. I was about to elaborate.

      653
      The Government seem not to have made provision for what the Opposition want: the establishment of a unit in the OFT to monitor the international competitiveness of British regulations as against those of the United States, France or Switzerland, particularly for international business. Nor have they provided for either the commission, as originally suggested, or the Treasury, to be directed to change rules if they are found to be severely damaging our international competitiveness. I at any rate can find no such provision. I recollect a reference to the Competition Commission having to be aware of international competitiveness, but cannot remember where I saw it.
      The huge recovery in Britain's international financial services industry in the past 30 years has rested on extremely competitive tax arrangements, technical ability and software administration. Those are all delicate matters. That is why the Chancellor of the Exchequer has fought so strongly to keep us out of the net of the European withholding tax. That is why the Government will have to change stamp duty arrangements—business will leak away elsewhere if we have an expensive stamp duty.
      If our regulation is unclear or too expensive, or if it does not provide clear, safe harbours within its rules, a lot of international business will go to, or go back to, New York and other financial centres. How our regulatory regime compares with others is immensely important to employment and the prosperity of the industry. As Howard Davies has so often said, good regulation is an asset; bad or unclear regulation a liability.
      If there is a serious desire to control the inevitable tendency of regulation to lead to a lack of competitiveness and to create cartels and consolidation, the regulator must have an upfront brief as an objective not to do that, which will be as important as his other objectives. We welcome the proposed monitoring, and will see how it goes, but to have such an expensive and complicated mechanism simply to monitor domestic competition and not international competitiveness is to miss out half the key point.
      Mr. Cousins: I am following the hon. Gentleman's argument and am studying the proposals in amendment No. 49 extremely closely. If the amendment were accepted, would it encourage the Financial Services Authority or the relevant competition authorities to regulate such matters as, for example, the introduction of charges by bank cartels for access to their cashpoint machines, or would it deter them?
      Mr. Flight: I was actually talking about amendment No. 192, the key amendment, which would add competition and competitiveness to the list of objectives. Amendment No. 49, which the Minister has referred to as our "seek to" amendment, is designed to beef up the second part of clause 2, which deals with principles. The phrase "have regard to" in the clause as drafted is extremely woolly. Indeed, although the FSA repeats that phrase in its literature and brochures, it has made it very clear that it views the objectives as far weightier than the so-called principles.
      654
      Secondly, I think that the part of the amendment to which the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Cousins) may have referred is that which calls upon the regulator not to interfere unduly and unnecessarily in the internal management of businesses. However, it all depends on the justification. If a bank cartel charges in a cartelised fashion, the regulator has every justification for interfering.
      Mr. Cousins: May I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to paragraph (b) in amendment No. 49? Does he understand that as inhibiting the capacity of a regulator or a competition authority to deal with such matters as charging for access to cashpoint machines? The provision would seem to have that effect.
      Mr. Flight: The hon. Gentleman is referring to the provision that I mentioned. The amendment calls on the authority not to interfere unnecessarily in the management of the commercial affairs of the businesses or persons whom it is regulating. The provision is clear; in no way would it fetter the activity of the regulator, where the regulator perceives the operation of cartelised pricing practices. Indeed, as I have pointed out, the real problem is that regulation encourages such cartelised practices.
      The purpose of the amendment is clear. If the FSA was carrying out its regulatory duty, and if it were set to do its competition duty, it would get on with it. If the authority extended its activities beyond that, as is the tendency of bureaucracies, it would be restrained. Under the provision, competition is required to be an objective; in many cases, the right action of the FSA depends on competition being an objective.
      Sir Michael Spicer: The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Cousins) wants to intervene, to stop people doing things and to run things by bureaucracy, whereas my hon. Friend is making a brilliant case that it all depends on whether the practice is anti-competitive. If there is a purely commercial judgment, in which transparency comes into charging, that is good, if it would improve competition. My hon. Friend is correct to draw that distinction. Labour Members do not want to make that distinction; they want to interfere come what may.
      Mr. Flight: The point is clear.
      Mr. Cousins: Will the hon. Gentleman respond to the point made by his hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire (Sir M. Spicer)? Is it the policy of the official Opposition that charges should be introduced for access to cashpoint machines, in the interests of transparency of costing?
      Mr. Flight: The hon. Gentleman seems to be intervening in a most incoherent fashion. I have made it clear that the policy of the Opposition is, first, in favour of competition, which represents an important protection for consumers. Secondly, in attempting to get the measure right, there is a risk that regulation will damage competition, in exactly the ways to which the hon. Gentleman referred—thus the need for competition as an

      655
      objective. Thirdly, as the measure is about checks and balances, it is unreasonable for the regulator to have powers to ferret into businesses, other than where justified under its objectives. If part of its objective is that it is supportive of competition, it would be empowered in the whole matter of banking cartels. The hon. Gentleman may be surprised to learn that the person whom the Government have appointed to examine banking competition, Don Cruickshank, entirely agrees with our views. The compromise is insufficient to achieve his objective of the more competitive banking system that we and the hon. Gentleman want.
      5.30 pm
      Mr. Beard: Such arguments have been rehearsed before. On each occasion, the case made against including competitiveness as an objective of the Bill is that under the Competition Act 1998 there exists the Competition Commission. To give authority for regulating competition to the FSA in respect of financial matters would mean two organisations regulating one sector of the economy, which could lead to nothing but muddle.
      The second argument reflects the importance of competition, which is acknowledged by hon. Members of all parties. It is far more powerful to have a separate watchdog over the FSA's activities that takes steps to regulate competition when a breach occurs than to incorporate safeguards in the organisation that we want to avoid breaching competition.
      Those arguments have never been answered by the Opposition in their continual efforts to promote the idea that competitiveness is neglected.
      Mr. Flight: The hon. Member could not have been listening. We are not calling for the FSA to regulate competition. We argue that in its rule making, a key objective should be not to regulate in a way that damages competition or international competitiveness but in a way that increases competition. That has nothing to do with the role of a competition regulator. We entirely agree that the Office of Fair Trading and the Competition Commission should cover that territory.
      It would be extraordinary to incur the expense and burden of the OFT and commission in monitoring to ensure that the FSA is not making rules damaging to competition if it is not a priority instruction to the FSA to avoid so doing. That is just making jobs for people by having the FSA wrongly briefed. That is a clear answer to the bogus argument about making the FSA a competition regulator.
      We are reasonably happy with the machinery, although we question what the Competition Commission adds. We imagine that OFT investigations will be at a more general level and the commission will undertake something more in-depth before passing a recommendation to the Treasury. That would put in another process which might not be entirely necessary; but reviewing competition to secure against anti-competitiveness is a good and sensible objective. We believe that there should be a parallel requirement in respect of international competitiveness. To complete the logic of the scheme, it needs to be made clear to the FSA that its regulation is to be competition friendly rather than unfriendly and competitiveness friendly rather than unfriendly.
      Sir Nicholas Lyell: This is the most important debate on Report and we are focusing on the most important subject that is at all controversial. I say, I hope with reasonable humility, that there is serious misunderstanding in this Chamber and the Government of the distinctions between competition and international competitiveness. The roles that the Competition Commission and the Director-General of Fair Trading are being given by the Government—which we welcome—have nothing to do with international competitiveness. I should be grateful if the Economic Secretary would nod to show that she recognises that, and to show that she recognises that they are concerned with the avoidance of distortion of or interference with competition in the UK market. That is their function under the Competition Act 1998.
      Those bodies have two main functions—the avoidance of cartels and anti-competitive agreements, and the avoidance of businesses being able to exploit dominant positions. It is desirable that nothing in the regulatory system that the Bill proposes should distort competition within the UK. That much is desirable, and I support the Government's new clauses on that matter.
      That is not the issue between the Government and the Opposition. The issue is the promotion of the UK market and its international competitiveness with the United States, Japan, France and Germany. It is important to decide whether, as we say in amendment No. 192,
      "the maintenance of competition and promotion of UK competitiveness"
      should be made an objective in the Bill. We say that it should, as that is fundamental to the success of the City of London and of the financial services industry that the FSA will regulate. That will be to the benefit of consumers here and worldwide.
      If we have a healthy, vigorous and competitive market, consumers in this country are likely to get better value. I should have thought that, with new Labour, there could be agreement that vigorous competition is, in the end, the best regulator. It should not be the only regulator—we are not arguing for that. However, it is the best of all, and I am pleased to see that the Economic Secretary and the Financial Secretary agree with that sentiment. What follows from that common recognition is that that matter should be an objective under the Bill. We should not deceive ourselves.
      Miss Melanie Johnson indicated dissent.
      Sir Nicholas Lyell: The Economic Secretary is now shaking her head, but I ask her to listen for a moment. Why is it not good enough that the proposal is simply what is described, rather grandiosely, as a principle under clause 2(3)? Why is it necessary—in my opinion and that of my hon. Friends—that it should be an objective in clause 2(2)? This is fundamental to the structure of the Bill and to what we are seeking to create.
      There is an important difference in the wording between clause 2(2), which deals with the objectives, and clause 2(3). Clause 2(1) states that the FSA must
      "so far as is reasonably possible, act in a way which is compatible with the regulatory objectives".
      Clause 2(2) sets out the objectives, and clause 2(3)—which deals with what some have called the principles—says that the FSA must "have regard to" the principles.

      657
      Paragraphs (d) and (e) are the key. Paragraph (d) refers to
      "the desirability of facilitating innovation in connection with regulatory activities",
      and paragraph (e) refers to
      "the international character of financial services and markets and the desirability of maintaining the competitive position of the United Kingdom".
      We must recognise how much weaker the words "must have regard to" are when compared with the words
      "must, so far as is reasonably possible, act in a way … which is compatible",
      which are used about the objectives. The words relating to the objectives are intended to be stronger—and they are stronger. The fact that they are intended to be stronger means that each of the four objectives that are set out in clause 2(2) is specifically analysed and expanded upon in clauses 3, 4, 5 and 6.
      The objectives are market confidence, public awareness, the protection of consumers and the reduction of financial crime—all worthy objectives which we support. However, it must be remembered that all those objectives will tend to increase the weight of regulation and the requirement on the authority to ensure that it—I almost said darned well—regulates.
      Clause 2(3) then tells us that the authority must have regard to other desirable aims, including our international competitiveness. However, that is put too low. The Minister replied with a carefully crafted portion of her speech. I realise that it was rightly pored over by her advisers. She said that the Government had reconsidered everything and thought that it was right and adequate simply to mention the competitive position of the United Kingdom as something to "have regard to". That puts the aim far too low.
      Let me meet what might be the counter argument. One could argue that if maintaining our competitiveness was an objective, it would make the other four objectives impossible to achieve. That argument does not hold water. If one had five objectives instead of four, with the maintenance of the competitive position of the United Kingdom as one of them, one would set exactly the right balance. In a sense, one would lift a little bit of responsibility off the FSA. If the FSA under-regulates at present, it can be criticised for failing to meet its objectives. However, if it over-regulates, it will at least meet them. If one points out that it does not have regard to the desirability of international competitiveness, it will say that it paid regard to that, but that it had to strike a balance. That will result in over-regulation.
      Why is that approach damaging? I want to refer to a speech made recently by the Lord Mayor of London, when he described in simple statistical terms the relative competitive positions of the City of London and of our competitors in New York, Frankfurt, Tokyo and so on. If London had a base figure of 100, the costs of doing business in New York were said to be 117; in Japan 134; in Paris 154; and in Frankfurt 163. Two things threaten our competitive position. One of them is stamp duty and the other is the burden of regulation. Everyone should have regulation, but over the past few months we have been thinking about—and I know that Ministers have—
      658
      how we can make regulation not too expensive and burdensome. That is the balance that we must get right. Clause 2 sets the scene and it would be a better clause if it put the objective of our international competitiveness upfront and not down among the things that we must have regard to.
      Mr. Cousins: I remind the right hon. and learned Gentleman that the first of the regulatory objectives set down by the Government is market confidence, a concept which embraces both competition and competitiveness. If the Opposition's new regulatory objective were added, what would a regulator do to deal with a bank that had inadequate capital, but was trading both in the UK and abroad? In that case, the regulator would be faced with a conflict of objectives. That would be wrong. The regulator should focus on market confidence as the single most important objective embracing both competition and competitiveness. It should judge its actions in the light of the need to protect market confidence and not be confused by any other consideration.
      Sir Nicholas Lyell: The hon. Gentleman might be right in one part of his intervention; I shall wait to find out whether Ministers think that he is. If he is, he has sold the pass—I withdraw that remark, which is not a kindly way of expressing myself. However, he is wrong in the other part of his intervention. If market confidence includes our international competitiveness, it is plainly acceptable to put that up among the regulatory objectives. Therefore, I am delighted to have the hon. Gentleman's support.
      Mr. Tyrie: The Bill clarifies the meaning of "market confidence" in clause 3, which states:
      "The market confidence objective is: maintaining confidence in the financial system."
      That is a matter of systemic risk—making sure that the financial system is not imperilled and does not collapse. It has no bearing on whether the financial system is more or less competitive, and no reasonable reading of clause 3 would ever lead one to suppose that it did.
      Sir Nicholas Lyell: My hon. Friend is entirely right. Unfortunately, although I would like to think that the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Cousins) has made a point with which Ministers can agree, I do not believe that he has.
      I do not think that there would be any serious problem with disciplining an undercapitalised player in the market. The fact that the FSA had to consider as an objective our international competitiveness could not possibly inhibit its putting out of business a player who lacked sufficient capital. Nothing could damage the UK's international competitiveness more swiftly than significant players in the UK market going down the drain for lack of capital.
      The amendment of the Bill in this respect is the most important point that we shall discuss today. I should like to think that Ministers will offer to go away and reconsider the matter, and I am quite happy that they should agree to do so without obligation. It is highly desirable that they should think again, even if correction has to wait until the Bill is debated in another place.
      Mr. Timms: Amendment No. 192 refers to
      "the maintenance of competition and promotion of United Kingdom competitiveness."
      However, the right hon. and learned Gentleman has concentrated so far on the competitiveness aspect. Does he envisage greater importance attaching to that than to competition, which has previously appeared to be the main focus of Opposition concern?
      Sir Nicholas Lyell: That brings us back to a matter of language, and I am grateful to the Financial Secretary for enabling me to clarify the position.
      As I understand his remarks, the hon. Gentleman uses the word "competition" to mean competition within the United Kingdom as regulated, supervised and controlled by the Competition Commission, the Director General of Fair Trading, and so on. That is important, but that was never the key thrust of the Opposition's concerns regarding competitiveness; obviously, we failed to make our point.
      There was a period—it may even have extended into this debate—when "competition" and "competitiveness" were used interchangeably. There may have been room for confusion. We support what the Government are doing vis-à-vis the non-distortion of the market by the anti-competitive effects of regulation within the UK market. That is good and detailed and it has my support. However, it does not meet our overall concern, which is that the burden of regulation and the manner of it could damage our international competitive position. That is where further thought is needed, and that is where the Bill needs to be adjusted.
      Sir Michael Spicer: I may have misheard one of my right hon. and learned Friend's earlier remarks, but I thought I heard him say that the best regulator was competition in the first sense in which the Minister gave it. I understood my right hon. and learned Friend to say that that was at least as important in terms of regulation as international competitiveness.
      Sir Nicholas Lyell: My hon. Friend is right. Again, we are into the matter of language. The best regulator is competition in that it keeps businesses up to the mark and makes them provide better products. It possibly makes it less, rather than more, likely that people will be charged for using their access cards in various machines. Competition is plenty of good, healthy businesses competing with one another. It does not matter whether the business is a United Kingdom bank or an American or Japanese bank. In one sense, the healthy effect of competition is the best regulator. However, there is common ground between us that we need regulation as well. That is the subject of the Bill, and in this instance we are discussing the objectives that should be put to the regulators.
      I am arguing, in accordance with amendment No. 192, that we should make as part of the objectives not only competition in the internal UK sense in which the Minister and I understand it, but our international competitiveness. That is deeply important.
      Mr. Beard: The right hon. and learned Gentleman has introduced the international dimension to the debate. Will he say what would happen to the FSA if it went into
      660
      international negotiations to establish an international regulatory arrangement, if it had at the centre of its objectives the maintenance of competition and promotion of United Kingdom competitiveness? Those with which it was negotiating would say immediately, "This country is not negotiating to establish the integrity of international financial arrangements. It is negotiating to give the United Kingdom a strong competitive edge." The negotiations would therefore fail.
      Sir Nicholas Lyell: The hon. Gentleman is probably wrong about that, but in any event it is not what we are discussing. If we were setting up an international regulatory system, which is not what we are doing—you will call me to order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if I go on too long about this—but which to some extent we have under European directives, our objective would at least be to ensure that the international competitiveness of the United Kingdom would not be damaged by that system. The hon. Gentleman can go along with me to the extent that it should be one of our objectives to safeguard—I think that "promote" is a perfectly fair word—our international competitiveness. I understand the point that the hon. Gentleman is making, but I think that he makes too much of it.
      I stand by the desirability, as I thought we all did, of the United Kingdom financial services market being highly competitive. That is our objective. I shall conclude with the words of Don Cruickshank in his letter to the Chancellor of the Exchequer of 22 July 1999. When asked to look at the international position vis-à-vis the banking sector, he made the following point:
      "Our priority should be to develop a strategy for striking the optimal balance between competition and necessary regulation. In the search for a higher sustainable growth rate for the UK beyond a stable low inflation macro-economic climate, there is in my view nothing more worth while for government to do than to get this balance right."
      At the moment we have not got it right, and our new clause would help us to do so.
      Mr. Tyrie: It is annoying to speak after my right hon. and learned Friend because one always finds that he has stolen a little of one's thunder. I had intended to quote the same passage from the Cruickshank report. However, I am sure that I shall find other passages on which to draw.
      The absence of a countervailing pressure on the FSA to set against the urge to regulate lies at the heart of the our anxieties about the Bill. We have said from the start that stronger provisions to inculcate competition and encourage international competitiveness should be included in it. Despite the Government's new clauses, such provisions will remain lacking.
      There are three major lacunae. First, the FSA's overwhelming incentive will be to watch its back so that no one accuses it of failing to regulate strongly enough. When Conservative Members said that in Committee, we were accused of simply representing City interests. However, the consumer will pay for excessive regulation to ensure that the FSA watches its back. The consumer always pays when competition is eroded through increased regulation. The failure to strike a balance between regulation and competition, to which my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell) alluded, is a central weakness in the measure.

      661
      The second lacuna relates to the point that my hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire (Sir M. Spicer) made a moment ago. It is not sufficiently well understood that competition acts as a regulator. It is often the best regulator. That applies especially to new entrants into a market. The scope for new entry into a market is especially vulnerable to high levels of regulation because the detailed knowledge that is required to get into a market inhibits new entrants. However, new entrants often create greater competition—that is the so-called theory of creative destruction that Schumpeter propounded in the 1930s. He argued that competition was not necessarily achieved through lower prices, but through people entering markets and offering new and better products.
      My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire alluded to the third lacuna. It is competitiveness, on which the Bill is almost silent. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury asked an important question, and was thinking his way through to the answer as he listened to my right hon. and learned Friend's response. Improved competition will almost always lead to improved economic performance, but better regulation may make no difference. Indeed, competitiveness could be eroded by regulation that is introduced to ensure that there is no miscreant or bad apple in the barrel. That trade-off goes to the heart of our anxieties.
      The Government's response has been to deny the fact that there is a trade-off between regulation and economic performance. They claim that perfect regulation will lead to maximum probity and credibility in the market, and to respect for the product from consumers and foreign counterparts. According to that theory, there is no need for checks and balances in the system because there is a happy coincidence of interests between optimal regulation for the prevention of financial crime and misdemeanours, and optimal economic performance. Regrettably, that is not the case. There is a tension between those two objectives and the FSA will have to deal with it—day in, day out. Our concern is that that balance has not been addressed properly by the Bill, which is why we have tabled amendments so vigorously. We believe that the FSA must be required by statute to take that trade-off fully into account, and the only way to achieve that is by including competition in the Bill as an objective.
      6 pm
      Cruickshank's report is important in that respect. I do not know the official Opposition position on it, but I think that it is an outstanding and brief exposition that anyone interested in these matters should read. It talks about striking the right balance—the very balance to which I have alluded. Cruickshank made that a sub-heading of the document and his letter to the Chancellor described the trade-off between the objectives of regulation and economic performance, but I will not detain the House by reading the passage out.
      The question of whether the Government's new clauses respond adequately to the Cruickshank report and take those concerns into account is crucial. They were tabled only a few days ago. As they deal with the heart of what we have been discussing for months and months, it would have been immensely helpful had they been tabled earlier. The report was published in July, but the competition
      662
      clauses were not dealt with in Committee until November, so although the Government had ample time, they waited until the Bill was on Report to table new clauses. Conservative Members, the House, the City and the industry all regret that.
      How far have the Government gone towards meeting Cruickshank's six recommendations? I shall not go through them all, but should refer to two. The most important recommendation is the first. The report unequivocally states:
      "the FSA should have a primary competition objective, in addition to its regulatory objectives."
      It forms the second, emboldened paragraph of annexe 3—it is crucial. Cruickshank says, more or less, that unless it is implemented, all his other recommendations, whether implemented or not, will be mere sticking plaster to patch up something that will inevitably be inadequate and second best. On page 13, he says:
      "Getting the regulator's primary statutory duties right is essential … A competition objective that is weak relative to the regulator's other objectives is unlikely to be delivered effectively."
      He makes it clear that his other recommendations would be far less effective without that central objective, but that is exactly the route the Government have taken. They have left competition as a principle and introduced changes to the competition regime without including it in the Bill as a central objective, although they have moved on Cruickshank's other recommendations, reducing the extent of the financial sector's exclusion from general United Kingdom competition law and strengthening Office of Fair Trading oversight. There has been some progress.
      The Government have failed to take up Cruickshank's unequivocal recommendations on a further crucial question. The report said that the Competition Commission's findings, not those of the Treasury, should be the final arbiter. I remain concerned that the revised new clause leaves much more discretion to the Treasury than initially appears to be the case. The Minister has gone some way towards assuring me about subsection (3)(a), but I remain concerned about the wording and about what "exceptional circumstances" could be taken to mean.
      The Treasury can decide that there are exceptional circumstances, so that it can overrule—
      Miss Johnson indicated dissent.
      Mr. Tyrie: The Minister shakes her head as if I am getting this wrong. If I am wrong I should be grateful if she would clarify where in the Bill "exceptional circumstances" are explicitly limited so that we can be sure of what the phrase means. Can she do that and go beyond the mere assurances that she has already given us?
      Miss Johnson: Briefly, I have described how "exceptional circumstances" are to be regarded. I gave the assurance that any reason why the Treasury had to override any proposal or report would be laid before the House and we would expect debate on it. I covered that fully in my earlier remarks.
      Mr. Tyrie: What assurance do we have that the Treasury cannot define "exceptional circumstances" widely? All we have are the Minister's assurances. We do

      663
      not have any statutory limitation to the exercise of the Treasury's power in this area. I hoped that there would be and I remain concerned about the drafting of new clause 29 as a consequence.
      The Government's new clauses remain out of kilter with Mr. Cruickshank's central demands. He demanded that the Treasury be kept out of this altogether, but that is not what we have. He said that we should avoid a blurring of responsibility for the delivery of the competition objective, but we have blurring. The competition objective is weakly included in the FSA statement of principles. The OFT is to play a major role, the Competition Commission is to be an appeals system and the Treasury has the power of override, limited by the phrase "exceptional circumstances" which is as yet untested.
      If the Minister is to reply, I should be grateful if she could clarify one point. As I understand it, under the Competition Act 1998, a ruling by the Competition Commission may go to appeal on a point of law. Would the FSA have the right to appeal against a Treasury ruling in the event of there being a dispute on a point of law, or is the FSA excluded from access to the courts in this area?
      More generally, I remain concerned that Cruickshank's primary recommendations have been wholly ignored. As he himself makes clear, without that first basic building block of competition as a primary objective, most of his other recommendations will be difficult to implement. Furthermore, in the long run, the dynamic effects of the inadequate treatment of competition could be profound for the City. He points to the danger of damage to the City through inadequate consideration of the dynamic effects of weakened competition.
      Finally, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire said a moment ago, the FSA is required to have no more than "regard to" the United Kingdom's competitive position. That is hopelessly inadequate. Of all the provisions in the Bill, that is the one that I hope we will find legislative time to put right when we return to power, which we will.
      Miss Johnson: It will happen a long time from now, then. It has been difficult at times to understand whether the Opposition's view is that competition should become an objective, or that competitiveness should. Conservative Members have each advanced different arguments. I am left uncertain as to what the official Opposition view is. May I explain the Government's view?
      Mr. Flight rose—
      Miss Johnson: Clearly, I am about to get clarification. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman.
      Mr. Flight: Amendment No. 192 sets out that which we wish to add as an objective: competition and competitiveness.
      Miss Johnson: The amendment sets out what the hon. Gentleman wishes to do, but I am still not clear what Conservative Members' real position is and what the real Opposition view is. Let me tackle both questions.
      If competition is an FSA objective, it will, in effect, become another competition authority. It will also have competing objectives. In the event of conflict, it would go either down a particular path, or down no particular path,
      664
      under certain conditions. It will leave the FSA in considerable difficulty as it carries out the objectives. It is not appropriate for competition to be an FSA objective.
      I endorse the enthusiasm with which the hon. Member for West Worcestershire (Sir M. Spicer) pushed for recognition of the importance of competition and competitiveness. The Government recognise both the importance of competition and the value of competitiveness. We think that they are both important. None of us in the Chamber disagrees about that. We disagree about what the effect of including competition in the FSA's objectives would be and what the effect is of where it appears: under the principles in clause 2(3). We looked at the matter at considerable length. We responded to the Cruickshank review in July. A press release was issued when the matter was discussed in Committee in November. Don Cruickshank said:
      "I am not wedded to any particular means of achieving this, and I will welcome any changes to the Bill which deliver the outcome in practice."
      The only issue has been how to deliver that in practice. There is no disagreement about the fact that competition is important and must be an issue that the FSA has regard to in all its dealings as a regulator.
      Sir Nicholas Lyell: The Minister said that if competition and competitiveness were made an objective, it would make the FSA a competition regulator and a competition authority. Will she please reconsult her advisers and inform herself that that is nonsense? It would have no such effect. It would not put the FSA into the position of the Competition Commission, which seems to be what she fears. It would do what I am pleased to hear there is common ground about: put the competitiveness of the UK financial service markets in the Bill as an objective.
      6.15 pm
      Miss Johnson: I do not agree with the right hon. and learned Gentleman on that, and I shall not change my comments on the matter. We already have a body whose prime responsibility is to ensure that competition is engaged in wholeheartedly in all sectors of the economy, and that body is the Competition Commission. The commission, not the FSA, has that role and those functions. The Government do not disagree with his point that the FSA must have regard to competition. As I said, we considered different formulations of "regard to".
      Sir Nicholas Lyell: The Minister said that she disagrees with what I have said. Will she examine the record, write me a letter explaining why she disagrees, and place a copy in the Library?
      Miss Johnson: I shall consider the right hon. and learned Gentleman's request, although I am not sure that any useful purpose would be served by my complying with it.
      As I explained, if there were a better formulation of "must have regard to", it is certainly not "seek to", as that would weaken the provision's force.
      We have considered how best to address the competition issue in the formulation of the Bill's wording. As clause 2(3) states, in conducting its business, the authority must have regard to various specified principles. We believe that the strength of the injunction and the duty

      665
      imposed on the authority by the subsection will ensure that, in seeking to achieve its objectives, the authority will give full consideration to all aspects of its duty, including the particularly contentious issue of competition and competitiveness.
      Sir Michael Spicer: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way, not only because of the lateness of the hour, but because, earlier she said that she was on my side—which seemed to worry the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Cousins) a bit. However, if there are various bodies with different objectives, how will we decide who should win?
      Miss Johnson: We drafted the clause with that in mind.
      Many hon. Members expressed an interest in the United Kingdom's international competitiveness. Clause 2(3)(e) provides that, in performing its duties, the authority must have regard not only to competition, but to
      "the international character of financial services and markets and the desirability of maintaining the competitive position of the United Kingdom".
      That requirement has now been encapsulated and included in the principles governing how the FSA does its business. It also addresses the issue of whether it is appropriate to impose such an obligation on the FSA. Some aspects of competitiveness are the Government's responsibility. There are aspects of competitiveness that are the industry's responsibility. The Bill encapsulates the responsibilities of the FSA in that regard.
      The hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight) called the Competition Commission the piggy-in-the-middle in this matter. That is most unfair. The Competition Commission will take the place occupied by Ministers in the competition scrutiny regime. It, rather than Ministers, will take the final decision on whether a rule or practice is anti-competitive, or whether it is justified. The commission's decision will stand and will be put into effect, unless exceptional circumstances—some of which I set out earlier—lead Ministers to a different conclusion. Far from being the piggy-in-the-middle, the Competition Commission will be the final arbiter of competition matters.
      Finally, several hon. Members have said how important it is to get the right balance between competition and competitiveness, and regulation. All have their proper role to play, but it is misleading to suggest that good regulation is anything other than an asset. The circumstances governing the competitiveness of the City of London are important, but so is the very good regulation in the UK, which continues to assure the City's position in the global market.
      Sir Nicholas Lyell: The Minister is disagreeing with Don Cruickshank, the whole point of whose report was to tell the Government that the "have regard to" formula in clause 2(3), on which she is relying, is too weak. The report called on her to extend the regulatory functions in clause 2(2) to cover the requirements set out in clause 2(3).
      Miss Johnson: As I said earlier, in his comments on his interim report and the Bill, Don Cruickshank said that
      666
      he was not wedded to any particular means of achieving the balance between competition and competitiveness. We do not believe that the Opposition amendments would be useful in that regard, whereas we consider that the Government amendments will achieve the balance that we seek. They give full force to the role of competition when the FSA considers how it should perform its business.
      I commend the measures to the House.
      Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: The debate has been about a fundamental aspect of the Bill that goes to the core of what the FSA is set up to do. The Minister's responses have not measured up to the importance of the subject, and there has been no real attempt to answer the many questions of Opposition Members.
      The Liberal Democrats tabled one sad little amendment that was not selected. That lack of enthusiasm is not surprising: almost no Liberal Democrat Members turned up to the sittings of the Standing Committee, which ran from last July to just before Christmas. Given that they could find no one to man the Benches then, it is hardly surprising that none has intervened in the debate. But given that that party is inclined to lecture the rest of us about the need for parliamentary scrutiny and all the changes it wants to improve it, it is treating the House with some contempt when it does not bother to put in the hours and the work to hold the Government to account on a Bill of this importance.
      The Minister started her last speech rather unfortunately by saying that she was not clear whether we supported competitiveness or competition, when it is perfectly clear in our amendments, particularly amendment No. 192, that it is both. All my right hon. and hon. Friends who have spoken have made perfectly clear their concerns about both. If the hon. Lady has not understood our position on that, she cannot have been listening to us.
      It is really quite simple: we want to elevate the importance of competition at home and the maintenance of international competitiveness to being an objective of the FSA. At present they are referred to as principles to which it must have regard. We are trying to do so on behalf of consumers at home, who will be better protected by a fully competitive market, and the million or so people who work in the industries concerned, whose jobs depend on maintaining international competitiveness.
      This is a vulnerable, fragile market in a ferociously competitive global environment. Nothing that the regulator does must needlessly undermine that competitiveness. Therefore, it is essential that it be elevated from being simply a principle to which the authority must have regard to an objective that must be pursued. That is why Mr. Cruickshank in his report emphasised the importance of making competition an objective in the Bill.
      Instead of that comparatively simple approach, the Government now wish to erect a fantastically complicated bureaucratic system, whereby supposed inadequacies in the Bill and in the way in which the FSA exercises its authority on this subject are referred to the Director-General of Fair Trading, then to the Competition Commission and then to the Treasury, which will have the final say, and then back to the authority to make the changes. How much better it would be to put in the Bill the duty, the obligation, the requirement, the objective of competition so that the FSA can do it right at the start.
      Sir Nicholas Lyell: Does my right hon. Friend agree that this is all pointless on the key question

      667
      of international competitiveness, because under the Competition Act 1998 none of these important bodies has any role in that repect whatsoever?
      Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: My right hon. and learned Friend reminds me of that essential point. International competitiveness is nothing to do with the authority's duty, so that would go entirely by the board.
      Mr. Cousins rose—
      Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I do not give way. I am concluding.
      To express our dismay over the way in which the whole issue of competition has been handled, we shall divide the House on new clause 27, as a mark of our suspicions and doubts not only about the new competition authority, but, more important, about the Government's wholesale rejection of our alternative approach, which would be simple and which has the support of outside commentators and experts, including Mr. Don Cruickshank. We believe that a Division is essential to demonstrate those points.
      Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
      The House divided: Ayes 282, Noes 124.

      Division No. 53]

      [6.28 pm

      AYES

      Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

      Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

      Ainger, Nick

      Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

      Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

      Alexander, Douglas

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Allan, Richard

      Cann, Jamie

      Allen, Graham

      Caplin, Ivor

      Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

      Casale, Roger

      Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

      Cawsey, Ian

      Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

      Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

      Ashton, Joe

      Chaytor, David

      Atkins, Charlotte

      Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

      Austin, John

      Ballard, Jackie

      Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

      Banks, Tony

      Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

      Barnes, Harry

      Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

      Barron, Kevin

      Clelland, David

      Battle, John

      Clwyd, Ann

      Bayley, Hugh

      Cohen, Harry

      Beard, Nigel

      Coleman, Iain

      Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

      Colman, Tony

      Beith, Rt Hon A J

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Bell, Martin (Tatton)

      Corbett, Robin

      Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

      Cotter, Brian

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)

      Cousins, Jim

      Bennett, Andrew F

      Cranston, Ross

      Benton, Joe

      Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

      Berry, Roger

      Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

      Best, Harold

      Darvill, Keith

      Betts, Clive

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Blackman, Liz

      Davidson, Ian

      Blears, Ms Hazel

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Blizzard, Bob

      Dawson, Hilton

      Bradley, Keith (Withington)

      Dean, Mrs Janet

      Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

      Denham, John

      Brand, Dr Peter

      Dismore, Andrew

      Breed, Colin

      Dobbin, Jim

      Brinton, Mrs Helen

      Donohoe, Brian H

      Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

      Dowd, Jim

      Browne, Desmond

      Drew, David

      Burden, Richard

      Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

      Burnett, John

      Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

      668

      Edwards, Huw

      Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

      Efford, Clive

      Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

      Ellman, Mrs Louise

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Ennis, Jeff

      Lock, David

      Fearn, Ronnie

      Love, Andrew

      Field, Rt Hon Frank

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Fisher, Mark

      McCabe, Steve

      Fitzpatrick, Jim

      McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)

      Flint, Caroline

      Follett, Barbara

      McDonagh, Siobhain

      Foster, Rt Hon Derek

      Macdonald, Calum

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      McDonnell, John

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

      McGuire, Mrs Anne

      Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

      McIsaac, Shona

      Gapes, Mike

      McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

      Gardiner, Barry

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Gerrard, Neil

      Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert

      Gibson, Dr Ian

      McNulty, Tony

      Godsiff, Roger

      MacShane, Denis

      Goggins, Paul

      Mactaggart, Fiona

      Gordon, Mrs Eileen

      McWalter, Tony

      Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

      McWilliam, John

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Grocott, Bruce

      Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

      Grogan, John

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Hain, Peter

      Marshall-Andrews, Robert

      Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

      Maxton, John

      Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

      Meale, Alan

      Harris, Dr Evan

      Merron, Gillian

      Heal, Mrs Sylvia

      Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

      Healey, John

      Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

      Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

      Miller, Andrew

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      Mitchell, Austin

      Hepburn, Stephen

      Moore, Michael

      Heppell, John

      Moran, Ms Margaret

      Hesford, Stephen

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

      Hewitt, Ms Patricia

      Hill, Keith

      Mountford, Kali

      Hoey, Kate

      Mudie, George

      Hood, Jimmy

      Mullin, Chris

      Hope, Phil

      Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

      Hoyle, Lindsay

      Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Naysmith, Dr Doug

      Humble, Mrs Joan

      O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

      Hurst Alan

      Olner, Bill

      Hutton, John

      O'Neill, Martin

      Iddon, Dr Brian

      Organ, Mrs Diana

      Illsley, Eric

      Pearson, Ian

      Ingram, Rt Hon Adam

      Pendry, Tom

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      Perham, Ms Linda

      Jenkins, Brian

      Pickthall, Colin

      Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

      Pike, Peter L

      Johnson, Miss Melanie

      (Welwyn Hatfield)

      Plaskitt, James

      Pollard, Kerry

      Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

      Pond, Chris

      Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

      Pope, Greg

      Pound, Stephen

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

      Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

      Prosser, Gwyn

      Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa

      Purchase, Ken

      Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

      Quinn, Lawrie

      Kelly, Ms Ruth

      Radice, Rt Hon Giles

      Kemp, Fraser

      Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

      Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

      Roche, Mrs Barbara

      Khabra, Piara S

      Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Roy, Frank

      King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

      Ruddock, Joan

      King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

      Kumar, Dr Ashok

      Ryan, Ms Joan

      Ladyman, Dr Stephen

      Salter, Martin

      Laxton, Bob

      Sarwar, Mohammad

      Leslie, Christopher

      Savidge, Malcolm

      Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

      Sedgemore, Brian

      669

      Sheerman, Barry

      Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

      Shipley, Ms Debra

      Turner, Neil (Wigan)

      Short, Rt Hon Clare

      Twigg, Derek (Halton)

      Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

      Tynan, Bill

      Singh, Marsha

      Vaz, Keith

      Skinner, Dennis

      Walley, Ms Joan

      Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

      Ward, Ms Claire

      Smith, Angela (Basildon)

      Watts, David

      Smith, John (Glamorgan)

      White, Brian

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Whitehead, Dr Alan

      Snape, Peter

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Soley, Clive

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

      Southworth, MS Helen

      Williams Mrs Betty (conwy)

      Starkey, Dr Phyllis

      Willis Phil

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Wilson, Brian

      Stinchcombe, Paul

      Winnick, David

      Stoate, Dr Howard

      Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

      Stunell, Andrew

      Wise, Audrey

      Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

      Wood, Mike

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Woolas, Phil

      Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

      Worthington, Tony

      Timms, Stephen

      Wray, James

      Tipping, Paddy

      Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

      Todd, Mark

      Touhig, Don

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Trickett Jon

      Mr. David Jamieson and

      Truswell, Paul

      Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe.

      NOES

      Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

      Hague, Rt Hon William

      Amess, David

      Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

      Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

      Hammond, Philip

      Baldry, Tony

      Hawkins, Nick

      Beggs, Roy

      Hayes, John

      Bercow, John

      Heald, Oliver

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

      Blunt, Crispin

      Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

      Boswell, Tim

      Horam, John

      Brady, Graham

      Howard, Rt Hon Michael

      Brazier, Julian

      Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

      Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

      Hunter, Andrew

      Browning, Mrs Angela

      Jack, Rt Hon Michael

      Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Burns, Simon

      Key, Robert

      Butterfill, John

      King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

      Cash, William

      Kirkbride, Miss Julie

      Chope, Christopher

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

      Leigh, Edward

      Collins, Tim

      Letwin, Oliver

      Cran, James

      Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

      Curry, Rt Hon David

      Lidington, David

      Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

      Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

      Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

      Loughton, Tim

      Day, Stephen

      Luff, Peter

      Donaldson, Jeffrey

      Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

      Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

      McIntosh, Miss Anne

      Duncan Smith, Iain

      MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

      Evans, Nigel

      Maclean, Rt Hon David

      Faber, David

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Fabricant, Michael

      Madel, Sir David

      Fallon, Michael

      Major, Rt Hon John

      Right, Howard

      May, Mrs Theresa

      Forth, Rt Hon Eric

      Moss, Malcolm

      Fox, Dr Liam

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Fraser, Christopher

      Norman, Archie

      Gale, Roger

      O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

      Gibb, Nick

      Paice, James

      Gill, Christopher

      Paterson, Owen

      Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

      Pickles, Eric

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

      Gray, James

      Prior, David

      Green, Damian

      Redwood, Rt Hon John

      Greenway, John

      Robathan, Andrew

      Grieve, Dominic

      Robertson, Laurence

      670

      Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

      Taylor, Sir Teddy

      Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)

      Trend, Michael

      St Aubyn, Nick

      Tyrie, Andrew

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Viggers, Peter

      Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

      Walter, Robert

      Shepherd, Richard

      Waterson, Nigel

      Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

      Wells, Bowen

      Soames, Nicholas

      Whitney, Sir Raymond

      Spelman, Mrs Caroline

      Whittingdale, John

      Spicer, Sir Michael

      Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

      Spring, Richard

      Willetts, David

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

      Steen, Anthony

      Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

      Streeter, Gary

      Yeo, Tim

      Swayne, Desmond

      Young, Rt Hon Sir George

      Syms, Robert

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

      Mr. Keith Simpson and

      Taylor, John M (Solihull)

      Mr. John Randall.

      Question accordingly agreed to.
      Clause read a Second time, and added to Bill.

    New Clause 28

      CONSIDERATION BY COMPETITION COMMISSION
      ".—(1) If the Director—

      (a) makes a report under section (Reports by Director General of Fair Trading)(2), or

      (b) asks the Commission to consider a report that he has made under section (Reports by Director General of Fair Trading)(3),

      the Commission must consider the matter.
      (2) The Commission must then make its own report on the matter unless it considers that, as a result of a change of circumstances, no useful purpose would be served by a report.
      (3) If the Commission decides in accordance with subsection (2) not to make a report, it must make a statement setting out the change of circumstances which resulted in that decision.
      (4) A report made under this section must state whether, in the opinion of the Commission—

      (a) the regulating provision or practice which is the subject of the report has a significant anti-competitive effect, or

      (b) the regulating provisions or practices, or combination of regulating provisions and practices, which are the subject of the report have such an effect.

      (5) A report under this section which states that, in the opinion of the Commission, there is a significant anti-competitive effect must also—

      (a) state whether the Commission considers that that effect is justified; and

      (b) if it states that the Commission considers that it is not justified, state its opinion as to the action, if any, that ought to be taken by the Authority.

      (6) Subsection (7) applies whenever the Commission is considering, for the purposes of this section, whether a particular anti-competitive effect is justified.
      (7) The Commission must ensure, so far as that is reasonably possible, that the conclusion it reaches is compatible with the functions conferred, and obligations imposed, on the Authority by or under this Act.
      (8) A report under this section must contain such an account of the Commission's reasons for—

      (a) any opinion which it has expressed in the report, and

      (b) if it has reached a conclusion on whether a particular anti-competitive effect is justified, that conclusion,

      as is expedient, in the opinion of the Commission, for facilitating proper understanding of that conclusion or opinion.
      (9) Schedule (Role of Competition Commission) supplements this section.
      (10) If the Commission makes a report under this section it must send a copy to the Treasury, the Authority and the Director.".—[Mr. Timms.]
      Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

    New Clause 29

      ROLE OF THE TREASURY
      ".—(1) This section applies if the Competition Commission makes a report under section (Consideration by Competition Commission)(3) which states that in the opinion of the Commission there is a significant anti-competitive effect.
      (2) If the Commission's opinion, as stated in the report, is that the anti-competitive effect is not justified, the Treasury must give a direction to the Authority requiring it to take such action as may be specified in the direction.
      (3) But subsection (2) does not apply if the Treasury consider—

      (a) that, as a result of action taken by the Authority in response to the Commission's report, it is unnecessary for them to give a direction; or

      (b) that the exceptional circumstances of the case make it inappropriate or unnecessary for them to do so.

      (4) In considering the action to be specified in a direction under subsection (2), the Treasury must have regard to any opinion expressed by the Commission when it complied with section (Consideration by Competition Commission)(5)(b).
      (5) Subsection (6) applies if—

      (a) the Commission's conclusion, as stated in its report, is that the anti-competitive effect is justified; but

      (b) the Treasury consider that the exceptional circumstances of the case require them to act.

      (6) The Treasury may give a direction to the Authority requiring it to take such action—

      (a) as they consider to be necessary in the light of the exceptional circumstances of the case; and

      (b) as may be specified in the direction.

      (7) The Authority may not be required as a result of this section to take any action—

      (a) that it would not have power to take in the absence of a direction under this section; or

      (b) that would otherwise be incompatible with any of the functions conferred, or obligations imposed, on it by or under this Act.

      (8) Subsection (9) applies if the Treasury are considering—

      (a) whether subsection (2) applies and, if so, what action is to be specified in a direction under that subsection; or

      (b) whether to give a direction under subsection (6).

      (9) The Treasury must—

      (a) do what they consider appropriate to allow the Authority, and any other person appearing to the Treasury to be affected, an opportunity to make representations; and

      (b) have regard to any such representations.

      (10) If, in reliance on subsection (3)(a) or (b), the Treasury decline to act under subsection (2), they must make a statement to that effect, giving their reasons.
      (11) If the Treasury give a direction under this section they must make a statement giving—

      (a) details of the direction; and

      (b) if the direction is given under subsection (6), their reasons for giving it.

      (12) The Treasury must—

      (a) publish any statement made under this section in the way appearing to them best calculated to bring it to the attention of the public; and

      (b) lay a copy of it before Parliament.".—[Mr. Timms.]

      Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

    New Clause 32

      MISLEADING THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF FAIR TRADING
      ". Section 44 of the Competition Act 1998 (offences connected with the provision of false or misleading information) applies in relation to any function of the Director General of Fair Trading under this Act as if it were a function under Part I of that Act.".—[Mr. Timms.]
      Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

    New Clause 1

      RESTRICTIONS ON POWERS OF TREASURY
      "(1) Where given power under this Act to make regulations or orders, the Treasury shall not exercise those powers so as to impose restrictions or requirements which are likely to have any of the relevant effects, except to the necessary extent, and shall disapply, limit or relax restrictions or requirements imposed by or under this Act so as to seek to ensure that they are likely to have the relevant effects only to the necessary extent.

      (2) The relevant effects are: impairing, impeding, restricting or distorting competition or innovation.

      (3) The necessary extent is: the extent necessary to protect actual or potential consumers and financial markets or exchanges or to maintain confidence in the financial system.

      (4) Competition is: the international competitiveness of the United Kingdom, the financial system or UK persons and competition between authorised persons.

      (5) 'Consumers' has the same meaning as in section 5.

      (6) 'The financial system' has the same meaning as in section 3.

      (7) 'UK person' means a person whose registered office (or, if he does not have a registered office, whose head office) is in the United Kingdom.".—[Mr. Heathcoat-Amory.]

      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 52, in clause 372, page 194, line 37, leave out—
      "other provision of this Act"
      and insert—
      "provision of this Act other than section (Restrictions on powers of Treasury)."
      Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: The new clause and amendment No. 52 are important because they would restrict the power of the Treasury. The Bill would subject the FSA to certain restrictions. As we have heard in a previous debate, the authority would be given objectives and principles to pursue and by which it would have to abide. However, those provisions would not be binding on the Treasury.
      The Treasury has considerable powers under the Bill. In earlier debates, some Labour Members complained about the Treasury's power of appointment over certain

      673
      individuals and members of the authority itself. If those hon. Members believe that the Treasury should be constrained in the exercise of its powers, they have the chance to join us in supporting a new clause and an amendment that would do so.
      The Treasury has major powers; for example, to grant exemptions under the financial promotion regime, and to specify what are regulated activities. Furthermore, it can exempt professional firms, such as lawyers and accountants, from the provisions of the Bill.
      Those wide-ranging powers are best summed up and illustrated by clause 372, which is the subject of the new clause and the amendment. Clause 372 states:
      "The Treasury may by order make such incidental, consequential, transitional or supplemental provision as they consider necessary or expedient for the general purposes, or any particular purpose, of this Act or in consequence of any of its provisions or for giving full effect to it."
      That is a Henry VIII clause. The Treasury is given the power to alter primary legislation by the use of orders.
      We have debated the inadequacy of the scrutiny of the House in respect of such orders, so it is important further to constrain the Treasury in that regard. Even Henry VIII would have been jealous of clause 372. Henry VIII clauses are so called because in 1539 Parliament passed the Act of Proclamations, which authorised the use of proclamations as an alternative to statute law. I do not know the circumstances in which that Act was passed. I imagine that Parliament felt it was better to regulate matters in some way, even though it could hardly have approved of that exercise of authority by the king.
      Proclamations issued by the king were always fairly minor and never affected life or property, whereas the orders that can be brought forward under the Bill may affect property in the form of people's money and investments. Proclamations in the middle ages were generally not enforced or the courts were reluctant to enforce them, whereas the Bill will be rigorously enforced. [Interruption.]
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. There is a great deal of private conversation in the Chamber and beyond the Bar of the House. Perhaps hon. Members will come to order and allow the right hon. Gentleman to continue.
      Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: Clause 372 goes wider than any of the powers available to Henry VIII. It is important that the House wakes up to the potential for, if not abuse, at least the possibility that this primary legislation could be altered by orders and statutory instruments in a way that goes entirely unscrutinised.
      New clause 1 makes it clear that orders must not restrict competition beyond protecting consumers or pursuing the Bill's other objectives. That would be a useful counterbalance to the inevitable tendency of all regulators to over-regulate and of all regulatory systems to end up with excessive costs and regulation. The Government were reluctant to accept any of our earlier amendments for elevating competition to one of the Bill's objectives. This proposal is a useful alternative and I commend it to the House.
      Mr. Timms: I understand the thinking behind new clause 1 and have some sympathy with what it seeks
      674
      to achieve. It is certainly not our practice or intention to make regulations that would in any way damage competition, competitiveness or innovation.
      There are a number of difficulties with new clause 1. At the heart of the problem is that its effect could not be determined until the Bill's powers were exercised. The European Union has some jurisdiction over matters covered by the Bill. Much of the Bill, to a greater or lesser extent, delivers on or is constrained by EU directives and treaties. We are required, for example, to bring within the scope of regulation any activities covered by insurance directives—life and non-life—that are undertaken by qualifying institutions. The same is true of investment and banking. We have no choice in the matter, so the new clause could cause difficulties.
      Another example is where the purpose of the regulations might not properly be described as protecting consumers or maintaining confidence, but there was some other good reason for proceeding. The most obvious example is exercising powers in a way consistent with the FSA's objectives under the Bill that would prevent financial services business in the UK being used in connection with financial crime. That is not provided for in the new clause.
      The right hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) referred to the breadth of clause 372, but his fears are not well founded. It is clear that the power is to make
      "incidental, consequential, transitional and supplemental provision"
      to deal with minor things where it is necessary or expedient for the purposes of the Bill, or to give effect to it. I do not agree that Henry VIII would have been envious of that power, as the right hon. Gentleman suggested.
      Mr. Tyrie: Will the Minister give way?
      Mr. Timms: No, I must press on.
      I hope that I have been able to set out some of the difficulties with the Opposition's proposal. The Bill has been carefully formulated to ensure that the extent of the Treasury's powers is clear. It is not our intention to impose any more burdens on firms than is necessary, and wherever possible, we consult on proposals to make regulations so that those affected by them have an opportunity to comment on and influence them. The powers in the Bill are no different from the order and regulation powers under any other Act of Parliament, and I hope that that gives Opposition Members the reassurances that they seek.
      Mr. Flight: The House may not be aware that the Bill, which proposes to set up and empower the FSA, reserves important powers to the Treasury—the most important, perhaps, is designating what are to be authorised and regulated activities. However, the Treasury's powers to exempt matters concerning promotion will be important.
      We have looked at how the Treasury powers interrelate to the objectives and principles of the Bill. Clause 1 has been worded so as to pick up the relevant references, and it deals, quite appropriately, with the principles of not damaging competition or innovation. Competition is defined as both domestic competition and international competitiveness, and the Bill picks up the key objectives where the Treasury has power.
      We do not accept the Minister's argument concerning technical difficulties with subjecting the Treasury to the same basic objectives and principles relevant to

      675
      its powers, as those objectives and principles apply to the FSA. If the Minister has sympathy with the objectives, what other proposals do the Government have to address them? As things stand—particularly where items of secondary legislation are dealt with by negative resolution, rather than positive affirmation—there is no guarantee that what the Treasury does will stick within the objectives and principles.
      The amendment proposes essentially to apply the terms of clause 1 to the Henry VIII clause—which, to some extent, may limit its powers, but would tie the two together. We feel that that would address some incomplete business within the Bill, which is unsatisfactory without it. The Government have come up with no other method of tying the Treasury in with the rest of the Bill. However, this is not a matter that we would wish to put to a vote. Rather, we would hope to see what the other place could do to tie in the matter in a way that the Government would find acceptable.
      Unless the matter is addressed, the two matters do not tie together—we have the FSA bound by relevant objectives and principles, while the Treasury is not so bound.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Does the right hon. Gentleman wish to withdraw the motion?
      Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
      Motion and clause, by leave withdrawn.
      Further consideration adjourned.—[Mr. Sutcliffe.]
      Bill, as amended in the Standing Committee, to be further considered tomorrow.

  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
    LOCAL GOVERNMENT FINANCE
    That the Local Government Finance (England) Special Grant Report (No. 49) on the 1999/2000 Special Grant for Kosovan Evacuees (House of Commons Paper No. 115), which was laid before this House on 20th December, be approved.

    LOCAL GOVERNMENT
    That the draft Local Government Best Value (Exemption) (England) Order 2000, which was laid before this House on 11th January, be approved.—[Mr. Sutcliffe.]
    Question agreed to.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  Ordered,
  That for the remainder of the present session, the Order [24th May 1999] relating to sittings in Westminster Hall shall have effect with the addition at the end of the paragraph (4) of the following words—
  "(4A) Any member of the Chairmen's Panel may also take the chair at a sitting in Westminster Hall when so requested by the Chairman of Ways and Means, with the duties and powers conferred by that order on additional Deputy Speakers; and Members so appointed shall be addressed by name."—[Mr. Sutcliffe.]

  Police Complaints (Civilian Employees)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Sutcliffe.]
  6.56 pm
  Sir John Stanley: As the House knows, there are two separate systems for the investigation of complaints against the police by members of the public. If the complaint is against a uniformed police officer, the statutory police complaints procedure comes into operation with independent supervision provided by the Police Complaints Authority. However, if the complaint involves a civilian employee of a police force—though the complaint will be investigated through the internal procedures of the police force in question—there is no statutory procedure and no statutory independent supervision. The fact that two separate systems run together can lead to serious shortcomings for members of the public. Such serious shortcomings have been graphically revealed in the tragic circumstances of my constituent, Mrs. Alexander.
  On 20 July 1998, Mrs. Alexander's husband was a passenger in a car that went off the road, smashed through railings and ended up in a field. Mr. Alexander tragically died from the injuries that he sustained in the accident. Thames Valley police, in whose area the accident occurred, carried out its usual full investigation and submitted its report to the Crown Prosecution Service in November of that year. There was no other vehicle involved in the accident, and because of the death of Mr. Alexander and the absence of any other independent witness, the Crown Prosecution Service concluded that the only charge that it could make against the driver of the car in which Mr. Alexander had been a passenger was that of driving without due care and attention. That was the only charge that it judged to have a reasonable prospect of a conviction.
  Under current legislation, a summons for driving without due care and attention must be served within six months of the date of the offence. As the then Attorney-General, Sir John Morris, confirmed to me, there is no provision in current legislation for extending the six-month deadline in any circumstances, however extenuating. That is a matter that the Government should reconsider in the light of Mrs. Alexander's case and perhaps of others.
  With the accident occurring on 20 July 1998, the Thames Valley police had until 20 January 1999 to serve the summons. As the then Attorney-General informed me, the Crown Prosecution Service notified Thames Valley police of its decision to prosecute the driver for driving without due care and attention on 10 December 1998. That decision was further confirmed orally by the CPS to the Thames Valley police on 18 December of that year. However, by the time the file returned—
  It being Seven o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now Adjourn.—[Mr. Sutcliffe.]
  Sir John Stanley: By the time the file returned to the CPS, on 27 January 1999, the statutory deadline of 20 January had passed and Thames Valley police had failed to issue the relevant summons. As a result of that
  678
  failure, the intended prosecution of the driver of the car in which Mr. Alexander had been killed could no longer take place.
  With every possible justification, Mrs. Alexander made a formal complaint against Thames Valley police. She also came to see me, and I took up her case with all the parties involved. Finally, in a letter dated 12 July 1999, the chairman of the Thames Valley police authority, Mr. Glenn Maybury, confirmed to me the source of the mistake that had occurred within the police force:
  "You are indeed correct in stating that 'the mistakes' were committed by a civilian member of staff and that the statutory police complaints procedure does not apply to complaints against civilians."
  A terrible sequence of events means that Mrs. Alexander and her 15-year-old daughter have suffered three successive losses. First, and most tragic of all, is that Mrs. Alexander has lost her husband and her daughter has lost her father.
  Secondly, because of "serious mistakes" made within the Thames Valley police force, acknowledged in writing by the chairman of the police authority, Mrs. Alexander has lost the due process of criminal proceedings taking place against the driver of the car in which her husband was killed.
  Thirdly, because the mistakes were committed by a civilian employee of the police force, Mrs. Alexander has lost access to the statutory police complaints procedure, with its statutory independent supervision. That is a truly appalling catalogue of events. I know that the Minister will join me in expressing heartfelt and deepest sympathy with Mrs. Alexander and her daughter for all that they have had to bear since the death of Mr. Alexander.
  There is nothing new about the unsatisfactory outcome that can arise, owing to the statutory police complaints procedure not currently extending to the civilian staff of police forces. When the Select Committee on Home Affairs conducted an inquiry, "Police Disciplinary and Complaints Procedures", in the 1997–98 Session, the Police Complaints Authority, in its memorandum to the Committee, called for an extension of its remit to cover civilians. Paragraph 85 of its memorandum states:
  "Since the policy of civilianisation is unlikely to be reversed, the Authority believes that there should be some independent oversight of complaints against civilians carrying out tasks previously performed by police officers. We have therefore suggested that where the complaint, if substantiated, would involve a breach of the police discipline code or the PACE codes of practice, the Authority should review the matter and satisfy itself that the action proposed by the force was appropriate. This would provide an element of reassurance without unduly interfering in civilian personnel management."
  Like the Police Complaints Authority, I, too, believe that there is a compelling case for extending the PCA's statutory remit to the civilian staff of police forces in the way in which the authority has proposed. I take that view for the following reasons. First, I am in no doubt that the public have much greater confidence in an investigation into a complaint against a police force if an independent element in that investigation is ensured by law, as would most certainly be the case if the PCA's proposal was implemented. I am glad that in its memorandum to the Select Committee on Home Affairs the Home Office acknowledged the importance of the public confidence factor. At paragraph 45 the Home Office stated:
  "Although the police take any complaint seriously, the internal investigation process for a civilian employee may not command the same public confidence as the statutory police complaints procedure involving the PCA."

  679
  Interestingly, the Home Office stated in the same paragraph:
  "The PCA's remit may need to be reviewed if there is a continuing shift of police duties to civilian employees and contracted out staff and if police services operated by local authorities become more prevalent."
  The second reason for extending the PCA's remit to cover civilian staff is to ensure consistency for the public when making complaints between one police force and another. In Mrs. Alexander's case, if the accident had happened in a different location and the investigation was therefore carried out by another police force, the failure to issue the summons could well have been the responsibility of a police officer rather than a civilian. In that case, Mrs. Alexander would have been able to have an independent statutory investigation of her complaint. That inconsistency was indeed acknowledged by the Home Office in its memorandum to the Select Committee. At paragraph 44 it stated:
  "Indeed, members of the public in the same situation may be dealt with by police civilian employees in one force when, were they in another force area, they would be dealt with by police officers. Only in the latter case, if they are unhappy with their treatment, would they have recourse to the statutory police complaints system."
  I put it to the Minister that it surely cannot be right in a matter as important as the public's right to have complaints against the police investigated that it is now becoming almost a complete lottery, in the non-operational areas of police activity, as to whether the individual making a complaint gets an independent and statutory investigation. It depends solely on whether the particular post which has been the subject of the complaint happens to be filled by a police officer in uniform or by a civilian employee.
  My final reason for wanting to see the PCA's remit extended to civilians is that the problem is bound to get worse if action is not taken. The civilianisation of non-operational posts is certain to continue for financial reasons alone. The Minister of State, Home Office the hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke) told me as much in a written answer:
  "It is my policy to encourage authorities and chief officers to make efficient and effective use of staff resources. Police authorities have been required to plan and deliver efficiency gains of 2 per cent. year on year between 1999–2002. Efficiency gains totalling £440 million will be redeployed to support front-line policing. Civilianisation of non-operational posts can play a key role in releasing resources for operational work."—[Official Report, 18 January 2000; Vol. 342, c.375W.]
  There is no doubt in my mind that the civilianisation process will be extended. That is clearly the Government's policy. The serious difficulties that I am highlighting in the debate will, therefore, increase if action is not taken.
  As the Minister knows, I pursued with the Home Secretary last year the issues raised for police complaints procedures by Mrs. Alexander's case. The Minister of State, Home Office, replied to me on 5 August, as follows:
  "Although there are no plans at present to extend the scope of the procedures to include civilians, the Government has accepted the Police Complaints Authority's view, expressed to the Home Affairs Select Committee, that its remit should be reviewed if there is a continuing shift of police duties to civilian employees."
  That reply was somewhat disappointing, because the Government should move on from taking no action and simply making an undertaking to review the position. The
  680
  Government should change their position and accept the PCA's proposal to extend its remit to the civilian staff of police forces.
  Mrs. Alexander's tragic and deeply disturbing case could not provide a more compelling justification for the change that I seek.
  7.11 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Mike O'Brien): I join the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Mailing (Sir J. Stanley) in extending my condolences and those of the Government to Mrs. Alexander and her 15-year-old daughter for the tragic circumstances that have obtained in the case that we are discussing. It is regrettable that, through a series of administrative bungles, those circumstances have developed to the point where the right hon. Gentleman feels obliged to bring the case to the attention of the House. He is right to do that because the case raises some worrying points.
  The right hon. Gentleman knows that I have examined the case only recently. It appears that one person was not exclusively at fault and that a series of apparently minor administrative errors, taken together, led to an outcome that simply was not good enough. Mrs. Alexander, and all members of the public, have a right to expect better. I express my regrets, and the deep regrets of Thames Valley police, for the errors that were committed. It is unfortunate that those errors were associated with such a serious and tragic incident. I can understand Helen Alexander's frustrations, anger and great distress, which are best expressed in her letter of 21 May. In her circumstances, I would feel exactly the same.
  The right hon. Gentleman raised several issues, and I shall try to deal with some of them. The six-month deadline and whether it should be extended is a difficult consideration, especially with regard to the sort of offences that we are considering. It is wrong to allow something to hang over people for a long time, but a time limit-is quickly eaten up by prolonged investigation and examination of papers. Perhaps I should discuss that with the Minister of State, Home Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke), who is responsible for the issues relating to the time limit, and ask him to write to the right hon. Gentleman, who may pass on to Mrs. Alexander his views on the prospects for looking at the matter.
  The force investigated the concerns and I understand that steps have been taken in respect of the staff involved. I am informed that it acknowledged the issue from the outset and has taken steps to prevent any recurrence. Even if a more formalised procedure had been enshrined in legislation, it is unlikely that the outcome would have been different from that which resulted from the force's application of its own procedures. The mistakes were minor and administrative, but their conjunction produced an unacceptable outcome.
  I understand that there has been a protracted correspondence, but am not sure whether that has not added to the frustration. I am asked to convey the fact that the force, having acknowledged its faults, has tried to explain itself as best it can. Nothing, however, will ever be sufficient to make Mrs. Alexander feel that she has been treated fairly, because obviously the outcome means that her grievance is in many ways justifiable.

  681
  The right hon. Gentleman raised the broader policy issue of the complaints procedure in respect of civilian employees of police forces. Let me deal with that. The accountability and integrity of the police are paramount and we have a valuable opportunity to consider them. When mistakes are made—whether by police or by civilian support staff—it is essential that the service acknowledges them and ensures, so far as it is able, that appropriate action is taken to make sure that they are not repeated. That action must be taken not only in respect of those deemed to be responsible, but to ensure that outside parties are contacted so that they do not repeat their mistakes. There was some discussion with the Crown Prosecution Service. All this has taken some time. Although no one seeks to shift blame, we need to ensure that all the angles are considered. Where there was any slowness, it must be addressed.
  Confidence in the police and their handling of complaints is essential and depends on their willingness to respond positively to mistakes and address any issues identified. The right hon. Gentleman is right that the proportion of civilians employed by the police has gradually increased since the late 1980s. As forces have driven towards greater efficiency, they have created civilian police posts by recognising that roles can be undertaken by civilians, thereby releasing trained and skilled police officers for operational duties. Like the previous Government, we take the view that there is a proper role for civilians in the police. Generally, roles undertaken by civilians are non-operational. Civilians are not in direct contact with the public and certainly do not exercise the statutory powers of a police officer.
  The complaints procedure for the police is special. It has a broader application, but essentially the Police Complaints Authority becomes involved when the police may have gone beyond the expectations of ordinary individuals when exercising their powers. People need a particular assurance that no breach or abuse has occurred. That is the PCA's key role, or certainly was before all the civilian posts were created.
  The move towards civilianisation has been encouraged and as a result civilian support staff within the police service represent on average 30 per cent. of force establishments. Clearly, with that number of civilian members of staff within the police service there will be occasions when complaints may be made in respect of them. If such complaints allege criminal conduct, they can be dealt with no differently from those of police colleagues in that a criminal investigation will be undertaken. However, where the complaint is of a non-criminal nature—an administrative error—unlike for their police colleagues, there are no procedures covered by legislation.
  The Police Act 1996 covers complaints against the police, and the Police (Conduct) Regulations 1999 cover discipline procedures. Although procedures for complaints against civilian employees of police forces are neither covered by, nor required by, legislation, forces have developed their own codes of conduct and procedures for handling such complaints. Although they are not identical to those affecting police colleagues, they are similar in many respects. Force codes of conduct, for example, would embrace the principles contained within legislation covering employment law, equality of opportunity,
  682
  discrimination, harassment and similar matters, as forces develop their own policies and procedures for the handling of complaints.
  When forces receive complaints in respect of the conduct of civilian staff members they would normally be investigated. Depending upon the severity of the allegation and force policy, the investigator would be either a police officer or a civilian manager of a higher grade than the person about whom the complaint was made. The force complaints and discipline department which ordinarily undertakes the role of investigating complaints in respect of police officers also takes on the role of investigating complaints in respect of civilian staff members, particularly where the allegations are serious or the complaint also involves a police officer.
  Where an investigation establishes that there is a case to answer, the severity of the complaint also determines how it is dealt with. Minor complaints are likely to be dealt with at a local level by line managers, perhaps by verbal advice or warnings, whereas more serious issues, perhaps amounting to gross misconduct, may lead to formal hearings with appropriate representation for the individuals complained about who may face sanctions which would include dismissal.
  Unfortunately, complaints by definition mean that an individual or individuals are often, but not always, dissatisfied with the course of action taken. Regardless of how fair, impartial or open the process may be, there can never be any guarantees of satisfaction with the outcome of an investigation.
  Expectations of complainants will invariably be linked to their perceptions of severity, often linked to the particular circumstances of their case. In this case the circumstances were obviously tragic. Errors and mistakes made by staff, even minor ones, are often not confined to one particular individual. Yet the expectation of complainants can be to see severe punishment imposed on individuals. That is more likely where errors, albeit minor ones, are associated with serious cases. Where someone is rightfully angry and upset they may well feel that the errors committed should be recognised much more forcefully. That is understandable. Clearly, in those cases where serious misconduct is established, one would expect appropriate levels of punishment to reflect the case.
  That is not always the situation. The errors are not always great, even though the consequences of them may be serious. In such circumstances it becomes difficult for individuals to feel that they have been dealt with fairly. Someone may have received a reprimand or been disciplined according to internal discipline procedures for what on the face of it—the way in which they conducted their job—has been an administrative error but which may have been much more serious for the person who had to bear the consequences of it. There may well be a feeling that what ought to have been done has not been done. It is particularly galling where an individual has had to face those consequences and perhaps does not feel entirely happy that all the circumstances have been revealed. In such circumstances, again, it is understandable that people still feel angry and expect better.
  Sir John Stanley: I am sure that, in the closing minutes of the debate, the Minister will wish to deal with the

  683
  central issue: whether the Government will now accept the proposal for the extension of the PCA's remit to civilians in the way that the PCA has proposed.
  Mr. O'Brien: We will look at the points that the right hon. Gentleman has raised, but we have examined the matter and, so far, very few requests have been made for that extension. The view expressed to us is that there is insufficient cause to consider legislation to bring civilians within the independent police complaints procedure.
  I would be happy to look at the issues that have been raised and discuss them with my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South, who is directly responsible for those issues, but the independent complaints procedure was set up to deal with the application of the police's extra powers. Therefore, there should be an independent mechanism to ensure that there is no abuse in their application. A civilian who may be acting as part of a police authority and performing a role on behalf of the police normally does not exercise those powers. Civilians are not expected to do so. Therefore, the procedures to deal with them as employees rather than as police officers are probably appropriate.
  On a wider issue, there is a case for saying that there should be more standard procedures in different police forces to deal with civilians, particularly where those civilians have been engaged in administrative tasks that have affected the outcome of a legal procedure. Whether that needs to involve the independent police complaints process is a separate issue.
  684
  I do not want to say a complete no and to stonewall, particularly in a case such as the one that the right hon. Gentleman has raised. I will draw the issues to the attention of the Minister and, indeed, to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, but the way in which the issue has developed so far has not produced great demand for civilians to be brought within the police complaints authority procedure. The right hon. Gentleman will no doubt regret that, but that appears to be the state of play.
  Sir John Stanley: I am grateful to the Minister for saying that he will consider the matter further. Given the ambit of the local government ombudsman, health service ombudsman and so on, is it not true that the civilian employees of police authorities are almost the only people at local level with regard to whom there is no independent and properly accountable recourse if members of the public have complaints of maladministration?
  Mr. O'Brien: We will need to consider that point. When bringing the right hon. Gentleman's views and those of his constituents to the Home Secretary's attention, I will ensure that that issue is raised. All I can say is that, at this juncture, it has not produced the need for change. However, the arguments that he has put are worthy of full and proper consideration by Ministers and by the Government. I am anxious, and he will understand the reasons—
  The motion having been made at Seven o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned at half-past Seven o'clock.

Preamble
[MR. MICHAEL LORD in the Chair]

Prison Service (Northern Ireland)
[Relevant documents: Fourth Report of Session 1997–98 from the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee on the Prison Service in Northern Ireland (HC 716), the Government Response thereto, Session 1998–99 (HC 299), and the Minutes of Evidence taken before the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee on 27 October 1999, Session 1998–99 (HC 866-i).]
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Mr. Betts.]
2.30 pm
Mr. Peter Brooke: It gives me great pleasure to open the debate on the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee's fourth report of the 1997–98 Session, which was agreed in November 1998. It deals with the Northern Ireland Prison Service, and is the first of the Committee's reports to be debated in this new Chamber.
I am aware that the House of Commons has had a very full meal of Northern Ireland affairs in the course of this week's business. Having been an undergraduate during the Suez crisis, I am conscious of the sense of anticlimax that can arise when pressure eases. In that respect, we have been unlucky in the timing of the debate. I hope that no one who is observing the Westminster Hall experiment will read too much into our comparative exhaustion following our exertions earlier in the week. I appreciate, of course, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you were very much a participant in those exertions.
Westminster Hall sittings are a modernisation experiment. On a personal level, I remark in passing that, given my representation of the City of London, the debate on Report of the Financial Services and Markets Bill in the House shows the conflict that this new initiative can create between constituency and other responsibilities.
The evidence on which the report is based was taken between April and July 1998, and the Committee reported to the House in November of that year. As the inquiry progressed, it became clear that the Northern Ireland Prison Service would be subject to substantial change, and that the implementation of the Belfast agreement would clearly enhance the scale of those changes. A vital part of our discussions centred on the service's ability to respond. In order to bring the House up to date with developments in the year since our report, the Committee held an evidence session on 27 October 1999, at which it examined the Director General of the Northern Ireland Prison Service and senior colleagues. That evidence is presented to hon. Members today.
I should like to pay particular tribute to our Clerk, Dr. Christopher Ward, who overcame with aplomb the task of seeing our report through its final stages, although having joined us only after we had taken the
108WH
evidence. I also draw attention to paragraph 9 of the report, in which we pay tribute to our outstanding and authoritative advisers, Professor Tony Bottoms of Cambridge university and Dr. Andrew Coyle of King's college, London.
It is right that I should pay tribute, as did the Committee in its report, to the courage and professionalism over the past 30 years, in difficult and dangerous circumstances, of the Northern Ireland Prison Service. Some 29 members of the staff were killed, and many more injured, in the troubles. The service faced formidable challenges, to which it was fully equal.
Our visit to the Maze prison gave us first-hand knowledge of the considerable psychological pressures placed on the staff by inmates. Sir David Ramsbotham's report on conditions in the Maze prison, which was published as the Committee agreed its report, graphically describes those pressures. However, although the Maze prison garnered the headlines, other prisons—notably Maghaberry, the only other high security prison in Northern Ireland—posed difficulties, and continue to do so.
Now that the management of terrorist prisoners is ceasing to dominate the agenda—although it has not disappeared from it—the service is facing equally difficult challenges of a different nature. We identified several challenges at the time of our inquiry. There was substantial overstaffing in comparison with prison services in other parts of the United Kingdom, partly as a consequence of 10-fold expansion during the 1970s in reaction to the onset of terrorist violence. The overall prison estate is small; there are just four establishments, and one is a young offenders centre. That means that, apart from the Maze, there is only a single high security prison—at Maghaberry. That same site also houses Northern Ireland's only female prison.
We identified the problem of managing terrorist prisoners, particularly in the Maze prison, which houses the majority of adult male paramilitary prisoners. The implementation of the conclusions of the Prison Service review, which reported in September 1997, was expected to lead to substantial cost savings in the medium and long term. Target costs for prisoner places in Northern Ireland are three times higher than in England and Wales.
We identified as a challenge the management of the down-sizing of the service, as terrorist prisoners are progressively released under the provisions of the Belfast agreement, and the consequent restructuring of its operations. We recognised the need to reflect more accurately the balance of the community. At the time of our report, just 6.9 per cent. of those in uniformed and governor grades were Roman Catholic, as against 77.6 per cent. Protestant. While recognising the difficulties of redressing the balance at a time of substantial staff reductions, the Committee considered that a plan to do so should be a priority high on management's agenda.
Our inquiry identified the challenges of improving morale, tackling high levels of staff absence and improving the calibre of the management of the service. The Committee noted that Northern Ireland Prison Service managers had apparently not been able to provide a suitably qualified candidate for the post of

109WH
director general, or for the key post of governor of the Maze prison. There was also an urgent need to improve training.
The Committee also commented on a number of other areas. They included the practice of integrating sex offenders and other vulnerable prisoners—in contrast to that in England and Wales—which the Committee considered might compromise their quality of life and possibly their safety. We considered the incarceration of a female child in Maghaberry prison—there being no secure unit for females elsewhere—to be outside the spirit of the modern treatment of juveniles, and wanted the situation to be remedied at the earliest opportunity. We also sought changes in accountability, particularly as the service is expected to return to a more conventional role as the emphasis moves away from handling terrorist prisoners. Specifically, the Committee called for jurisdiction over matters of prison discipline to cease to be a responsibility of boards of visitors, for the inspection of the Northern Ireland Prison Service to become a formal responsibility of one of Her Majesty's chief inspectors of prisons and for the establishment of a prison ombudsman for Northern Ireland. Finally, we sought improved links between the Northern Ireland Prison Service and the Northern Ireland probation service.
How did the Goverment respond to the report? In a brief reply sent to the Committee in February 1999 and published in the Committe's first special report last Session, the then Secretary of State announced that the Government "broadly endorsed" the Committee's 20 principal conclusions and recommendations. Only one recommendation was singled out for specific implementation—that relating to the removal of the board of visitors' role in adjudications which, the Secretary of State said,
"will be implemented, as soon as possible, by amendment to the Prison Rules".
I shall return to that recommendation later.
What progress did the October 1999 evidence session reveal in the eight months following the Government's response? I do not propose to go through the evidence in detail, but I shall single out a number of important points.
The closure of the Maze prison is expected in July 2000, assuming that the prisoner release programme continues on schedule. Under the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998, all but 12 or 13 of the Maze prisoners will be released by then. Indeed, as at 27 October, only 34 per cent. of the total number of prisoners before the commencement of early releases remained—about a third.
However, the reduction in inmates has not been matched by reductions in staffing or accommodation. Five of the eight blocks remain in use and staffing at the prison has fallen by only around a quarter from 1,200 to 900. The director general conceded that the 158 prisoners could be accommodated in two blocks but for the need to keep the various factions separated. The fact remains that, although there may be sound arguments for not disturbing the status quo, the staff-to-prisoner ratio at the Maze prison has risen markedly over the period of the early release scheme, and now stands at 6:1. The director general was aware of no other prison regime with such a remarkably high ratio.
110WH
It is clear that the pace of implementation of the Prison Service review has been reduced and that greater emphasis is being placed instead on the staff reduction programme as a means of bringing about cultural change. Under the latter programme which was designed to produce an overall staff reduction of around 1,100—approximately 40 per cent. of the service—by March 2001, one third of the target has so far been met through a combination of selective voluntary early retirement and severance schemes, normal age retirement, and so on. The following phase is an open voluntary early retirement and severance scheme, and it opened in November 1999. I hope that the Minister will tell us how that is progressing, the initial signs of likely take-up, and his assessment of the prospects for achieving all the required redundancies through voluntary means.
The evidence session on 27 October last year revealed a welcome increase in training and good progress in reducing the adverse impact of court escort duties on prison regimes. The Committee also noted the progress on handling vulnerable prisoners at Maghaberry and the effort being put into developing anti-bullying strategies. There has been a drop in absenteeism, but much progress remains to be made in that area, as the service recognises. In particular, the director general hopes that normalisation in the Province will greatly reduce the stress-related element of absenteeism.
One of the biggest challenges facing the service following the closure of the Maze will undoubtedly be the running of Maghaberry, which will then be the sole high security prison in Northern Ireland. In his evidence, the director general described it as
"a very, very difficult prison."
It was not designed for its present use and there is what the director general described as "a fundamental staffing issue" in the relationship between the staff's attendance arrangements and the work that must be done, on which negotiations are in progress with the Prison Officers Association. I hope that the Minister can give us a progress report on those.
Maghaberry will, presumably, also have to accommodate the rump of prisoners from the Maze when that prison closes. Although Maghaberry already houses paramilitary prisoners—transfer to the Maze prison has always been voluntary—it remains to be seen whether its integrated regime will be able to accommodate prisoners who are used to a segregated one.
Maghaberry prison is, in many respects, the cornerstone of the Northern Ireland prison system. It will continue to play a crucial role. There has been a series of disturbing press reports over the past few months about conditions there, and several worrying incidents, such as the recent discovery of an imitation firearm and the apparent use of home-made incendiary devices. There is also an unusually high number of fires in the prison, which are alleged to be resulting in a high level of compensation claims from prisoners. The Minister may wish to say something about those points when he replies to the debate.
The evidence session revealed that there was unlikely to be any material change, at least in the short term, in the religious imbalance in the service. That is unfortunate. With the implementation of the Patten

111WH
proposals on the police in Northern Ireland, the Prison Service will look increasingly anomalous. Although I recognise the difficulties of recruiting into a service that is being downsized at the rate which the Prison Service plans, given the lack of recruitment in recent years, some means needs to be found of reducing the religious imbalance and of introducing new blood generally.
One surprise to come from the evidence session was that our recommendation on ending the role of the board of visitors in adjudications, to which I alluded earlier, had not been implemented, despite the Secretary of State's response. Although the director general explained the reasons, it is a fact that that change of policy would not have come to the Committee's attention but for the evidence session. I suggest to the Minister, and to the Government at large, that it would be conducive to good relations between Select Committees and the Executive if Ministers were to take the initiative and inform the Committee as soon as possible when a change of policy impacts on the Government's position on a Committee recommendation.
Whatever I may say about the timing of the debate this week, in other respects its timing is especially apposite, because last month the Secretary of State announced the start of the quinquennial review of the status of the Northern Ireland Prison Service as an agency of the Executive. I hope that those responsible for the review will look closely at the Committee's report and evidence, and will read carefully the report of today's debate. The Northern Ireland Prison Service has given sterling service to the Province. Despite the morale-sapping difficulties that it has faced, its devotion to duty and its security record have been excellent. Whatever further changes the review brings, I have every confidence that the Prison Service will continue to serve the people of Northern Ireland well in the future. I commend the report to the House.
2.45 pm
Mr. Lembit Öpik: During the troubles, 29 members of the Northern Ireland Prison Service were killed. Even during the recent period of relative peace, prison officers have been attacked in their homes. In the period 1996–97, there were 122 reported threats against staff, and 50 officers were admitted to the special protection scheme. People make a courageous choice when they choose to work in the Prison Service. In that context, I shall speak briefly on the general pressures facing the service as well as the specific problems, and on what I hope to see as a result of the report.
As the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke) rightly said, there are huge psychological pressures on prison staff. Personal information on staff members is regularly gathered by the paramilitaries, and has been used to powerful effect by prisoners who remain in close contact with active paramilitary units outside jail. Casual references by prisoners to officers' personal lives induce a sense of menace that is played on by many prisoners. The normal balance of control in a prison can be reversed by prisoners willing to influence staff in that way.
The political climate in Northern Ireland has had a tremendous impact on the way in which the Prison
112WH
Service there is run. About 500 prisoners are segregated according to political affiliation into five separate housing units. The murder of Billy Wright demonstrates that many prisoners are violently opposed to each other, and are occasionally in a position to do something about it. Once in prison, they are confined to the wing in which fellow members of their organisation are housed. Each wing has its own commanding officer, appointed by the paramilitary organisation to maintain discipline among the ranks of the imprisoned members.
If one steps back to consider that, one sees that it is an extraordinary way to run a prison service. We could analyse the history of how we got to that predicament, which highlights the difficulty involved in moving from the past to the futre. The future Prison Service should be much more in line with mainstream prison systems in the rest of the United Kingdom.
Attempts to treat prisoners as individuals in the Maze have largely been foiled as the prisoners regard themselves as prisoners of war. That has created a different ethos with regard to prisoners' behaviour. They enjoy the support of significant sections of the community, which places prison officers under immense pressure when trying to maintain order. In 1994, the management decided to withdraw staff from patrolling duties in the residential areas of the wings because officers were effectively hostages, unable to enforce orders against the will of organised prisoner groups.
We must bear in mind those general pressures when we consider reform. I shall move on to some specific problems. I shall not repeat the points already made. Low staff morale is a key issue to be faced. The high number of sick days taken is a testimony to the burden of the job. Furthermore, when staff take sick leave, it places more of a burden on those who remain at work.
Job insecurity may also have contributed to the problem. The Good Friday agreement does not make it clear how many staff will be needed or where they will be based, which is probably having a negative effect on morale as well. There is also an imbalance in the composition of staff. Approximately 6.9 per cent. are Roman Catholic, 77.6 per cent. are Protestant and 15.5 per cent. are not categorised. That causes problems that are clear for all to see. Nor is the training programme fully effective. The target of five days per staff member has not been fulfilled: the average is in fact three days.
We have touched on sectarian problems associated with prisoners, but there is also a distribution problem. Although one would normally expect remand prisoners to be detained separately from convicted prisoners, women to be detained separately from men, and juveniles to be detained separately from adults, that is not always possible in Northern Ireland because of the small number of establishments. For example, sex offenders are not separated from other prisoners, and concerns have arisen about bullying and serious ill-treatment. In England and Wales, there are vulnerable prisoner units for sex offenders, although such offenders can be integrated with other prisoners if they wish. In Northern Ireland, the reverse applies. As was said, young female offenders are currently held at Maghaberry in a special centre, but I am concerned that it is not really sufficient.

113WH
I referred to the issue of future uncertainty. On 11 November 1998, the Director General of the Prison Service said that the full implementation of the Good Friday agreement could make possible the closure of the Maze prison, to which reference has been made, by the end of 2000. Such uncertainty is giving rise to some specific problems.
Liberal Democrats broadly support the report's recommendations and welcome what the Government have already said, but we have some questions. How will paramilitary prisoners be dealt with after the Good Friday agreement is fully implemented? Has the effect of the Good Friday agreement on the Prison Service and staffing levels become any clearer? Can a timetable be established in respect of changes in numbers? From where will staff be drawn? A specific retraining programme would make a lot of sense, and I agree with what the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster said about providing generous redundancy packages. Similar comments have been made in the past in respect of the police service.
What can we do to raise morale? The changing political circumstances will no doubt help, but the endemic difficulties to which I have referred require specific attention. Should more placement officers from outside Northern Ireland be used in the Northern Ireland Prison Service? There are pros and cons, but it may be a way in which to depersonalise the work by making it more difficult for specific prison officers to be intimidated and influenced. However, political changes may in any case reduce such pressures.
What can be done to ensure that a system of vulnerable prisoner units exists in Northern Ireland? There is a duty of care, and adequate protection from attacks should be provided. I am not suggesting that sex offenders should necessarily be kept completely separate from other prisoners, but we need a clearer strategy. Various tactical decisions have led us to the current position. That is understandable, but perhaps we can take a step forward through this review.
Keeping young offenders in close proximity to adult offenders is probably unwise. Again, we need a clear strategy to ensure that young offenders are treated separately and do not interact with adult prisoners.
The same goes for young female offenders. Could they be held at Hydebank, for example, in separate quarters from the males?
I want to comment on two other issues. One relates to the Maze and the specific procedures for its closure. If normalisation continues, it would be more appropriate to ensure that ordinary criminals are held properly. At the same time, we should begin to address the odd ethos that I have described with regard to the paramilitary organisations.
The second matter is that I hope that all these reforms will be undertaken in the context of full implementation of the Good Friday agreement and the presumed stabilisation of the security situation. I would be encouraged to know that the strategy was a long-term one, perhaps making some assumptions on the way, but assumptions in the context of other pressures and issues relating to the Good Friday agreement.
114WH
There seems to be a prospect of a return to a more conventional role for the Prison Service, and it is appropriate that modern systems of accountability should be established. I hope that we shall have assurances from the Minister on that. I must apologise in advance to him for not being able to stay to the end of the debate, for reasons that I cannot change, but I shall read his comments and I hope that he will forgive me for my rudeness in leaving.
I simply emphasise that whatever we do must be in the context of thinking about the long-term normalisation of Northern Ireland and with due consideration for the prison staff, who have unquestionably suffered some ugly treatment in the past.
2.56 pm
Mr. Tony McWalter: In rising to commend the report, I emphasise particularly the contribution that it has made, and is making, to the process of normalisation, to which the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik) referred. The theme of the report is to move from an extraordinary and aberrant Prison Service to one that functions as it does in the rest of the United Kingdom. In many ways, the report ensconces that idea. For example, paragraph 29 refers to bringing the prisons within the remit of the chief inspector. That is an amazing thing to have to say: for the most part, prisons are within the inspectorate and one would not expect a report to have to make that recommendation. However, in order to talk about normalisation, it was right that we should try to identify how extraordinarily abnormal the Northern Ireland Prison Service was. We hope that, as it changes, the past tense will become an ever more accurate way of describing the changes that are taking place.
That extraordinary or abnormal nature comes out in so many ways. The Maze prison is the most appalling place that I have ever visited. I have visited many prisons, in the United Kingdom and abroad, and I have not seen another prison whose landscape was like a moonscape because there was no gardening. There could be no gardening at the Maze because anyone who went out to garden was likely to get killed. That kind of prison regime, under which people had to be confined in concrete quarters, meant that the impression of absolute desolation was very forceful. Yet every person in that appalling place had chosen to go there rather than to Maghaberry, which is a much more conventional and pleasant-looking place, where there are workshops and the normal processes of prisoner education that is rightly obtained in the rest of our prison system. Why would anyone choose to go from Maghaberry, a place which looks as if the inmates have a role to play in shaping it, learning and mixing with other people—awful though all prisons are—to a place like the Maze? The answer was that a substantial number of prisoners in Northern Ireland regarded themselves as freedom fighters. That strong definition, whether on the loyalist or the republican side, was so deeply etched into the system that it was impossible for the prison to be controlled without accommodating it, but the authorities were never explicit about it.
The report talks about the psychological condition of prison officers in Northern Ireland. In my view, it was one of considerable distress, from so many angles. At Hydebank, the young offenders prison, people were

115WH
being locked up incredibly early in the evening and suffered all sorts of deprivations on top of those that are normally obtained in our prison system. Why was that? The answer, in short, was because of the Prison Officers Association's bolshy view. It was almost as if, where prison officers could exert some control, they would do so dogmatically, because there was one place where they exerted very little control.
That abnormality in the system made it difficult to imagine how one could address the psychological distress of prison officers. The prison officers at the Maze could not have any sensible interaction with the prison population, because it was so different from the prison populations in the rest of the country. When one visits a prison in Cambridge or on Dartmoor, one meets people who are outside society. Many of them come out of prison to broken marriages, homelessness or the streets of London. When I discussed a particularly difficult prisoner at the Maze with one of the paramilitary commanding officers, as they called themselves, he said, "He'll be all right." I said, "How can you say he'll be all right?" as the prisoner was not long due to be released. The self-denominated commanding officer said, "We'll find him a suitable job." In other words, the person inside the prison was organising the employment of his fellow inmates.
One might think that that is normal, but it is not normal in any meaningful sense. Prisoners do not normally have the capacity to find jobs for other prisoners. That sense of power—that people outside could be required to find prisoners a job, and would find them a job if a word was merely said—was conveyed throughout the system and applied also to other more ominous utterances. If the commanding officer said to a prison officer, "Nice young daughter you've got", the prison officer would not sleep that night, if the remark was made in the context that the prison officer was regarded as having crossed the inmate.
That is not normal, but the effort to move from that to normality required the Government to take the extraordinary steps that they have taken, with the agreement of the vast majority of the people of Northern Ireland, in seeking not simply a different kind of prison system, but a different concordat governing society that then made possible the transition from an extraordinary, abnormal prison service to a normal one.
The Select Committee was grateful that the Government took the recommendations so seriously. I am grateful to my Committee colleagues of all parties, who worked so hard to address the issue. It is not easy for any of us to admit to such a substantial failure in a society of which we are, for the most part, justly proud. When considering the threats and the power of prisoners, we have had to consider the major malfunctions that occurred—I hope that that is in the past tense—in Northern Ireland's society. There is a long way to go, but, although the report is critical, particularly in paragraph 74, of the prison officers, none of us could have done better in the circumstances in which they were placed. They were given an impossible job and many did it with great courage and as much humanity and intelligence as were possible in circumstances that society had made impossible for them.
116WH
In commending the report, I hope that the House will note that many of the suggestions are work-in-progress towards normalisation. I hope that issues such as vulnerable prisoner units and more effective treatments and responses to young offenders will be processed. I hope that the Minister will provide the assurance that we want that the process of normalisation will continue apace and that the Prison Service that remains after normalisation will be properly integrated into the United Kingdom prison system.
3.7 pm
Mr. Andrew Hunter: Inevitably, contributions by members of the Select Committee will be selective and personal. I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. McWalter) because I agree profoundly with most of what he said. He referred to "a substantial failure" and I regret to report that, with qualifications, to which I shall refer, that is a valid overall judgment on the situation that we found during our inquiry.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke) referred to the courage and professionalism of the Prison Service. I am sure that there is no dissent about the courage, but we must be cautious in what we say about the professionalism. Some of my conclusions during our inquiry—it was reinforced by having spoken to and met many serving Prison Service officers over the years—are that the professionalism is latent, the intention exists, the wish to provide a highly professional service exists, but a combination of circumstances has failed to enable the delivery of that good intention of professionalism. I shall present a brief thesis to illustrate that.
I shall deal first with the paragraphs headed "Management" and then look more closely at the issue of low morale and lack of professional pride in the Prison Service.
Management is the greatest deficiency in the Northern Ireland Prison Service, and we must begin to focus our attention on that. A continuing theme throughout our inquiry was the question mark over the quality of the service's management. Before we began our deliberations, we inherited Mr. Narey's report, in which he described his doubts about the quality of management. He returned to that theme in his oral evidence to the Committee. The prime illustration of the problem, which was mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster, was that the management of the Northern Ireland Prison Service was of insufficient quality to provide a governor of the Maze and a director general of the service.
Her Majesty's inspector of prisons also commented on the need to improve the quality of the Northern Ireland Prison Service's management. We heard powerful evidence to the same effect from the Prison Governors Association and the Prison Officers Association. One of the most alarming features of the evidence received from that quarter was that of the lack of trust and communication between the sectors in the service.
That is why, although I fully endorse and support summary (d), I found it to be a depressing conclusion to have to give. It says:
"There is considerable cause for concern about the ability of the managers in the Service to cope with the demands on the system which likely reforms and changes will require".

117WH
I hope that when the Minister responds to the debate, he will assure us that positive steps are being taken to address the quality of management in the Prison Service.
The second point that I wish to make is that without that improved quality of management, the tragedy of today's Prison Service—low morale and the lack of professional pride—cannot be addressed effectively. In paragraph 39 of the report, we state:
"We were unfavourably impressed with the low morale displayed by staff".
That is our abiding recollection of the inquiry. We were preceded by Narey, who, in paragraph 1.21 of his report, described a
"general air of apathy which pervades much of the establishment".
Members of the Prison Officers Association and the Prison Governors Association, from whom we took evidence, spoke of a deep sense of unhappiness among staff. As those of us who have read Sir David Ramsbotham's report know, he found many such instances among the Maze prison staff.
One of the manifestations of that low morale is the abnormally high sickness rate, which is partly a symptom of the acute personnel problems that afflict the service. That factor compounds itself, because absence for sickness increases the burden on, and overstretches, other members of the Prison Service. The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik) referred to the failure to reduce that problem, which was a key target of the latest report.
The Committe found in its inquiry that the first step in addressing the high rate of staff absenteeism is to examine its causes very closely. A degree of communication between management and prison staff is required that has so far been lacking. I acknowledge that management have expressed their written good intentions, but they have not been put into practice. The reality is that it is the responsibility of the highest level of management to deal with staff absenteeism in partnership with relevant staff associations and local management. We are talking about a breakdown in basic management techniques and communication. The matter is urgent and should be given the highest priority.
Mr. Roy Beggs: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that management's perceived make-do-and-mend attempts to come up with a short-term solution contributed greatly to unsatisfactory relationships between management and prison officers? Does he also agree that proper long-term planning was needed, and that the lack of progression in the officer corps through training and expertise to senior management level has reflected badly on management over the years?
Mr. Hunter: The hon. Gentleman is right, as his wide experience in these matters will confirm. Indeed, the Committee received considerable evidence to that effect. The evidence suggested that a full-blown scheme of exchange of placements might help to infuse a wider perspective in the horizons of management and Prison Service officers. I am sure that that is right, but a long look should be taken at establishing a structure and
118WH
appropriate training that will provide incentives and a clear career path. That is the way to improve quality at every level of the Prison Service.
My last point is at a slight tangent, but I plead justification because it has already been raised in passing by the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire, who spoke for the Liberal Democrats. In the Government's response to our report, the Secretary of State acknowledged that the Prison Service should hold prisoners in "secure and humane confinement". I could not read those words without recalling the events of 26 December 1997, when Billy Wright was murdered in the Maze prison. I acknowledge that that was an isolated incident, but it was surely the most dreadful indictment imaginable of the proposition that the Prison Service is providing secure confinement.
The Minister and I have corresponded about this matter over the months and years, but fears have not been put to rest that it is being covered up behind a smokescreen. The most thorough public inquiry is needed to examine and establish how, in the most secure prison in the United Kingdom—perhaps even in western Europe—a prisoner could be murdered—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I shall suspend the sitting for 15 minutes.
3.19 pm
Sitting suspended for a Division in the House.
3.34 pm
On resuming—
Mr. Hunter: I had almost completed my remarks, and I shall now do so briefly.
I was making the point that I was profoundly concerned to read in the Secretary of State's response to the Committee the reference to the aim of the Prison Service to hold prisoners in "secure and humane confinement". In that context, I was referring to the murder of Billy Wright on 26 December 1997. It was dreadful that such an event could take place in what is regarded as one of the most secure prisons, at least in western Europe. I used the words "smokescreen" and "cover-up", because that is the perception of a significant number of people.
I shall make my final point on the subject of Mr. Wright's murder.
Mr. Beggs: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the callous and brutal murder of the prisoner David Keys, not long after that, was equally horrific and that it reflected badly on, and contributed to the loss of morale of, the prison officers charged with providing secure conditions for that prisoner?
Mr. Hunter: I accept that correction from the hon. Gentleman, and I agree that I should have included that case in my comments. It was the other side of an unacceptable coin. Essentially, the same situation arose, involving the objective of the Prison Service to provide secure confinement, although security did not apply to those who were confined.

119WH
I come to my final point on that event of 26 December 1997, and the murder that followed soon after. Do not those events—at least in the case of Mr. Wright—suggest either a dereliction and abandonment of duty arguably second to none, or even, as some fear, tacit consent, if not active contrivance? Those questions will remain unanswered unless or until the Government instigate a full public inquiry into the events.
3.37 pm
Mr. Harry Barnes: The report was issued reasonably recently, yet the developments taking place in Northern Ireland involve such rapid change that almost anything that one says is soon past the point. We are dependent on the Minister to bring us up to date. We have conducted a thorough investigation, with a report published in November 1998, and which started in the previous April; we have revisited the issue since. Nevertheless, changes are taking place of such a dramatic nature that almost anything one says at any stage will be slightly out of date. It is, therefore, difficult to develop a full and proper blueprint.
We have the report dated November 1998, and the Government's quite short response dated March 1999. We then had a session at which people from the Northern Ireland Prison Service returned to us in Committee, and we attempted to find out what had developed since that stage. That matter is also now in front of us. [Interruption.] My apologies.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Accepted.
Mr. Barnes: If I may have a second to attend to my pager, I shall ensure that that does not happen again.
Therefore, it is a rapidly changing scene, which revolves around the Belfast agreement and all the hopes that are pinned on it. The agreement dramatically changes many things in Northern Ireland and has already had a major impact on the Prison Service. A number of people have already been released from the Maze, and equivalent prisoners will in future go to Maghaberry. Therefore, a more normal prison procedure should now obtain and we should not expect to adhere in future to the pattern that my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. McWalter) described. However, almost no one has an exact blueprint for the future; there is no clear Utopian guide. There are some ideas and suggestions, which I hope are the result of the Select Committee doing its work thoroughly, but neither we nor the Northern Ireland Office, and certainly not the Northern Ireland Prison Service, has yet found the means to resolve the complex problems that we face.
We find an example of the way in which things move in the memorandum submitted to the Select Committee by the Northern Ireland Prison Service. It said that the report produced by Sir David Ramsbotham, Her Majesty's chief inspector of prisons,
"contained 143 recommendations and many helpful and pragmatic pointers for the way forward. However its publication came at a time when the position at Maze was significantly different than at the time of the inspection."
Therefore, things are already beginning to change dramatically.
120WH
To some extent that affects the position of the Northern Ireland Prison Service. It has received massive criticism. The Select Committee report was critical of it, and the Prison Officers Association was highly critical of the management. Although changes have taken place in the management, we have had to prod it to produce proposals, but the proposals before us are still not as precise as they should be. In some of the evidence that was presented to us, the Northern Ireland Prison Service was trying to make assessments for the month to come and developments were just around the corner.
The main problem for the Prison Service is the impact of the troubles—the existence of the Maze and the fact that 29 prison officers have been killed. That has led to low morale and low commitment and a high rate of absences, which affect not only the day-to-day working of the Prison Service but its training programmes, because people are missing from training programmes, too. In spite of comparative overstaffing, which has been created by problems in the past and aggravated by the recent release of prisoners, a depressing situation exists. My hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead described it very well. He said that if a prisoner in the Maze says to a prison officer, "How's your daughter doing?" or asks about something else in his personal life, that will restrain the officer's responses and disturb him considerably.
I had some experience of that when I was in the Maze. My group went to see different groups of paramilitary prisoners. When we visited the IRA section, we talked to the second team for a while, until the first team arrived. When the self-appointed commander and his deputy arrived, it took them a while to work out who we were. After a while, the deputy said, "Ah, you're Harry Barnes." The chill that went down my spine was substantial, he will be pleased to hear. It is easy to understand the response of those who work there daily. I shall not mention the name of the person concerned, but I noticed his release from prison the other day. I am well established and well protected in these hallowed halls, but I am aware that a tremendous impact must be made on those involved in day-to-day operations. There will be knock-on consequences in Maghaberry and elsewhere.
Mr. Beggs: Just to ensure that the hon. Gentleman does not forget his experience, may I ask whether he is comforted by the thought that that individual may soon receive a pass allowing him freedom of access to the Palace of Westminster?
Mr. Barnes: I shall consider that possibility with great interest and try to respond in like kind when I see him in the Corridors of Westminster.
The great problem in the Prison Service, over and above low morale and absenteeism, is overstaffing and the inevitable imbalance in the number of prison officers from the Catholic and Protestant communities. The Select Committee's report touched on that imbalance and the difficulty of tackling it, which is considerable. The Patten report referred to that and future operations.
The Prison Service has 6.9 per cent. Catholics and 77.6 per cent. Protestants, with a rapidly declining need for prison officers following the releases from the Maze

121WH
and the resulting overstaffing there. The necessary downsizing is made more difficult by moves to correct the balance.
We considered services linked with the Prison Service—for example, cooks, kitchen porters and so on. With the number of applications for those jobs, it might be easier to ensure that there is some movement towards more Catholics being employed. Some attention has been paid to encouraging people to follow up advertisements for employment in those services.
The Prison Service can compliment itself on those numbers having risen recently, but people from the Catholic community who replied to the most recent advertisement for cooks, kitchen porters and so on constituted only 20 per cent. of applicants. That is still much lower than the percentage of Catholics in the general population and the jobs have been re-advertised to try to stimulate more interest.
There are massive problems. For example, there is the problem of the culture in the Prison Service. The attitude of some existing officers may make it uncomfortable for Catholics to apply. There is also a problem for Catholics in their own communities as a result of the feeling that they should not be prison officers. We know about the problems in the police service, which must be even greater in the Prison Service—especially a Prison Service with residual activities in relation to paramilitary provision. The constraints within Catholic communities are considerable. However, civilianisation may offer a hope for correcting the balance at an earlier stage.
In a more general sense, perhaps a number of prison officer jobs should be allocated to back-up provisions in a move towards civilianisation. Such a move, which clearly could take place in Northern Ireland, has already taken place throughout the United Kingdom police force. It may prove easier to attract applications for jobs that are not front-line positions.
Creating posts in the Prison Service so that people will apply for jobs is a considerable problem. The Government must give thought to the available resources and what needs to be done. With regard to the police force, it has been suggested that people should be encouraged to apply for jobs in police forces elsewhere to provide specialist assistance and advice. That approach will have consequences for the Prison Service.
Early retirement, financial provision, back-up assistance, and the relocation and retraining of people who must use their skills in a different setting are matters of great importance, and the financial implications are considerable. The Northern Ireland Office must confront the question of whether extra resources should be found to tackle those problems. If all goes well and powers are transferred to the Executive and the Assembly, the involvement of the Committee and the Northern Ireland Office will decline. However, we hope that that will not result in what has been described as the peace dividend, whereby a certain block of money is transferred and the remainder is not taken into account. Resources should be available to maintain the Northern Ireland police force and Prison Service, both of which are heavily manned.
This should not be seen as a great opportunity for the Exchequer to save money. Instead, we should recognise
122WH
that those resources are needed as Northern Ireland moves from an exceptional set of circumstances to normality. However, that normality cannot simply be swtiched on; it must be nurtured.
The Prison Service management are now nudging towards many of the ideas on the direction in which matters should move that are given in the documents. I hope that we can lift our analysis by saying that the necessary resources will be provided, so that the proposals that have been made can be realised.
3.54 pm
Mr. Jeffrey Donaldson: As a member of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, I am conscious of the contributions made by my right hon. and hon. Friends to the report, which forms part of the remit of this afternoon's debate.
It is worth recalling the circumstances that gave rise to the Committee's decision to hold an inquiry into the efficiency and effectiveness of the Northern Ireland Prison Service. The escape of the IRA prisoner Liam Averill from the Maze prison on 10 December 1997 was closely followed, on 27 December, by the murder at the prison of the prisoner Billy Wright. As my hon. Friend the Member for East Antrim (Mr. Beggs) reminded us, that was followed by the murder of the unsentenced prisoner David Keys in the Maze on 15 March 1998.
Mr. John M. Taylor: I am following the hon. Gentleman's remarks closely, and I thought that I heard him say that there was an unsentenced prisoner—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman addresses the Chair; otherwise, the microphone will not pick up what he says and it will be difficult for me to hear him.
Mr. Taylor: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker. This is the first time that I have spoken in this Chamber and it has a different orientation. Personally, I find it difficult to speak to someone with my back to him.
I understood the hon. Gentleman to say that murder or injury had been inflicted on an unsentenced prisoner in the Maze. I find it surprising that unsentenced prisoners should be held in such a grave prison, with its high-level security and the landscape that was described earlier. Is the hon. Gentleman saying that there are remand prisoners in the Maze?
Mr. Donaldson: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. It is true that remand prisoners are held alongside sentenced prisoners in the Maze prison. David Keys was a Loyalist Volunteer Force prisoner who was held in the LVF block at the Maze. He was on remand awaiting trial for his alleged involvement in two murders in the village of Poyntzpass. He was allegedly murdered by some fellow inmates belonging to the LVF. It was a sad case.
I say at the outset that I and my party condemn, absolutely and without reservation, the activities of all the terrorist organisations in Northern Ireland. However, that does not mean that we should not be concerned about what happens in our prisons and the welfare of prisoners, regardless of their crimes. Those of us in positions of legislative responsibility have a duty to ensure that their conditions are humane.

123WH
However, that duty must be balanced by the need to provide proper security in prisons. Concern about the conjunction of events in the Maze and their impact on security at the prison—and on the security of the wider community—prompted the Committee to hold its inquiry. Those events had a significant impact not only on the Prison Service, but on the wider political process at a crucial time.
The escape of Liam Averill, and in particular the murder of Billy Wright, had a destabilising influence that almost led to a complete breakdown of some of the ceasefires. Prison security is important not only for ensuring that prisoners stay in prison, but for the wider political process.
Mr. Hunter: To complete the hon. Gentleman's line, with some presumption, we are talking of some of the unsung heroes of the peace process.
Mr. Donaldson: I thank the hon. Gentleman. I shall not add to his point.
Prisons and prisoners have been a very important aspect of the wider political process—to the extent, regrettably, that prisoners became a bargaining chip in the negotiations that led up to the Belfast agreement. An early release scheme was introduced, which provided for the early release of prisoners linked to terrorist organisations. I objected to that scheme in principle because I felt that it was wrong to trade prisoner releases for political concessions or political agreement on issues that were not relevant to the prison.
I still cannot understand why one of my constituents, who is serving a life sentence in Maghaberry prison for the murder of his wife, will serve that sentence while prisoners in the Maze who also committed murder have now been released. It is difficult to explain to my constituent why a politically motivated crime is treated differently from a crime with another motivation. That will set a difficult precedent in Northern Ireland if there is a resumption or a continuation of terrorist violence.
Mr. McWalter: The actions of many of those in the Maze prison were heinous, vile and murderous. The difficulty in any society that is experiencing a major malfunction is that, sometimes, some people within it believe that violence is justified in such circumstances to correct the social malfunction.
Whether or not the hon. Gentleman shares that view, he must recognise what one might call the Nelson Mandela objection. That involved someone whom most people would regard as a person of high principle and honour finding himself in a society in which he felt the need to put a bomb on a railway. That is the logic that most people understand. Even if we do not agree that the justification in place X is as worth while as the justification in place Y, nevertheless some people in place X think that it is, which will generate that kind of action. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will agree that the normalisation is important and must be cherished and allowed to progress.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order, before I call the hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Donaldson), may I say
124WH
that the Chair does not like overlong interventions? I have been tolerant because of the tone of the debate, but such interventions are generally unhelpful.
Mr. Donaldson: Perhaps I am dealing with prisoner releases in isolation, but one difficulty for many people in Northern Ireland is that, while they see a significant concession made to a terrorist organisation, they do not see the reciprocity required if the political process is to move forward. I am not suggesting that prisoners are traded for anything, but if the exceptional circumstances described by the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. McWalter) are relevant, it is time that those organisations that are benefiting from the prisoner release scheme started to deliver on their side, especially in terms of illegal weapons.
The early release scheme has had a major impact on the Prison Service and its complement is now being downsized through the staff reduction scheme. We may well soon see the closure of the Maze prison. The hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead may have been a little uncharitable when he described the prison as a moonscape. It is in my constituency and when I am there I travel past it almost daily. Its architectural design may not be pleasing to the eye, but one must understand that the function of a prison is not to be architecturally pleasing but to secure the incarceration of those placed there by the judicial system.
We are dealing with a particular set of individuals, who have chosen to associate together in terrorist organisations. Measures have therefore been taken—I hope that they will continue to be—to ensure that those prisoners are secured and that their escape is prevented. The Maze prison was often described as the most secure prison in Europe, yet there was a mass escape from it in the 1980s that sadly involved the murder of one prison officer. Subsequent escape attempts were made, and the IRA prisoner Liam Averill succeeded. That escape contributed to the circumstances that gave rise to the inquiry.
Although it may be desirable that prisoners should be able to participate in what might be called normal prison activities, I remind the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead that, for the IRA, gardening means digging a tunnel. I can understand why the Northern Ireland Prison Service might not wish to encourage that activity. The wider community in Northern Ireland thought that the prisoners in the Maze prison enjoyed a degree of what I might call "luxury".
Mr. Beggs: A holiday camp.
Mr. Donaldson: Indeed, it was often described as a holiday camp. Special arrangements were made for the prisoners to associate in paramilitary groupings and they enjoyed a large degree of freedom within prison confines—and a large degree of control over the prison's day-to-day affairs. We discovered that the officers commanding the various paramilitary factions had an arrangement with the prison governor—they negotiated arrangements for the management of the prison. I have no doubt that that special arrangement gave rise to the difficulties that led to the circumstances that I described earlier.
Rev. Martin Smyth: Is my hon. Friend aware that one of the prisoners out on Christmas

125WH
parole enjoyed the Maze so much that he went back before his parole ended? The situation in the Maze goes back many years; I remember having to identify the body of a chief prison officer who had appeared on television to speak of the prison officers' problems in dealing with prisoners under the relaxed regime that politicians had imposed on them.
Mr. Donaldson: I thank my hon. Friend for reminding us that that problem has been going on for some time. As I said, prison matters can have an impact on the wider political process. I think of the hunger strikes in the early 1980s, over many of the issues that have been mentioned which had a serious impact on the political process in Northern Ireland.
I do not want to dwell too much on what has happened. The inquiry and the Committee's report are important because of the lessons that can be learned and how those lessons are applied to the present and the evolving situation in the Northern Ireland Prison Service. If the early release scheme continues and the Maze prison closes, Maghaberry prison will become the main establishment in the Northern Ireland Prison Service. As it happens, Maghaberry prison is also in my constituency; I have a large prison population in my constituency. Although not all the prisoners have their origins in my constituency, many of the prison staff who work in Maghaberry and the Maze live there.
I pay tribute to the staff of the Northern Ireland Prison Service who have, in the difficult circumstances mentioned by members of the Committee, sought to ensure adequate prison security, not only for the effective management of prisons but to protect the wider community. I urge the Government to bring forward their plans, which have apparently been delayed, for the award of a medal to Northern Ireland Prison Service staff to mark their contribution over the recent decades of violence—although I hope that they will not, unlike certain recent awards, be given posthumously. Such awards will recognise the past, present and future contribution of the service.
I am concerned about recent incidents of arson attacks and violence at Maghaberry prison. Elements within Maghaberry—paramilitaries are now there—may seek, through violence and pressure on prison staff, to have imported into the prison the regime that prevailed at the Maze. I urge the Minister and the Government to stand firm against any such move. As I have said, many of the incidents at the Maze, including the escape of Liam Averill and the murder of Billy Wright, were a direct consequence of the regime that was in operation—a regime that hindered effective management and security. It would therefore be a disaster if the regime at the Maze were transferred to Maghaberry. Control must be retained and the governor must be given the resources that he needs to deal with such problems.
One problem that we found on our visit to Maghaberry was staff morale and the alarming levels of staff absenteeism, particularly due to stress-related illnesses. A small amount of manpower in the Prison Service has been freed up by the early release scheme, and some staff have moved as part of the first two phases of the staff reduction scheme, but there is still an excess
126WH
of staff, exacerbated by the recent closures of blocks in the Maze. If staff are needed at Maghaberry, I hope that the management of the Northern Ireland Prison Service will make officers available to nip problems in the bud so that matters do not become difficult to control. I hope that the management and staff at Maghaberry are given the support that they need to deal with that problem.
I want to add to what my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter) said about the murder of Billy Wright in the Maze prison. As a Northern Ireland Member of Parliament, I am not holding a candle for Billy Wright, the Loyalist Volunteer Force, or any terrorist organisation. I have condemned the activities of all such organisations. However, I am deeply concerned about the circumstances surrounding the murder of Billy Wright in the Maze prison. I do not believe that the inquiries conducted either by Martin Narey or by Sir David Ramsbotham got to the core of the issues surrounding that murder. There is public interest in getting at the truth and in understanding the sequence of events that led to the murder. I shall not rehearse those today, but there was a series of so-called coincidences, which facilitated the actions of those who murdered Billy Wright. I accept that they have been apprehended, brought before the courts and sentenced, but that is not the end of the matter.
On Tuesday next week, I and others, acting in the public interest, will visit the Maze prison, together with Mr. David Wright, the victim's father. We shall look at the layout of the prison and discuss with prison management the circumstances leading to the murder. I echo the call of my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke for an independent public inquiry into that event. Public interest in this matter will not go away. What is happening is poisoning the atmosphere, especially in Portadown. I return to the link between what happens in the prisons and the wider political process, which has the potential to unravel much of the progress that has been made. The Government need to look again at that issue.
Mr. Beggs: Does my hon. Friend agree that many prison officers sincerely harbour deep suspicion about the circumstances leading to that murder? They want a full public inquiry into the tragedy.
Mr. Donaldson: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. He is right; I have talked to prison staff, some of whom were there on the day of Billy Wright's murder and were peripherally involved in the investigation. They are deeply concerned about what happened and believe that the good name of the Prison Service in Northern Ireland needs to be cleared on the events surrounding the murder of Billy Wright. It is crucial that the Government deal with the issue now by establishing an independent public inquiry. If that happens, we shall get at the truth of the matter once and for all.
The past 30 years have been difficult for the Northern Ireland Prison Service. I, and others, have often criticised it for inefficiencies and mistakes that have had serious consequences in the wider community, but I have also paid tribute to the staff who have worked in very difficult circumstances. Through my involvement in the Committee inquiry and my continued interest in the prison service, I have gained a better understanding of the difficulties and challenges that it faces. It is healthy

127WH
that we, as elected public representatives, have a better understanding of the issues. At the same time, we believe that the conjunction of events that led to the inquiry must never happen again. We ought never again to have to face the committing of a murder in one of our prisons. I hope that the lessons that we have learned will be applied, that proper, effective security measures will be implemented, as the Government have promised, and that there will be no more escapes. If those important things can be achieved, the work of our Committee will have been worth while.
4.20 pm
Mr. Roy Beggs: Much of what I wanted to say has already been covered, and I do not want to prolong the debate any more than necessary. Will the Minister tell us the Government's proposals to retain experienced prison staff from those currently employed in Northern Ireland prisons? There has been much talk about the excellent redundancy package that is offered to induce early retirements from the Royal Ulster Constabulary, but there has been much less comment on the package offered to prison officers. I, too, pay tribute to the service that they have provided to all the people in Northern Ireland over many difficult years. I also pay tribute to the support given by the wives and families of prison officers. There have been times when much more could have been done to assist those who were forced to leave their homes and buy more expensive properties elsewhere. In having to move for their own safety because of intimidation and terrorism, they suffered considerable financial loss as well as psychological strain, stress and upheaval. I hope that due consideration will be given to a proper package to encourage the take-up of early retirement.
I accept entirely the remarks of colleagues about the need to create facilities for a much more balanced work force in the Prison Service. However, for as long as paramilitary organisations refuse to decommission or to break down paramilitary structures, further effort will be made to establish paramilitary control in Maghaberry and elsewhere. The closure of Maze prison will not see the end of paramilitary influence.
We need to be able to expect from Prison Service management and, indeed, the Northern Ireland Office, greater influence and increased resources to ensure better training for those in prison, so that, when they have completed their sentences, they can move back into society with less risk of reoffending and returning to prison.
The Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs has done a great service. I pay tribute to all our colleagues from the mainland for the time, consideration and thoughtfulness that they put into the preparation of the report. I hope that the Minister will even be able to give us a fuller response than the somewhat short one that we received from the Secretary of State.
4.24 pm
Mr. John M. Taylor: I shall add a brief word on behalf of those on the Conservative Front Bench.
I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke), who
128WH
chairs the Committee and who opened our proceedings so excellently. I also congratulate all members of the Committee on the report.
I was suprised when my right hon. Friend mentioned the remarkable staff-to-prisoner ratio at the Maze prison. I nearly intervened on him, but before I did so he said that he also regarded it as remarkable, which made my point. As the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) said, we are making our observations against fixed time lines which have passed and in an atmosphere of enormous change. That atmosphere was alluded to in the Secretary of State's response to the report.
I echo my right hon. Friend's reference to the devotion to duty and security record of the Prison Service in Northern Ireland, and add my praise and respect for its work in adversity.
I have been profoundly impressed by all the speeches that I have heard today, none of which was remotely a clone of any other. The nature of comment has been extraordinary and eclectic, which has given me a remarkably vivid view from different positions of the state of the service. I shall underline the paradox of my position. I was concerned by the misgivings of my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter), not least about morale and absenteeism, but at the same time, paradoxically, I found myself sympathetic to the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. McWalter), who asked rhetorically whether any of us felt that we could have done any better.
Relatively new as I am to my brief, I have found today's proceedings most informative. I have been impressed by the work of the Committee, and await the Minister's response with interest.
4.28 pm
The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Adam Ingram): The hon. Member for Solihull (Mr. Taylor) does not have to wait too long.
The right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke) clearly and precisely set out the range of issues that were required to be considered by his Committee, and he rightly paid tribute to the members of the Committee and the officials who served it. He also correctly put the debate in the context of what has been a busy week for Northern Ireland business. We have had a good attendance in the Chamber, and many thoughtful and useful contributions to the debate. I shall deal with the one jarring note—the tragic murder of Billy Wright—in due course.
I am sure that I speak for my right hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Marjorie Mowlam), who was the Secretary of State when we gave evidence to the Committee, when I say that we always received an effective grilling. It was always courteous, however, which helped the Committee to arrive at conclusions. The report is a constructive and perceptive document. It correctly identifies the strengths and weaknesses of the Northern Ireland Prison Service, and we are acting on its comments. Where strengths can be strengthened and weaknesses need strengthening, we have done that with vigour, as I shall elaborate.
When the director general, Robin Halward, met the Committee in October in a follow-up session, he discussed the developments and follow-on that he had

129WH
initiated along with the senior management team, and identified where progress had been made in relation to the report and its conclusions. This afternoon, I shall not cover that ground again but shall touch on it tangentially and elaborate on how we have progressed since then.
The job of a prison officer is, at the best of times, difficult, as has been borne out by the contributions that we have heard today. It demands patience, understanding and an ability to withstand the sort of pressure that most of us would hope never to be placed under. What is true in England, Scotland and Wales is even more so in Northern Ireland, where, as the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster, among others, mentioned, 29 officers have been murdered, and many more have been injured over the past 30 years. I share in the tributes that have been paid to those officers and their families. Those officers made significant sacrifices, and their families must live with the tragic consequences. As hon. Members have said, such threats continue, and we should pay tribute to those officers who continue to serve in those difficult circumstances. They, as part of the overall delivery of governmental services in Northern Ireland, have made a major contribution to what we all hope will be the beginning of a new, peaceful future for Northern Ireland.
The hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Donaldson) referred to the possible award of a Prison Service medal to those who have served. That will be a matter for the body responsible for such issues, the committee on the grant of honours, awards and decorations. As that body must consider the application that will be made, it would not be appropriate for me to comment now on the outcome of its deliberations. However, the hon. Gentleman's point was well made, and the proposal is progressing through the Government system, in full consultation with the staff associations responsible for those who serve in prisons.
The provision of a better service cannot be achieved in a vacuum. The Northern Ireland Prison Service and I value the fresh perspective that the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee has brought to our work and our objectives for the future. The Northern Ireland of two years ago, when the Committee began its inquiry, is a world away from the Northern Ireland of today. For the first time in a generation, Northern Ireland has an Executive, elected by and responsible to all the people of Northern Ireland, and we have the best chance yet to secure a genuine and unbreakable peace.
The Northern Ireland Prison Service, too, is experiencing unprecedented change. The early release of paramilitary prisoners has markedly changed the size and composition of the prison population, and peace will ask different questions of the Prison Service of the future. It can begin to focus on running a normal prison regime, if such a thing exists. It can break free from its traditional role of a bulwark between segregated groups of paramilitary prisoners, and it can play a more positive role in delivering broader criminal justice objectives, helping to reduce crime and the fear of crime.
The Northern Ireland Affairs Committee began its inquiry in the aftermath of the Good Friday agreement, when it became apparent that future staffing levels
130WH
would have to drop by about 40 per cent. The Committee faced a barrage of questions from staff, who had real concerns about their future. That was reflected correctly in the report and was mentioned in today's debate. That period of uncertainty obviously dented staff morale.
In many ways, the Northern Ireland Prison Service was the first part of the jigsaw of putting together the changes initiated by the Good Friday agreement, which has had a major and significant impact. We have had to work hard since then in three areas to make a real difference—first, on staff management, development and morale; secondly, on some specific operational matters; and, thirdly, on inspection and accountability arrangements.
Before I say more on that, however, it is appropriate for me to deal with the tragic murder of Billy Wright and the points raised by the hon. Members for Basingstoke and for Lagan Valley. It is worth putting the matter in context. Two major inquiries into the running of the Northern Ireland Prison Service, primarily into the running of the Maze prison, resulted from that murder. The coroner also commented on it in his judgment, although it was not as a result of a full police investigation. More important, however, the Royal Ulster Constabulary undertook a thorough investigation of those events, which resulted in three people being found guilty of the murder.
I have had to meet Mr. David Wright, Billy's father. Mr. Wright is also in correspondence with me and with my right hon. friend the Secretary of State. We have had to deal with that man's grief, which is genuine. He has lost someone close, and he carries that loss with him. We have explained to Mr. Wright that, if he has new evidence, he should bring it forward by whatever means he wishes—through Ministers, through his own Member of Parliament, or more appropriately, through the RUC.
Members of Parliament may call for a public inquiry, but an inquiry would interview people who would tell it things that could have an impact. I would ask them to take that information to the RUC. They should not use the forum of a public chamber to debate the matter, as it might encourage people to think that substantial evidence was available where none exists. If there is evidence, we want to know about it. If new evidence could lead to new lines of inquiry by the RUC, it should be made available. Saying that we have not got to the bottom of the matter could be seen as a criticism of the RUC. The RUC carried out the usual thorough investigation.
Mr. Donaldson: The right hon. Gentleman misunderstands what we are driving at when we call for a public inquiry. I acknowledged that the individuals involved in the murder have been prosecuted by the RUC and that meetings have been held with the RUC to discuss the evidence in that case. However, the circumstances that surround the events that led to the murder of Billy Wright are important. I speak not only about the apprehension of those who committed the crime, but about getting to the truth of how that crime was facilitated and by whom. For instance, how did the two guns arrive in the Maze prison? I could ask many other questions, but I do not want to incur your wrath, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I hope that the Minister

131WH
understands that matters beyond the simple question of prosecution are of public interest and can be properly satisfied only by an independent public inquiry. Our purpose in raising the matter today is to give weight to that call. It is not a mere ritual.
Mr. Ingram: I do not want to get involved in the detail of that debate. However, people who demand public inquiries into such events usually say that there has been collusion between the RUC and the Army, or between unknown individuals somewhere in the system. The evidence obviously has to be significant before we embark on such action. We have examined the information that Mr. David Wright has given to us and that has been given to the RUC.
What happened in the case is established not by politicians or Ministers sitting in judgment, but by people who have investigative capabilities. Our advice is that the evidence that has been produced is insufficient to take us forward in that regard. If the hon. Members who are raising the issue have substantial evidence, they should make it available. It is easy to say that there is evidence or that there are questions to be asked—of course there are questions to be asked. There are probably questions in every murder inquiry that do not get answered. For example, it was never established how the weapon was brought into the prison. That was subject to investigation. If the allegation is one of collusion—that the people in the Prison Service somehow colluded in the murder—the evidence for that should not be passed to me as a Minister. If that is done, I am prepared to accept it but will immediately pass it on to the RUC. I urge other hon. Members to do the same. Such matters should be put into the process so that they can be properly investigated.
A request was made to me for Mr. Wright to visit the Maze next week, and we were able to facilitate that. I hope that that can be done quietly and without publicity because my assessment is that Mr. Wright is still carrying much grief and hurt. I would hate to see people exploiting that for their own purposes, as tends to happen—I do not make that charge against hon. Members who raised the subject today.
I was dealing with the three areas that we felt had to be examined. The first was staff. The prisoner release scheme prompted a fundamental reassessment of future prison staffing levels, and the staff reduction programme was launched in December 1998. To date, 210 staff have left the service and we expect some 1,100 staff to have left by the end of March 2001. The final date for applications to the scheme was 21 January this year, and we have received more than 900 applications. Consequently, I am pleased to say that there will be no need for compulsory redundancies, which is a significant achievement.
The right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster asked about the phasing of the measure and how it would be achieved. I shall not go into that, because it is an issue for management to handle through their dealings with prison staff associations. If further information can be provided on phasing and its likely progress as we move through the process, I would be happy for it to be given to hon. Members. The way in which phasing has been handled, given the numbers that have left and the number of applications received, has been a significant achievement. It is a significant
132WH
achievement for the Prison Service management, as the high take-up showed that they got their strategy and their figures right, avoiding the need for compulsory redundancy. It is also significant for prison officers, who have been able to stay or leave, depending on what is best for them. We obviously owe an enormous debt of gratitude to the service and commitment of those who are leaving.
The question of religious imbalance has been raised. It is difficult to achieve religious balance, given the major downsizing taking place. The hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) gave accurate figures on the scale of take-up. Every effort is made to tackle the issue, but there are few opportunities for engagement and we are, as ever, dependent on people taking up those opportunities. Even with all the encouragement and positive spin of advertisements to persuade people from the minorities to apply, there may not necessarily be a willingness in their communities to serve in the Prison Service. My hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire made that point.
Mr. Barnes: Is it considered too early for the hoped for take-up of such jobs by people from the Catholic community? The peace process is at a difficult stage, and people wonder what will happen. Once it has changed the nature of Northern Ireland politics, it may become more natural for them to take up jobs in and associated with the Prison Service and the police. Targeting the Catholic community might work much better in those circumstances.
Mr. Ingram: The answer to that is broadly yes. We always have to be conscious of laws promoting positive discrimination. Laws have been changed to facilitate such an approach, not only for the Prison Service but for other aspects of the Northern Ireland economy. We all hope that Northern Ireland will become a normal society. As it does so, the climate will change and people in those communities will have the freedom to participate in the responsibilities of the state that they have not had hitherto. They will do so without the threat hanging over them of having to move home or of their families being ostracised. We hope that a normal society will evolve and, meanwhile, we will encourage the best take-up that we can from minority communities. However, we should bear in mind the fact that there are few opportunities for that to happen during downsizing.
Those who stay in the Prison Service in Northern Ireland will face new challenges and priorities. Its director general, Robin Halward, and his team have taken a fresh look at the service's mission statement "Visions and Values". It has made what it calls a future positive programme that will allow everyone to contribute in a positive way to personal development, to consider what contribution individuals can make to the development of the service and to share their views with colleagues. Everyone staying in the service will have the opportunity to participate in that programme.
We have already taken great strides to meet concerns about staff training. I am pleased to report an increase in overall levels of training, most notably in raising professional standards and developing management skills. That returns us to some of the points raised in debate. Seven hundred staff from all levels are engaged

133WH
in national vocational qualification accredited programmes. Almost 600 are signed up for or are already participating in management skills programmes.
By April, we should have exceeded the service's target of five days of training and development per officer. The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik) said that he could not stay for my response, but he pointed out that the average number of days allocated for training was much less than that.
Those significant improvements were rewarded when five of the Prison Service's six establishments achieved Investors in People accreditation: its headquarters, training college, Magilligan prison, Maze prison and the young offenders centre. Maghaberry prison will be assessed once recent changes have bedded in. Even with that level of progress, the service will not rest on its laurels. The successes are a platform from which we are dedicated to building continuous improvement.
The management of staff absenteeism remains a primary objective of the Prison Service. We engaged management consultants to analyse our systems and recommend improvements. Those consultants found that core absence management procedures are sound, but that weaknesses exist in implementation and information gathering. In his evidence session, the director general advised the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee of the achievements of the project team that he has created to improve attendance management. By 31 December last year, the overall number of operational days lost due to absenteeism had dropped by almost 16 per cent. compared to the previous year. We aim to achieve an overall reduction of 30 per cent. from the 1998–99 baseline by March 2001.
The second group of anxieties that have been expressed in the debate and are detailed in the Committee's report relate to operational issues. The report raised a number of issues relating to prisoner accommodation and the maintenance of a full and varied regime. The closure of the Maze prison and the overall management of paramilitary and reoffending paramilitary prisoners will require a great deal of attention in the coming months, and perhaps for even longer. Full implementation of the Good Friday agreement should make it possible to close the Maze by the end of 2000. It could probably be achieved in the summer, depending on the circumstances that develop over the coming months. We are planning its smooth rundown. As the nature of the prison population changes, and as part of the overall review of the prison estate, the service is taking a fresh look at the maintenance of good order and prison discipline in all circumstances.
One priority will be to minimise the threat of bullying and intimidation without isolating people. Vulnerable prisoners in Magilligan prison are housed together in one unit with people who are not a threat to them. We plan to extend that arrangement to Maghaberry.
Like the Committee, we are worried about the fact that female juveniles are held in the young offenders wing at Maghaberry prison. The Northern Ireland Office review of the juvenile justice system is due to report shortly, and will offer solutions to what we all know is a difficult problem. Although I cannot say what
134WH
those solutions will be, we have taken the matter on board and are conducting a thoroughgoing review of it, which will be issued shortly. That will then be subject to further consultation. I shall ensure that the Committee receives a copy of that report.
The Committee's report urged that operational constraints, in particular court escorting duties, should not be allowed to disrupt the delivery of a normal prison regime. A courts escort group, which was established in September 1999, allows prison governors to plan staffing levels without having to cope with the unpredictable demands made by the courts, which lead to disrupted regimes. We have begun to tackle that problem, too. In its early days, I visited the group, which generated a lot of enthusiasm on the part of the officers involved, and was beginning to show results even then. Once we are able to evaluate the benefits in staff management and financial terms and, if possible, for the RUC, which has been involved, we shall inform the Committee.
In addition, a video-link project is being piloted between the young offenders centre and the magistrates and Crown courts in Belfast. It enables remand inmates to participate in pre-trial and remand hearings and bail applications without leaving the centre. Again, I visited that project in its early stages, and I have been advised since that it is working successfully. In many ways, we are ahead of what is being done elsewhere in the United Kingdom. Perhaps we should proclaim that more, but it is another example of substantial success. We intend to extend that project to Maghaberry later this year. Maghaberry will demand a great deal of attention in the coming months. The complex population mix and the difficulties involved in maintaining a full regime at all times have recently led to several unacceptable incidents.
My primary concern is the maintenance of security, good order and control, and I have every confidence in the ability of the Prison Service to manage and, where possible, prevent such incidents. The present staff shift patterns and sick absences have militated against the full range of prison activities, and that sometimes results in reactions within the prison. We are currently involved in negotiations with the Prison Officers Association to overcome those problems. In addition, we are looking at ways to introduce an entirely new visits system, which will guarantee booked visits and enable prisons to establish better visitor identification, searching and drugs control procedures. The system will be piloted at Magilligan prison from this March.
As a next steps agency, the Northern Ireland Prison Service is due to carry out a quinquennial review, as the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster said. That will represent a welcome chance to evaluate the service's performance since it became an agency in 1995. It will determine whether agency status is the best method of operation and, if so, critically examine the relationship between the agency, the core Department and me, as the responsible Minister, in the form of a revised framework document. It will allow the service to appraise its key performance indicators and key targets in light of a changing prisoner population and closer collaboration with other parts of the criminal justice system. The review was launched in late 1999 and a wide-ranging consultation exercise has begun. I apologise if hon. Members have not received that

135WH
information—we will keep them apprised of the situation as it develops. We want to involve all interested parties, including hon. Members from Northern Ireland who have an interest in the matter. An emerging findings paper will be issued in spring of this year, and we hope that the review will be completed by the summer.
I turn to the third set of issues that have been raised by the report and by hon. Members during the debate. Those relate to accountability, inspection and working arrangements with the probation service. Work is in hand to meet the Committee's worries about accountability and working arrangements with the probation service. I cannot yet give any firm indications about the precise mechanisms, because that is part of the on-going criminal justice review. That review is due to be published in the near future, and obviously any suggestions that it makes in respect of this and other issues will be subject to full consultation. It will highlight the relevant matters for the benefit of hon. Members. The Northern Ireland Affairs Committee has drawn the criminal justice review group's attention to the links between the Prison Service and the probation service, and it is therefore aware of that interest.
In the meantime, we are making important progress in other related areas. The Committee recommended that we should formalise the arrangements for the inspection of prisons by Her Majesty's chief inspector of prisons. I, as the Minister, and the Prison Service value our close links with the chief inspector, and share the Committee's desire to place them on a more formal footing. We have written to the Home Office and the chief inspector to take forward that recommendation.
In October, the Committee raised the lack of substantive progress on the removal of boards of visitors from the prison adjudication function. I can report that we have given boards of visitors an undertaking that we will take away that responsibility and are working towards a target date of April this year. That is an ambitious target—but important, none the less—because replacing this responsibility raises difficult issues for both for us, in the management of the Northern Ireland Prison Service, and the Home Office. We need to get it right, not least in the way in which it is conditioned by the European convention on human rights. We must ensure that we have proper systems to guarantee the safety of staff, to allow a governor to take appropriate action to maintain good order and prison discipline and to guarantee the rights of prisoners. My officials are working closely with the Home Office on those matters.
The Northern Ireland Affairs Committee recommended the establishment of a prisons ombudsman, either specifically for Northern Ireland or
136WH
linked to another jurisdiction. I agree with the Committee that the resolution of prisoners' complaints through the courts is over-used, costly and often inappropriate.
The Prison Service has undertaken a fundamental review of grievance procedures and is examining the case for an ombudsman. We shall draw on experience in England, where arrangements are being reconsidered, and in Scotland, which has a system of prison-based committees. The Northern Ireland Prison Service hopes to finish gathering evidence in the coming weeks. It will then consult interested parties before moving forward. We shall, of course, keep the Select Committee informed of developments.
It is worth recording that the Prison Service already has well-established links with the probation service, both operationally in prisons and at senior management level. We continue to consider ways of improving and developing services. During recent months, both services have been working jointly to improve management and supervisory arrangements for life sentence prisoners. They are working with other statutory agencies to develop joint protocols for the assessment and management of sex offenders. At the end of last year, both services worked together on the hosting of a European conference on prisoner reintegration. They are trying to draw on wider international experience of such delicate and difficult matters.
The report of the Select Committee was a helpful reminder that in difficult circumstances we are, at least, moving in the right direction. Where we fell short, the Select Committee did not spare us. We took a long, hard look at where we must improve. Sometimes, we cannot implement measures immediately, but it is better to examine the matter to get it right so that it will last beyond the immediate future. We have studied all the conclusions carefully and are working hard to implement them.
The report and our debate today focus a critical eye on what we are doing with the Northern Ireland Prison Service and will make it a stronger and more vital organisation. The Select Committee's critical comments and examination, and the way in which the director general, with his senior management, follow the recommendations will make the Northern Ireland Prison Service a better service in the months and years ahead. Much will depend on the sort of society in which it exists. We all want a different and better society than we have had in the past 30 years.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at two minutes past Five o'clock.

DEFENCE

  HMS Glorious
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what steps he took, following his oral statement of 28 January 1999,Official Report, columns 564–76, to ensure that contrary opinions to the official view of the HMS Glorious affair were fully taken into account in the latest revision of the official account; and if he will make a statement. [104751]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  [holding answer 24 January 2000]: The circumstances surrounding the sinking of HMS Glorious have been most thoroughly researched within the MOD, during which opinions and interpretations from a wide variety of sources have been considered. In the course of these exhaustive investigations some new information has come to light which has enabled the MOD to make further minor revisions to the account already provided. This new information incudes the fact that it was the Commander in Chief Home Fleet who insisted that the Glorious should be diverted to Scapa Flow to conduct a court-martial, and not the captain of the carrier himself. In addition, since January 1999, the Naval Historical Branch has been able to track down the daily intelligence summaries which show that the late Sir Harry Hinsley's recollections, broadcast in the Channel 4 programme, were in error. These records, which in the original, are signed off by Sir Harry show that Bletchley Park did indeed report increased wireless signal traffic in the Western Baltic and the Kattegat during the relevant period, but that the assessment of experts at the time was that it was associated with U-boat activity, and not that of heavy German surface ships.

  This extra information does not bring into question the conclusions arrived at in the MOD paper reviewed by my predecessor after the adjournment debate in this House in January last year. I shall arrange for a copy of the revised paper, incorporating these slight amendments to be placed in the Library of the House.

  Parachute Regiment
  Mr. Duncan Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the current strength of each of the battalions of the Parachute Regiment. [106564]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 24 January 2000]: The current UK trained strength for each of the three Regular parachute battalions and the Territorial Army battalion, as at 1 December 1999, is shown in the table.
  224W

  Battalion

  Trained strength

  1 Para1

  538

  2 Para1

  2531

  3 Para1

  3644

  4 Para (V)

  4387

  1 The figures are for UK Trained Army Personnel only, and exclude Locally Employed personnel, Royal Irish (Home Service) personnel, Reservists mobilised for duties associated with Bosnia, Full-time Reserve Service personnel, and Gurkhas.

  2 Strength of 2 Para does not include the Gurkha Reinforcement Company (GRC) that is currently attached to it.

  3 3 Para are currently on an operational tour which is reflected in their increased numbers.

  4 On 1 July 1999, 4 and 10 Para merged to form a new 4 Para (V).

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what percentage of the armed forces were(a) registered disabled, (b) women, (c) from ethnic minorities and (d) from (i) independent, (ii) grammar and (iii) other schools in (1) 1970, (2) 1979, (3) 1989 and (4) 1999. [106760]

  Mr. Spellar
  The information requested is as follows:

  (a) disabled people; I refer my hon. Friend to the answers given to the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) on 12 January 1998, Official Report, column 132W, and the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) on 23 July 1999, Official Report, columns 694–95W.

  (b) women; The percentage of serving women in the Armed Forces, as at 1 April for each of the years requested, were:

  Percentage

  1970

  3.80

  1979

  4.86

  1989

  5.22

  1999

  7.74

  (c) ethnic minorities; In my reply to the hon. Member for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Simpson) on 21 July 1997, Official Report, column 400W, I stated that a new management-led, self-classification survey of the ethnic origin of serving personnel was introduced in July 1996. I also stated that prior to that date, records could not be relied on. On 1 April 1999, 1.1 per cent. of the Armed Forces were from ethnic minorities.

  (d) education backgrounds; The information is not available in the form requested. I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, South-West (Dr. Starkey) on 10 January 2000, Official Report, columns 89–90W, which gave an estimated breakdown of the education background of Army officer cadets at the Royal Military Academy Sandhurst for each of the last five financial years. With regard to the Naval Service and the RAF, an estimated breakdown of the education background of the officers accepted for training (by percentage) for each of the last financial years (where known) is:

  Percentage

  Independent

  State

  Others

  Naval Service

  1994–95

  29

  71

  n/k

  1995–96

  20

  80

  n/k

  1996–97

  24

  76

  n/k

  1997–98

  25

  73

  2

  1998–99

  22

  75

  3

  225W

  Percentage

  Independent

  State

  Others

  RAF

  1994–95

  27

  73

  n/k

  1995–96

  23

  77

  n/k

  1996–97

  20

  80

  n/k

  1997–98

  n/k

  n/k

  n/k

  1998–99

  n/k

  n/k

  n/k

  Note:

  Since 1997–98, the RAF no longer record the type of secondary school that officer candidates have attended, but only the last educational establishment that they had been to which, in most cases, is a university or other college.

  The education background of serving other ranks is not held centrally and can be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Equal Opportunities
  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on his policy regarding equal opportunities for women, disabled people, ethnic minorities and those from social classes HIM, IV and V in the armed forces. [106573]

  Mr. Spellar
  The Armed Forces Equal Opportunities goal, published in March 1999, is to achieve universal acceptance and application of a working environment free from harassment, intimidation and unlawful discrimination, in which all have equal opportunity, consistent with our legal obligations, to realise their full potential in contributing to the maintenance and enhancement of operational effectiveness. The armed forces respect and value every individual's unique contribution, irrespective of their race, ethnic origin, religion or gender and without reference to social background or sexual orientation.

  Members of the armed forces are exempt from the employment provisions of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. Disability or a history of disability is not compatible with the need for a combat effective fighting force, able to undertake a full range of military operations anywhere in the world. Service personnel disabled on duty are, depending on circumstances, allowed to continue to serve as long as such service will not undermine overall combat effectiveness. This approach reflects the Services' duty of care to the individual and allows them to benefit from the individual's experience and ensures a return on their training investment.

  Depleted Uranium
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what information British forces in Kosovo have given to the Kosovar population about measures to reduce exposure to the insoluble radioactive alpha-particles given off by depleted uranium dust. [106925]

  Mr. Spellar
  The health risks from DU have been assessed as low. It is unlikely that anyone other than those in an armoured vehicle penetrated by a DU projectile, or those spending prolonged periods within a few tens of metres of the point at which a DU penetrator had impacted with a hard target, would be exposed to large enough quantities of particulate material for them to receive a radiation dose greater than 20–30 millisieverts. For comparison purposes, the UK statutory annual dose limit 226W
  for employees aged 18 years and over is 50 millisieverts. Consequently, I understand that no specific advice has been promulgated by UNMIK for civilians in Kosovo.

  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what information Her Majesty's Government have issued to the Government of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia about the radioactive and chemical toxicity of depleted uranium weapons. [106926]

  Mr. Spellar
  None. We are not aware of anyone in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia who might have been exposed to possible contamination from depleted uranium munitions.

  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if the US Department of Defense has informed his Department of the location of areas in(a) Serbia and (b) Kosovo which are contaminated with depleted uranium as a result of NATO bombing; [106930]

  (2) if he will list the areas believed to be contaminated by depleted uranium munitions dropped during the NATO bombing of Kosovo and Serbia. [106929]

  Mr. Spellar
  The UN Secretary General has requested that NATO make available more detailed information concerning the use of Depleted Uranium (DU) rounds in Kosovo, including locations of use. NATO staff are currently preparing this detailed information for release to the United Nations. I will write to my hon. Friend and a copy of my letter will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans the Government have to decontaminate those areas in the former Yugoslavia affected by depleted uranium munitions. [106927]

  Mr. Spellar
  Reconstruction and remediation is primarily a matter for civil agencies within the international community rather than specifically for NATO or the MOD. However, British forces have played their part—particularly in the clearance of unexploded ordnance.

  The UN report on the consequences for the environment of the Kosovo conflict was published on 5 October 1999. Preliminary radiation measures were taken from destroyed military vehicles and from around the heavily damaged Police Station and Post Office in Pristina. No indications of DU contamination were found, although the report acknowledges that this does not exclude the possibility of DU-contaminated areas elsewhere in Kosovo.

  Kosovo
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many British personnel are posted to operate Pristina airfield in Kosovo, broken down where appropriate(a) by military service and rank, (b) by Civil Service grade and (c) in the case of contractors, by company. [107088]

  Mr. Spellar
  As at 25 January, there were 196 UK service personnel directly involved in the operation of the airfield at Pristina. Of these, 18 were RAF officers, 34 were RAF senior non-commissioned officers, 143 were RAF other ranks and one was an Army other rank. There are no UK based civil servants or contractor employees directly involved in the operation of the airfield.

  Underspends
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) for what reasons there were underspends in subsections(a) A2 and (b) B2, C2, D2, E2, F2, G2, H2 and J2 of the latest systems procurement and research account; [107086]

  (2) for what reasons there were underspends in subsections (a) A2, B2 and C3 and (b) C2 of the latest Logistics Service Account; [107084]

  (3) for what reasons there were underspends in subsections (a) A2, B2, C2, C4, E2, G2, H2, H3, H4, 14 and (b) B3, D2, D3, F2, F3 and 12 of the latest Operational and Support Costs Account. [107085]

  Mr. Spellar
  I will write to the hon. Member and a copy of my letter will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Falklands
  Mr. Ottaway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on naval patrols in the Falkland Islands. [107247]

  Mr. Spellar
  Naval patrols in the Falkland Islands are undertaken by the Falkland Islands Guard Ship (currently HMS Somerset) and a Castle class Offshore Patrol Vessel (currently HMS Dumbarton Castle) supported by a Royal Fleet Auxiliary Vessel (currently RFA Grey Rover). The Guardship maintains a presence in the Falkland Islands area for most of the year, but can, on occasions, be held at longer notice to allow the ship to carry out other activities elsewhere. Other Naval assets also deploy to the area from time to time.

  Mr. Ottaway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to withdraw HMS Dumbarton Castle from the Falklands; and if he will make a statement. [107248]

  Mr. Spellar
  We have no plans to withdraw HMS Dumbarton Castle from the Falkland Islands.

  Medical Services
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his recent letter to the hon. Member for Linlithgow, on medical services in the Forces, whether it was with his authority that a senior Admiralty officer made a statement on the condition of medical services in the Navy; and if he will make a statement. [107028]

  Mr. Spellar
  I have not authorised any senior naval officer to make a statement on medical services in the Royal Navy, nor have I been asked to do so. This Government have long recognised the problems we inherited in the Defence Medical Services (DMS), the most significant of which is the shortage of manpower. We are committed to ensuring that our Armed Forces have the medical support they require and, following the Strategic Defence Review, we have made an additional £140 million available for the DMS over the four years to 2001–02 for medical equipment and personnel. In December 1998, we announced a new strategy for the DMS, covering a range of measures, a key element of which is the creation of a Centre for Defence Medicine 228W
  (CDM). The University Hospital Birmingham NHS Trust has been selected as the host Trust for the Centre which we plan to open in April 2001. As well as being the professional focus for the DMS, and providing clinical services, the CDM will be an important centre for military training and research and we believe it will encourage recruitment and retention of DMS personnel.

  Northern Ireland
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what is his policy on the carrying of weapons for personal protection by members of the Territorial Army in Northern Ireland; [107138]

  (2) how many members of the Territorial Army and Reserve forces have been (a) killed and (b) attacked by terrorists in Northern Ireland in the last 20 years; 1107140]

  (3) under what circumstances Territorial Army units from Northern Ireland are required to relinquish their weapons when undertaking training exercises in Scotland. [107139]

  Mr. Spellar
  I will write to the hon. Member and a copy of my letter will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Nimrod Pilots
  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many serving RAF pilots are available and trained in date to fly the Nimrod aircraft. [107046]

  Mr. Spellar
  As at 25 January, there are 73 Nimrod pilots who are qualified and current. This figure is made up of 65 Nimrod MR2 pilots and eight Nimrod R1 pilots.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Immigration (Un-opened Mail)
  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the earliest postmarked date of unopened mail in the Immigration and Nationality Directorate on(a) 1 November 1999, (b) 1 December 1999 and (c) 1 January 2000; and how many items of mail remained unopened on each date. [105674]

  Mrs. Roche
  Significant and continuing improvements have been made in the handling of mail in the Immigration and Nationality Directorate.

  Directly addressed applications for variation of leave are opened when they are initially processed, which now takes place within three days of receipt. The earliest postmarked dates and numbers of unopened items of this category of mail were as follows on the dates specified:

  Date

  Earliest postmark

  Unopened items

  1 November 1999

  17 September 1999

  12,000

  1 December 1999

  1 October 1999

  7,500

  1 January 2000

  20 December 1999

  3,500

  Information on the postmarked dates of mail addressed to the Travel Documents Section is not available, but the numbers of unopened items were as follows.
  229W

  Date

  Unopened items

  1 November 1999

  1,573

  1 December 1999

  897

  1 January 2000

  461

  Information on the unopened items and earliest postmarks of mail that was not directly addressed at the dates specified is not available. Since 1 November 1999, all mail which is not directly addressed has been sent to a Document Management Centre, where it is opened and sent to the correct location. All such mail items are currently opened and despatched on the date of receipt.

  Fee receipts: Home Office and associated public bodies

  £000

  Service

  1992–93 1

  1993–94 1

  1994–95 1

  1995–96 1

  1996–97 1

  1997–98 1

  1998–99 1

  1999–2000 2

  2000–01 2

  Immigration: Additional Service

  378

  588

  806

  1,347

  1,627

  1,620

  972

  882

  n/a

  Accommodation provided for non-Home Office bodies

  65

  96

  101

  150

  106

  62

  131

  190

  29

  Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986, licences

  1,964

  2,109

  2,028

  2,049

  3,432

  2,398

  2,297

  2,354

  n/a

  Immigration Detention costs recovered from carriers

  773

  790

  291

  372

  640

  1,360

  976

  1,997

  2,250

  Crime Prevention Centre

  90

  60

  67

  80

  92

  127

  84

  93

  95

  Data Protection Registrar

  7,820

  4,471

  3,226

  7,072

  5,057

  6,067

  6,182

  6,302

  6,414

  Data Subject Access Requests

  110

  111

  171

  259

  506

  668

  784

  1,200

  1,500

  Emergency Planning College

  55

  201

  325

  482

  496

  767

  948

  970

  1,200

  Fire Service College

  12,688

  12,979

  13,712

  13,375

  13,069

  13,524

  14,296

  13,956

  14,654

  Forensic Science Service

  24,662

  25,755

  28,653

  31,188

  50,839

  59,732

  68,138

  74,506

  81,122

  Gaming Board for Great Britain: Gaming

  3,292

  3,347

  3,115

  3,508

  3,142

  3,054

  3,015

  3,161

  3,379

  Lotteries3

  n/a

  n/a

  228

  243

  275

  294

  293

  304

  304

  HMIC—Inspection of non Home Office police forces

  102

  0

  98

  0

  170

  215

  202

  183

  n/a

  Licences issued under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971

  319

  359

  409

  432

  390

  494

  494

  570

  n/a

  Nationality fees

  4,424

  5,537

  5,560

  5,433

  5,747

  5,615

  7,608

  6,462

  6,500

  UK Passport Agency

  71,321

  89,261

  87,354

  91,061

  88,923

  78,249

  89,600

  95,800

  116,300

  Police Promotion Exams Board

  13

  53

  36

  58

  60

  59

  64

  51

  41

  Police Staff College

  1,184

  1,250

  1,473

  1,087

  1,194

  1,057

  1,137

  1,459

  n/a

  Police Training Centres

  794

  1,024

  944

  776

  637

  580

  1,122

  995

  n/a

  Specialist Crime Centre

  1

  0

  1

  1

  0

  0

  1

  1

  1

  Travel Documents

  173

  323

  514

  514

  736

  640

  462

  420

  1,423

  1 Actual

  2 Estimate

  3 The fee receipts from Lotteries are included with those from Gaming until 1994–95

  At present, receipts from every on-Vote service are treated wholly or partly as negative expenditure by the Department.

  Naturalisation Applications
  Dr. Starkey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department in each of the last five years, how many applications for naturalisation 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. [106046]

  Mrs. Roche
  The information requested for naturalization applications is given in the table.

  Year

  Applications received

  Decisions (grants and refusals)

  Outstanding at year end

  Average waiting time (months)

  1995

  19,736

  31,143

  1n/a

  13.6

  1996

  26,134

  33,084

  1n/a

  14.8

  1997

  22,365

  26,199

  1n/a

  16.8

  Departmental Fees
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department 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. [105999]

  Mr. Straw
  The fees received in years for which the information is readily available and for which reasonable future estimates can be made are given in the table.

  Year

  Applications received

  Decisions (grants and refusals)

  Outstanding at year end

  Average waiting time (months)

  1998

  41,966

  42,219

  1n/a

  19.9

  1999

  38,478

  41,487

  1n/a

  20.4

  1 Information is not available in the form requested, as applications are not always completed in the year of receipt.

  Currency Counterfeiting
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will make a statement on Council Decision 1999/C 322/04 (C322 of 10 November 1999), with reference to the(a) manner of legislative implementation in the United Kingdom and (b) consequences for extradition arrangements; [106403]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the impact on UK law of the German initiative on increasing penal sanctions against counterfeiting the euro, set out in document 11302/99 of 5 October 1999; what court of law would try UK cases; and what supreme court would take final appeals. [106429]
  231W
  Mr. Charles Clarke
  An amended version of Germany's initiative on increasing penal sanctions against counterfeiting the Euro was "agreed in substance" at the Justice and Home Affairs Council in December. The text agreed was similar to that deposited for scrutiny with the House in November (reference: 12585/99). The text did not receive final approval at the Council because a number of member states, including the United Kingdom, held parliamentary scrutiny reservations, and because the European Parliament had not yet given its opinion. The Council hopes to adopt the Framework Decision in March.

  The draft Framework Decision, as provisionally agreed in December, contains three main legislative implications for the United Kingdom. First, the United Kingdom would be required to ensure that pre-circulation Euro notes and coins are covered by United Kingdom legislation. This requirement would be met by Part I of the Forgery and Counterfeiting Act 1981 in relation to pre-circulation Euro notes, and Part II of the 1981 Act in relation to pre-circulation Euro coins. The Forgery and Counterfeiting (Protected Coins) Order (1999) designates Euro coins as protected coins within the meaning of Section 27(1) of the 1981 Act. Second, the United Kingdom would be required to take jurisdiction over counterfeiting offences committed in whole or in part within the United Kingdom's jurisdiction. The Government intend to meet this requirement through an amendment to Part I of the Criminal Justice Act 1993. Finally, should the United Kingdom adopt the Euro, the United Kingdom would be required to take universal jurisdiction for cases of counterfeiting of the Euro (i.e. to empower United Kingdom courts to try offences of counterfeiting of the Euro which had been committed anywhere in the world).

  Cases of counterfeiting of the Euro within the United Kingdom's jurisdiction, like all other criminal offences, would be tried by United Kingdom courts, and the normal avenues of appeal would apply. I do not expect the draft Framework Decision to have any consequences for the United Kingdom's extradition arrangements.

  Schengen Information System
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department which delegation has stated its objection to the UK partial participation in the Schengen Information System; and if he will make a statement. [106423]

  Cost per prisoner cash

  Cost per prisoner (weekly)

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  Local prisons and remand centres

  408

  437

  526

  442

  449

  435

  396

  369

  398

  Dispersal prisons

  636

  807

  816

  661

  681

  656

  704

  702

  753

  Category B training

  388

  438

  518

  405

  417

  458

  429

  396

  423

  Category C training

  317

  363

  387

  337

  352

  342

  329

  313

  327

  Adult male open

  313

  316

  331

  270

  283

  323

  325

  310

  325

  Young offender closed

  410

  452

  492

  416

  417

  385

  362

  346

  363

  Young offender open

  570

  551

  634

  474

  457

  477

  463

  481

  491

  Young offender remand

  —

  —

  —

  421

  451

  421

  365

  354

  402

  Male juvenile

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  684

  Female establishments (combined)

  583

  629

  657

  541

  513

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Local female

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  581

  540

  544

  533

  Closed female

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  502

  475

  467

  563

  Open female

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  385

  321

  310

  333

  232W
  Mrs. Roche
  It is not our practice to disclose the negotiating positions of member states. Following discussion at the Justice and Home Affairs Council on 3 December of the United Kingdom's application to participate in parts of the Schengen acquis, no objections remain to the United Kingdom's partial participation in the Schengen Information System.

  Prison Service
  Jackie Ballard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what criteria govern decisions by the Prison Service to make out-of-court settlements; and what changes there have been to these criteria in the last 10 years. [106141]

  Mr. Boateng
  In deciding to settle out-of-court, the Prison Service will take professional advice as to the likelihood and financial implications of the claim succeeding, and will normally agree to settle out-of-court those cases where it considers the claim is likely to succeed and the proposed settlement figure is at or below the level a court is likely to award. Savings in costs are also taken into account, as are any wider operational or public policy implications of the case.

  This approach has not changed over the last 10 years, but in handling claims the Prison Service has of course taken into account developments in the law and the civil justice system. The Woolf reforms to civil justice encourage out of court settlements.

  Jackie Ballard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how often the Prison Service has made out-of-court settlements; and how much was paid, in each case, in each year since 1990. [106142]

  Mr. Boateng
  This information is not available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Jackie Ballard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the average weekly cost per inmate of imprisonment in each category of prison for each year since 1990. [106112]

  Mr. Boateng
  The average weekly cost per prisoner in each category of prison is listed in the tables in cash terms and at 1992–1993 prices, when the Prison Service became an Executive Agency. Data have been obtained from the Prison Service Annual Reports and Accounts.
  233W

  Cost per prisoner cash

  Cost per prisoner (weekly)

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  Local prisons and remand centres

  467

  464

  526

  430

  432

  406

  358

  325

  339

  Dispersal prisons

  728

  857

  816

  644

  654

  612

  636

  617

  641

  Category B training

  444

  465

  518

  395

  400

  427

  388

  348

  360

  Category C training

  363

  386

  387

  329

  338

  320

  297

  276

  278

  Adult male open

  358

  336

  331

  263

  272

  302

  294

  272

  277

  Young offender closed

  470

  480

  492

  405

  400

  359

  327

  304

  309

  Young offender open

  653

  585

  634

  462

  439

  445

  419

  423

  418

  Young offender remand

  —

  —

  —

  410

  434

  393

  330

  311

  342

  Male juvenile

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  583

  Female establishments (combined)

  668

  668

  657

  527

  493

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Local female

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  542

  489

  479

  454

  Closed female

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  468

  430

  411

  480

  Open female

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  359

  290

  272

  284

  Notes:

  1. A dash indicates that no comparable data are available.

  2. Data have been obtained from the Annual Report and Accounts in the years concerned.

  3. Where weekly figures are not available in the reports they have been derived by dividing the annual outturn by 52 weeks.

  4. Establishments have been categorised by their main role only.

  Prisons
  Jackie Ballard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many new prisons are planned to open in the next five years; what each will cost; how many places will be provided; and who will manage them; [106117]

  (2) how many new prisons have been (a) constructed and (b) commissioned since 1990; at what cost; and who manages each prison. [106118]

  Mr. Boateng
  The information requested is set out in the tables.

  New prisons constructed and commissioned since 1990

  A: Construction managed by the public sector

  £ million

  Prison

  Opening date

  Cost of construction 1

  Operator

  Belmarsh

  1991

  159

  Prison Service

  Moorland

  1991

  54

  Prison Service

  Whitemoor

  1991

  57

  Prison Service

  Brinsford

  1991

  45

  Prison Service

  Elmley

  1992

  83

  Prison Service

  Bullingdon

  1992

  64

  Prison Service

  Wolds

  1992

  37

  Group 4

  Holme House

  1992

  66

  Prison Service

  Woodhill

  1992

  118

  Prison Service

  Highdown

  1992

  91

  Prison Service

  Lancaster Farms

  1993

  73

  Prison Service

  Blakenhurst

  1993

  91

  2U.K.D.S.

  Doncaster

  1994

  92

  3P.P.S.

  Buckley Hall

  1994

  20

  Group 4

  The Weare

  1997

  13

  Prison Service

  B: Constructed and managed by the private sector under PFI

  £ million

  Prison

  Opening date

  NPV cost of contract4

  Operator

  Parc

  November 1997

  266

  Securicor

  Altcourse

  December 1997

  247

  Group 4

  Lowdham Grange

  February 1998

  137

  3P.P.S.

  234W

  B: Constructed and managed by the private sector under PFI

  £ million

  Prison

  Opening date

  NPV cost of contract 4

  Operator

  Ashfield

  November 1999

  121

  3P.P.S.

  Forest Bank

  January 2000

  197

  2U.K.D.S.

  1 The Construction Costs are actual costs at the time of construction, ie they have not been adjusted to present day values

  2 United Kingdom Detention Services

  3 Premier Prison Services

  4 The "Cost at NPV" is the total cost of designing, constructing, financing and managing the prison over the 25 year life of the contract, expressed in Net Present Value (NPV) terms

  Prisoners (Self-harm)
  Jackie Ballard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many incidents of self-harm were recorded by people held in(a) court cells and (b) on prison escort, in each of the last five years. [106113]

  Mr. Boateng
  Information systems used by the Prison Service do not allow a differentiation between incidents of self-harm committed by people in court cells and on prison escort. The information available on self-harm incidents of people while on prison escort undertaken by private sector companies acting under contract to the Prison Service is the total number reported to the incident management support unit (IMSU) in Prison Service headquarters. These figures are given in the table.

  Care should be taken when interpreting the data because, although the majority of incidents of self-harm occur while in court, some incidents do take place in cellular vehicles. In addition, it should be noted that responsibility for the escorting of prisoners to and from court was progressively contracted out in England and Wales between April 1993 and August 1997. Consequently, the figures for 1995–96 and 1996–97 are low because incidents involving prisoners under escort by prison staff would have been recorded against the establishment involved, while those relating to prisoners in police custody would have been collected locally.
  235W

  Reported incidents of self-harm by people while on prison escort 1995–96 to 1999–2000

  Year

  Total

  1995–96

  16

  1996–97

  57

  1997–98

  145

  1998–99

  156

  1999–20001

  184

  1 As at 19 January 1999

  Notes:

  1. These data are derived from information provided by escort contract monitors to the Incident Management Support Unit (IMSU) in Prison Service Headquarters.

  2. Incidents do not necessarily equate to numbers of prisoners as an individual prisoner may self-harm on more than one occasion.

  3. Statistics on self-harm are collated on a financial year basis.

  Prison Mother and Baby Units
  Jackie Ballard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the weekly cost of accommodating an inmate in each of the mother and baby units in the United Kingdom. [106143]

  Mr. Boateng
  At present no separate budget is allocated to the mother and baby units. The cost of running the unit is met from the individual establishment's central budget. Mother and baby units (MBUs), do not have a standard cost as the physical accommodation offered is different in each one. Additionally, the regimes offered differ from prison to prison depending on its security category and its function within the female estate. The information requested is given in the table.

  Prisoner places

  Open/closed

  Weekly cost per prisoner place on MBUs (£)

  Askham Grange

  20

  Open

  731

  Holloway

  13

  Closed

  751

  New Hall

  9

  Closed

  742

  Styal

  20

  Closed

  628

  Prison Suicides
  Jackie Ballard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many suicides of prisoners have occurred(a) in prisons and (b) while on escort from prisons; and if he will indicate the company responsible for the escort at the time in each of the last five years. [106114]

  Mr. Boateng
  The information requested is given in the table.

  Year

  Total Number of self-inflicted deaths

  Number of self-inflicted deaths while on escort from prisons

  Contractor

  1995

  59

  0

  —

  1996

  64

  1

  Group 4 Court Services

  1997

  68

  2

  Securicor Custodial Services

  Premier Prison Services

  1998

  82

  0

  —

  1999

  91

  5

  Group 4 Court Services (×3)

  Securicor Custodial Services (×2)

  20001

  3

  0

  —

  1 As at 19 January 1999

  236W
  Notes:

  1. The term employed by the Prison Service in England and Wales to refer to an apparent suicide is "self-inflicted death". This is broader than the term suicide and includes all those deaths where it is clear that the person has acted specifically to take his/her own life. It is not restricted to the official verdict from the Coroner's inquest, where verdicts of "suicide", "open" or "misadventure" may be recorded in cases where there was doubt about a person's intent to end their life.

  2. Self-inflicted deaths while on escort from prisons are included in the overall annual figures shown in the table.

  Prison Places
  Jackie Ballard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many places have been made available in each new prison opened since 1990. [106139]

  Mr. Boateng
  Since 1990, 20 new prisons have opened. These are listed in the table along with the calendar year of opening and the number of prisoner places available on 17 December 1999, the latest date for which official figures are available. The figure for Forest Bank, which opened last week, is provisional.

  Prison

  Year opened

  Prisoner places

  Belmarsh

  1991

  869

  Moorland

  1991

  779

  Whitemoor

  1991

  408

  Brinsford

  1991

  509

  Elmley

  1992

  950

  Bullingdon

  1992

  891

  Wolds

  1992

  405

  Holme House

  1992

  971

  Woodhill

  1992

  781

  High Down

  1992

  714

  Lancaster Farms

  1993

  536

  Blakenhurst

  1993

  850

  Doncaster

  1994

  1,111

  Buckley Hall

  1994

  390

  Weare

  1997

  400

  Parc

  1997

  920

  Altcourse

  1997

  860

  Lowdham Grange

  1998

  524

  Ashfield

  1999

  400

  Forest Bank

  2000

  800

  EU Mutual Assistance Convention
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on his policy on Article 18 of the Draft Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters, between the member states of the European Union, with special reference to the legal status of UK amendments and declarations. [106395]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  On 2 December 1999 the Justice and Home Affairs Council agreed a legally-binding Declaration on the scope of Article 18 of the draft Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters between the member states of the European Union. This makes clear that, in the United Kingdom, Article 18 will apply to interception warrants issued by the Secretary of State to the Police Service and Her Majesty's Customs and Excise for the purpose of the detection of serious crime. The Declaration also applies Article 18 to interception warrants issued to the Security Service for this purpose (in accordance with its remit under the Security Service Act 1996).
  237W
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what number of intercepts his Department estimates will be requested annually, by member states, under the Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters; and if he will break down that estimate by category of criminal activity. [106397]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  It is not possible to provide a meaningful estimate of the number or category of requests since this will be determined by the requirements of other member states once the draft Convention is agreed and ratified. However, any request for mutual legal assistance to intercept the communications of a person in the United Kingdom will need to meet the criteria for issuing a warrant for the purpose of the prevention or detection of serious crime under the United Kingdom's legislation on interception of communications.

  Serious crime is defined in the Interception of Communications Act 1985 as conduct which, if it took place in the United Kingdom, would constitute one or more offences if, and only if:
  it involves the use of violence, results in substantial financial gain or is conduct by a large number of persons in pursuit of a common purpose; or
  the offence or one of the offences is an offence for which a person who has attained the age of twenty-one and has no previous convictions could reasonably be expected to be sentenced to imprisonment for a term of three years or more.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will deposit the Commission paper on Article 17 of the Draft Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters, which was examined by the Article 36 Committee on 9 and 10 November 1999, in the Library; and if he will make a statement on the(a) role and (b) composition of the Committee. [106396]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  I am depositing the paper produced by representatives of the European Commission in the Library.

  The Article 36 Committee was established under Article 36 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU) as a co-ordinating body. The committee's terms of reference are limited to police (including customs) and judicial co-operation in criminal matters. It gives opinions for the attention of the Justice and Home Affairs Council and (with COREPER) contributes to preparation of Council discussions. The committee is composed of senior officials of the member states and the European Commission.

  Firearms
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) on what date Mr. Winser ACC Cambridge Constabulary chaired the first meeting of the working group into the National Firearms Database set up under the Association of Chief Officers Sub-committee (group) on the administration of firearms licensing; [106416]

  (2) if he will place in the Library copies held by his Department of all documents, letters, agendas and minutes provided by the Association of Chief Officers Sub-committee (group) on the administration of firearms licensing since 1996; [106412]
  238W
  (3) if he will place in the Library a copy of the names of the current membership of the Association of Chief Officers Sub-committee (group) on the administration of firearms licensing, giving the names of their forces and the dates on which they took up positions on that committee. [106413]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The arrangements made for appointing members and for managing and publishing the work of the Sub-committee on the Administration of Firearms and Explosives Licensing and any associated working groups are matters for the Association of Chief Police Officers.

  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will place copies in the Library of the reports compiled by the PNC directorate into the resource and financing implications of the National Firearms Database computerisation. [106417]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  A realistic estimate of the resource and finance implications for this database can be compiled only when a detailed impact assessment has been completed. The Police Information Technology Organisation plans to begin work on this assessment in February and to complete it in April. It will be placed in the Library as soon as it is available.

  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department in relation to the implementation of section 39 of the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1997(a) who is responsible for the problem, (b) who are the stakeholders and (c) what are the success criteria; and if he will make a statement. [106419]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  As indicated in the reply I gave to the hon. Gentleman on 18 January 2000,Official Report, column 370W, the Act does not specify the person or organisation which is to provide the central register referred to in section 39. When completed, the register will form part of the PHOENIX database and the principal stakeholders will be the police service and the Police National Computer Directorate. The success criteria will be the establishment of a computer system accessible on-line to all police forces and containing details of all persons who have applied for a firearm or shotgun certificate or to whom a firearm or shotgun certificate has been granted or whose certificate has been renewed. It is not possible at this stage to give a firm date but it is hoped that the system will be up and running by the summer of 2001.

  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will place a copy in the Library of the user requirement of the Central National Firearms Database, indicating the date when it was drafted. [106415]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  A copy of the user requirement was placed in the Library in March 1999 shortly after it was finalised.

  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the dates of all meetings attended by Mr. Paul Pugh of the Home Office OPPU and his deputies since January 1997 concerning the proposed implementation of the computerisation of the National Firearms Database requirement contained in
  239W
  section 39 of the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1997; and if he will place copies of all such documents produced and discussed in the Library. [106414]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Apart from a presentation which was given by the Police National Computer Directorate at Hendon on 11 February 1997, no staff of the Operational Policing Policy Unit (OPPU) have attended specific meetings to discuss the proposed implementation of the database. The initial work to establish the database was undertaken by a working group set up under the auspices of the Association of Chief Police Officers Sub-Committee on the Administration of Firearms and Explosives Licensing, on which OPPU is not represented. We have no plans to place ephemeral papers considered by the group in the Library, but copies of final documents such as the user requirement and detailed impact assessment have been or will be made available in this way.

  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many crimes involving firearms were committed in each of the past 10 years. [106313]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The information requested was published in an Annexe to the statistical bulletin "Firearm Certificate Statistics, England and Wales 1998" on 26 November 1999. A copy is in the Library.

  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the(a) software and (b) hardware systems used by the (a) City of London, (b) Cumbria, (c) Dorset, (d) Humberside, (e) Norfolk and (f) West Mercia police forces to hold the register of privately held firearms and persons holding firearms certificates; and if he will place a copy of the functional specification and user guide of each system in the Library. [106768]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  As indicated in my reply of 18 January 2000,Official Report, column 370W, the functional specifications and user guides of systems used by the police to record details of firearm certificate holders are not held centrally.

  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 18 January 2000,Official Report, column 370W, on firearms what steps he (a) has taken and (b) is taking to ensure full compliance with section 39 of the Firearms Amendment Act 1997; for what reasons the system is not in full operation; and if it has been piloted. [106772]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Development of the national firearms database currently features in the Police Information Technology Organisation's business plan for 2000–01. Development could not have begun earlier because the resources available were required for projects of even higher priority. It has not been piloted and the next step is to carry out a detailed impact assessment which should be completed in April. It is not possible to give a firm implementation date at this stage but it is hoped that the system will be in place by the summer of 2001. I propose to monitor the situation carefully.

  Mike Tyson
  Mr. Caton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what factors he took into account in deciding to permit Mr. Mike Tyson to enter the United Kingdom on compassionate grounds. [106457]
  240W
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will set out the compassionate grounds for exempting Mr. Mike Tyson from refusal of entry to the UK. [106651]

  Mr. Straw
  [holding answer 25 January 2000]: There were no compassionate grounds in relation to Mr. Tyson which affected my decision to admit him. In reaching my decision one of the factors to which I gave particular weight was the lack of consistency in the effect of the Immigration Rules. I also considered the likely effect of cancellation of the fight on those who had already purchased tickets and smaller enterprises and individuals who were probably least able to bear any losses.

  I weighted these factors against the nature and seriousness of Mr. Tyson's convictions and I decided on balance that the exceptional circumstances of this case were such that Mr. Tyson should be granted entry solely for the purpose of participating in the scheduled sporting event. This decision was made in accordance with the Immigration Act 1971 and the Immigration Rules.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) of 18 January 2000,Official Report, columns 368–69W, on Mr. Mike Tyson, if he will list the companies and individuals with a direct or indirect interest in the promotion, whose comments formed part of the representations from Mr. Frank Warren. [106975]

  Mr. Straw
  In addition to his own letter, Mr. Warren's representations to the Immigration Service of 12 January consisted of 25 pages of copies of requests for media accreditation for the boxing match and 32 other letters from companies and individuals, either associated with the sports and leisure industry or the sport of boxing, including boxers due to fight in Manchester on 29 January.

  As a matter of practice, representations made to the Immigration and Nationality Department about individual cases are treated in confidence.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) of 18 January 2000,Official Report, column 417W, what representations he received from BSkyB (a) directly and (b) indirectly in respect of Mr. Mike Tyson's application to enter the country. [106977]

  Mr. Straw
  Representations were submitted to the Immigration Service by Mr. Frank Warren, the promoter of the event. He referred in these representations to the investment in the promotion by television networks including Showtime in the United States of America and BSkyB in this country. I considered these factors but I did not regard them as relevant to the decision I took.

  In reaching my decision to admit Mr. Tyson one of the factors to which I gave most particular weight was the lack of consistency in the effect of the relevant Immigration Rule, as well as the likely effect of cancellation of the fight on those who had already purchased tickets and smaller enterprises and individuals who were probably least able to bear any losses.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will state(a) the number of officers involved in policing the visit of Mr. Mike Tyson

  241W
  to Brixton, (b) the cost of policing Mr. Tyson's visit and (c) how much he has asked Mr. Tyson and his promoters to contribute towards that cost. [107081]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis informs me that a total of 82 police officers were involved in policing the visit of Mike Tyson to Brixton on 21 January. The net additional manpower costs of these officers was approximately £9,700. I understand that the Lambeth borough Commander did not regard the policing of this event as a "special service" and therefore did not seek a contribution from Mr. Tyson or his promoters.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police officers were on duty in Brixton at 3 p.m. on(a) 14 January, (b) 21 January and (c) 15 January; and if he will make a statement. [107080]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis informs me that the number of uniformed officers available for routine patrol duties in Brixton at 3pm on these dates were as follows:(a) 14 January, 56; (b) 21 January, 25 with another 82 officers specifically deployed for the policing of the visit of Mike Tyson; (c) 15 January, 42.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what consultations his Department has held with the Scottish Executive on the(a) dispersal of asylum seekers and (b) designation of reception zones. [107074]

  Mrs. Roche
  Officials in my Department have kept in regular contact with officials in the Scottish Executive to discuss a range of issues concerning the dispersal programme for asylum seekers.

  Hunting (Committee of Inquiry)
  Mr. Michael J. Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department who appointed the members of the Committee of Inquiry into the Impact of Hunting with Dogs in England and Wales. [106770]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The members of the Committee of Inquiry were appointed by my right hon. Friend, the Home Secretary, following consultation with the noble Lord Bums, the chairman of the inquiry team.

  Police Funding
  Mr. Alan Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how he plans to allocate police grant in 2000–01; and what the final funding allocations for police authorities will be for that year. [107555]

  Mr. Straw
  I have today, laid before the House, the Police Grant Report (England and Wales) 2000–01 (HC 169). The Report sets out my determination for 2000–01 of the aggregate amount of grants that I propose to pay under section 46(2) of the Police Act 1996, and the amount to be paid to each police authority including the Receiver for the Metropolitan Police District.

  Funding allocations for each police authority in England for 2000–01 are set out in the table. The table also shows allocations approved by Parliament for 1999–2000. Final funding allocations for police authorities in Wales will be
  242W
  announced shortly when the National Assembly for Wales publishes Standard Spending Assessment determinations for Welsh authorities.

  Allocation 1 (£ million)

  Police Authority

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  English Shire forces

  Avon and Somerset

  168.4

  173.7

  Bedfordshire

  61.4

  64.1

  Cambridgeshire

  74.8

  77.2

  Cheshire

  109.0

  111.9

  Cleveland

  81.7

  84.7

  Cumbria

  60.1

  62.2

  Derbyshire

  102.1

  105.4

  Devon and Cornwall

  174.3

  178.9

  Dorset

  70.1

  72.4

  Durham

  81.3

  83.9

  Essex4

  163.0

  174.8

  Gloucestershire

  62.4

  63.5

  Hampshire

  194.5

  202.7

  Hertfordshire4

  100.0

  117.2

  Humberside

  113.0

  116.9

  Kent

  183.1

  191.2

  Lancashire

  178.2

  185.3

  Leicestershire

  102.3

  105.6

  Lincolnshire

  63.4

  65.4

  Norfolk

  83.4

  86.5

  North Yorkshire

  77.6

  79.7

  Northamptonshire

  65.3

  67.7

  Nottinghamshire

  126.3

  130.0

  Staffordshire

  113.0

  116.8

  Suffolk

  68.6

  70.9

  Surrey4

  91.9

  112.8

  Sussex

  166.4

  172.4

  Thames Valley

  224.6

  231.7

  Warwickshire

  52.2

  54.3

  West Mercia

  113.0

  117.2

  Wiltshire

  64.9

  66.7

  English Metropolitan forces

  Greater Manchester

  375.7

  386.1

  Merseyside

  236.3

  242.3

  Northumbria

  213.0

  218.4

  South Yorkshire

  171.3

  177.2

  West Midlands

  380.6

  392.7

  West Yorkshire

  286.3

  297.1

  London forces

  Metropolitan Police2,4

  1,743.9

  1,731.2

  City of London3

  55.4

  56.4

  English Total

  6,852.8

  7,045.1

  1 Rounded to the nearest £100.000. The Allocation is the sum of: Police Grant Transitional Grant, Police SSA Capital Finance SSA, SSA Reduction Grant and Central Support Protection Grant.

  2 Figure for the Metropolitan Police does not include funding allocated to the Receiver under the Environmental. Protective and Cultural Services SSA for school crossing patrols, Magistrates' Courts and the Probation Service. It does include its Special Payment.

  3 Figure for the City includes Police SSA, Grant and SSA Reduction Grant, but excludes other SSAs (e.g. Capital Financing) and Central Support Protection Grant. These are allocated to the Common Council of the City of London as a whole in respect of all its functions.

  4 These authorities will be effected by the changes to police force boundaries around London on 1 April 2000. To provide comparison, indicative 1999–2000 totals for these authorities as on the new boundaries are Essex: £169.8 million. Hertfordshire: £114.3 million, Surrey: £113.6 million and Metropolitan Police. £1,701.9 million.

  Security Services
  Mr. Leslie
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will respond to the Home Affairs Committee's Third report of Session 1998–99 on the Accountability of the Security Service; and if he will make a statement. [107649]

  Mr. Straw
  The Government will respond tomorrow by way of a Command Paper.

  Passports
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will estimate the full economic unit cost performance of the UK Passport Agency's passport unit in(a) actual and (b) real terms for (i) 1999–2000, (ii) 2000–01 and (iii) 2001–02. [107078]

  Mrs. Roche
  The latest estimate of the Passport Agency's actual full economic unit cost, as indicated in Annexe B of the Passport Agency's Corporate and Business Plan 1999–2002 which was published on 6 December 1990, is shown in the table. The real terms figures are at 1999–2000 prices.

  £

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  Actual Terms

  15.37

  17.22

  17.45

  Real Terms1

  15.37

  16.80

  16.61

  11999–2000 prices

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if it is his objective that passport applications should in future be available at the Passport Agency's public counters; and what is his timetable for attaining that objective. [107073]

  Passport services—Income and expenditure

  Turnover (£ million)

  Resource expenditure (£ million)

  Surplus (intended to cover FCO costs) (£ million)

  Units costs (£)

  Staff (FTE)

  1998–99

  Outtum

  89.6

  57.5

  32.1

  12.13

  1,778

  1999–2000

  Forecast in March 1999

  93.8

  72.8

  21.0

  14.00

  1,950

  Current projection

  98.1

  86.1

  12.0

  15.37

  2,100

  2000–01

  Latest projection

  116.3

  86.1

  30.2

  17.22

  2,200

  2001–02

  Latest projection

  116.3

  87.3

  29.0

  17.45

  2,200

  Integrated Casework Directive
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will place in the Library the figures for the analysis of the work of the Integrated Casework Directorate which he placed in the Library in graph form as part of his answer of 13 December 2000,Official Report, column 1W, on the Integrated Casework
  244W
  Mrs. Roche
  Passport applications can already be made at the public counters of individual passport offices. All the Passport Agency's public counter areas also have a stock of application forms, available to customers.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to introduce a tiered service for passport applicants of the kind outlined by the Chief Executive of the Passport Agency on pages 2 and 3 of "A Blueprint for the Future". [107071]

  Mrs. Roche
  Subject to the results of market research the Passport Agency plans to introduce, by early 2001, a fast track service for people applying through the Passport Agency's partners and at counters, and a premium service, for counter service callers only, to meet urgent travel requirements.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the level of productivity of the Passport Agency's PASS system will match that of the PIMIS system. [107075]

  Mrs. Roche
  Passport Application Support System (PASS) productivity should match that of the Passport Issuing and Management Information System (PIMIS) by this summer.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will publish a version of the table showing the Passport Agency's income and expenditure printed in page 19, paragraph 5.3 of the Agency's current corporate and business plan which takes account of the income and expenditure relating to the proposed new Passport Office in Durham. [107076]

  Mrs. Roche
  The table showing the Passport Agency's income and expenditure which is printed in page 19, paragraph 5.3 of the Agency's Corporate and Business plans 1999–02 already takes account of the income and expenditure relating to the proposed new passport office in Durham.

  Directive; and if he will update those figures to the present date. [107091]

  Mrs. Roche
  I have placed in the Library a table giving a breakdown of the weekly output of the Integrated Casework Directorate (ICD) in the four categories against which the recovery of the LCD's business would be measured in the first instance, from 1 January 1999 to the week ending 14 January 2000.
  245W

  ICD—overall BMA output 1999–2000

  January

  February

  March

  BMA category

  1998 1

  1

  8

  15

  22

  29

  5

  12

  19

  26

  5

  12

  a General/Settlement casework

  4,100

  52

  494

  856

  805

  981

  1,288

  1,926

  2,141

  2,563

  3,272

  3,030

  c Asylum 1st Decisions

  650

  0

  25

  142

  159

  192

  230

  246

  173

  228

  185

  362

  d Asylum Appeals despatched to I.A.A

  250

  0

  0

  37

  59

  59

  91

  127

  126

  118

  143

  134

  h European

  250

  0

  0

  26

  23

  35

  45

  115

  95

  156

  197

  222

  Total

  5,250

  52

  519

  1,061

  1,046

  1,267

  1,654

  2,414

  2,535

  3,065

  3,797

  3,748

  March

  April

  May

  June

  20

  27

  3

  10

  17

  24

  1

  8

  15

  22

  29

  5

  a General/Settlement casework

  2,801

  4,068

  3,150

  2,769

  3,550

  4,150

  3,471

  3,028

  3,474

  4,133

  4,020

  3,400

  c Asylum 1st Decisions

  250

  226

  268

  284

  351

  575

  557

  400

  964

  1,013

  1,072

  1,014

  d Asylum Appeals despatched to I.A.A

  180

  178

  75

  134

  130

  143

  140

  184

  201

  178

  241

  193

  h European

  179

  187

  272

  165

  213

  239

  122

  140

  292

  247

  185

  86

  Total

  3,410

  4,659

  3,765

  3,352

  4,244

  5,107

  4,290

  3,752

  4,931

  5,571

  5,518

  4,693

  June

  July

  August

  12

  19

  26

  3

  10

  17

  24

  31

  7

  14

  21

  28

  a General/Settlement casework

  3,521

  3,252

  4,611

  3,539

  3,686

  3,153

  4,020

  3,602

  2,955

  3,847

  4,643

  4,607

  c Asylum 1st Decisions

  1,091

  1,141

  860

  1,066

  655

  451

  652

  685

  833

  711

  807

  710

  d Asylum Appeals despatched to I.A.A

  231

  260

  253

  269

  243

  262

  290

  254

  215

  164

  153

  102

  h European

  94

  168

  117

  313

  341

  562

  734

  599

  399

  411

  404

  191

  Total

  4,937

  4,821

  5,841

  5,187

  4,925

  4,428

  5,696

  5,140

  4,402

  5,133

  6,007

  5,610

  September

  October

  November

  4

  10

  17

  24

  1

  8

  15

  22

  29

  5

  12

  19

  a General/Settlement casework

  4,093

  4,366

  5,772

  4,387

  5,519

  5,422

  5,624

  6,616

  4,894

  6,029

  5,256

  5,969

  c Asylum 1st Decisions

  690

  587

  607

  493

  687

  592

  628

  565

  567

  554

  469

  615

  d Asylum Appeals despatched to I.A.A

  158

  186

  224

  250

  146

  163

  176

  118

  142

  87

  135

  128

  h European

  162

  115

  99

  177

  133

  128

  161

  67

  158

  140

  165

  228

  Total

  5,103

  5,254

  6,702

  5,307

  6,485

  6,305

  6,589

  7,366

  5,761

  6,810

  6,025

  6,940

  Nov.

  December

  January

  25

  3

  10

  17

  24

  31

  7

  14

  a General/Settlement casework

  6,105

  5,790

  6,021

  5,059

  1,526

  3,280

  3,831

  5,759

  c Asylum 1st Decisions

  620

  681

  525

  638

  95

  523

  547

  870

  d Asylum Appeals despatched to I.A.A

  146

  135

  125

  142

  132

  31

  109

  110

  h European

  280

  206

  222

  237

  0

  7

  108

  202

  Total

  7,151

  6,812

  6,893

  6,076

  1,753

  3,841

  4,595

  6,941

  1 Agreed average

  Commission for Racial Equality
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when Sir Herman Ouseley will retire as Chairman of the Commission for Racial Equality; and when he will announce the name of his successor. [107072]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Sir Herman Ousely is scheduled to retire as Chairman of the Commission for Racial Equality on 31 January 2000. My right hon. Friend, the Home Secretary, expects to announce his successor shortly.

  UK Passport Agency (Sick Leave)
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the average number of days lost through sickness in the Passport Agency in(a) 1997, (b) 1998, (c) 1999 and (d) in each month of 1999. [107077]

  Mrs. Roche
  The information requested is set out in the table.
  246W

  Average sick absence per employee (working days)

  Year

  Average number of days

  1997

  13.76

  1998

  12.96

  1999

  12.60

  The agency has reduced its sickness absence rate by nearly 14 per cent. since 1996.

  The monthly breakdown for 1999 is as follows:

  Percentage

  January

  1.4

  February

  1.1

  March

  1.1

  April

  0.8

  May

  1.0

  June

  0.8

  July

  0.7

  August

  1.0

  September

  1.1

  October

  1.2

  November

  1.5

  December

  0.9

  Family Reunification Directive
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the impact on the United Kingdom's immigration policy of the draft EC Directive on family reunification; and if he will make a statement on Government policy on that draft directive. [107070]

  Mrs. Roche
  The Protocol on the position of the United Kingdom and Ireland, annexed to the Treaties by the Treaty of Amsterdam, provides that the United Kingdom is bound by Community measures adopted under Title IV only where it opts in to any measure. The Government will decide whether to opt in to the draft Directive on family reunification within three months of the formal publication of the proposal and will inform Parliament accordingly. The Government's Explanatory Memorandum on the proposal, submitted for scrutiny on 10 January, provides an initial analysis of the impact of the draft Directive on United Kingdom law were the United Kingdom to opt in to this measure.

  Indirect Discrimination
  Ms Rosie Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the Government's policy is on indirect discrimination; and if he will make a statement. [107345]

  Mr. Straw
  The Government are committed to achieving a step change in race equality in this country. The Race Relations (Amendment) Bill is part of our programme to ensure that the public sector sets the pace in this drive towards equality. We want to send the clearest possible message that discrimination is not acceptable and will not be tolerated. The Government are, therefore, proposing two changes to strengthen the provisions of the Bill.

  First, after very careful deliberation we have decided to extend the indirect discrimination provisions of the Race Relations Act 1976 to the functions of public authorities to be newly caught by the Act and we will bring forward an amendment to provide for that. The Government have always been in favour of this in principle, but were concerned to ensure that such a provision would be effective without leaving public bodies open to routine legal challenge in circumstances where their policies were entirely proper. Since the Bill was published, however, we have listened carefully to the arguments put forward about the issue and have concluded that, on balance, the risk of spurious challenge is outweighed by the principle of including indirect discrimination in respect of public sector functions in the Bill.

  Direct and Indirect racial discrimination is already prohibited under the Race Relations Act 1976 in the fields of employment, training, education, housing and the provision of goods, facilities and services in respect of the public and private sector. The Act is already being extended by the Bill to new fields in the public sector which have previously been determined by case law not to be a "service" and to which prohibitions on direct or indirect discrimination did not, therefore, apply. The Act will now extend to areas such as the implementation of central and local government's regulatory, economic and social policies and law enforcement in respect of indirect discrimination as well.
  248W
  Secondly, the Government also see the promotion of equality as a positive way of eliminating unjustifiable indirect discrimination in these and other fields. Our setting of targets for ethnic minority recruitment, retention and promotion and our guidelines for mainstreaming race equality into policy development and implementation are examples. We are already committed to placing the promotion of equality by public bodies on a statutory footing. We will reinforce that commitment by bringing forward a Government amendment to the Race Relations (Amendment) Bill to enshrine the principle on the face of the Bill as a positive duty, leaving room for consultation on how the duty will operate in practice and how it will be enforced.

  The amendments will be brought forward at Commons Committee stage. We are meanwhile considering whether there should be any procedural safeguards consistent with the principle of non-discrimination.

  Attendance Centres
  Ms Rosie Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to reform attendance centres. [107346]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  In January last year, we set up a small working group, including attendance centre representatives and other experts, to consider the centres' future operation. It made a number of useful proposals for reform of their management and operation, including developing more individual programmes to tackle offending problems.

  For the 84 junior attendance centres, we have decided to combine reforms on these lines with organisational changes to match the philosophy of the youth justice reforms launched in the Government's November 1997 White Paper, "No More Excuses—A New Approach to Tackling Youth Crime in England and Wales".

  From April 2000, the Youth Justice Board for England and Wales will take over from the Home Office the central responsibility for commissioning and funding junior attendance centres. The Board will invite youth offending teams to start taking over as local agents for these centres from April, that is generally from chief officers of police. Close liaison with the police will continue, through police membership of youth offending teams. The local changes will be made first in a number of pilot areas. They will also be invited to develop the centres' programmes in line with the working group's principles, and liaise with the courts to ensure centres play an appropriate role in the new range of youth justice disposals.

  Senior attendance centres, which cater mainly for offenders aged 18 to 24, will remain the responsibility of the Home Office nationally and the police locally. Their future operation will be reviewed in the context of the adult sentencing framework.

  Police Statistics
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the total number of police officers in(a) Essex and (b) Southend in (i) 1995, (ii) 1996, (iii) 1997, (iv) 1998 and (v) 1999. [107270]
  249W
  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The information available is set out in the table. The data about the number of officers in the Southend Division have been provided by the Chief Constable of Essex. The force is not able to provide figures for 1995 and 1996.

  Essex police and Southend division police numbers—1995 to 1999

  Year 1

  Essex police

  H Division, Southend

  1995

  2,921

  n/a

  1996

  2,884

  n/a

  1997

  2,961

  319

  1998

  2,929

  320

  1999

  2,891

  304

  1 As at 31 March

  Fine Defaulters
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the pilot schemes to test the alternatives to custody for fine defaulters which were provided by the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997. [107069]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Measures in the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997 which allow courts to impose a community service order, a curfew order or disqualification from driving on fine defaulters instead of sending them to prison are being piloted in Norfolk and Greater Manchester. A report on the findings from the pilots will be published soon and a decision taken over whether or not to make the provisions available nationally. A Research Finding detailing interim findings was published last year evaluating the use of these measures during 1998.

  Home Detention Curfew Scheme
  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the average length of sentence(a) received and (b) served by prisoners released under the Home Detention Curfew scheme in 1999. [107031]

  Mr. Boateng
  The average sentence length of those released under the Home Detention Curfew scheme in 1999 was 14.5 months, of which 5.7 months (39 per cent.), including time on remand, was served before release.

  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what criminal offences were committed by prisoners released under the Home Detention Curfew Scheme in 1999; and how many prisoners convicted of each type of offence were released. [107036]

  Mr. Boateng
  The original offences committed by prisoners released under the Home Detention Curfew scheme in 1999, and the estimated number (to the nearest hundred) of prisoners convicted of each type of offence who were released, are shown in the table.

  Number

  Violence

  2,600

  Robbery

  600

  Burglary

  1,500

  Theft and handling

  2,000

  Fraud and forgery

  1,300

  Drugs

  2,400

  Other

  4,500

  Total

  14,900

  Crown Court Appeals
  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what estimate he has made of the average(a) cost of, (b) length of and (c) waiting time for a hearing of an appeal to the Crown Court from the decision of magistrates on mode of trial, under the provisions of the Criminal Justice (Mode of Trial) Bill; [107034]

  (2) what estimate he has made of the number of defendants in each of the last three years who would have exercised the right of appeal to the Crown Court on mode of trial, under the provisions to be introduced by the Criminal Justice (Mode of Trial) Bill; [107029]

  (3) what estimate he has made of the average (a) cost of, (b) length of and (c) waiting time for a trial in the magistrates court following the dismissal of an appeal to the Crown Court from the decision of magistrates on mode of trial, under the provisions of the Criminal Justice (Mode of Trial) Bill. [107033]

  Mr. Straw
  The new appeal procedure would be fast and efficient with determination within forty-eight hours in most cases. Our estimate is that even if as many as a quarter of defendants who had been refused Crown Court trial were to appeal, the cost of the resulting hearings would be less than £500,000. No additional delay would be caused by these appeals, since they would run concurrently with the progress of the case in the magistrates court.

  Police Complaints Authority
  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police officers were undertaking investigations under the supervision of the Police Complaints Authority in each month for each of the last five years for which figures are available; and what was the annual cost of these investigations. [107032]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Information is not recorded centrally on the number of police officers undertaking Police Complaints Authority supervised investigations or on the cost of those investigations.

  The number of cases accepted by the Police Complaints Authority for a supervised investigation in each of the last five years is as follows:

  Year

  Number

  1995–96

  1,142

  1996–97

  998

  1997–98

  979

  1998–99

  953

  I999–2000

  1638

  1 Up to 31 December 1999

  Alexander Schweidler
  Mr. Jim Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the Government investigations into Alexander Schweidler. [106941]

  Mr. Straw
  Mr. Schweidler was granted British citizenship in 1964. I understand that he died on 24 January. His case was one of just under 400 cases involving allegations of offences under the War Crimes Act 1991 investigated by the Metropolitan Police Service
  251W
  War Crimes Unit during the 1990s. Police investigations into allegations against Mr. Schweidler started in 1994. I understand there was insufficient evidence to support a prosecution. There have been no investigations separate to these.

  Senator Pinochet
  Mr. John M. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what has been the cost to public funds of the proceedings concerning Senator Pinochet since his arrest. [105494]

  Mr. Townend
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what has been the total cost to date of the detention of Senator Pinochet broken down into(a) legal, (b) security and (c) other costs. [105247]

  Mr. Straw
  Total costs will be estimated once the case is completed. The costs we are able to calculate at this stage total £1,322,326.83. The breakdown of this is as follows:

  (a) Legal Costs
  Costs incurred to date by the Crown Prosecution Service

  Counsel's fees: £353,000

  Interpreter's fees: £4,200

  Other cost (including Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) staff time, photocopying, etc): £238,000

  Costs to Treasury Solicitors:

  Amicus curiae (approximate costs and disbursements including counsel's fees: £70,000

  Other costs and disbursements: £18,000

  Costs incurred to date by the Home Office
  Counsel's fees:

  £144,000 of which:

  £38,110.29p is, subject to agreement or assessment by the court recoverable under costs orders made against Senator Pinochet by the Divisional Court.

  Treasury Solicitors fees: £36,000

  Costs incurred to date by the Lord Chancellor's Office

  1st hearing at the House of Lords: £270,935.89

  Application to vacate at the House of Lords: £151,361.30

  Hearing dealt with to date in the Divisional Court: £31,328.39

  (b) Security Costs
  Police costs incurred in detaining Senator Pinochet are a matter for the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis and the Chief Constable of Surrey.

  (c) Other Costs
  Cost of Medical Examination: £5,501.25.

  The figures exclude VAT, (which is payable in some but not all items).

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home 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. [105869]
  252W
  Mr. Straw
  [holding answer 24 November 1999]: I refer the right hon. Member to the reply my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury gave the right hon. Member on 24 January 2000, Official Report, columns 117–18W.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Medical Assessments
  Dr. Naysmith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) how many medically qualified panel members appointed under the Social Security Act 1998 are(a) employed and (b) contracted on a sessional basis, by the Sema Group to carry out medical assessments on behalf of the Benefits Agency; [103733]

  (2) how many medically qualified panel members appointed under the Social Security Act 1998 were formerly (a) employed and (b) contracted on a sessional basis, by the (i) Benefits Agency and (ii) Sema Group to carry out medical assessments in connection with social security benefit claims. [103732]

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

  Salaried staff employed by Medical Services (SEMA) who are medically qualified are excluded by the Lord Chancellor's Department from appointment as medically qualified Appeals Panel Members.

  On leaving full-time employment for Medical Services (SEMA), the doctors are excluded from undertaking Tribunal work for a period of two years. There is only a finite pool of doctors who possess the requisite skills in Disability Assessment Medicine and also meet the criteria for appointment as Medical Members of the Appeals Panel. The great majority of these doctors are engaged as part-time sessional fee paid doctors by Nestor Disability Analysis Ltd (NDA) which is an approved subcontractor to SEMA Group in the delivery of Medical Services on behalf of the Benefits Agency. Doctors who are engaged by Medical Services (SEMA) via NDA are allowed to be appointed as medical members of Appeals panels.

  The Appeals Service has in place stringent procedures to ensure that medical members of Appeals Panels do not sit on Tribunals where the Appellant has had any previous professional relationships with a medical member or where a medical member has had any involvement whatsoever in giving advice to, or undertaking assessments for, the first tier decision making process which is under appeal.

  Expenditure
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) if he will estimate the expenditure in current prices in (1) 1978–79, (2) 1982–83, (3) 1986–87, (4) 1991–92, (5) 1996–97 and (6) 2001–02 on(a) supplementary benefit, (b) income support, (c) family income supplement, (d) family credit, (e) working families tax credit, (f) disability working allowance, (g) disabled persons tax credit, (h) rent rebates and allowances, (i) rates rebates, (j) community charge rebates, (k) council tax benefit, (l) social fund grants and (m) social fund loans, including any social security expenditure by local

  253W
  authorities; and if he will provide, where available, a breakdown in each case for (i) pensioners, (ii) disabled non-pensioners, (iii) unemployed non-pensioners and (iv) other non-pensioners; [105533]

  (2) if he will estimate the expenditure in current prices in (1) 1978–79, (2) 1982–83, (3) 1986–87, (4) 1991–92, (5) 1996–97 and (6) 2001–02 on (a) the basic state retirement pension, including Christmas bonus, (b) additional retirement pensions, (c) invalidity benefit, (d) incapacity benefit, (e) industrial injuries and death benefits, (f) national insurance widow's benefits, including lump sums, (g) sickness benefit, (h) statutory sick pay, (i) statutory maternity pay, (j) national insurance maternity benefits, (k) unemployment benefit, (l) contribution-based jobseeker's allowance, (m) national insurance lump-sum maternity grants and (n) national insurance lump-sum death grants, including any social security expenditure by local authorities; and if he will provide, where available, a breakdown in each case for (i) pensioners, (ii) disabled non-pensioners, (iii) unemployed non-pensioners and (iv) other non-pensioners; [105532]

  (3) if he will estimate the expenditure in current prices in (1) 1978–79, (2) 1982–83, (3) 1986–87, (4) 1991–92, (5) 1996–97 and (6) 2001–02 on (a) child benefit, (b) one

  Expenditure £ million (cash prices)

  1978–79

  1982–83

  1986–87

  1991–92

  1996–97

  2001–02

  Supplementary Benefit

  Pensioners

  561

  941

  1,453

  0

  0

  0

  Disabled non-pensioners

  130

  259

  539

  0

  0

  0

  Unemployed non-pensioners

  515

  2,567

  4,336

  0

  0

  0

  Other non-pensioners

  355

  845

  1,632

  0

  0

  0

  Total Supplementary Benefit

  1,561

  4,612

  7,960

  0

  0

  0

  Income Support

  Income Support for over 60s

  0

  0

  0

  2,725

  3,814

  4,196

  Disabled under 60

  0

  0

  0

  1,400

  3,507

  4,643

  Unemployed under 60

  0

  0

  0

  4,200

  2,359

  0

  Other people under 60

  0

  0

  0

  3,288

  4,764

  4,456

  Total Income Support

  0

  0

  0

  11,612

  14,444

  13,295

  Expenditure on Housing Costs

  Expenditure for over 60s

  510

  1,478

  2,324

  3,327

  4,793

  5,790

  Disabled under 60

  79

  228

  359

  660

  2,387

  3,063

  Unemployed under 60

  241

  700

  1,101

  1,747

  2,523

  1,966

  Other people under 60

  277

  805

  1,266

  2,159

  3,977

  4,957

  Total

  1,107

  3,211

  5,050

  7,892

  13,680

  15,776

  Social Fund

  Social Fund for over 60s

  0

  0

  0

  32

  41

  25

  Social Fund for under 60s

  0

  0

  0

  178

  198

  204

  Total Social Fund

  0

  0

  0

  210

  239

  229

  Christmas Bonus—contributory

  Pensioners

  87

  91

  96

  99

  111

  107

  Christmas Bonus paid with Disability Benefits

  9

  11

  11

  15

  17

  15

  Total Christmas Bonus—contributory

  96

  102

  107

  114

  129

  122

  Note:

  Figures may not sum due to rounding.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Gander
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will instruct the Independent Tribunal
  254W
  parent benefit, (c) non-contributory retirement pensions, (d) war pensions, (e) attendance allowance, (f) disability living allowance, (g) mobility allowance, (h) invalid care allowance, (i) non-contributory invalidity pension, (j) severe disablement allowance, (k) maternity grants not funded from the National Insurance Fund, (l) winter fuel payments and (m) concessionary television licences, where funded by his Department, including any social security expenditure by local authorities; and if he will provide where available, a breakdown in each case for (i) pensioners, (ii) disabled non-pensioners, (iii) unemployed non-pensioners and (iv) other non-pensioners. [105534]

  Mr. Rooker
  Great Britain figures for 1978–79 to 1996–97 for each benefit are published in the Social Security Departmental Report 1999 (Cm 4214) and earlier equivalents. Projections for each DSS benefit and additional Local Authority expenditure for 2001–02 are in my reply to the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) on 26 November 1999,Official Report, columns 218–20W.

  Projections for the cost of the Working Families Tax Credit and the Disabled Person's Tax Credit for the United Kingdom in 2001–02 are in Table B13 of the November 1999 pre Budget Report. A breakdown of individual benefits by client group, where available, is in the table.

  Service in Broad Street, Birmingham, to reply to the letter dated 13 October 1999 from the hon. and learned Member for Harborough on behalf of Mrs. Jo Plant of Oadby, Leicestershire. [106952]
  255W
  Angela Eagle
  Administration of the Appeals Service (formally the Independent Tribunal Service) is the responsibility of the Chief Executive, Neil Ward. I understand Neil Ward wrote to the hon. Member on 25 January 2000.

  Examining Medical Practitioners
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will state the number of examining medical practitioners contracted to(a) the Benefits Agency Medical Service and (b) SEMA; how many of them had qualified four years or fewer previously; and how many were aged over 65 years. [106686]

  Mr. Bayley
  The Benefits Agency Medical Services (BAMS) provided medical advice and examinations for this Department and other Government Departments in support of the delivery of Incapacity and Disability Benefits.

  The service was provided by, approximately, 3,000 part-time contracted doctors.

  The work previously undertaken by BAMS has been contracted out, from 1 September 1998, to Sema Group. The services previously provided by BAMS are now undertaken by Sema Group 'Medical Services', and are provided on behalf of the Benefits Agency (BA).

  Medical Services have a total of 2,968 doctors contracted to undertake medical examinations, of these a total of 570 are over the age of 65.

  Records held do not show any doctors with less than four years experience.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security 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. [105872]

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

  Child Support Agency
  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what powers are available to the Child Support Agency to investigate and take action against elected members or former elected members of local authorities who withhold details of attendance allowances and other allowances in their disclosure of financial details on which the level of child support is determined; and if he will make a statement. [106470]

  Angela Eagle
  It is not right that some parents can seek to avoid their maintenance obligation by failing to provide information to the Child Support Agency (CSA) or by providing the wrong information.

  Two new criminal offences are being introduced in the Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Bill which is currently before Parliament. The offences apply to
  256W
  anyone who fails to provide information or gives false information to the CSA, there is a fine of up to £1,000 on conviction.

  Local authority councillors are treated as being employed by Local authorities. Flat-rate allowances and attendance allowances paid to local authority councillors are therefore treated as earnings for child support purposes.

  Where the CSA receives an allegation that a non-resident parent is not declaring his full earnings they will contact his employer direct for the information. If details of the earnings are still not forthcoming, an inspector may be sent out to obtain them. If it were established that a councillor had deliberately withheld information about attendance or other allowances, a prosecution under the proposed new powers would certainly be considered. The Agency already has powers to pursue and enforce any arrears of maintenance which may become due.

  Winter Fuel Allowance
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when male pensioners over the age of 60 years will be paid winter fuel allowance. [106921]

  Mr. Hogg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) for what reason no winter fuel payments have to made to male claimants aged between 60 and 65 years following the decision of the European Court; [106795]

  (2) when he plans to start making winter fuel payments to male claimants between 60 and 65 years of age, pursuant to the decision of the European Court. [106794]

  Angela Eagle
  I refer my hon. Friend and the right hon. and learned Member to the written answer I gave the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Dr. Brand) on 24 January 2000,Official Report, column 81W.

  Carers
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security for what reason he chose not to introduce home responsibilities protection into SERPs for carers and disabled people from April 1999. [106845]

  Mr. Rooker
  The pension needs of carers and disabled people are being met through the State Second Pension, for which legislation is currently being considered by Parliament.

  State Pension
  Mr. Ashdown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many representations he has received about the planned April 2000 uprating of the state pension; how many of these are(a) in favour and (b) not in favour of the uprating; and if he will make a statement. [106739]

  Mr. Rooker
  Around 5,000 letters were received up to 19 January regarding the April 2000 uprating of the State Pension. Only the subject of each inquiry is recorded, so the specific information requested is not available. Two early-day motions have been tabled, and several petitions, including newspaper campaigns, received. These claimed that the increase was inadequate.
  257W
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) how many more people would receive a state second pension if the child care qualification was amended to include individuals paid child benefit for children under(a) eight, (b) 10, (c) 12, (d) 14 years and (e) 16 years assuming retirement in (i) 2005, (ii) 2010, (iii) 2015, (iv) 2025 and (v) 2047; [106848]

  (2) how many more people would be recipients of the state second pension if he aligned the rules for home responsibilities protection for the state second pension with those that currently apply to the basic state pension taking (a) 2005, (b) 2010, (c) 2015, (d) 2025 and (e) 2047 as the year at retirement. [106849]

  Mr. Rooker
  The number of additional people who would be brought into State Second Pension by the suggested changes is likely to be negligible.

  Benefits (Young People)
  Mr. Swinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate the annual cost of restoring benefits to 16 and 17-year-olds in(a) the United Kingdom and (b) Scotland. [106668]

  Angela Eagle
  We believe that every young person should have the opportunity to achieve their potential. That is why our aim is to engage 16 and 17-year-olds in education, training or work with training, rather than starting their adult lives dependent on the benefits system.

  Departments are working together to develop and implement the proposals in the Government White Paper, "Learning to Succeed", and the Social Exclusion Unit's report, "Bridging the Gap", which are aimed at supporting young people in making a successful transition from childhood to adult life.

  The estimated cost of restoring full entitlement to Social Security benefits to 16 to 17-year-olds in Great Britain would be £100 million per annum, at present rates for the under 18s. The equivalent cost for Scotland would be in the order of £10 million per annum. These costs do not make any allowance for possible changes in labour market behaviour as a result of these changes.

  The figures refer to Great Britain and Scotland. For information about Northern Ireland I refer the hon. Member to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

  Notes:

  1. Based on data taken from the 1997–98 Family Resources Survey.

  2. Rounded to the nearest £10 million.

  National Minimum Wage
  Mr. Swinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate the impact on the level of benefit payments of setting the minimum wage for young people at £3.60 per hour. [106670]

  Mr. Bayley
  It is estimated that expenditure on departmental benefits will decrease by £15 million if the minimum wage for young people is increased from 258W
  £3.00 per hour currently to £3.60 per hour. This assumes there are no secondary effects on employment or wages.

  Notes:

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

  2. Estimates rounded to the nearest £5 million. This covers Income Support, Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit only.

  Mr. Swinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate the impact on the level of benefit payments of maintaining the minimum wage at its present level. [106669]

  Mr. Bayley
  It is estimated that the cost to the Social Security budget of maintaining the minimum wage at its present level is £10 million at 2000–01 prices.

  Notes:

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

  2. Estimates rounded to the nearest £5 million.

  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate the impact on each benefit payable to those in paid employment of a national minimum wage of(a) £3.80 and (b) £4.00 for the next financial year. [107144]

  Mr. Bayley
  The information is in the table.

  Estimated savings in 2000–01 on benefits payable to those in paid employment of a national minimum wage of (A) £3.80 and (B) £4.00

  £ million

  £3.80

  £4.00

  Income Support/JSA(IB)

  -15

  -30

  Housing Benefit

  -25

  -50

  Council Tax Benefit

  -5

  -10

  Total

  -50

  -90

  Notes:

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

  2. Estimates rounded to the nearest £5 million. Totals may not add up owing to rounding.

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

  Pensioner Statistics
  Mr. Ashdown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his estimate of the number of(a) retired people, (b) pensioners, and (c) people over the age of 65 in each (i) English county and (ii) parliamentary constituency; and what is the average figure in each category. [106738]

  Mr. Rooker
  This information is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available has been placed in the Library.

  Mr. Ashdown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his estimate of the number of pensioners over the age of(a) 75 and (b) 80 in (i) Yeovil constituency and (ii) South Somerset; and if he will make a statement. [106737]

  Mr. Rooker
  The information is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available is in the table.
  259W

  1991 census information of the population by age group in Yeovil constituency

  Aged 75 and over

  Aged 85 and over

  Yeovil

  7,800

  1,600

  Mid-98 estimates of the population by age group in South Somerset

  Aged over 75

  Aged over 80

  South Somerset

  13,100

  7,100

  Notes:

  1. For part (i), mid-year population estimates are not compiled by the Office for National Statistics (ONS) for parliamentary constituencies. The lowest level at which population estimates are available is the local authority level. 1991 Census information has therefore been used. Figures by the precise age groups requested are not available.

  2. For part (ii), mid-98 population estimates for South Somerset have been provided. These are the latest available population estimates.

  3. The people in these age groups are not necessarily pensioners.

  4. Figures are rounded to the nearest hundred persons throughout.

  State Second Pension
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people, by gender, would benefit, and at what cost, from crediting carers for the state second pension on a weekly basis. [106850]

  Mr. Rooker
  It is not possible to provide the costs requested without further detailed assumptions on how such a system would work. Furthermore, it is unlikely to be operationally feasible to provide entitlement based on weeks rather than whole tax years.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) how many more people would receive the state second pension, at what cost, and how much would be payable in pension, if he aligned 35 hours of care qualification for credits to the state second pension with the minimum wage qualification of 18 hours, taking(a) 2005, (b) 2010, (c) 2015, (d) 2025 and (e) 2047 as the retirement years; [106847]

  (2) how many (a) men and (b) women in each of the last five years have notified the Contributions Agency of the home responsibilities protection entitlement (i) at state pension age, (ii) two years before state pension age, (iii) five years before state pension age, (iv) 10 years before state pension age and (v) 15 years before state pension age. [106846]

  Mr. Rooker
  The information is not available.

  Invalid Care Allowance
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer of 20 December 1999,Official Report, column 327W, concerning invalid care allowance, if he will estimate the cost of crediting for each year those invalid care allowance recipients whose award (a) has been terminated (b) is current, where awards were made from (i) 1981, (ii) 1991, (iii) 1995 and (iv) 1999, their state second pension, assuming a retirement in (1) 2002, (2) 2005, (3) 2010, (4) 2015, and (5) 2025. [106853]

  Mr. Rooker
  The information is not available.

  Press Releases
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many press releases his Department issued in each year from 1995 to 1999. [106560]

  Mr. Rooker
  The information is in the table.

  Number of press releases issued by the Department and it agencies from 1995–1999

  Year

  HQ

  Benefits Agency

  Contributions Agency

  Child Support Agency

  1995

  180

  29

  20

  2

  1996

  294

  34

  21

  1

  1997

  291

  60

  50

  10

  1998

  311

  42

  28

  4

  1999

  324

  48

  —

  3

  Notes:

  1. Press releases for the War Pensions Agency and Information Technology Agency are included in the figures given for Headquarters.

  2. The 1999 column for Contributions Agency does not show a figure as the Agency has transferred to the Inland Revenue.

  Independent Living Funds
  Mr. Levitt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make changes to the payments limits and earnings disregard operated by the Independent Living Funds. [107383]

  Mr. Bayley
  I am pleased to be able to announce changes to both the ILF payment limits and the earnings disregard. The limit for payments from the Extension Fund will be increased from £560 a week to £625 a week, and the £300 a week limit for 1993 Fund cases will be raised to £375 per week. Within the 1993 Fund the overall joint limit, in conjunction with local authorities, on care packages that can be funded will be raised from £500 a week to £625 a week.

  A more generous disregard of earnings will also be introduced, to allow those severely disabled people who are able to work to gain greater reward from that work. At present only the first £30 a week of reckonable earnings is disregarded. In future, in addition to this £30 a week of reckonable earnings is disregarded. In future, in addition to this £30, the Funds will also disregard 45 per cent. of the remaining earnings up to a maximum of £200 reckonable earnings per week. The new disregard will apply to household earnings, not just the earnings of the disabled person. The changes will come into effect immediately.

  Chief Adjudication Officer's Report
  Fiona Mactaggart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he will publish the final report of the Chief Adjudication Officer; and if he will make a statement. [107723]

  Angela Eagle
  The report is published today and copies have been placed in the Library. The Chief Adjudication Officer's findings record that, in a difficult transitional period for the Agencies as they adopted the new decision making and appeals processes, standards have in general been maintained. He is, in particular, encouraged by the fact that the Agencies continued to look for ways to effect improvements across benefits. As this is his final report
  261W
  and with his staff moving on to new areas of work, the Chief Adjudication Officer has taken the opportunity to praise them for their work.

  The Chief Adjudication Officer welcomes the changes to decision-making and appeals that were introduced last year. As he acknowledges, those changes lie at the very heart of Ministers' plans for modernising Social Security delivery and promise substantially improved standards of service for customers.

  Chief Executives have taken on the Chief Adjudication Officer's responsibilities for guidance to decision makers and monitoring and reporting on standards. They are now accountable for the quality of decision making in their agencies. The changes help to get decisions right. If a mistake is made, it can be put right more easily. Notifications will be clearer and easier to understand.

  Improvements have been made to the handling of appeals. The ending of the rigid requirement for three person tribunals means that expert resources can be better focused on the issues raised in each appeal. Appeal waiting times will be cut. A new agency is being set up to handle the administration of appeals and we will set demanding targets for clearing appeals.

  These changes will deliver real improvements in service to clients. And we have preserved the essential elements of the current system: decisions continue to be made impartially by applying the law to the facts of each case, and clients still have the right of appeal to an independent tribunal.

TREASURY

  Public Expenditure
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if the existing planned total for public expenditure for 2001–02 will be adhered to when the next Comprehensive Spending Review is announced; and if he will make a statement. [106461]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  [holding answer 24 January 2000]: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 11 November 1999, Official Report, column 781W.

  Post Offices
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proposals are being considered by his Department, the Inland Revenue and Customs and Excise to help sustain and develop the viability of rural and urban sub post offices. [105862]

  Variable rate

  Fixed or capped rate

  Charges—No separate charge for mortgage indemnity guarantee insurance. Any other fees disclosed up front, including any fees and charges which may be payable later in the mortgage. Interest calculated and capitalised daily.

  No fee payable by the borrower for arranging the mortgage. Interest rate no higher than two percentage points above base rate. Interest rates to adjust to keep within the prescribed margin against base rate within four weeks for downward movements. No redemption or early settlement charge at any time.

  Any booking fee not to exceed £150. Any redemption charge should be a maximum of 1 per cent. of the loan for each remaining year of the fixed period, reducing monthly, and expressed in cash terms. No redemption charge after the fixed or capped rate period. No redemption charge if the borrower continues the mortgage when purchasing a new property with or without a top-up loan.

  262W
  Mr. Timms
  I refer the right hon. Member to the answer given to him by the Minister for Competitiveness on 20 January 2000,Official Report, columns 519–20W.

  Economic Stability
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what measures he plans to take to protect the UK economy in the event of a considerable stock exchange fall in the United States and the impact that would have on the world economy; and if he will make a statement. [106525]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Government have taken firm action to lock in economic stability and open the way to steady growth. Sound public finances and low and stable inflation have greatly enhanced the ability of the UK economy to withstand adverse external shocks. In particular, the Government's symmetrical inflation target ensures that policy can respond quickly to risks on the downside, such as from an unforseen fall in equity prices, as well as to risks on the upside. The Government have also played a leading role in promoting macroeconomic stability across the world, to help reduce the likelihood of future global shocks.

  Brussels Council
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the outcome was of the Budget Council held in Brussels on 18 January; and if he will make a statement. [106563]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  There was no Budget Council on 18 January.

  Mortgages
  Barbara Follett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he has decided to set CAT standards for mortgages. [107384]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Yes. The Treasury will set CAT standards for two types of mortgage: one charging variable interest rates, and one charging fixed or capped rates. Like the CAT standards for individual savings accounts, CAT standards for mortgages will define products with reasonable charges, easy access and decent terms and which can readily be understood.

  The standards will be voluntary and non-CAT standard mortgages may be appropriate for many borrowers. But because they will be simple, clear and fair, CAT standard mortgages will help customers to make better informed and more confident choices about mortgage loans. Subject to consultation, FSA's disclosure regime will help prospective borrowers understand how particular mortgage offers measure up to the CAT standards.

  The basic features of CAT standard mortgages are set out.
  263W

  Variable rate

  Fixed or capped rate

  Access—No restriction to existing customers. Mortgages available on the normal terms on which the lender grants loans, including loans for the lender's normal range of residential properties, and the lender's standard criteria for creditworthiness. Borrowers must be able to continue a CAT standard mortgage when moving house provided the existing lender is willing to lend on the new property. Regular payments available on any day of the month of the borrower's choosing. Early repayments permitted at any time.

  Terms—All mortgage documents, including advertising and marketing literature, and explanations of charges, to be put in language which is fair, clear and not misleading. No tying in, i.e. no obligation for borrowers to buy any other product with the mortgage. Any linked special offers to be priced item by item, with discounts expressed explicitly where they apply. If the lender can no longer continue with CAT standard terms in an existing mortgage, borrower's must have at least six months' notice of the change. Borrowers in arrears equivalent to up to three months' repayments pay standard interest charges only on the outstanding debt (including accrued interest). After that period the lender may decide that CAT standard terms no longer apply.

  A more full description of the CAT standards, subject to further consultation with the industry to firm up the technical specification, is being made available in the Library.

  Barbara Follett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he has decided whether the Financial Services Authority should regulate mortgage lending. [107385]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Government are determined that lenders should not take advantage of mortgage borrowers at a time when they are often vulnerable because their main priority is home purchase. In a modern competitive economy they should expect to be able to finance residential property purchases with confidence that they will understand the nature of the product they are buying and the risks.

  The Treasury carried out a consultation exercise in the second half of last year to examine the case for giving the Financial Services Authority (FSA) responsibility for regulating mortgage business. This was the recommendation of the Joint Committee on the Financial Services and Markets Bill (HC328/HL50) and of the Treasury Committee (HC 73). I am grateful to those in the mortgage industry, as well as borrowers and consumer representatives, for engaging in purposeful dialogue and contributing constructive feedback. The exercise showed that prospective borrowers' main need is better information about the many loans on offer in this competitive and sometimes confusing market.

  I have therefore decided that a statutory instrument under the Financial Services and Markets Bill, now before this House, will give the FSA statutory responsibility for regulating nearly all residential mortgages. This will mean that all mortgage lenders will have to be authorised by FSA with specific permission to lend on mortgage. It will not be necessary for mortgage brokers to be authorised unless they also carry out investment business such as advising on endowment policies, where authorisation is already required.

  This will make the mortgage market more transparent for borrowers. The new power will enable the FSA to regulate mortgage advertising and to require all mortgage lending activity to include specific disclosure of the main features of the loan. The FSA will consult on its policy approach and rules, including their regulatory impact, later this year, with a view to bringing the new regulatory regime for mortgages into effect next year. These rules will be designed to complement the voluntary Code operated by the Council of Mortgage Lenders. This has helped deliver welcome improvements, for instance in the competence and expertise of mortgage advisers.
  264W
  The introduction of mortgage regulation and CAT standards, which I am announcing separately today, will take place in parallel with several other measures designed to help home buyers. Recent announcements include the proposed revision to the regulations on annual percentage rates (APRs), which my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry laid before the House on 26 November, the package of measures announced by my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing on 11 October about improving the house-buying process, and the proposal, announced by my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry on 17 December, to prevent lenders making a compulsory link between mortgages and home insurance deals.

  The approach to regulation of the mortgage market reflects the nature of mortgage loans. If information is clear mortgages are intrinsically easier to understand than, for instance, many retail investments, such as endowments. With the new safeguards, we expect there to be many fewer consumers who regret their choice and it will be much easier for mortgage borrowers who do then come to regret their choice to disengage and remortgage at reasonable cost. The FSA already regulates advice on investment products designed to repay mortgages, such as endowment policies.

  These complementary measures will improve the quality and coverage of the information available to prospective mortgage borrowers and house buyers. They will deliver the essential protections borrowers need without burdening them with requirements which could unnecessarily slow down the sales process.

  I am today making available in the Library a summary of the evidence about detriment in the mortgage market collected in the course of the recent consultation exercise.

  School and Hospital Budgets
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to provide for longer-term funding settlements for key public services by fixing budgets for schools and hospitals for three year periods; and if he will make a statement. [106466]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  [holding answer 24 January 2000]: There are no such plans at present.

  Working Families Tax Credit
  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 19 January 2000,Official

  265W
  Report, column 513W, concerning households receiving working families tax credit, how much of the information requested is available; and if he will publish it. [106735]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Reliable estimates of the number of households in receipt of the Working Families Tax Credit are not yet available, but will be available shortly.

  Fees
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer 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 2001 05; and which of these fees count as negative expenditure. [106001]

  Mr. Timms
  The following fees and charges are collected by the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Departments and can be used to offset the relevant expenditure.

  £000

  Department/Fee

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  HM Treasury

  Insurance Supervisory Service

  8,258

  9,787

  12,204

  HM Customs and Excise

  To prohibit the release of counterfeit goods

  126

  137

  137

  Registry of Friendly Societies

  General charge on building societies

  2,258

  3,753

  2,881

  General charge on friendly societies

  863

  1,006

  1,300

  Statutory fees from mutual societies

  1,546

  1,740

  1,350

  Government Actuary's Department

  Actuarial advice

  6,232

  6,486

  7,178

  Office for National Statistics

  Sale of registration certificates1

  4,806

  25,191

  4,700

  National Investment and Loans Office

  Public works Loan Board

  1,934

  2,048

  2,000

  National Debt Office

  581

  546

  500

  1 Fees count as income rather than negative expenditure

  2 Forecast outturn

  Information for the full requested spread of years prior to 1997–98 could not be gathered without disproportionate cost. Fee levels for 2000–01 and later are not available.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many questions to his Department tabled for ordinary written answer during Session 1998–99 were answered(a) within two weeks of tabling, (b) within one month of tabling, (c) within three months of tabling and (d) after three months of tabling. [106489]

  Mr. Timms
  The information is as follows(a) 1,170; (b) 1,245; (c) 1,286 and (d) none.

  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many questions to his Department tabled for written answer on a named day during Session 1998–99 were answered(a) on or before a named day, (b) within one week of a named day, (c) within one month of a named day, (d) within three months of a named day and (e) after three months of a named day. [106482]
  266W
  Mr. Timms
  The information is as follows(a) 288; (b) 665; (c) 780; (d) 813; and (e) none.

  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many questions to his Department were tabled for written answer during session 1998–99; and how many of these he replied to(a) by means of a letter placed in the Library rather than by substantive answer in the Official Report, (b) by stating that a substantive answer could not be given due to information not being held centrally and (c) by stating that a substantive answer could not be given due to disproportionate cost. [106485]

  Mr. Timms
  2,099 written questions were tabled to the Chancellor of the Exchequer in 1998–99.

  The other information sought by the hon. Member is not held in an accessible form. However, Treasury Ministers seldom reply to Parliamentary questions by letter rather than by substantive answer printed in the Official Report, and would normally do so only in the case of questions tabled shortly before the Summer Recess or Prorogation which could not be answered before the House rose.

  Public Debt
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he plans to amend his net public debt target to a target of public sector net wealth following the introduction of resource accounting. [106775]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  No.

  Northern Ireland
  Mr. Walker
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much funding from the Capital Modernisation Fund will be allocated to Northern Ireland in the next financial year; and how the amount will be determined. [106806]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  Northern Ireland's share of funding from the Capital Modernisation Fund is determined by applying the Barnett formula to successful bids to the Fund for projects in England. In the 1999 Budget Northern Ireland was assigned a minimum allocation from the Capital Modernisation Fund of £50 million from 1999–2000 to 2001–02, which represents an indicative allocation of £19.5 million in 2000–01. The funding will be reviewed when final allocations are made from the fund.

  Public Investment
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the base year is from which he intends to double net public investment by 2002; and which year is the final year. [106777]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  Comparisons over the Comprehensive Spending Review period take a baseline of 1998–99 and a final year of 2001–02.

  Departmental Budgets
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if departments will be allowed to exceed their expenditure limits in 2000–01 and 2001–02 if they receive budgetary transfers from other departments that have spent below their departmental expenditure limits. [106776]
  267W
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  Details of planned transfers in 2000–01 and 2001–02 between departmental expenditure limits, reflecting transfers of financing responsibility between Departments or spending sectors or machinery of government changes, are set out in Chapter 2 of "Public Expenditure Statistical Analyses 1999–2000," published in March 1999 (Cm 4201).

  Farming
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many farming businesses paid corporation tax(a) in the last year for which information is available and (b) five years ago. [106536]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Only a small minority of farmers run their businesses as incorporated concerns subject to corporation tax with the majority being self employed and paying income tax. An estimated 10,500 farming incorporated businesses had a corporation tax liability for accounting periods ending in 1997–98 compared with 12,200 such businesses in 1992–93.

  Electronic Business
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proportion of the Treasury's business is undertaken electronically at present; and what target has been set. [106801]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Treasury has already met its target, due to be achieved in 2002, to increase the proportion of business undertaken electronically, in accordance with Government targets, to more than 25 per cent. of external communications.

  Specific targets have been set for non-ministerial correspondence, where the Treasury now has 100 per cent. capability, and for electronic procurement of goods and services, where the current achievement of 55 per cent. exceeds the 40 per cent. target.

  The Treasury carries out a very high proportion of its internal business electronically. The principal constraint to carrying out more external business electronically is the capability of external contacts.

  Small Companies (Employee Incomes)
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many employees working in companies employing fewer than five people have earnings between(a) the lower earnings limit and £5,000, (b) £5,001 and £7,000, (c) £7,001 and £8,000, (d) £8,001 and £9,000, (e) £9,001 and £9,500, (f) £9,501 and £10,000, (g) £10,001 and £12,000, (h) f12,001 and £14,000, (i) £14,001 and £16,000, (j) £16,001 and £18,000 and (k) £18,001 to £18,500 for each of the past five years. [106709]

  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. Frank Field, dated 27 January 2000:
  As Director of the Office for National Statistics (ONS), I have been asked to reply to your parliamentary question regarding the number of people working in companies which employ fewer than 5 people, and receive earnings in various earnings bands above the lower earnings limit.
  268W
  The New Earnings Survey (NES), carried out in April of each year, is a one per cent. sample of all employees who are members of pay-as-you-earn (PAYE) schemes. However, I am only able to provide estimates of the percentage of employees whose earnings lie within specified ranges, rather than numbers, because appropriate factors to gross the survey results to accommodate this sample frame are not currently available. Additionally, I am unable to provide data for years prior to 1998 since estimates of annual earnings and enterprise size are not available.
  The available information, from the 1998 and 1999 New Earnings Surveys, is attached.
  I will arrange for a copy of this letter to be placed in the House of Commons Library.

  New Earnings Survey, April of each year (GB)

  Employees on adult rates, who have been in the same job for at least 12 months 1. Companies employing between 1 and 4 employees.

  Percentage of employees with gross annual earnings in the range

  1999

  Full-time employees

  Part-time employees

  All employees

  £3,4322-£5,000

  1.6

  18.7

  6.1

  £5,001-£7,000

  5.8

  18.4

  9.1

  £7,001-£8,000

  4.7

  6.8

  5.2

  £8,001-£9,000

  5.6

  4.2

  5.2

  £9,001-£9,500

  2.5

  1.7

  2.3

  £9,501-£10,000

  3.3

  1.5

  2.9

  £10,001-£12,000

  14.4

  3.5

  11.5

  £12,001-£14,000

  10.7

  2.0

  8.4

  £14,001-£16,000

  10.9

  1.5

  8.4

  £16,001-£18,000

  8.7

  1.0

  6.6

  £18,001-£18,500

  1.6

  0.1

  1.2

  Percentage of employees with gross annual earnings in the range

  1998

  Full-time employees

  Part-time employees

  All employees

  £3,3282-£5,000

  1.9

  21.3

  7.0

  £5,001-£7,000

  7.5

  17.9

  10.2

  £7,001-£8,000

  5.2

  7.1

  5.7

  £8,001-£9,000

  6.6

  3.2

  5.7

  £9,001-£9,500

  2.8

  1.7

  2.5

  £9,501-£10,000

  3.9

  1.2

  3.2

  £10,001-£12,000

  14.6

  2.8

  11.5

  £12,001-£14,000

  11.0

  2.6

  8.8

  £14,001-£16,000

  9.9

  1.5

  7.7

  £16,001-£18,000

  7.3

  1.0

  5.6

  £18,001-£18,500

  1.5

  0.0

  1.1

  1 Annual earnings have been calculated only for those employees that have been in the same job for at least 12 months. Employees with less than 12 months attachment may have relevant annual earnings from another employer but these would not be identified in the NES. Consequently, taking annual earnings for all employees would give a misleading (under) estimate.

  2 The lower earnings limit was £3,328 in April and £3,432 in April 1999.

  Ministerial Meetings
  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the outcome of his recent meeting with the Portuguese Finance Minister. [107035]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Chancellor met the Portuguese Finance Minister, Pina Moura, on 13 January 2000. Their discussion focused on the Portuguese Presidency programme, including the Lisbon Special European Council on employment, economic reform and social cohesion.

  Landfill Tax
  Ms Squire
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much money has been raised from Landfill Tax, broken down by local authority areas in Scotland in each of the last three years. [106369]

  Mr. Timms
  As Landfill Tax declared by operators is not allocated to specific sites we cannot provide receipts broken down by local authority areas.

  Receipts from operators based in Scotland are estimated at £26 million in 1998–99, £33 million in 1997–98 and £11 million in the part year 1996–97, following the introduction of Landfill Tax on 1 October 1996; all figures are net of contributions to the environmental credit scheme.

  EU Structural Funds
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what derogations he has(a) sought and (b) secured from the European Commission with regard to the application of the principle of additionality, to allow Her Majesty's Treasury to receive structural funds from the EU, designated for specific regions, without having to pass on those funds to the relevant regions. [107016]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The Government have neither sought nor secured derogations from the European Commission in respect of the application of the principle of additionality.

  Asset Sales
  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what directions for Government Departments and local authorities to sell surplus state assets he issued(a) prior to 18 October 1999 and (b) subsequently; and if he will make a statement. [107153]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The Government have put in place a number of incentives to ensure public sector assets are managed efficiently. The National Asset Register was published in November 1997, setting out for the first time the assets held by central Government. New incentives to dispose of surplus assets were introduced from 1 April 1998, which allow Departments to recycle receipts from disposals to be reinvested in public sector assets.

  As part of the Comprehensive Spending Review Departments prepared investment strategies, which were published in March 1999, setting out plans for new investment, improved asset utilisation and procedures and systems to ensure value for money. As part of the move to resource accounting and budgeting, Departments are currently producing balance sheets which will show the full value of their asset holdings and budgets that include the cost of capital consumption in the form of a capital charge. Local authorities are currently producing investment overviews across their estate which build upon their ongoing work drawing-up asset management plans.

  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps he has taken to ensure that the sale of surplus assets will not result in the loss of playing fields. [107173]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The Government have put in place a number of measures to protect playing fields. The Department for Education and Employment have 270W
  introduced new legislation to require all state schools to seek consent for the disposal of playing fields, which includes consultation with community and user groups. The Department for the Environment, Transport and the Regions have published a Direction enabling Ministers to consider planning applications concerning local authority playing fields and those used by educational establishment where Sport England have objected to the proposals.

  Sport England also remains statutory consultee on all playing field planning applications and ask local authority planning policies to permit development on playing fields only where it can be demonstrated that there is a proven excess of provision. Finally, Lottery funding of £125 million will be devoted to a new green space initiative, including the creation of new playing fields.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  Local Government Finance (London)
  Mr. Coleman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what proposals he has for the budgets of the Greater London Authority, Transport for London, the London Development Agency, the Metropolitan Police Authority and the London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority for 2000–01 and for the Greater London Authority's precepts for that year. [107724]

  Mr. Hill
  I have today issued a consultation paper setting out my proposals to the London boroughs, the ALG, representatives of industry and commerce, predecessor bodies and other interested parties. Subject to consultation, it is proposed to set a consolidated budget requirement for the GLA and functional bodies for 2000–01 of £2,179 million. We estimate that this will support total spending of some £3,600 million. Of this only £333 million will need to be raised from council taxpayers. For a Band D council taxpayer, this is equivalent to about £123 a year in the London Boroughs and £32 a year in the City.

  Just £1.70 of this is to fund the additional cost of the new GLA services: about 3 pence a week for a Band D council taxpayer as promised in the White Paper "A Mayor and Assembly for London" (March 1998, Cm 3897). Nearly three-quarters of the council tax goes to fund the Metropolitan police. Since the Metropolitan police district does not include the City, this accounts for the lower cost borne by City council taxpayers.

  From 2001–02 onwards the consolidated budget for the GLA and functional bodies will be set by the Mayor.

  Rent Levels
  Mr. Portillo
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the impact on rent levels of the Court of Appeal's decision in the case of Spath Holme Ltd. vs. Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions; and if he will make a statement on the impact of the judgment on his Department's policies. [107183]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The Court of Appeal's decision to quash the Rent Acts (Maximum Fair Rent) Order 1999 is likely to lead to significant increases in fair rents which would have been capped under the Order.
  271W
  We are giving careful consideration to the implications of the judgment. We remain committed to protecting tenants from excessive increases in fair rents.

  Regeneration (Birmingham)
  Mr. Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he expects to make an announcement on the Arena Central Regeneration Project in Birmingham. [106978]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The Government have set a target for deciding called-in planning applications within 13 weeks of receipt of the Inspector's Report following the local inquiry. In this case the primary target for decision was 4 January 2000. Although the Secretary of State has not been able to complete his consideration of all the issues raised by this proposal within the primary target, the Government do fully recognise the importance of speedy decisions for the local economy. I therefore expect to be able to issue a decision within the secondary target of 22 February.

  Sutton Railway Station
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will ask the Shadow Strategic Rail Authority to investigate the cause of the delayed implementation of the refurbishment of Sutton Station by Connex and take steps with both Railtrack and the train operating company to expedite the project. [106852]

  Mr. Hill
  This is a matter which is primarily for the train operator and Railtrack to resolve. However, I have asked the Shadow Strategic Rail Authority to monitor the situation.

  Green Belt
  Sir Sydney Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what was the total area of land within the established green belt in England on 1 January(a) 1976, (b) 1979, (c) 1982, (d) 1985, (e) 1988, (f) 1991, (g) 1994, (h) 1997 and (i) 2000. [106874]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Figures published in December 1999 show that green belt in England in 1997 amounted to 1,652,300 hectares of land. This estimate is based on a new analysis of information in local plans and is more reliable than previously published figures for earlier years, which have been shown to be inaccurate.

  Sir Sydney Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what was the total area of established green belt land given non-conforming use planning permissions in each of the past 20 years. [106875]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The information requested is not held centrally by the Department, and could not be obtained without disproportionate cost.

  Architects Registration Board
  Sir Sydney Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the work and progress of the Architects Registration Board. [106876]
  272W
  Mr. Raynsford
  The Architects Registration Board came into being in April 1997 and has made good progress since its inception.

  I look forward to the election of new registered architect members and the appointment by the Board of a new Registrar/Chief Executive.

  Rail Safety
  Ms Rosie Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when the report on signals passed at danger in December 1999 will be published. [107469]

  Mr. Hill
  I have today placed in the Library a copy of HSE's report on signals passed at danger (SPADs) for December. Future monthly reports will be placed in the Library as a matter of course.

  In December there were 22 SPADs on the national railway. This figure is lower than for the same month in the last two years and half the December average for the last six years. Taken with the significant improvement in November, the December figure appears to indicate that the measures being taken by the industry to cut down on SPADs are beginning to have a positive effect, although it is of course too early to draw definitive conclusions.

  As explained in the October report, Railtrack and the HSE use different criteria to assess the severity and significance of a SPAD. This has led to some confusion as to how to identify for non-specialist purposes a consistent and simple definition by which a SPAD could be considered serious, to the extent that it gives rise to a potential for damage to passengers, staff, or equipment.

  Ministers have accepted a recommendation by Her Majesty's Railways Inspectorate to define as "serious" those SPADs which fall into Railtrack's severity categories 3–8. These categories cover those SPADs which lead to a train over-running by at least 200 yards (the normal safety overlap distance) and/or which cause damage or casualties. This definition gives three serious SPADs in December. On this definition there were 14 serious SPADs in October and 10 in November.

  Millennium Towns
  Mr. Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) what plans he has to announce the development of millennium towns; and if he will make a statement; [106877]

  (2) if he plans to announce the creation of a millennium town in Kent; [106879]

  (3) what criteria he will use in deciding to allow the building of millennium towns; [106880]

  (4) how many millennium towns he intends to create. [106878]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  Proposals for a new town and areas of plan-led expansion have been put forward respectively by the Panels examining draft Regional Planning Guidance for the Eastern and South East regions. The Secretary of State will shortly consult on draft changes to the draft Regional Planning Guidance for both regions.

  Conveyancing
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what are the terms of reference of the pilot scheme in Bristol for testing the Government's proposals for speeding up the system of buying and selling homes in England and Wales; and what will be the cost to public funds of the pilot scheme. [107261]

  Mr. Mullin
  The Government announced on 11 October 1999 a package of complementary measures aimed at making the home buying and selling process in England and Wales faster, more transparent and consumer-friendly. The announcement also highlighted the Government's intention to set up a study to pilot some aspects of the seller's information pack with approximately 250 home sellers in the Bristol area, covering properties in different price bands and in popular and less-popular local housing markets.

  The pilot was launched on 10 December 1999, and will run for the first half of 2000, reporting in September 2000. The results will help provide a clear picture of the practical operation of a modernised system of home buying and selling. However, the pilot cannot entirely replicate the Government's proposals: there is no element of compulsion; transactions may still experience delays especially where there are chains involving people not in the scheme; and voluntary elements of the Government's proposals are not included, for example faster mortgage processing, and faster release of title deeds.

  Terms of Reference

  1. To identify which elements of the pack work best, and where the practical difficulties lie, including consumer and professional attitudes to the home condition report, and the legal material required for the pack.

  2. To provide clear information on the difference that a seller's pack makes to the process of buying and selling, including, where possible, whether packs help to avoid problems and delays, which occur under the present system.

  3. To assess the potential housing market effects of seller's packs and the benefits of packs for properties in different price bands.

  4. To compare the results of the Bristol pilot with existing initiatives which are being taken forward on a voluntary basis.

  Cost to Public Funds
  Total cost: £315,015.

  Pollution Control
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the cost to the pig and poultry sectors of the charges levied by the Environment Agency in the implementation of the Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control EU Directive 96/61. [107233]

  Mr. Hill
  No decisions have yet been taken on the level of charges to be applied to the pig and poultry sectors under regulations implementing integrated pollution prevention and control. The Environment Agency is still engaged in discussions with the National Farmers' Union, pig and poultry trade bodies and officials from my Department.

  New Year's Eve
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what was the total cost of cleaning up(a) central London and (b) its parks following the New Year's Eve celebrations. [104918]

  Mr. Hill
  The riparian boroughs, who have made a major contribution to the success of the Millennium celebrations in Central London, initially estimate that the cost of cleaning up the area covered by the event will be in the region of £500,000.

  The Millennium Commission made grants available, under the Millennium Festival programme, to 22 UK cities, as a contribution towards the cost of clearing up after New Year's Eve. London is receiving £180,000 under these arrangements.

  The Royal Parks Agency estimates that the total cost of the clear up operations in St. James's park, Green park and Victoria Tower Gardens will be between £55,000-£60,000.

  Freight Forwarding Companies
  Mr. Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what discussions he has had with representatives of the haulage industry about the freight forwarding companies; and if he will make a statement. [105240]

  Mr. Hill
  Ministers and officials in my Department have frequent contact with the representatives of the haulage industry. If my hon. Friend has any particular concerns about the freight forwarding companies, perhaps he could write to me.

  VED Discounts
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will publish the details of the scheme for vehicle excise duty discounts for vehicles with low carbon dioxide emissions, announced in November 1999. [105865]

  Mr. Hill
  [holding answer 20 January 2000]: The Chancellor of the Exchequer announced in his 1998 Budget Statement his plans for the introduction of a graduated system of Vehicle Excise Duty for new cars. Under this system, cars first registered after Autumn this year will be placed in one of four bands according to their carbon dioxide emissions. The system, which is being introduced on a revenue-neutral basis, will be introduced in a flexible way with the potential, for example, to create further incentives for cars which run on less polluting fuels.

  Further details of the scheme will be announced in the forthcoming Budget, in advance of the system's introduction.

  Nabishi Radios
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions on how many occasions the use of Nabishi hand-held radios has been reported as presenting problems for freight marshalling yards in the railway industry; and how many radio frequencies are available to train companies. [106289]
  275W
  Mr. Hill
  Information about the use of Nabishi hand-held radios having caused problems for freight marshalling yards in the railway industry is not available. Problems involving hand-held radios are not statutorily reportable to the Health and Safety Executive's Railway Inspectorate, unless they relate to a reportable accident or dangerous occurrence as defined by the 'Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations 1995' (RIDDOR).

  The number of radio frequencies available to train operators is the responsibility of the Radiocommunications Agency, who authorise the use of radio by licensing.

  Local Government (Camden)
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what representations he has had about Camden Council's decision to reject an executive structure. [106321]

  Ms Armstrong
  Ministers have spoken on a number of occasions to interested parties about Camden's plans for modernisation.

  Car Statistics
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many cars per mile there were on Britain's roads in(a) 1996, (b) 1997, (c) 1998 and (d) 1999. [106688]

  Mr. Hill
  The calculations are shown in the table. Data for road length in 1999 are not available.

  1996

  1997

  1998

  1999

  Total road length (miles)

  229,185

  229,835

  230,914

  —

  Number of cars

  21,639,462

  22,298,304

  22,984,336

  23,458,476

  Cars per mile

  94.4

  97.0

  99.5

  —

  Road lengths are as of 1 April each year. For the number of cars, figures are from 31 March for 1997, 1998 and 1999 but the 1996 figure is an estimate based upon figures from the end of 1995 and the end of June 1996. The road lengths do not necessarily reflect the amount of carriageway available to cars. For example, a mile of motorway is treated the same as a mile of minor road.

  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, what percentage of (a) car and motorcycle and (b) lorry and bus licence applications in which the applicant declared a medical condition were processed within the published standards in each month of 1999; and how many were outstanding with the DVLA for longer than the published standards in each month. [106716]

  Mr. Hill
  [holding answer 24 January 2000]: The published standards contain a time allowance for the receipt of advice from third parties necessary to complete the Agency's consideration. Taking that into account, the percentage number is as follows.
  276W

  Percentage

  Months

  Car/motorcycle

  Lorry/bus

  January 1999

  55

  72

  February

  57

  76

  March

  54

  75

  April

  50

  72

  May

  54

  64

  June

  46

  61

  July

  43

  59

  August

  37

  63

  September

  40

  64

  October

  40

  74

  November

  39

  71

  December

  41

  64

  The number of new cases opened each month which either exceeded at closure or are still currently exceeding the published service standards was:

  Months

  Car/motorcycle

  Lorry/bus

  January 1999

  10,150

  1,497

  February

  11,551

  1,281

  March

  11,514

  1,304

  April

  11,705

  1,003

  May

  9,118

  999

  June

  12,923

  1,369

  July

  11,687

  1,105

  August

  10,164

  972

  September

  14,405

  1,137

  October

  12,734

  790

  November

  14,485

  978

  December

  9,185

  786

  As at 31 December the number of current cases outstanding which has exceeded the published service standards totalled 35,490 (car/motorcycle) and 1,981 (lorry/bus).

  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 were advised by the DVLA that the Medical Unit would take longer than the published standards of five to seven weeks to complete its investigations in each year since 1995. [106734]

  Mr. Hill
  [holding answer 24 January 2000]: Figures were not produced for 1995–96 financial year and earlier. The figures for subsequent completed years are as follows:

  Year

  Letters sent

  1996–97

  41,987

  1997–98

  52,285

  1998–99

  84,600

  1999–20001

  69,338

  1 To date.

  Customers will also be advised of progress by telephone but no summary records are kept of this means of notification.

  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

  277W
  currently have an application with the DVLA for a (a) car and motorcycle and (b) lorry and bus licence in which the applicant declared a medical condition, which has been outstanding for longer than the published standards of five to seven weeks. [106717]

  Mr. Hill
  [holding answer 24 January 2000]: The Agency deals with an annual total of some 320,000 applicants and notifications, involving medical investigations. At close of business on 20 January 2000, there were (a) 33,699 car and motorcycle and (b) 1,881 lorry and bus transactions which had been outstanding for longer than the published standards. This includes drivers who have notified a medical condition but are not currently applying for a licence.

  Standard Spending Assessments
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list for each shire county, the SSA and actual expenditure, with the deviation as a percentage of SSA for(a) social services and (b) education for each year for which data are available since 1990–91. [106558]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The requested information has been placed in the Library of the House.

  Driving Licences
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the advantages and disadvantages of allowing applicants for driving licences to present alternative forms of identification from those currently required; and if he will make a statement. [106680]

  Mr. Hill
  The documents required in support of a photocard driving licence application have been agreed by the Ministerial Group on Welfare Reform. The requirements are the same for all driving licence applicants and are in line with Government policy on combating welfare fraud. To accept alternative documents from certain applicants would mean different standards of identity checking and a two-tier system.

  A more flexible arrangement to assist individuals whose cases are under consideration by the Immigration and Nationality Department of the Home Office is being looked into as a temporary measure.

  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assistance is offered to applicants for driving licences who are awaiting the issue of travel documents or naturalisation papers by the Home Office, in proving their identity for the purpose of obtaining driving licences; and if he will make a statement. [106683]

  Mr. Hill
  Driving licence applicants who are awaiting the issue of travel documents or naturalisation papers by the Home Office are advised to contact the Home Office to ask for confirmation of details to be provided for driving licence application purposes.

  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what arrangements are in place to assist applicants for driving licences who cannot produce the original documents required to prove their identity, due to these being 278W
  (a) held, and (b) not yet issued by the Immigration and Nationality Department for immigration or nationality purposes; and if he will make a statement. [106684]

  Mr. Hill
  Driving licence applicants whose documents are being held or not yet issued by the Immigration and Nationality Department are advised to contact that Department to ask for confirmation of details to be provided for driving licence application purposes.

  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many applications for driving licences were not proceeded with in the last year for which figures are available because the applicant was unable to produce the necessary identification on the grounds that it was(a) being held and (b) had not been issued by the Immigration and Nationality Department; and if he will made a statement. [106682]

  Mr. Hill
  Since August 1999, following Home Office advice on evidence of identity some 7,500 photocard driving licence applications have been rejected because the applicant was unable to produce the necessary identification on the grounds that(a) it was being held or (b) had not been issued by the Home Office. It should be noted that those persons included in (b) may never become eligible for the issue of a necessary identity document by the Home Office.

  Air Service Agreements
  Mr. Goggins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the balance of benefits to the United Kingdom regions and to the South East of England in pursuing a mini-deal on transatlantic bilateral air service agreements with the USA. [106788]

  Mr. Mullin
  Transatlantic air services between the UK and the US are governed by the provisions of an air services agreement, commonly referred to as Bermuda II. The Government will contemplate changes to Bermuda II only on terms which are no less advantageous to the generality of UK interests than to US interests. In determining this balance, the Government have regard not only to the interests of airlines but to the interests of airports (London and regional), the regions in which those airports are situated and the interests of consumers. This approach has guided the Government's consideration of a range of options for a possible mini-deal during the current round of talks.

  Airlines
  Mr. Goggins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) what progress he is making towards eliminating restriction on the ability of United Kingdom and foreign airlines to serve United Kingdom regional airports without the need for bilateral negotiations; [106789]

  (2) what is his policy on the applications for fifth freedom rights from foreign airlines wishing to serve Manchester airport; and if he will make a statement on how wider regional interests are taken into account in the process of deciding the award of fifth freedoms to air carriers. [106786]
  279W
  Mr. Mullin
  In June 1998 we offered to bilateral partners with whom we did not already have liberal agreements unrestricted third/fourth freedom access to all UK airports (except Heathrow and Gatwick) as long as UK airlines were also allowed to operate on the same routes. Fifth freedom rights were not included in the offer and remain subject to negotiation although in evaluating exchanges of rights we do take account of possible regional economic benefits. In the Department's response to the Select Committee on Environment, Transport and the Regions report on Access to Regional Airports we undertook to review this policy. Officials have consulted interested parties and a response will shortly be made to the Select Committee.

  Mr. Goggins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what is his timetable for achieving full liberalisation of air service agreements. [106787]

  Mr. Mullin
  It is impossible to set a timetable for achieving full liberalisation of air services agreements as this is dependent on bilateral partners. Liberal air service arrangements are already in place with EEA States and a number of other states and officials seek to liberalise our arrangements in other air services negotiations.

  Portsmouth Harbour
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions on what grounds he rejected the representations from the applicants for the proposed Portsmouth Harbour (Gunwharf Quays) (Millennium Tower) Order concerning the objections to this Order due to be received by him by 20 December; what criteria he uses to make such decisions; and how much time he will give the applicants to revise their representations. [106804]

  Mr. Hill
  The application by the Berkeley Festival Waterfront Company Ltd. for powers to construct the Millennium Tower is subject to the written representations procedure under the Transport and Works Act 1992. The applicants complied with the first stage of this procedure on 20 December by sending to the Department representations on each objection to their application. They did not, however, include in their representations information which had been sought by the Department concerning the proposed use of the Tower. We need to be satisfied that the essential purpose of the Tower would fall within the definition of an observation structure, in order to establish that it would be within the powers of the 1992 Act to make the proposed Order. It would not be appropriate to progress the application further until this fundamental issue has been addressed. We expect the applicants to respond shortly on this issue.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions 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. [105873]
  280W
  Ms Armstrong
  [holding answer 24 January 2000]: I refer the right hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury on 24 January 2000, Official Report, columns 117–18W.

  Trains (Deaths)
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many people were killed by trains in each year since 1995; and what estimate he has made of how many such deaths were suicides. [106704]

  Mr. Hill
  For the period 1 April 1995–31 March 1999, the number of people killed by trains was:

  Year

  Total fatalities

  Suicides

  Passenger fatalities in train accidents

  1995–96

  249

  131

  1

  1996–97

  249

  119

  1

  1997–98

  278

  147

  7

  1998–99

  254

  123

  0

  The figures include all fatalities due to train accidents and the movement of trains reported to the Health and Safety Executive's (HSE's) HM Railway Inspectorate. However, 1998–99 was the first time in 5 years (ie since privatisation) that no passenger was killed in a train accident.

  The figures for suicides are included in the total fatalities figures. The total figures also include fatalities to trespassers which have averaged well over 100 a year. The figures in this table are based on published statistics, subject to subsequent change by Coroners verdicts, which are contained in the HSE Chief Inspector of Railways' Annual Reports on Railway Safety for Great Britain, and are available in the House Library.

  Private Hire Vehicles
  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what progress has been made in respect of restoring the position on private hire vehicles which existed prior to the decision in the case of Benson v. Copeland Borough Council concerning the personal use of a private hire vehicle by the spouse of the licence holder. [106464]

  Mr. Hill
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to my hon. Friend, the Member for Oldham, East and Saddleworth (Mr. Woolas), on 21 December 1999 Official Report, column 521W.

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what percentage of his Department's staff were(a) registered disabled, (b) women, (c) from ethnic minorities and (d) from (i) independent, (ii) grammar and (iii) other schools in (1) 1970, (2) 1979, (3) 1989 and (4) 1999. [106764]
  281W
  Ms Beverley Hughes
  As of the end of 1999 the percentages in the Department of Environment, Transport and the Regions (including its Agencies) were 3 per cent. disabled staff, 46 per cent. women and 5.2 per cent. ethnic minority staff.

  Figures for 1970, 1979 and 1989 are not available due to the merging of the former Departments of Environment and Transport in 1997 and the formation of the Agencies and Government Offices. Similarly, although records of staff members' educational qualifications and the institutions from which they attained them are now kept, no record is kept of the type of school attended.

  Rail Franchises
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will take steps to ensure that Wales is placed within a single franchise area when railway franchises are next allocated. [107017]

  Mr. Hill
  As part of his preparations for franchise replacement, the Franchising Director has invited proposals for improved services in Wales and the North West. These need not necessarily be based on the existing franchise map. In any re-negotiations 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 consulted interested parties, including the Welsh Assembly, and will continue to do during the renegotiation process.

PRIME MINISTER

  Security Services
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Prime Minister under what circumstances expenditure by the security services can be incurred outside the funds allocated to the Single Intelligence Vote; and if he will make a statement. [106653]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 25 January 2000]: None.

  Policy Unit
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Prime Minister how many members of staff at the Number 10 Policy Unit are employed as experts on(a) non-European international affairs and (b) African affairs. [106987]

  The Prime Minister
  None.

  Arms Exports
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Prime Minister what assessment he has made of the compliance of the export of spare parts for British made Hawk Jets with(a) criterion 4 and (b) criterion 8 of the EU Code of Conduct for Arms Exports. [107018]

  The Prime Minister
  Licences to export arms and other goods whose export is controlled for strategic reasons are issued by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry acting through the Export Control Organisation (ECO) of the Department of Trade and Industry. All relevant individual licence applications are circulated by 282W
  the DTI to other Government Departments with an interest as determined by those Departments in line with their policy responsibilities. These include the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Ministry of Defence and Department for International Development.

  All applications for licences to export goods entered in Part III of Schedule 1 to the Export of Goods (Control) Order 1994, commonly known as the Military List, are assessed against the criteria announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on 28 July 1997, Official Report, columns 26–29W, and European Union Code of Conduct of Arms Exports, including Criteria 4 and 8.

  Intelligence and Security Committee
  Kali Mountford
  To ask the Prime Minister when he will respond to the Intelligence and Security Committee's Annual report for 1998–99. [107650]

  The Prime Minister
  I intend to present the Government response to the Intelligence and Security Committee's Report before Parliament tomorrow.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Inward Investment
  Charlotte Atkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on inward investment in the UK. [105768]

  Mr. Caborn
  The UK had another record year for attracting inward investment projects in 1998–99. The Invest in Britain Bureau recorded 652 decision to invest in the UK with almost 119,000 associated jobs. These figures are underscored by latest Office for National Statistics data which show that at the end of the third quarter 1999, the total stock of inward investment in the UK amounted to £222 billion, an increase of 21 per cent. over the previous year.

  The UK remains the number 1 location in Europe for inward investment and this Government are committed to providing a stable economic framework to ensure that the UK stays ahead of its competitors.

  Metrication
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on his policy on metrication. [105769]

  Dr. Howells
  The Government are taking forward the policy adopted by successive Governments since 1965 of overseeing the change to metric units as the primary system of measurement in the United Kingdom. A report by my Department on the progress since 1965, particularly for goods sold by weight or measure, was placed in the Library of the House on 23 July last year.

  E-Commerce
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what action he is taking to provide a network of support for those businesses which trade on the internet. [105770]
  283W
  Ms Hewitt
  We have established a network of 100 Support centres throughout the UK under the Information Society Initiative (ISI) at which businesses can get impartial, jargon-free advice and support. In England, these Centres will be fully integrated into the new Small Business Service.

  We are also working with a newly formed Digital Content Forum on an action plan for growth in this rapidly developing sector which includes many of the key content and service providers for e-commerce based businesses.

  Beyond this, work is under way to develop a new, industry led mentoring scheme for internet based start ups, building on recommendations in the Performance and Innovation Unit's report "e-commerce@its.best.uk".

  Mr. Russell Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what account he has taken in framing his policy on e-commerce, of representations received from the IT industry. [105771]

  Ms Hewitt
  The report "e-commerce@its.best.uk", launched by the Prime Minister in September 1999, sets out the Government's e-commerce strategy. In preparing this report, extensive consultation took place with representatives from the IT industry among others.

  In general terms, the Government meet regularly to discuss e-commerce policy with the Information Age Partnership, in which business leaders from the IT industry participate.

  Dr. George Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps he is taking to ensure that the UK is among the world leaders in the exploitation of IT. [105772]

  Ms Hewitt
  We are determined to make the UK the best place in the world for Information Technology and e-commerce. The Government's vision and strategy for e-commerce is set out in the report "e-commerce@its.best.uk", which was launched by the Prime Minister in September.

  The Electronic Communications Bill, currently in committee stage, will give digital signatures legal parity with their written equivalents and will put wholly electronic contracts on a sound legal footing.

  Mr. Savidge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps he is taking to ensure the security and privacy of internet transactions. [105780]

  Ms Hewitt
  Government alone cannot ensure the privacy and the security of the internet. We are, however, taking steps to ensure that both business and the public have the tools at their disposal to address their own needs. In particular we have introduced the Electronic Communications Bill, which will both promote the use of electronic signatures and encryption, and enhance the availability of cryptographic support services, such as the issue of authentication certificates. The Department has also been involved in the creation and promulgation of BS7799, the standard for Information Security Management, which is now recognised internationally as an important tool for business in securing their internet transactions. Finally the 1998 Data Protection Act, which will be implemented later this year, ensures that all those who process customer data have to adopt mechanisms to safeguard its privacy.

  Post Offices
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans he has to assist rural sub-post offices. [105773]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  The Government are making a substantial contribution to the costs of automating the entire post office counters network to strengthen the viability of the network as a whole. Automation will enable Post Office Counters Ltd. to offer substantial enhancements to the services it is able to offer to clients and customers which in turn will increase the attractiveness of post offices compared with other service delivery channels. In addition, the Performance and Innovation in the Cabinet Office is carrying out an urgent study on the post office network. Various rate relief schemes already apply to many rural post offices.

  National Minimum Wage
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans he has to review the level of the national minimum wage. [105774]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  Any future changes to the national minimum wage will be made sensibly and taking account of the economic conditions prevailing at the time.

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent representations he has received concerning the level of the minimum wage. [105778]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  My Department has received a small number of representations on this issue in the past few weeks. Any future changes to the national minimum wage will be made sensibly and taking account of the economic conditions prevailing at the time.

  Telecommunications
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what consultations were held with(a) local authorities and (b) the cable telecommunications industry prior to the laying before Parliament of the Telecommunications (Licence Modifications) (Cable-Local Delivery Operators Licences) Regulations 1999 in relation to the effects of the regulations on local authorities plans to control the height and width of roadside cable telecommunications cabinets; and if he will make a statement. [105775]

  Ms Hewitt
  Telecommunication operators, the Local Government Association and other interested bodies were first consulted on the changes planned to telecommunication licences in November 1997. These changes came into force on 27 September 1999. There were no specific consultations on the maximum size of street cabinets as the proposed measurements had at the date of consultation already become the standard for new licences.

  Furthermore, the licences do not alter the limitations of what operators may do within the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995. Cabinets which are larger than that permitted under that Order require planning permission.

  Pollution
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations he has received about integrated pollution prevention and control changes; and if he will make a statement. [105776]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has received a small number of representations concerning integrated pollution prevention and control changes.

  Representations on issues including scope, timing and charges have also been made to officials in the Department of Trade and Industry.

  DTI officials have discussed industry concerns with officials in the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions. DETR is responsible for regulations implementing integrated pollution prevention and control (IPPC) on a phased basis in England and Wales. These are expected to be laid and to come into force later this year.

  However, the application of the IPPC Directive to offshore combustion installations is the responsibility of the DTI and was part of a wider public consultation exercise on the future of the offshore oil and gas environmental regime undertaken in the spring of 1999. A further consultation on the regulations covering offshore combustion installations was initiated in December 1999.

  Science Parks
  Dr. Palmer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what actions his Department is taking to promote science parks based at leading universities. [105779]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Government are wholly aware of the importance of business incubation and science parks and has provided £35 million to set up UK Business Incubation as a centre for promoting best practice among fledging companies. The centre acts as a catalyst to extract the maximum benefit from the business incubation process in the UK by promoting best practices, better networking, and encouraging uptake of business incubation. Turning to science parks there over 60 science parks in the UK, including Cambridge, Aston, Durham and Coventry; the majority are based in or around major universities. There are close links between the parks and universities which strengthen the transfer of technology and business skills in order to foster the development and growth of business.

  Out-of-town Supermarkets
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the Government's competition policy in relation to out-of-town supermarkets. [105781]

  Dr. Howells
  The Competition Commission is currently investigating the supply of groceries in the UK. It would not be appropriate for me to comment on matters which may form part of the Commission's inquiry.

  Scientific Research
  Mr. Ian Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what action he is taking to enable the longer-term planning of Government-funded scientific research. [105782]
  286W
  Ms Hewitt
  As a result of the Government's decision in the Comprehensive Spending Review to allocate money for three years instead of one, Departments and Research Councils can now plan ahead with more certainty than before.

  The Government confirmed, in their response of 13 September 1999 to the July 1999 report by the Council for Science and Technology (CST) of its review of science and technology across Government, that it fully accepted the advice that Departments should adopt a more strategic forward-looking approach to science and technology. The response noted that many departments already made substantial efforts here and went a long way towards meeting the recommendation but accepted that there was more that could be done.

  Many Departments are already closely engaged with the UK Foresight programme which aims to develop a culture of forward thinking on science and technology. In response to the CST report, Departments will decide how to make better use of Foresight as part of the development of their science and technology strategies. Work to implement this and other recommendations from the Council for Science and Technology's report is ongoing as part of wider work on a science and innovation strategy.

  Manufactured Goods
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on prospects for trade in manufactured goods between Britain and its European Union partners. [105783]

  Mr. Caborn
  The prospects for trade with our European Union partners are improving. Respected forecasters expect that market growth across the European Union will strengthen this year. This is already reflected in better export figures, which show that in the three months to November the value of exports to Germany, our main European Union trading partner, were 4 per cent. higher than the previous three months.

  The CBI survey of manufacturers shows that optimism about export prospects for the coming 12 months is positive for the first time since October 1996, suggesting that companies share this view.

  TransTec
  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps his Department is taking to recover Government grants to TransTec; and if he will make a statement. [105784]

  Mr. Caborn
  Details of the Department's dealings with businesses over grants are confidential.

  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much public money has been given by his Department to TransTec since its establishment in(a) grants and (b) loans. [105635]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 18 January 2000]: I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) on 25 January 2000, Official Report, columns 205–06W.

  Science Base
  Mr. Michael J. Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans he has to ensure that the exploitation of the UK science base will lead to increased wealth and job creation. [105785]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Government are committed to encouraging the exploitation of the UK science base and spending on this sector has increased steadily over the last few years. A number of schemes have been set up to encourage the development and exploitation of research which will place the UK at the cutting edge of technology thereby increasing its ability to compete in the 21st Century and in so doing boosting the economy and creating jobs.

  Renewable Energy
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he will be announcing new measures to help renewable energy producers. [105786]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The Government intend to make a statement on new and renewable energy shortly, at the time of the Second Reading of the Utilities Bill.

  Synchrotron
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he expects to make an announcement on the location of the new synchrotron. [105787]

  Ms Hewitt
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in his reply to Parliamentary Question 99739, dated 25 November 1999,Official Report, column 164W, said that he would make a final decision as to the location of the new synchrotron in the light of all the evidence and announce it by mid January. He is currently evaluating all the information available and will be making the announcement in the near future.

  Cluster Developments
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what action his Department is taking to promote cluster developments. [105788]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Government attach considerable importance to clusters and are currently putting in place new mechanisms for taking forward the development of its clusters policy. These include a Clusters Policy Steering Group to be chaired by my noble friend Lord Sainsbury, the Minister for Science and a full mapping study of cluster activity in the UK. Membership of the Steering Group and the successful bidders for the mapping study will be announced shortly.

  Miners Compensation
  Mr. Watts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what progress has been made in meeting retired miners health-related compensation claims. [105767]

  Mrs. Liddell
  We have made over 6,000 offers based on spirometry testing and so far 927 claimants have accepted. Over 16,000 individual interim payments have been made. So far over £45 million in compensation has been paid to ex-miners and their families. The first full medical assessments have begun and we anticipate that substantial numbers of offers will rapidly follow.
  288W
  In addition we have settled over 10,000 claims for Vibration White Finger and paid out over £63 million in compensation to ex-miners.

  Mr. Denis Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what progress his Department is making in relation to the settlement of damages claims made by former mineworkers for chronic bronchitis and emphysema; how many claims have been(a) received and (b) settled; and what action is being taken to ensure the speedy processing of the outstanding claims. [106931]

  Mrs. Liddell
  As at 25 January, the Department has received 94,011 claims of which 1,047 have been settled in full and final payment. In addition the Department has made 16,390 interim payments to ex-miners and their families. To date over £46 million has been paid in damages.

  Some 39,479 screening spirometry tests have now been conducted meeting the required target when the contract was let. Screening spirometry should be completed for the vast majority of remaining claimants by March 2000.

  Eight centres have so far been established to provide the services for the full Medical Assessment Process and 23 teams are currently engaged in collecting medical records. A total of 25 centres will be established by the end of February 2000. The first assessments have begun and the infrastructure is in place to process claims fully in accordance with the Handling Agreement reached with the solicitors representing former miners.

  Phthalates
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will quantify the risk his Department assesses can be posed to young children from the ingestion of phthalates. [106965]

  Dr. Howells
  The European Commission's independent Scientific Committee on Toxicity, Ecotoxicity and the Environment (SCTEE) was consulted on the use of six phthalates in toys and child care articles intended to be mouthed. It concluded that these phthalates could be safely used, provided that any leaching from the toy or child care article did not exceed scientifically established tolerable daily intake (TDI) levels. The DTI, on the advice of the Department of Health, has supported the SCTEE conclusions with regard to DINP. As well as being subject to a very high safety margin for use, there is considerable evidence to indicate that humans are much less sensitive to the liver toxicity which rats exposed to extremely high doses demonstrate. Where the UK does consider there may be cause for greater EU-wide restrictions is in the use of another phthalate, DEHP, where scientific concerns have been raised. DEHP is not used in toys in the UK.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry for what reason he does not support a ban on phthalates in toys which are not designed to be sucked or chewed by young children but could be. [106968]

  Dr. Howells
  The Government have taken their steer from the European Commission's independent Scientific Committee on Toxicity, Ecotoxicity and the Environment (SCTEE). The SCTEE has held that, provided migration
  289W
  does not exceed scientifically established levels, phthalates can be safely used. Testing has shown that products currently on UK shelves do not give any cause for concern. However, given public concern, and to try to bring in a harmonised EU approach, the Commission introduced a Decision, supported by all member states, to ban phthalates in items intended to be mouthed by small children. Phthalates leach only with difficulty, requiring very prolonged chewing before they are dislodged. When we consider the science and the risks, the ban reflects a very cautious approach. Had the science indicated otherwise, the Commission would have proposed a more stringent measure than the current ban.

  Drug Companies (Mergers)
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations he has received from(a) Glaxo Wellcome, (b) SmithKline Beecham and (c) other drug companies about the proposed merger between Glaxo Wellcome and SmithKline Beecham. [106144]

  Dr. Howells
  This Department has received one representation on the proposed merger. It is not our policy to disclose the identity of those who make representations on cases so that interested parties may comment freely without any concern that their comments might then be disclosed. Any such representations are forwarded to the Director General of Fair Trading who will take them into account in his advice to this Department on the case.

  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what consultations he has had with the Secretary of State for Health on the likely impact of the merger of SmithKline Beecham and Glaxo Wellcome on(a) the price and availability of (i) prescription and (ii) nonprescription medicines and (b) competition among health service suppliers. [106145]

  Dr. Howells
  The Director General of Fair Trading will consult interested parties about the proposed merger and will advise this Department on the case in due course. His advice will take into account any comments on these issues that he has received from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health.

  Clean Coal Technology
  Mr. Denis Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much was spent by the Government in each of the last five financial years on the research and development of clean coal technology. [106934]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The expenditure by my Department in respect of research and development of cleaner coal technologies is shown in the table.

  Year

  £ million

  1994–95

  8.0

  1995–96

  7.8

  1996–97

  6.9

  1997–98

  3.1

  1998–99

  2.9

  Note:

  Provision for 1999–2000 is £3.7 million, and planned expenditure for 2000–01, as published in Energy Paper 67, is £4.0 million. All figures are net.

  Photovoltaics
  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) what assessment he has made of the potential long-term economic benefits of supporting renewable energy sources, with particular reference to photovoltaics, on the basis of the German model; [106782]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the potential for photovoltaics in reducing carbon emissions in the United Kingdom on the basis of a support scheme for renewable energy similar to the German model. [106783]

  Mrs. Liddell
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to a recent assessment of the potential for renewable energy, including photovoltaics, commissioned by my Department. This has been reported in "New and Renewable Energy: Prospects in the UK for the 21st Century". "Supporting analysis, March 1999—ETSUR-122", a copy of which will be placed in the Library of the House shortly; this is also available on the Departmental website at www.dti.gov.uk/renew/condoc. This includes information on the potential for reducing carbon emissions and the economics of renewables.

  We have not carried out any specified assessments looking at the German model, but the cost to the German taxpayer of the interest free loans being Offered in support of the 100,000 roofs programme is estimated at around £300 million for an installed capacity of 300 MW. Several German cities and utilities are also offering premium rates—up to 2DM (70p) a unit—to householders exporting electricity to the grid from PV systems. These extra costs are spread over the remaining majority of electricity consumers in those areas.

  Regional Assistance
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what advice his Department gives to those businesses in areas which have ceased to be eligible for regional assistance since 1 January. [106515]

  Mr. Caborn
  Financial assistance to industry outside England is a matter for the devolved administrations. In England, we have given advice that while discussions continue with the Commission over the new Assisted Areas map, Government Offices will, as a temporary measure, continue to receive applications for RSA from businesses located in the Assisted Areas proposed in July 1999. Government Offices will undertake a full appraisal of such cases but any offers of financial assistance will be conditional on confirmation from the Commission that the location is within the approved map and that the project complies with the appropriate aid ceilings for that area. Similar arrangements are in place in Wales and Scotland. Any area which is outside the Assisted Areas when the map is approved will not be eligible for RSA under Community law. However, in the English regions we have introduced new tier 3 areas which include areas of need outside the Assisted Areas proposed to the Commission. In tier 3, qualifying SMEs may apply for financial assistance from a new discretionary Enterprise Grant scheme.

  Export Credits Guarantee Department
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will estimate the public expenditure on the ECGD's business for(a) 1998–99, (b) 1999–2000,

  291W
  (c) 2000–01 and (d) 2001–02, (i) in aggregate, (ii) with highly indebted land mine developing countries and (iii) related to defence. [105418]

  Mr. Caborn
  Aggregate public expenditure on ECGD operations is estimated as:

  Year

  £ million

  1998–99

  1318.7

  1999–2000

  1,025.4

  2000–01

  947

  2001–02

  947

  1 Outturn

  These public expenditure estimates relate to a number of financial facilities which ECGD provides in support of its main trading operations. The vast majority of the amounts relate to the refinancing with public funds of export finance loans and will be repaid as the loans mature. The balance is accounted for by the cost of interest rate support to banks under ECGD's Fixed Rate Export Finance (FREF) Scheme.

  Costs arising from these public expenditure facilities are not estimated or recorded on a basis which allows them to be broken down by country or industrial sector. Fuller details of these facilities can however be found in ECGD's Annual Report and Trading Accounts for 1998–99 of which there is a copy in the Library of the House.

  ECGD's main trading operations are not scored against public expenditure since ECGD looks to cover the cost of claims arising from this business through premium and recoveries of claims paid.

  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the(a) countries and (b) bodies which have bought arms from the United Kingdom in the last five years under the export credits guarantee scheme and defaulted on their payments, indicating the amounts involved in each case. [105337]

  Mr. Caborn
  The only defence business covered by ECGD in the last five years where the country has subsequently defaulted was with Indonesia. The value of defence business in the last five years to Indonesia is £529 million and the current value of the defaults on this business is £55.9 million.

  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the estimate prepared for the Defence Committee concerning annual ECGD net costs attributable to arms exports. [105338]

  Mr. Caborn
  I refer the hon. Member to the response by my hon. Friend the Minister for Defence Procurement on behalf of the Government to the House of Commons Defence Commitment's Report of 31 March 1999. This welcomed the Committee's invitation to the Ministry of Defence to undertake further work on the costs and benefits to the UK economy of defence exports. This analysis, which will include ECGD costs, is under way and the results will be published in due course.

  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what support the Export Credits Guarantees Department has given for Land Rover to establish a licensed production agreement with Otakar in Turkey; and if ECGD support contained(a) export control and (b) human rights criteria. [104159]
  292W
  Mr. Caborn
  In March 1998 ECGD finally concluded financing arrangements through the Supplier Credit Facility in relation to Land Rover's supply to Otakar in Turkey. The financing arrangements, inter alia, include a specific condition that Land Rover has to provide a warranty that all relevant government approvals including export licences where appropriate have been obtained and remain valid.

  Production equipment and technology, components and sub-assemblies whose export from the UK is subject to control are set out in a range of headings in the Export of Goods (Control) Order 1994, as amended, and the Dual-Use and Related Goods (Export Control) Regulations 1996, as amended and Council decision 94/942/CFSP, as amended (which has effect through Council Regulation (EC) 3381/94). While a valid export licence is needed for the export of controlled goods or technology, exporters are not required to obtain one before they conclude an agreement for production overseas.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what proportion of the sum paid out in claims authorised by the Export Credits Guarantee Department on exports to Nigeria between 1996–97 and 1998–99 was for defence-related exports. [105930]

  Mr. Caborn
  [holding answer 24 January 2000]: None of the claims authorised between 1996–97 and 1998–99 were for defence-related exports.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what amount of money underwritten by the Export Credits Guarantee Department in each of the past 10 years for defence-related equipment has been claimed by manufacturers but not recovered from(a) Indonesia, (b) Jordan, (c) Kenya, (d) Egypt and (e) Algeria. [105935]

  Mr. Caborn
  [holding answer 24 January 2000]: From information readily available, the balances of claims outstanding for defence-related exports are as follows:

  £ million

  Indonesia

  131

  Jordan

  253

  Kenya

  16

  Egypt

  46

  Algeria

  98

  Energy Safety Management Audit
  Ms Southworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when the Health and Safety Executive will publish its report on the Safety Management Audit of British Energy. [107558]

  Mrs. Liddell
  I understand that HSE's report, 'Safety Management of British Energy Generation Limited' and 'British Energy Generation (UK) Limited', has been published today. Copies of the report have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  North Yorkshire Power Line
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when the Lackenby to Norton overhead power line will be removed. [107559]
  293W
  Mrs. Liddell
  Although approval for the North Yorkshire Power Line was given in March 1998 there was an error in the consent documentation resulting in a gap in the line of approximately 160 metres. The filling of this gap had to be the subject of a lengthy legal process, including public consultation. Having considered the representations following that consultation, I have concluded, first, that there is no need to hold a public inquiry before making a decision in respect of this gap in the consents for the line, and second, that it is reasonable to grant the National Grid Company consent for the section of line which was not granted on initial consideration in 1998.

  While this decision resolves the matter of the "gap", there are still a number of issues to be resolved before the National Grid Company can begin the construction of the new line and the dismantling of the existing one.

  Copies of the Press Notice and decision letter are being placed in the Library of the House.

  Export Licences (RDX)
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry which company, organisation or individual in China was to receive the raw RDX for which a standard individual export licence was issued between 7 May and 10 November 1999. [106440]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 24 January 2000]: As set out in my letter of 23 September, a copy of which is in the Library of the House, the stated end-use for the RDX in its raw form covered by the licence was wellhead abandonment and oilfield use. The enduser was Halliburton International Inc., and I am disclosing this information in accordance with the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  UK Competitiveness Indicators
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment he has made of the factors underlying the conclusions of his report, "UK Competitiveness Indicators 1999", on(a) working hours and (b) per capita national income in the UK, in relation to that in other G7 countries. [106530]

  Mr. Byers
  The analysis underlying "UK competitiveness Indicators 1999" showed that, on average, we work more hours than our main European competitors and yet we achieve a lower national income per head. The analysis showed that, in comparison to France and Germany, both the proportion of population in employment in the UK and the number of hours worked per person employed are relatively high. Despite this, poor productivity means that GDP per head is some 18 per cent. below the average for the G7. The factors underlying this are assessed in "UK Competitiveness Indicators 1999". Closing the gap will require improvements in several areas, including innovation performance, management and work force skills, and entrepreneurship.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry which projects relating to his Department that appeared in the Private Finance Panel's list of 29 November 294W(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. [105871]

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

  EU Structural Funds
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry which areas of Newcastle upon Tyne receive(a) the maximum level of state support and (b) the full level of Objective 2 support from the European Union; and which areas will receive the maximum levels of support in each category in the next financial year. [106706]

  Mr. Caborn
  [holding answer 25 January 2000]: The maximum level of state support permitted under Community Law in the English regions is available in areas designated under the terms of Article 87(3)A of the Treaty of Rome. There are no such areas in Newcastle upon Tyne, nor will there be in the next Financial Year. Under proposals which are currently awaiting final endorsement from Brussels Objective 2 support will be available in all areas of Newcastle upon Tyne except for the Wards of Castle and Westerhope.

  Fuel Poverty
  Mrs. Gilroy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry pursuant to the answer of 26 November 1999,Official Report, column 210W, on fuel poverty (1) if he will indicate the date of the first meeting of the inter-ministerial group to examine fuel poverty; [105470]

  (2) if he will list the membership of the inter-ministerial group to examine fuel poverty. [105469]

  Mrs. Liddell
  [holding answers 25 January 2000]: The Group met on Wednesday 19 January 2000. It is jointly chaired by myself and my noble Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions. The other members are: my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office; my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury; my hon. Friend the Minister for Public Health; the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security, my hon. Friend the Member for City of York (Hugh Bayley), and Callum McCarthy, Director General of the Office of Gas and Electricity Markets.

  The Group discussed and agreed its terms of reference and objective, and approved a programme of work. The agreed terms of reference are:
  To take a strategic overview to ensure policies and new initiatives with a bearing on fuel poverty are co-ordinated across Government and integrated with the activities of relevant external bodies, such as the regulator and the energy industries.

  The Group's objective is:
  "To develop and publish a strategy setting out the Government's fuel poverty objectives, targets for achieving those objectives, the policies to deliver those objectives, and how progress should be monitored".
  295W
  The programme of work to take these forward was agreed as:

  To improve identification of the fuel poor.

  To research the effect of changes in income, energy prices and energy efficiency on the number of fuel poor.

  To identify the projected impact of existing and planned policies on the fuel poor.

  To develop an understanding of the gap between the impact of existing and planned policies and fuel poverty objectives, and the policies and resources required to meet objectives.

  To develop a comprehensive strategy, setting out Government fuel poverty objectives, policies to deliver them, and targets and timescales for those objectives.

  To identify areas where further work is needed to ensure co-ordination of Government policy activity among the various different players, and setting up mechanisms to take this work forward.

  To establish methods of developing indicators, monitoring progress, and evaluating outcomes.

  Oil and Gas (Scotland)
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) what estimate he has made of the percentage of oil and gas produced in Scottish waters which is landed outside Scotland; [106578]

  (2) if he will list the fields in Scottish waters which produce oil and gas that is landed outside Scotland, stating the licence holder for the field in each case. [106577]

  Mrs. Liddell
  [holding answer 25 January 2000]: My Department publishes an annual report "Development of the Oil and Gas Resources of the United Kingdom", copies of which are available in the Library of the House. This lists all the oil and gas fields on the UK Continental Shelf. In each case it shows the location of the field, the operator and how the product is transported from the field. In the case of gas, and of oil sent through a pipeline, the place where the product is landed is given. The "Scottish area" within which offshore platforms are subject to Scots law is defined in the Civil Jurisdiction (Offshore Activities) Order 1987, which has effect under section 11 of the Petroleum Act 1998.

  Where the oil is taken off the field by tanker the movements involved are too complex to be listed in full in the Department's annual report. Nor is the information asked for by the hon. Member routinely produced by my Department, or could be except at disproportionate cost.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Murder Inquiry (Robert Hamill)
  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will establish an independent judicial inquiry under the Tribunal of Inquiry (Evidence) Act 1921 into the murder of Robert Hamill. [105353]

  Mr. Ingram
  While an inquiry has not been ruled out by Government, they will not consider the issue until disciplinary proceedings, if any, against police officers are concluded.

  RUC School Visits
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the(a) pre-school
  296W
  institutions, (b) primary and (c) secondary schools visited by the RUC and police community relations units in 1999. [105454]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 17 January 2000]: During 1999, RUC Community Affairs officers delivered Police Education Programme lessons to 335 primary schools and 52 secondary schools. No records were kept of pre-school visits.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what efforts are made to secure parental consent prior to school visits by the RUC. [105455]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 17 January 2000]: The Police Education Programme (PEP) is delivered by police officers attached to the Community Affairs Branch. Any police involvement with and support to a school is agreed through the school principal.

  Decommissioning
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the meetings held between the International Independent Commission on Decommissioning with the representatives of each political party and the authorised representatives of each paramilitary organisation since 1 November 1999. [105816]

  Mr. Ingram
  This is entirely a matter for the Independent International Commission on Decommissioning, which carries out its functions independent of Government. It is their policy not to disclose this type of information.

  Firearms Database
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if the RUC firearms database is linked into the National Firearms Database established under Section 39 of the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1997. [105819]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 18 January 2000]: The following table shows the number of legally held handguns stolen from private individuals, the Armed Forces, the Police and Prison Officers in each of the last 10 years.

  Year

  Private individuals

  Armed Forces

  Police Officers

  Prison Officers

  1990

  0

  6

  15

  4

  1991

  8

  5

  12

  2

  1992

  3

  5

  3

  1

  1993

  7

  1

  5

  0

  1994

  12

  6

  14

  0

  1995

  7

  2

  6

  0

  1996

  7

  4

  6

  1

  1997

  11

  1

  2

  0

  1998

  16

  2

  6

  0

  1999

  7

  1

  1

  1

  Totals

  78

  33

  70

  9

  During this period one rifle was stolen from a police officer.

  The Chief Constable has advised that the information in relation to the calibres of these firearms is not easily accessible and obtaining it would incur disproportionate cost.

  Union Flag
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland on what days in the last year the Union Flag was flown(a) from the headquarters of each public body, (b) at each RUC station and (c) in each school authority. [101873]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 15 December 1999]The Union Flag has been flown at each RUC station on the following occasions over the past year:

  6 February 1999: Her Majesty's Accession

  8 February 1999: Death of King Hussein of Jordan

  19 February 1999: Birthday of HRH the Prince of York

  8 March 1999: Commonwealth Day

  10 March 1999: Birthday of HRH the Earl of Wessex

  21 April 1999: Birthday of Her Majesty the Queen

  2 June 1999: Coronation Day

  10 June 1999: Birthday of HRH the Duke of Edinburgh

  12 June 1999: Official Birthday of Her Majesty the Queen

  4 August 1999: Birthday of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother

  15 August 1999: Birthday of HRH the Princess Royal

  21 August 1999: Birthday of HRH the Princess Margaret

  14 November 1999: Birthday of HRH the Prince of Wales/Remembrance Day

  20 November 1999: Anniversary of Her Majesty's Wedding.

  The flying of the Union Flag from the Headquarters of each public body and school authority is no longer the responsibility of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

  Firearms Certificates
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland which system is used by the RUC to hold their register of privately held firearms and persons holding firearms certificates; and if he will place a copy of the system's functional specification and user guide in the Library. [105822]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 18 January 2000]: The Chief Constable has advised that the current system used by the RUC to hold this information was developed by them following research into similar systems operated by GB forces. There are no plans to place the system documentation in the Library.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Embargoes
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the binding embargoes agreed by the European Union since 1990, indicating for each the period of the embargo and any arrangements made for extension of the period of validity of export licences to those countries to reflect the period of embargo. [103555]

  Mr. Vaz
  I will write to my hon. Friend shortly.

  EU Procedures
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will place in the Library 298W
  the guidance handbooks on the institutions of the European Union and on the procedures of the Council prepared by his Department for civil servants and Ministers. [106162]

  Mr. Vaz
  These guidance handbooks were prepared for the use of UK officials and Ministers directly involved in EU negotiations. We consider giving them wider circulation could be prejudicial to the UK's position in EU negotiations.

  Lebanon
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with the UN and his international counterparts concerning UN Resolution 520 on the removal of Syrian and Israeli forces from the Lebanon. [106649]

  Mr. Hain
  I have regular discussions with a wide range of interlocutors about the peace process in the Middle East. In the case of Lebanon, the Government support United Nations Security Council Resolutions 520 and 425, and believe there is now a real prospect of withdrawal of Israeli troops from Lebanon. We look forward to the Lebanese Government's full exercise of its authority throughout the country. The Government also hope that peace negotiations between Israel and Lebanon will begin as soon as possible.

  Cameroon
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on human rights abuses in Cameroon. [106861]

  Mr. Hain
  We have serious concerns about the human rights situation in Cameroon, and believe they are in breach of the Commonwealth's Harare Declaration Principles on Human Rights and Good Governance.

  We have raised our concerns with the Government of Cameroon, both bilaterally and with EU partners, and are working with the Commonwealth and other international partners to encourage reform.

  Malaysia
  Mr. Healey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with the Malaysian authorities on the detention of Karpal Singh. [106527]

  Mr. Battle
  Karpal Singh, the Deputy Chairman of the Democratic Action Party (DAP) and a lawyer for Anwar Ibrahim, the former deputy Prime Minister, was arrested on 12 January. He has been accused of making seditious comments in court during the Anwar trial. He has been released on bail.

  This case raises significant legal issues, and we shall be following it closely. We are in regular contact with the Malaysian authorities on such matters.

  Mr. Healey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has received on the detention and trial of Kayed Singh in Malaysia. [106526]

  Mr. Battle
  None.

  Entry Clearance Refusals
  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many applications for entry clearance to visit the United Kingdom have been made at the British post in Havana in each of the last 10 years; and how many of those applications have been refused. [106869]

  Mr. Vaz
  Statistics on visit visa applications processed by the visa section in Havana have been collated only since 1993. The figures are as follows:

  Year

  Received

  Refused

  1993

  871

  1—

  1994

  901

  1—

  1995

  2,062

  65

  1996

  1,455

  63

  1997

  1,772

  103

  1998

  2,026

  94

  1999

  2,234

  145

  1 Not available

  The figures for refusals in 1993 and 1994 were not recorded. The 1999 figures are provisional: final statistics for 1999 are currently being compiled.

  Mr. Allan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many people were refused entry clearance to United Kingdom as visitors in 1998 on the grounds that the entry clearance officer did not believe that the applicant intended to leave the United Kingdom at the end of their visit. [106819]

  Mr. Vaz
  "Intention to leave the UK" is one of the key tests in the Immigration Rules on which an ECO must be satisfied. Most short-term visit refusals will include this as one of the grounds for an application being unsuccessful. However, detailed information on the reasons for refusal is not collated centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Indonesia
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent(a) reports and (b) representations he has received on violations of human rights by the Indonesian Army in Aceh and West Papua. [106728]

  Mr. Battle
  Despite the progress towards democracy in Indonesia, the security situation in Aceh and West Papua/Irian Jaya is a matter of serious concern. We have received reports of indiscriminate killings, abductions and harassment in Aceh, and we have received reports that four civilians were seriously wounded after security forces opened fire on demonstrators in West Papua/Irian Jaya on 4 December. These incidents highlight the importance of the new Indonesian Government's efforts to secure peace and reconciliation in their troubled provinces through dialogue—a process we fully support.

  We have received a small number of parliamentary letters about the situation in the above provinces.

  I discussed the current violence in Indonesia with President Wahid and senior Ministers during my visit to Indonesia last week and underlined our deep concern.
  300W
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what reports he has received on the use by the Indonesian army in Ambon of UK-manufactured Saladin armoured cars against civilians. [106732]

  Mr. Battle
  Saladin vehicles have not been exported to Indonesia since the 1960s. We have no confirmation of recent press reports that UK-supplied Saladin armoured vehicles have been used against civilians in Ambon.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  National Lottery
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will list by constituency the amount spent on lottery tickets and the number of lottery millionaires. [107066]

  Kate Hoey
  I have placed a table showing the amount spent on National Lottery tickets by constituency for the first five years of the National Lottery in the Libraries of the House.

  Figures for the number of Lottery millionaires by constituency are not available.

  Mr. Ashdown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many applications for National Lottery grants have been made by organisations in the Yeovil constituency over the last five years; how many of these have been accepted; and if he will make a statement. [106743]

  Kate Hoey
  The table shows the number of applications and awards for each of the National Lottery distributing bodies to organisations in the Yeovil constituency, based on information provided by the National Lottery distributing bodies.

  Distributing body

  Number of applications received

  Number of awards made

  Arts Council of England

  25

  15

  Heritage Lottery Fund

  15

  3

  Film Council

  0

  0

  Millennium Commission

  1—

  4

  National Lottery Charities Board

  163

  68

  New Opportunities Fund

  0

  20

  Sport England

  15

  8

  UK Sport

  0

  0

  1 Not known.

  2 The New Opportunities Fund has allocated funding to schools in the Somerset County Council, amounting to £1,552,054, under its programme for ICT (information and communications technology) training for teachers and school librarians. In addition, under its programme for ICT training for public library staff, Somerset County Council will receive the entitlement of £135,725. Funding is allocated by Local Education Authority/Library Authority and it is not possible at present to provide a breakdown by parliamentary constituency.

  Gillian Merron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will publish tables for the(a) sales of national lottery tickets in and (b) awards from the lottery to (i) parliamentary constituencies, (ii) counties and (iii) regions ranked in descending order by amount in each case. [106843]
  301W
  Kate Hoey
  [holding answer 25 January 2000]: I have placed tables showing National Lottery awards by constituency, county, and region by descending order of amount; and tables showing ticket sales by constituency and by region, by descending order of amount, in the Libraries of the House. Ticket sales by county are not available.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many National Lottery grants, indicating the amounts involved, have been allocated to projects in London via(a) national companies, (b) national institutions and (c) local London community groups. [106808]

  Kate Hoey
  According to my Department's National Lottery awards database, there have been 5596 grants to organisations based in London since the National Lottery began, with a total value of £2,263,714,761. Of these, 4,650 grants, with a total value of £1,230,738,680, have been classified by the National Lottery distributors as local awards; the remaining 946 awards, with a total value of £1,032,976,081, have been classified as non-local.

  Mr. Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what assessment he has made of the value of lottery funds received by organisations in the Gedling constituency; and if he will make a statement. [106831]

  Kate Hoey
  [holding answer 25 January 2000]: According to my Department's National Lottery awards database (which uses information supplied by the National Lottery distributing bodies) there have been 50 awards to organisations based in the Gedling constituency, totalling £1,295,563.

  Dr. Tony Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will list, in each constituency the(a) sales of National Lottery tickets and (b) allocation of Lottery funding ranked in order of (i) number of tickets sold and (ii) value of Lottery funding, in each of the first five years of the Lottery's operation. [106150]

  Kate Hoey
  I have placed a table showing Lottery awards by constituency, where known, for each year from 1995 (the first year in which awards were made) to 1999 in the Libraries of the House. The table is taken from my Department's National Lottery awards database, using information provided by the National Lottery distributing bodies. It allocates awards to constituencies according to the applicant's post code.

  I have also placed a table showing total ticket sales to 13 November 1999 in the Libraries of the House. Annual breakdown of these data is not available.

  Deregulation
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport 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. [106089]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  [holding answer 20 January 2000]: The Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) has made two orders under the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994. They are:
  302W
  The Deregulation (Wireless Telegraphy) Order 1996 (SI 1996/1864)

  This abolished the requirement for TV dealers to hold TV licences and to register with the BBC. It was estimated to have saved TV dealers £10,000 a year.

  The Contracting Out (Functions in relation to the Management of Crown Lands) Order 1998 (SI 1998/215)

  This removes the statutory responsibilities of the Secretary of State for DCMS, for the day to day management of the historic royal palaces which is now carried out under contract by the Historic Royal Palaces Trust.

  DCMS will continue to look for opportunities to use such orders to remove unnecessary legislative restrictions.

  Subtitling
  Mr. Berry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what action his Department is taking to ensure that broadcasters comply with the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 in respect of subtitling on their(a) digital television channels and (b) videos. [106138]

  Janet Anderson
  It is for the broadcasters themselves to ensure that they are acting in accordance with the requirements of the Part III of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, which relates to access to goods, facilities and services. Broadcasting, like other services to the public is covered by the Act, while the manufacture and design of manufactured goods, such as videos, are not. Broadcasters are also subject to the "Code on Subtitling, Sign Language and Audio Description on Digital Terrestrial Television", drawn up by the Independent Television Commission (ITC) under Section 20 of the Broadcasting Act 1996. The Code is concerned with the access to digital terrestrial television services for people with hearing disabilities and visual impairments. The code requires digital terrestrial broadcasters to provide subtitles on at least 50 per cent. of their services within 10 years of the commencement of digital services. The Independent Television Commission will continue to monitor the performance of commercial DTT channels to ensure compliance with the code. The ITC are currently looking at the implications of the Disability Discrimination Act to ensure that their codes are consistent with it.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will list the ITC's returns from each of the(a) digital and (b) analogue terrestrial channels covered by its statutory subtitling targets for each of the last five years. [106974]

  Janet Anderson
  The first digital terrestrial services began in November 1998 and the Commission has not yet published returns for these services. The ITC has published the following returns for analogue terrestrial channels in its Annual Reports:

  Percentage

  ITV

  GMTV

  Channel 4

  Channel 5

  1994

  30

  29

  37

  —

  1995

  35

  30

  36

  —

  1996

  41

  37

  45

  —

  1997

  51

  39

  56

  23

  1998

  61

  42

  60

  27

  303W
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) what plans he has to introduce legislation to set statutory subtitling targets for cable and satellite broadcasters; and if he will make a statement; [106970]

  (2) what is his Department's policy on subtitling on (a) cable and (b) satellite television channels. The Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting, [106971]

  Janet Anderson
  The Government have no current plans to legislate on subtitling for cable and satellite broadcasters. They have however, made clear their concern at the apparent poor level of subtitling on cable and satellite channels and have encouraged all broadcasters to respond positively to the RNID's initiative for a voluntary charter on broadcast subtitling.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will list the statutory subtitling targets set by the ITC for each year from 1995 to 2005 inclusive. [106973]

  Janet Anderson
  The ITC has set the following targets:

  Percentage

  Analogue

  Digital Terrestrial Television

  Channel 3

  GMTV

  Channel 5

  Year

  From date of start of each programme service

  1995

  32

  29

  —

  1.

  5

  1996

  38

  33

  —

  2.

  10

  1997

  45

  37

  23

  3.

  15

  1998

  52

  41

  27

  4.

  20

  1999

  56

  46

  32

  5.

  25

  2000

  61

  50

  37

  6.

  30

  2001

  68

  54

  43

  7.

  35

  2002

  75

  54

  50

  8.

  40

  2003

  79

  58

  —

  9.

  45

  2004

  83

  58

  —

  10.

  50

  The Commission will review the targets for subtitling on Channel 3 and Channel 5 analogue services in 2001 to decide whether any further increase is feasible and has undertaken to review the interim targets set for digital terrestrial services every two years from the start of services.

  ITV (Mergers)
  Mr. Woolas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what representations he has received regarding the proposed mergers within ITV. [106953]
  304W
  Janet Anderson
  [holding answer 25 January 2000]: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has received a number of representations from interested parties on the proposed mergers within ITV, which reflect a wide range of views. Details of these cannot be given due to commercial confidentiality.

  Channel 5
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what proportion of programmes broadcast by Channel 5 in 1999 were of European origin as defined within EU Directive 89/552/EC. [106966]

  Janet Anderson
  Provisional figures for 1999 indicate Channel 5 continued to meet the requirement in the European Broadcasting Directive 89/552/EC, as amended by Directive 97/36/EC, for the majority of transmission time to be devoted to works of European origin. The initial figures indicate that 53 per cent. of broadcast time on Channel 5, excluding advertisements, sports, news, games and teletext services, was devoted to works of European origin. The final figure will be published later this year by the Independent Television Commission.

  Tobacco Sponsorship
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how much money has been raised from sponsors to replace tobacco sponsorship of sporting events by the Government Task Force on tobacco sponsorship of sport. [106445]

  Kate Hoey
  [pursuant to the reply, 12 July 1999, c. 25W]: It is too soon to be looking to replace existing contracts and our help can most effectively be targeted in the 12 to 18 months before they lapse, which is the normal lead in time for negotiating new sponsorships. However, I am keeping in close touch with the sports involved and Task Force members are also offering ongoing advice and assistance to help the sports prepare to move away from existing tobacco sponsors.

  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport when the Task Force on tobacco sponsorship of sport has met since its inception. [106444]

  Kate Hoey
  There have been three formal meetings of the Tobacco Sponsorship Task Force which were held on: 10 December 1998; 24 February 1999; and 19 October 1999. In addition there have been 11 meetings between officials in my Department, Task Force members, and the individual sports concerned.

SCOTLAND

  Firearms
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) in relation to implementation of section 39 of the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1997(a) who is responsible for the problem, (b) who are the stakeholders and (c) what are the success criteria; and if he will make a statement; [106420]

  (2) when he expects police forces in Scotland to comply with the requirement of section 39 of the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1997; what is the reason for the delay in doing so; and if he will make a statement. [106418]

  Dr. Reid
  The requirements of section 39 of the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1997 are met in Scotland by the Scottish Criminal Records Office computer database which records all certificate holders and firearms dealers and is accessible on-line to Scottish police forces.

  Regional Selective Assistance
  Mr. Davidson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the total Regional Selective Assistance payments in Scotland by local authority area for the latest 12 month period for which figures are available. [104871]

  Dr. Reid
  The figures for the last fiscal year are given in the table. Since July 1999, the Regional Selective Assistance grant scheme in Scotland has been administered by the Scottish Executive.

  Regional Selective Assistance (RSA) payments made by unitary authority: 1998–99

  £000

  Unitary authority

  Value of RSA payments made

  Angus

  360

  Argyll and Bute

  18

  Clackmannanshire

  21

  Dumfries and Galloway

  528

  Dundee City

  1,761

  East Ayrshire

  1,626

  East Dunbartonshire

  465

  East Renfrewshire

  145

  Falkirk

  400

  Fife

  9,329

  Glasgow City

  7,131

  Highland

  800

  Inverclyde

  2,473

  North Ayrshire

  9,536

  North Lanarkshire

  9,712

  Renfrewshire

  3,302

  South Ayrshire

  1,593

  South Lanarkshire

  6,008

  West Dunbartonshire

  310

  West Lothian

  17,887

  Total Scotland

  73,404

  Post Offices
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what proposals are being considered by his Department to help sustain and develop the viability of rural and urban sub-post offices. [105861]
  306W
  Mr. Wilson
  I refer to the reply given by the Minister for Competitiveness on 20 January 2000,Official Report, column 519W.

  Departmental Productivity
  Mr. Crausby
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what action he is taking to increase the productivity and reduce the running costs of his Department. [103854]

  Dr. Reid
  Delivering efficient and modern public services is a key part of the Government's agenda for improving productivity. Greater efficiency is being sought therefore within the public sector to ensure that the most effective results are obtained from available resources. My Department is still in the process of establishing its full range of activities and is committed to delivering improvements in performance within approved running cost limits.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  New Deal (Waltham Forest)
  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what data he collates regarding the monitoring of training services provided under the New Deal in the London Borough of Waltham Forest. [104102]

  Ms Jowell
  Responsibility for the monitoring of training services provided under the New Deal for Young People in the London Borough of Waltham Forest rests with the local partnership in the Ilford unit of delivery. The Employment Service has worked with the Training Standards Council—the independent body set up by the Secretary of State to evaluate and report on Government funded work based training—to produce a framework to assess training provision. Part of this process is an annual self assessment that in Ilford' s case will take place in February 2000. To inform the inspection process the New Deal Partnership collates details of New Deal participants and information on the achievement of those who have left New Deal options. This information is broken down by gender, ethnicity and disability status. Separate statistics are compiled for each contractor involved in the local delivery of New Deal options.

  A-levels
  Sir Nicholas Lyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what was the percentage of A-level students who received A grades taking(a) modular examinations and (b) taking non-modular examinations in (i) 1997, (ii) 1998 and (iii) 1999. [106131]

  Mr. Wicks
  Of the modular GCE A-level entries in England in each of the last three years, the following percentages resulted in A grades:

  Modular courses

  Year

  Percentage

  1997

  17

  1998

  18

  1999

  20

  307W
  Of the non-modular GCE A-level entries in England in each of the last three years, the following percentages resulted in A grades:

  Non-modular courses

  Year

  Percentage

  1997

  15

  1998

  16

  1999

  16

  Of all GCE A-level entries, the split between modular and non-modular is as follows:

  Year

  Percentage

  Modular entries

  1997

  33

  1998

  44

  1999

  39

  Non-modular entries

  1997

  67

  1998

  56

  1999

  61

  Note:

  ie Of all GCE A-level entries in 1999, 61 per cent. were non-modular, and 39 per cent. were modular.

  Assisted Places (Worcester)
  Mr. Michael J. Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many pupils are on assisted places for(a) year nine, (b) year 10, (c) year 11, (d) year 12 and (e) year 13, at the (i) King's School, (ii) Alice Ottley, (iii) Royal Grammar School and (iv) St. Mary's Convent in Worcester for the year 1999–2000. [106769]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The information requested is given in the following table:

  Numbers of assisted place holders in academic year 1999–2000

  (i) The King's School, Worcester

  (ii) Alice Ottley School

  (iii) Royal Grammar School

  (iv) St. Mary's Convent School

  (a) Year 9

  25

  17

  38

  9

  (b) Year 10

  20

  16

  29

  8

  (c) Year 11

  30

  23

  35

  0

  (d) Year 12

  29

  8

  33

  1

  (e) Year 13

  28

  11

  28

  0

  Local Learning Partnerships
  Mr. Lepper
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on(a) the role of local learning partnerships in the work of local learning and skills councils and (b) the timetable for consultation on local learning partnerships. [106796]

  Mr. Wicks
  There are now over 100 Learning Partnerships throughout the country. They were established following extensive consultation by DfEE 308W
  with national partners and, through them, with local agencies (colleges, TECs, careers services, LEAs etc.). Learning Partnerships have a key role in the new post-16 arrangements. They will provide the local LSCs with invaluable advice about the learning needs of young people, adults and the community in general, as well as the skill needs of employers. This advice will inform the local LSCs' annual planning of learning and skill needs and priorities for the development of local provision.

  The role of Learning Partnerships in relation to the local Learning and Skills Councils has been published in the Learning and Skills Council Prospectus "Learning to Succeed" (December 1999)—paragraph 2.43 to 2.48 and the Secretary of State's letter of 17 January 2000 to all Members enclosing the Learning Partnership Policy Statement. Both documents are available in the Library of the House.

  The White Paper "Learning to Succeed" posed specific questions regarding the role of Learning Partnerships and how they might best support local LSCs. Respondents indicated overwhelming support for their role in the new post-16 arrangements and therefore there are no plans for further consultation on Learning Partnerships.

  Pupil-Teacher Ratios
  Mr. Ronnie Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list the(a) total number of pupils on school rolls and (b) pupil-teacher ratio in (i) primary and (ii) secondary schools in Northumberland for each year since 1995. [106823]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The information requested is shown in the table.

  Number of full-time equivalent pupils, pupil-teacher ratios in maintained primary and secondary schools in the Northumberland local education authority area: 1995–99

  Primary schools

  Secondary schools

  Full-time equivalent number of pupils

  Pupil:teacher ratio 1

  Full-time equivalent number of pupils

  Pupil:teacher ratio 1

  1999

  20,155

  24.1

  29,968

  19.0

  1998

  20,271

  24.8

  30,011

  19.2

  1997

  20,348

  24.5

  30,052

  18.6

  1996

  20,241

  24.6

  29,804

  18.5

  1995

  20,160

  24.3

  29,758

  18.4

  1 The pupil-teacher ratio within schools is the ratio of the full-time equivalent number of pupils (counting each part-time pupil as 0.5 where applicable) to the full-time equivalent number of qualified teachers.

  Free School Meals (Blyth Valley)
  Mr. Ronnie Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many pupils in Blyth Valley schools who are from families on the(a) income support and (b) family tax credit schemes will be entitled to free school meals. [106822]
  309W
  Ms Estelle Morris
  The information is not available in the form requested.

  In schools1 in the Northumberland local education authority area, there were 7,427 pupils who were known to be eligible for free school meals. This represented 14 per cent. of the total pupil population in these schools.
  1 Includes Maintained Nursery, Primary and Secondary Schools and all Special Schools.

  Standard Spending Assessments
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list the upper and lower quartile and median SSA per pupil for each year since 1990–91 at 2001 prices for all LEAs in England. [106559]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The table lists the information requested for the primary and secondary SSA per full-time equivalent 5 to 15-year-old pupil.

  Lower (1st) quartile

  Median

  Upper (3rd) quartile

  1990–91

  1,735

  1,801

  1,988

  1991–92

  2,004

  2,073

  2,302

  1992–93

  2,124

  2,195

  2,449

  1993–94

  2,160

  2,259

  2,507

  1994–95

  2,182

  2,273

  2,519

  1995–96

  2,138

  2,226

  2,484

  1996–97

  2,239

  2,305

  2,512

  1997–98

  2,301

  2,379

  2,527

  1998–99

  2,416

  2,502

  2,636

  1999–2000

  2,537

  2,612

  2,763

  2000–01

  2,655

  2,739

  2,895

  Note:

  All figures are in pounds per pupil at 2000–01 prices, using the GDP deflators published on 22 December 1999. No adjustments have been made to take account of changes in local authority function.

  Special Measures Schools
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many newly qualified teachers were working in schools in special measures in September 1999. [106691]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  Since 1 September 1999, schools already on special measures cannot employ newly qualified teachers who are going through induction, unless they are certified by Ofsted as suitable for the induction of teachers.

  Information on the number of newly qualified teachers in schools on special measures certified as suitable for induction is not available centrally.

  Higher Education
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has to introduce value-added measurements in higher education. [106842]

  Mr. Wicks
  [holding answer 25 January 2000]: Following the recommendations of the Dearing report, we asked the Higher Education Funding Council for England
  310W
  (HEFCE) to develop a set of indicators and benchmarks for the higher education sector. The new performance indicators for higher education were published on 3 December 1999. The HEFCE has no current plans to introduce value-added measures as strictly defined.

  Sixth-form Curriculum
  Mr. Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what funding he has made available to local education authorities to support the changes to the sixth-form curriculum coming into force from September 2000; and if he will make a statement. [106832]

  Mr. Wicks
  [holding answer 25 January 2000]: The Department estimates that the recurrent costs of successfully implementing the forthcoming reforms to post-16 qualifications in LEA maintained schools are likely to be of the order of £35 million in 2000–01. The sum was added to the Education Standard Spending Assessment for that year, in the light of the Comprehensive Spending Review. It is for individual local education authorities to decide how to allocate resources to the schools they maintain.

  Independent Sector
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on(a) the size and composition of the independent non-publicly funded sector in (i) further and (ii) higher education, (b) the steps he is taking to ensure that its quality is maintained and (c) his action intended to improve its contribution to the objectives of the White Paper, "Learning to Succeed" (Cm 4392). [106844]

  Mr. Wicks
  There is no centrally held information on the number of independent non-publicly funded providers or institutions of Further and Higher Education.

  Under the Learning and Skills Council's new funding system, independent providers may receive funding, and would therefore be subject to inspection and quality assurance.

  Special Educational Needs
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what assessment he has made of the pilot schemes supported through the Special Educational Needs Standards Fund Grant to develop work on the education of children with emotional, behavioural and psychiatric problems. [106757]

  Jacqui Smith
  Local education authorities in receipt of grant to support children with emotional and behavioural difficulties (EBD), under the Special Educational Needs Standards Fund for 1999–2000, must produce a progress report by June this year. Similar levels of information will be required on projects beginning in 2001–02. A major consideration in deciding whether to support each project continues to be that adequate mechanisms for monitoring and evaluating the work are built into the design.

  We will be writing to LEAs before Easter with details of the type of additional information we will require. I am setting up an EBD Advisory Group, composed of practitioners and other experts in the field, and we will

  311W
  draw on their expertise as to the most useful form this information might take. The information from LEAs will be used to inform decisions on SEN for the longer term. Where they report good practice we will seek to disseminate this widely through published case studies, conferences and through the Department's Special Educational Needs website.

  Occasional and Unqualified Teachers
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment in how many(a) primary, (b) secondary and (c) special schools in each LEA inspected by Ofsted during the 1998–99 school year 10 per cent. or more of the staff were treated for the purpose of the inspection as occasional or unqualified teachers. [106689]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  This is a matter for HM Chief Inspector of Schools. I have asked him to write to the hon. Member and to place a copy of his reply in the Library.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment 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. [105875]

  Mr. Wills
  [holding answer 24 January 2000]: I refer the right hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury on 24 January 2000, Official Report, column 118W.

  Islington Council
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will place in the Library all documentation relating to the appointment of contractors to administer the central services of Islington Council's Education Department. [106344]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  [holding answer 24 January 2000]: Much of the documentation relating to the contract is commercial in confidence. However, I am placing in the Library the "Invitation to Negotiate" that was issued to selected bidders in August. This includes a draft contract, proposed performance standards and their link to the payment mechanism and a description of the services to be outsourced.

  Pupil Funding
  Mr. Ronnie Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list the funding made available in the 1999–2000 standard spending assessment for each(a) primary and (b) secondary pupil in Northumberland. [106983]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The 1999–2000 Standard Spending Assessment (SSA) per pupil in Northumberland is as follows:

  £ per pupil

  Primary

  2,240

  Secondary

  2,877

  Teachers (Performance-Related Pay)
  Mr. Hurst
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what is the proposed salary scale for the assessors to be employed to assess teachers for performance-related payment; how many such assessors he expects will be employed; and what estimate he has made of the total cost of administering the assessment scheme, excluding the cost of the performance-related pay. [107177]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  Headteachers will be responsible for assessing teachers against national standards to move to the new upper pay spine proposed by the Government. DfEE has contracted Cambridge Education Associates Limited (CEA) to manage the appointment, deployment and quality assurance of external assessors who will verify, through sampling, headteachers' assessments.

  The payment of external assessors is a matter for CEA, but it will be made on a pro rata basis dependent upon the number of applicants in each school.

  The number of external assessors to be deployed will be dependent upon the number and distribution of teachers who apply to cross the Performance Threshold. This number will not be known until summer 2000. The total cost of administering the scheme will be dependent upon the number of assessments carried out and again this will not be known until later in 2000.

  Child Labour
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has for publishing the White Paper on the instrument adopted at the 1987 session of the International Labour Conference concerning the prohibition and immediate action for the elimination of the worst forms of child labour. [107557]

  Ms Jowell
  I have today published a White Paper entitled, 'International Labour Conference', copies of which have been placed in the Library.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Jury Trial
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will seek powers to empanel parallel juries to allow the study of the dynamics of juries and how they reach their verdicts. [106723]

  Jane Kennedy
  There is no intention to seek the powers to empanel parallel juries for research into juries. Any proposals received by the Government for such research are considered individually.

  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what research he has commissioned on the jury system and how juries arrive at their verdicts. [106724]

  Jane Kennedy
  Such research is currently restricted by section 8 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981. No research has been commissioned by the Lord Chancellor's Department into how juries arrive at their verdicts.

  Prisoners (Court Hearings)
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will review the principle of holding(a) small claims court and (b) county court hearings in prisons on cases brought by prisoners against the Prison Service and others; and if he will make a statement. [106569]

  Jane Kennedy
  There are no plans for a review. The judiciary can hold civil or family court hearings in any location, including prisons. The judge, when considering applications to hold hearings outside the court building, will take into account the views of the other side.

  Judges
  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will list the percentage of judges who were(a) registered disabled, (b) women, (c) from ethnic minorities and (d) from (i) independent schools, (ii) grammar schools and (iii) other schools in each of the years (i) 1970, (ii) 1979, (iii) 1989 and (iv) 1999. [107013]

  Percentages of judges who were women and of ethnic minority origin as at December 1992 and December 1999

  Women

  Ethnic minority origin

  Total

  Number

  Percentage

  Number

  Percentage

  December 1992

  Lords of Appeal in Ordinary

  10

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Heads of Divisions

  4

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Lords Justices of Appeal

  27

  1

  3.7

  0

  0

  High Court Judges

  83

  4

  4.8

  0

  0

  Circuit Judges

  484

  24

  5

  3

  0.6

  Recorders

  780

  39

  5

  8

  1

  Assistant Recorders

  481

  50

  10.4

  8

  1.7

  District Judges

  258

  17

  6.6

  1—

  —

  Deputy District Judges

  649

  1—

  —

  1—

  —

  Stipendiary Magistrates

  79

  9

  11.4

  1

  1.3

  Acting Stipendiary Magistrates

  80

  1—

  —

  1—

  —

  Women

  Ethnic minority origin

  Total

  Number

  Percentage

  Number

  Percentage

  December 1999

  Lords of Appeal in Ordinary

  12

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Heads of Divisions

  4

  1

  25

  0

  0

  Lords Justices of Appeal

  35

  1

  2.9

  0

  0

  High Court Judges

  99

  8

  8.1

  0

  0

  Circuit Judges

  559

  38

  6.8

  6

  1.1

  Recorders

  913

  85

  9.3

  14

  1.5

  Assistant Recorders

  439

  72

  16.4

  14

  3.2

  District Judges

  402

  54

  13.4

  6

  1.5

  Deputy District Judges

  766

  115

  15

  11

  1.4

  Stipendiary Magistrates

  96

  14

  14.6

  2

  2.1

  Acting Stipendiary Magistrates

  131

  22

  16.8

  4

  3.1

  1 Information not known

  Women in the judiciary in 1970, 1979 and 1987

  Total

  Women

  Percentage women

  1970

  High Court Judges

  73

  1

  1.4

  Circuit Judges

  103

  1

  1

  314W
  Mr. Lock
  Serving judges and applicants for judicial appointment are not asked currently to declare whether they have a disability and no such records are held. Applicants for judicial appointment are no longer asked to give details of their secondary education. While such information was collected in the past, it is held on individual personal records and has not been collated. It could therefore be obtained only at disproportionate cost. Even if such information were available it would not be possible to provide a breakdown as requested because the status of a particular school may not be clear or might have changed over time. Historical information about gender and the ethnic origin of the judiciary is not available for all of the years requested.

  The table shows the percentages of judges who were women and from ethnic minorities in 1992 (the first full year for which such information is available) and 1999. As the ethnic origin of candidates for judicial office was not sought before October 1991 the data may be incomplete. A second table also provides what limited information there is available about women in the judiciary in 1970, 1979 and 1987. No figures are readily available for 1989.

  Women in the judiciary in 1970, 1979 and 1987

  Total

  Women

  Percentage women

  Recorders

  112

  1

  0.9

  Assistant Recorders

  1—

  1—

  —

  Stipendiary Magistrates

  45

  2

  4.4

  315W

  Total

  Women

  Percentage women

  1979

  High Court Judges

  73

  1

  1.4

  Circuit Judges

  302

  6

  2

  Recorders

  369

  9

  2.4

  Assistant Recorders

  1—

  1—

  —

  Stipendiary Magistrates

  51

  2

  3.9

  Total

  Women

  Percentage women

  1987

  High Court Judges

  79

  3

  3.8

  Circuit Judges

  390

  16

  4.1

  Recorders

  558

  23

  4.1

  Assistant Recorders

  420

  29

  6.9

  Stipendiary Magistrates

  66

  8

  12.1

  1 Information not known

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how many Hindus are employed by her Department. [106638]

  Clare Short
  My Department does not collect information on the religious affiliations of its employees.

  Kosovo
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will list the non-Governmental organisations funded by her Department that are present in Kosovo; and what assessment she has made of their co-ordination and effectiveness. [106339]

  Clare Short
  My Department has provided funding for the following NGO activity in Kosovo:

  Pharmaciens sans Frontières

  Handicap International

  International Medical Corps

  Goal

  Feed the Children International

  Medair

  Mercy Corps Europe

  Scottish Charities Kosovo Appeal

  Global Care

  Children's Aid Direct

  Help Age International

  Oxfam

  ADRA

  International Rescue Committee

  War Child.

  In making applications for funding, NGOs are required to describe the agency's involvement in sectoral co-ordination arrangements, and their knowledge of other agency activity in the same area. NGO programmes are subject to monitoring by our field office staff and, in
  316W
  the case of larger programmes such as the £5 million International Medical Corps programme of support to primary health care, by London experts.

  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what representations she has made in the past three months to the United Nations Mission in Kosovo concerning the humanitarian situation in the Balkans. [106436]

  Clare Short
  The key humanitarian issues in Kosovo are warmth and shelter. Staff from our Field Office and Infrastructure Engineering Unit in Pristina have worked closely with United Nations Mission in Kosovo's (UNMIK) humanitarian pillar, headed by United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), and other donors over the past three months to implement power transmission and water programmes. These will complement the UNHCR-co-ordinated shelter programme, which has received generous support from the European Union.

  Ministerial Meetings
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how many meetings of the Ministerial Committee on Defence and Overseas Policy she has attended since May 1997. [106447]

  Clare Short
  Attendance at Cabinet Committee meetings is not made public in line with Exemption 2 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  Departmental Consultations
  Dr. Tony Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will list the public consultation exercises on policy matters carried out by her Department and its agencies in each of the last five years; who was consulted and by what means; how responses were analysed; how and in what form the results were transmitted to those responsible for the consultation; how the results of the consultation were published; and what analysis has been carried out of the extent and nature of policy changes resulting from the consultation. [106297]

  Clare Short
  In 1997, my Department published its White Paper on International Development following an extensive consultation exercise. This committed us, among other things, to more open and collaborative ways of developing policy. In the following year, we launched a Development Policy Forum. A range of development issues were discussed with individuals and representatives of groups from across society in a series of nine regional forums, culminating in a national Forum. A second round of forums is now underway. The aims are to share thinking and ideas on key current development issues and to raise awareness. A copy of the report of the 1998 Forum and details of the 2000 Forum are available on the DFID website (under 'Working With Us').

  In 1998, over 500 UK and overseas civil society groups were consulted as part of a major review of the way DFID works with these organisations. Groups were invited to write to the Department to set out their views. The ideas which emerged were drawn together and discussed further during 1999, resulting in new DFID funding mechanisms to strengthen civil society in poor countries, through civil

  317W
  society groups in the UK. These mechanisms provide for ongoing consultation, and willingness to further review and update arrangements on the basis of lessons learned.

  We are also providing published strategies for all the countries and institutions with which we work after a period of consultation with appropriate stakeholders.

  In 1999, DFID began a major consultative exercise to produce a set of papers on how the international community, together with developing countries and others, can achieve the International Development Targets set out in the White Paper, and what action DFID should itself be taking to contribute to this global effort. Each of these papers will be produced following a consultation exercise with developing country governments, civil society at home and overseas, the private sector, international development agencies, other donors, academics, and others. Draft copies of each paper are being distributed and written comments invited. Seminars to discuss each draft are being arranged. These papers will be made publicly available when finalised. The analysis they contain of the strategies required to achieve the International Development Targets will be used to sharpen the focus of DFID policies and resource allocations. Further, we hope the analysis will be of value to all those involved in international development, the international agencies, the bilateral donors, civil society organisations and those in developing countries themselves.

  Aid Criteria
  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what criteria she uses when deciding whether to suspend aid payments to Governments in the developing world. [106439]

  Clare Short
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply of 28 October 1999,Official Report, column 940W.

  World Trade Organisation
  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what discussions she has had with(a) other EU countries and (b) the 41 poorest countries concerning reform of the World Trade Organisation since 1 December 1999. [106430]

  Clare Short
  (a) Since 1 December I have had no meetings with EU partners regarding WTO reform. The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry discussed this issue in the General Affairs Council in Seattle and since then has been in touch with Commissioner Lamy and EU Trade Minister colleagues, outlining UK proposals for WTO reform.

  (b) Since the Seattle meeting, I have had no direct discussions with representatives of the 41 Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (HIPCs) on trade-related matters. I will meet representatives from HIPCs and others at the UNCTAD X meeting in Bangkok, 12–19 February, and will discuss a range of trade-related issues.

  Russia
  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what direct Government assistance has been provided to Russia since 1 December 1999. [106431]
  318W
  Clare Short
  Information is not available on the form requested. My Department is responsible for most British Government assistance to Russia. DFID expects to spend around £28 million on bilateral assistance to Russia in the current financial year. Between 1 December and 20 January, DFID approved a total of £4.4 million for new projects; this includes a contribution of £0.89 million to the UN for humanitarian assistance to those displaced by the conflict in Chechnya. Other Government Departments including the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the Ministry of Defence and the Department for Trade and Industry have smaller programmes of co-operation with Russia. In addition, we provide significant assistance to Russia through the multilateral agencies, especially the EU Tacis programme.

  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what funds from the know-how fund are allocated to Russia. [106432]

  Clare Short
  We expect to spend around £28 million on bilateral assistance to Russia in the current financial year.

  Literacy
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will estimate the number of people who have acquired literacy as a result of her Department's contributions to education programmes in the last two years. [105387]

  Clare Short
  It is not possible to give an estimate of the number of people who have acquired literacy as a result of our contribution to education programmes. In Africa and Asia we are currently funding a large number of substantive primary education programmes, all of which will contribute to the eradication of illiteracy. We have committed over £300 million to these programmes since May 1997. Millions of people will benefit from them.

  Guyana
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what consultations there have been between her Department and the European Commission concerning the proposed financing of a road from Georgetown to Lethern in Guyana; and what advice her Department has given on the project. [106146]

  Clare Short
  From our local donor consultative process we understand that consultants were engaged last year by the EC to look at the feasibility of such a road.

  The EC received a report in December, and this is now the subject of discussion between the EC and the Government of Guyana.

  Congo
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on the level of humanitarian aid from HM Government dispatched to the Congo; and what steps she is taking to ensure such aid is not appropriated by the combatants. [106384]
  319W
  Clare Short
  Since the current conflict began in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) in August 1998, the UK has committed £1.7 million in humanitarian assistance to help people affected by the conflict. This includes £0.7 million to assist Congolese refugee populations in Zambia, Tanzania and Uganda.

  Humanitarian assistance is provided to meet the needs of affected populations in the most effective way possible. In the DRC, the UK's assistance has been provided through the United Nations and well-established nongovernmental organisations. My Department is in regular contact with these and other organisations active in the DRC, and receives written reports to account for all the Department for International Development's humanitarian expenditure. Organisations are expected to identify the beneficiaries of any project supported by the UK to ensure that resources are targeted at the civilian populations in most need.

  Great Lakes (HIV)
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what measures are being taken to restrict the spread of HIV in the Great Lakes Region; and if she will make a statement. [106404]

  Clare Short
  Tackling the HIV/AIDS epidemic must play a central part in helping to reduce poverty, and to work for peace, security and prosperity in Africa. At the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in South Africa in November 1999, the Prime Minister announced a new UK Government commitment of £22.7 million for HIV/AIDS in Africa. This includes £14 million to the International AIDS Vaccine Initiative (IAVI) to help develop a safe and affordable vaccine.

  In the Great Lakes region, the current conflicts exacerbate the difficulties of addressing health issues. In the cases of Burundi and the Democratic Republic of Congo, the United Nations Consolidated Inter-Agency Appeals contain interventions to help tackle the spread of HIV/AIDS.

  In Rwanda in particular, the World Bank and DFID are working together to design a support programme for the education sector. Plans under discussion include support for HIV/AIDS awareness.

  Trade (Globalisation)
  Ms Squire
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what role her Department will play in helping developing countries secure a fair share of the benefits of globalisation. [107554]

  Clare Short
  Globalisation is at a critical stage for developing countries. It is generating massive wealth and has the potential to help lift millions out of abject poverty. But it could also lead to increased inequality, with the risk that some countries remain marginalised and in poverty. My Department is analysing the issues surrounding globalisation and its impact on development, with a view to publishing a second White Paper in the autumn. This would also look at the experience of the three years since our first White Paper and provide the platform for the work of the Department over the next few years.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Members' Allowances (Devolution)
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire, representing the House of Commons Commission, what arrangements are made in respect of the allowances paid to hon. Members who are also members of(a) the Scottish Parliament and (b) the Welsh Assembly. [107268]

  Mrs. Beckett
  The arrangements for hon. Members who are also Members of the Scottish Parliament or National Assembly for Wales are the same as those for other hon. Members.

  Doorkeepers
  Mr. Stunell
  To ask the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire, representing the House of Commons Commission, how many doorkeepers have been recruited in each year since 1990; and in each year how many have been(a) former military personnel with 22 or more years service and (b) other former military personnel; and how many have been (i) men and (ii) women. [106476]

  Mr. Kirkwood
  Doorkeepers have been recruited in the following years since 1990:

  Year

  Number

  Over 22 years military service

  Under 22 years military service

  Male

  Female

  1993

  4

  2

  1

  4

  —

  1994

  3

  1

  —

  1

  2

  1996

  5

  2

  1

  5

  —

  1998

  2

  —

  1

  2

  —

  Total

  14

  5

  3

  12

  2

  Mr. Stunell
  To ask the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire, representing the House of Commons Commission, what is the current complement of doorkeepers; and what plans there are to vary this. [106477]

  Mr. Kirkwood
  The current complement of Doorkeepers is:

  1 × Principal Doorkeeper

  2 × Deputy Principal Doorkeeper

  3 × Senior Doorkeeper

  27 × Doorkeepers (1 unfilled post).

  The House of Commons Commission approved the recommendation of the Board of Management on the report of the Staff Inspector on the Doorkeeper grades on 24 November 1997. Any variations to this complement will arise from follow up reviews by the Staff Inspector.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Common Fisheries Policy
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if it is the Government's policy to conclude a review of the Common Fisheries Policy prior to the expiry of the derogation in 2002 of the six and
  321W
  12 mile limits; and if he will make a statement on the legal status of those waters in the period between expiry and agreement. [106308]

  Mr. Morley
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to him on 20 January 2000,Official Report, column 575W.

  Under Article 14(2) of Council Regulation (EC) 3760/92 the council is required to take any necessary decisions on the future of the Common Fisheries policy by 31 December 2002. The question of a legal hiatus does therefore not arise.

  Genetically modified plant varieties National list applications under consideration at 13 January 2000

  Application number

  Species

  NL applicant

  Earliest date of proposed decision

  DETR Release Consent/Marketing Consent Reference (and holder if different from NL applicant) and date granted

  35/959

  Spring Oilseed Rape

  Aventis CropScience NV, Belgium 1

  Tests and Trials complete2

  1996 95/R15/15 Application 20/11/95 Granted 3/1/96 (Aventis)

  1997 Marketing Consent 94/M1/12 Granted 28/2/96 (Aventis)

  35/960

  Spring Oilseed Rape

  Aventis CropScience NV, Belgium

  Tests and trials complete2

  1996 95/R15/15 Application 20/11/95 Granted 3/1/96 (Aventis)

  1997 Marketing Consent 94/M1/1 2 Granted 28/2/96 (Aventis)

  35/1174

  Winter Oilseed Rape

  Aventis CropScience NV, Belgium

  Tests and trials complete3

  1997 97/R15/20 Application 9/6/97 Granted 1/8/97 (Aventis)

  1998 98/R15/24 Application 16/2/98 Granted 10/7/98 (Aventis)

  1999 98/R19/18 Application 4/12/98 Granted 22/3/99 (Agrevo)

  35/1184

  Winter Oilseed Rape

  Monsanto Crop Protection, UK

  Tests and trials complete3

  96/R22/6 Application 20/6/96 Granted 6/8/96 (Monsanto)

  35/1185

  Winter Oilseed Rape

  Monsanto Crop Protection, UK

  Tests and trials complete3

  96/R22/6 Application 20/6/96 Granted 6/8/96 (Monsanto)

  35/1210

  Spring Oilseed Rape

  Aventis CropScience NV, Belgium

  March 200004

  1998 97/R15/23 Application 8/12/97 Granted 19/3/98 (Aventis)

  1999 98/R19/18 Application 4/12/98 Granted 22/3/99 (Agrevo)

  35/1211

  Spring Oilseed Rape

  Aventis CropScience NV, Belgium

  March 20004

  1998 97/R15/23 Application 8/12/97 Granted 19/3/98 (Aventis)

  1999 98/R19/18 Application 4/12/98 Granted 22/3/99 (Agrevo)

  35/1222

  Spring Oilseed Rape

  Pioneer Hi-Bred International Inc. USA

  March 20004

  97/R24/2 Application 5/1/98 Granted 1/4/98 (Pioneer)

  35/1318

  Winter Oilseed Rape

  Aventis CropScience NV, Belgium

  November 20004

  1998 98/R15/24 Application 16/2/98 Granted 10/7/98 (Aventis)

  1999 98/R19/18 Application 4/12/98 Granted 22/3/99 (Agrevo)

  35/1343

  Spring Oilseed Rape

  Pioneer Hi-Bred International Inc. USA

  March 20014

  97/R24/2 Application 5/1/98 Granted 1/4/98 (Pioneer)

  35/1346

  Spring Oilseed Rape

  Aventis CropScience NV, Belgium

  March 20014

  98/R19/18 Application 4/12/98 Granted 22/3/99 (Agrevo)

  35/1347

  Spring Oilseed Rape

  Aventis CropScience NV, Belgium

  March 20014

  98/R19/18 Application 4/12/98 Granted 22/3/99 (Agrevo)

  35/1397

  Winter Oilseed Rape

  Aventis CropScience NV, Belgium

  November 20014

  98/R19/18 Application 4/12/98 Granted 22/3/99 (Agrevo)

  35/1398

  Winter Oilseed Rape

  Aventis CropScience NV, Belgium

  November 20014

  98/R19/18 Application 4/12/98 Granted 22/3/99 (Agrevo)

  45/774

  Sugar Beet

  Novartis Seeds AB Sweden

  Tests and trials complete3

  96/R21/4 Application 24/12/96 Granted 5/2/97 (Novartis)

  45/798

  Sugar Beet

  Kleinwanzlebener Saatzucht AG Germany

  April 20004

  97/R19/13 Application 20/1/97 Granted 17/3/97 (Agrevo)

  GM Seeds
  Mr. David Heath
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list each application for national seed listing of genetically-modified varieties, indicating(a) the application number, (b) the company name, (c) the approximate date for decision, (d) the release consent number, (e) the date consent was granted and (f) if different from the national list applicants, the applicants' names. [104760]

  Ms Quin
  The information is set out in the table.
  323W

  Genetically modified plant varieties National list applications under consideration at 13 January 2000

  Application number

  Species

  NL applicant

  Earliest date of proposed decision

  DETR Release Consent/Marketing Consent Reference (and holder if different from NL applicant) and date granted

  45/813

  Sugar Beet

  Danisco Seeds UK

  April 20004

  96/R21/4 Application 24/12/96 Granted 5/2/97 (Novartis)

  45/850

  Sugar Beet

  Kleinwanglebener Saatzucht AG Germany

  April 20014

  97/R19/13 Application 20/1/97 Granted 17/3/97 (Agrevo)

  45/865

  Sugar Beet

  Novartis Seeds AB Sweden

  April 20014

  96/R21/4 Application 24/12/96 Granted 25/2/97 (Novartis)

  45/877

  Sugar Beet

  Danisco Seeds UK

  April 20014

  96/R21/4 Application 24/12/96 Granted 25/2/97 (Novartis)

  51/833

  Maize

  Van Der Have Netherlands

  February 20005

  96/R13/6 Application 23/2/96 Granted 2/4/96 (Sharpes) Marketing Consent C/F/95/12/07 Published 5/8/98

  51/886

  Maize

  Van Der Have Netherlands

  February 20015

  96/R13/6 Application 23/2/96 Granted 2/4/96 (Sharpes) Marketing Consent C/F/95/12/07 Published 5/8/98

  132/533

  Fodder Beet

  DLF Trifolium Denmark

  Tests and trials not started

  Awaiting details of release consent before decision on commencement of tests and trials

  1 Formerly Plant Genetic Systems

  2 Marketing consent permits seed multiplication only

  3 Tests and trials complete, awaiting promulgation of marketing consents under Directive 90/220

  4 Subject to promulgation of marketing consents under 90/220 and satisfactory completion of tests and trials

  5 Subject to satisfactory completion of tests and trials

  Beef Imports
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what checks are currently carried out on beef products imported from South and North America to establish if they contain hormone growth promoters; and if he will make a statement. [105653]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 19 January 2000]: Samples from every consignment of beef from the USA must be examined for residues of certain xenobiotic hormones, natural hormones and for stilbenes.

  More generally, all meat imported into the EU must originate from approved third countries. Responsibility for approving third countries rests with the European Commission, who must take account of information on matters which include legislation on the use, authorisation, distribution and marketing of substances which might be administered to livestock. Inclusion and retention on the list of approved countries is subject to the submission of acceptable monitoring plans for residues, including hormonal growth promoters, in meat, which provide guarantees at least equivalent to those provided by EU member states.

  Holbeck Holdings
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what the outcome was of the Intervention Board's most recent inquiries into the financial standing of Holbeck Holdings of Kilmarnock. [105294]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 19 January 2000]: The Intervention Board's inquiries revealed that there had been no material change to the company's financial status since they had previously successfully operated under the over-30-month scheme.

  BSE (Compensation)
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what discussions he has had with animal feed manufacturers on compensation for farmers for the BSE epidemic; and if he will make a statement. [103152]

  Ms Quin
  None. For a farmer to claim damages from the supplier of feed, he would have to show that the supplier either knew or ought to have known the feed was contaminated and would therefore cause damage to the farmer by way of introducing BSE into his herd. No general guidance can be given as each case would have to be determined on its own facts and circumstances.

CABINET OFFICE

  Departmental Consultation
  Dr. Tony Wright
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if she will list the public consultation exercises on policy matters carried out by her Department and its agencies in each of the last five years; who was consulted and by what means; how responses were analysed; how and in what form the results were transmitted to those responsible for the consultation; how the results of the consultation were published; and what analysis has been carried out of the extent and nature of policy changes resulting from the consultation. [106292]

  Marjorie Mowlam
  The information requested is not held centrally and is available only at disproportionate cost. We believe that effective consultation is essential to developing policies and services of high quality. We issued guidance to Departments in 1998 on the subject; we are now evaluating the effect the guidance has had, and will publish our findings.

  External Consultants
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what has been spent by her Department on external consultants and advisors since May 1997 funded from (i) her Department's programme provision and (ii) her Department's running costs. [99481]

  Mr. Stringer
  My Department's expenditure on external consultants and advisers since May 1997 from programme provision is £134,921. The expenditure from running costs is £7,026,025.

WALES

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales 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. [105880]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  [holding answer 24 January 2000]: I refer the right hon. Member to the written answer given to him by my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury on 25 January 2000, Official Report, columns 117–18W.

  Welsh Assembly
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what estimate he has made of total cost of the new Welsh Assembly building. [106984]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I have not made any such estimate. This is a matter for the National Assembly for Wales.

  Operations (Cancellation)
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many operations in Wales have been(a) cancelled and (b) postponed since 1 December as a result of the influenza outbreak. [106856]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  This is a matter for the National Assembly for Wales.

  EU Structural Funding
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will discuss with the First Secretary the granting of Objective 2 status to North East Wales; and if he will make a statement. [106700]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I meet the First Secretary on a regular basis and we discuss a number of issues including Structural Funds support for Wales. However, the decision approving the UK's Objective 2 map was made by the European Commission last month and covered those Welsh areas in the UK Government's proposals of 8 October.

  Armed Robberies (Alyn and Deeside)
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what recent research he has commissioned into the incidence of attempted armed robberies in Alyn and Deeside; and if he will make a statement. [106701]
  326W
  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I have not commissioned any such research. Law and order are matters for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.

  Transport
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he next plans to meet the First Secretary to discuss the role of Hawarden Airport, Deeside, in the future economic development of North East Wales. [106699]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I have regular meetings with the First Secretary to discuss a wide range of issues including transport and its impact on the future economic development of Wales. This includes the non-devolved subject of airports, a matter reserved to the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions. The First Secretary has not requested a meeting to specifically discuss Hawarden Airport, but transport is an issue considered in the Assembly's economic development plans. The Welsh Regional Air Services study, which concludes this month, will investigate possible enhanced services such as linking North and South Wales, and the link between air services, economic growth and regeneration.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he last met the First Secretary to discuss the impact of the Government's legislative programme on road, rail and air transport, in the constituency of(a) Alyn and Deeside and (b) North East Wales; and if he will make a statement. [106703]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I have regular meetings with the First Secretary to discuss a wide range of issues including transport and its impact in Wales, which will of course bring benefits to Alyn and Deeside and North East Wales generally.

  On 30 November I spoke to the whole of the National Assembly for Wales about the Government's legislative programme and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State addressed members' questions in a second plenary session on 8 December. I am keen to ensure that the interests of Wales are fully met during the passage of the Transport Bill, and will maintain dialogue with Cabinet colleagues and the Assembly.

  Contaminated Land
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what additional allocation there has been to standard spending assessments for local authorities in Wales to support their work under the new contaminated land regime; and if he will make a statement. [106148]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  Since Transfer of Functions on 1 July 1999, local authority allocations and contaminated land policy have been matters for the National Assembly for Wales.

  Departmental Budgets
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the budget for his Department, including the budget for the National Assembly, in the financial years 2000–01 and 2001–02; and what was the outturn spending in(a) 1998–99 and (b) 1999–2000. [106063]
  327W
  Mr. Paul Murphy
  The total Welsh budget for both my Department and the National Assembly, is £7,912 million for 2000–01, and £8,336 million for 2001–02. These are the current figures, which are liable to change to reflect transfers to and from other Government Departments.

  The out-turn spending in 1998–99 was £6,986 million. The actual out-turn spending for 1999–2000 will not be known until after the end of the current financial year, but is planned to be £7,456 million, subject to subsequent revisions.

  NHS Funding
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will discuss with the First Secretary proposals for the introduction of social deprivation factors into the funding of the NHS in Wales. [105887]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I understand that the Assembly is currently considering options for a review of the health allocation formula for Wales and the Assembly Health and Social Services Committee is due to consider this issue shortly. I will of course be glad to discuss the range of proposals, including the inclusion of social deprivation factors, with the First Secretary.

  Airbus
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what consultations he has had with other Government departments concerning the Airbus A3XX project; and if he will make a statement. [105554]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I meet my Whitehall and National Assembly for Wales colleagues on a regular basis and we discuss a range of issues. The Airbus A3XX project is clearly a matter of great economic importance to the UK as a whole and to Wales in particular. The final decisions on the applications for financial assistance for the project rest with the DTI (Launch Investment) and the National Assembly for Wales (RSA) and I am in close contact with both on this issue.

  Departmental Smoking Policy
  Mr. Crausby
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what action he is taking to reduce smoking in his Department. [105791]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  My Department consists of fewer than 40 staff. They have agreed between themselves that smoking should only take place in certain rooms. Any member of staff who wishes to give up smoking receives the support and encouragement of his or her colleagues.

  Employment Statistics
  Mrs. Ann Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales 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. [104024]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  The information that my hon. Friend has requested is not held for the Welsh Office for 1979, and could be supplied only at disproportionate cost.

  The number of male and female staff employed by the Welsh Office, in each of the standard age groups, was (at 1 April 1999):
  328W

  Standard age groups

  Men

  Women

  16–19

  17

  18

  20–24

  90

  90

  25–29

  137

  133

  30–34

  140

  214

  35–39

  183

  257

  40–44

  181

  194

  45–49

  165

  163

  50+

  371

  228

  Following devolution in Wales, the Wales Office was established on 1 July 1999. The staffing position at the end of 1999 was:

  Standard age groups

  Men

  Women

  16–19

  -

  2

  20–24

  2

  3

  25–29

  1

  2

  30–34

  4

  1

  35–39

  4

  2

  40–44

  1

  2

  45–49

  2

  2

  50+

  5

  4

  Asset Sales
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the items in the National Asset Register sold by his Department, its agencies and associated public bodies since 11 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. [104492]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  In the period from 11 February 1999 to 30 June 1999, the Welsh Office did not dispose of any items recorded in the National Asset Register.

  Information is not held centrally for such disposals by the agencies and related public bodies of the Welsh Office during that period, and could only be provided at disproportionate cost.

  Since 1 July 1999 the Wales Office has not disposed of any item recorded on the National Asset Register. It does not have agencies or associated public bodies.

HEALTH

  Children Act 1989
  Kali Mountford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the Government will next report on the Children Act 1989. [107556]

  Mr. Hutton
  My right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for Health, the Secretary of State for Education and Employment and the Lord Chancellor have today published a report on the Children Act 1989, pursuant to their duties under section 83 of the Act. Copies are available in the Library and Vote Office; and are being sent to all local
  329W
  authorities in England and to a wide range of organisations. A copy of this document can also be found at the following website:- www.doh.gov.uk/scg/chactrep.htm

  Strokes
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action the Government are taking to prevent strokes. The Under-Secretary of State for Health. [100866]

  Yvette Cooper
  We are committed to a substantial and wide-ranging programme to prevent stroke within the "Our Healthier Nation" strategy. We have set a target for reducing the death rate from stroke, heart disease and other circulatory diseases by at least 40 per cent. by 2010. To help to meet this challenging target we are implementing a series of measures to tackle the major risk factors for stroke including smoking, physical inactivity, hypertension and poor diet.

  On smoking, for example, our tobacco control White Paper, "Smoking Kills", set out our plans for implementing a ban on tobacco advertising, a tobacco education campaign and smoking cessation services. This is worth £100 million over three years. Our plans to tackle physical inactivity under the "Active for Life" strategy include a £1.5 million programme in this year alone to promote active lifestyles. This follows up our £9 million campaign that set the foundations for our physical activity strategy.

  Alcohol misuse and high salt diets are two risk factors for high blood pressure, which increase the risk of stroke. In the case of the former, we are developing a strategy to tackle alcohol misuse in England as confirmed in "Our Healthier Nation", and we will publish it early in the New Year. As for the latter, we expect the Food and Drink Federation (FDF) to publish the findings of its survey of salt usage in manufactured foods early in 2000. Once the report is available we propose to explore with the FDF the scope for reducing the levels of salt in processed foods.

  We are also promoting effective prevention within the community in collaboration with the Stroke Association under the Health Action Zone Innovation Fund programme. The 'Preventing Strokes and Saving Lives' innovation fund project in Hull and East Riding Health Action Zone is aimed at those prone to transient ischaemic attacks or mini-strokes to limit the risk of further strokes through providing a programme of lifestyle change, guidance and advice. The service will take a multidisciplinary and patient led approach working at primary care level and involving patients' families.

  CJD
  Dr. Brand
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the incidence of new cases of new variant CJD for each of the last five years. [102310]

  Yvette Cooper
  The information requested is as follows:

  Year

  Number of cases of variant CJD

  19991

  10

  1998

  17

  330W

  Year

  Numbers of cases of variant CJD

  1997

  10

  1996

  10

  1995

  3

  1 This figure is subject to retrospective adjustment as diagnoses are confirmed.

  The Department publishes, on a monthly basis, figures for the number of deaths of definite and probable cases of Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease of all types in the United Kingdom. The next press release will be issued on 7 February 2000 and copies will be available in the Library.

  NHS (Overseas Patients)
  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to review the NHS guidelines for the treatment of people from abroad. [102610]

  Ms Stuart
  The current Regulations covering charges to overseas visitors for National Health Service hospital treatment came into force on 1 April 1989 (Statutory Instrument 1989 No. 306) and were amended in 1991 (SI 1991 No. 438) and 1994 (SI 1994 No. 1535). The Regulations provide for NHS trusts to establish if an individual patient is exempt from charges and, if not, to make and recover charges for hospital treatment from the liable individual.

  Nerve Gas
  Ms Atherton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many deaths of workers at military bases in Great Britain have been linked to exposure to nerve gas. [103933]

  Yvette Cooper
  This is a matter for the Ministry of Defence since it concerns the health of workers at MOD establishments.

  The Department has no information on the health of workers at military establishments. For information concerning health issues at the Nancekuke base in Cornwall, I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given on 11 January 2000, Official Report, columns 125–26W.

  Ms Atherton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research his Department has(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated on the effects of exposure to nerve gas on those working at military bases in the 1950s and 1960s. [103936]

  Yvette Cooper
  The Department has not commissioned any research or evaluated data on this issue, which relates to health effects of workers exposed to chemicals at Ministry of Defence establishments.

  Cardiac Surgery (Hampshire)
  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the waiting times are for major cardiac surgery in each area of Hampshire. [104163]

  Mr. Denham
  The maximum waiting time for Hampshire cardiac patients is 15 months. The South East
  331W
  Office of the National Health Service Executive is currently discussing with local trusts measures to reduce the maximum waiting time to 12 months.

  National Framework for Heart Disease
  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he intends to publish the National Framework for Heart Disease announced in November 1998. [104626]

  Yvette Cooper
  We intend to publish the Framework shortly.

  Asset Sales
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the items in the National Assets Register sold by his Department, its agencies and associated public bodies since 11 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. [104482]

  Yvette Cooper
  Information on individual sales of assets disposed of by the Department, its agencies and associated public bodies is not held centrally.

  Details of capital receipts are reported by financial year. Providing details of receipts over a period other than a financial year would involve disproportionate cost. The period 11 February 1999 to January 2000 covers two financial years, and for those two years the following information is available:

  (a) Total income from the disposal of National Health Service assets for the 1998–99 financial year

  £ million

  Financial year

  Capital receipts—NHS assets

  1998–99

  500

  (b) Current forecast income from the disposal of NHS assets for the 1999–2000 financial year

  £ million

  Financial year

  Capital receipts—NHS assets

  1999–2000

  337

  Drug Addicts
  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what support his Department gives to abstinence as distinct from maintenance programmes for drug addicts; and if he will list the targets of these programmes and action taken in pursuit of them. [104870]

  Yvette Cooper
  The commissioning of services for drug misusers is essentially a matter for local discretion. Health authorities and local authorities will receive an extra £70.5 million over the next three years to commission and develop drug treatment services.

  The Government believe that a range of treatments should be available to allow drug misusers to benefit from those most appropriate to their needs and abstinence should be the primary aim of treatment. Guidance on commissioning standards and on clinical management has been issued by the Department which makes clear that
  332W
  maintenance prescribing should not be a treatment of first choice in a patient presenting for the first time, where other options have not initially been tried.

  Well-man Clinics
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what proportion of National Health Service general practices offered Well-man Clinics to their patients in(a) 1998 and (b) 1999; [104922]

  (2) how many Well-man Clinics were held in National Health Service general practices in 1999. [104921]

  Yvette Cooper
  The information requested is not available centrally.

  Bowel Cancer
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the progress of the two pilot studies into a bowel cancer screening programme. [105071]

  Yvette Cooper
  The two sites of the bowel cancer screening pilot have made considerable progress and screening is now expected to start in March. New staff have been appointed, clinical datasets and protocols are nearly complete and IT systems are now operational. Considerable time has also been spent preparing leaflets to give prospective patients the ability to make informed choices about participating in the pilot.

  Telecommunications Masts
  Dr. Stoate
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the National Radiological Protection Board has recommended as a safe level of radiation from mobile telecommunications masts. [104994]

  Yvette Cooper
  The National Radiological Protection Board (NRPB) provides exposure guidelines that cover the spectrum of radiowave emissions including the microwave frequencies transmitted by mobile telephone base stations. The specific levels depend upon the frequencies used by the operator. The latest advice on exposure guidelines in the United Kingdom can be found in the "Documents of the NRPB," Vol. 10, No. 2 (1999), entitled "Advice on the 1998 ICNIRP Guidelines for Limiting Exposure to Time-varying Electric, Magnetic and Electromagnetic Fields (up to 300GHz)." Copies have been placed in the Library.

  Measurements made by NRPB have shown radiowave strengths at ground level and in regions normally accessible to the public are very many times below UK exposure guidelines. The guideline levels can only be exceeded within a few metres directly in front and at the height of the antennas. NRPB is at present preparing a report on the base station measurements it has made. This should be published within the next few months.

  Dr. Stoate
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he next plans to discuss levels of radiation from mobile telephone masts with the National Radiological Protection Board. [104995]

  Yvette Cooper
  The National Radiological Protection Board (NRPB) keeps the issue of exposure from mobile telephone masts under continuous review. In response to the guidelines of the International Commission on
  333W
  Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) the NRPB published "Advice on the 1998 ICNIRP Guidelines for Limiting Exposure to Time Varying Electric, Magnetic and Electromagnetic Fields (up to 300GHz)" in its series "Documents of the NRPB," Vol. 10, No. 2 (1999). Copies have been placed in the Library.

  In April 1999, my right hon. Friend the former Minister for Public Health asked the National Radiological Protection Board to set up an Independent Expert Group on Mobile Phones to assess the current scientific evidence. This Group, chaired by Sir William Stewart, FRS FRSE, is due to report in spring 2000. Government will be considering its findings together with the advice of the NRPB.

  Dr. Stoate
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to review with the National Radiological Protection Board their guidelines on safe levels of radiation from mobile telephone masts taking account of recent changes in the guidelines on such levels in Australia. [104993]

  Yvette Cooper
  The National Radiological Protection Board (NRPB) continues to keep under review its guidelines for the UK for restricting exposures to electric and magnetic fields. It does this based on its own review of the scientific information available taking into account advice from its Advisory Group on Non-ionising Radiation, chaired by Sir Richard Doll. It will also take into account any recommendations made by the Independent Expert Group on Mobile Phones, chaired by Sir William Stewart, that is expected to report in spring 2000. That group is considering all available evidence, both national and international.

  NRPB last gave formal advice on exposure guidelines in 1999 in the "Documents of NRPB", Vol 10, No 2 entitled "Advice on the 1998 ICNIRP Guidelines for Limiting Exposure to Time-varying Electric, Magnetic and Electromagnetic Fields (up to 300GHz)." Copies have been placed in the Library. This was in response to the revised guidelines issued by the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) in 1998.

  Influenza
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what discussions he has had with health managers in(a) Australia and (b) Sweden concerning the effect of Relenza on the incidence of influenza this winter. [104899]

  Yvette Cooper
  None. Relenza is currently licensed only for the treatment of influenza, not its prevention.

  The National Institute for Clinical Excellence issued clear advice last year on the use of Relenza. This advice is for this year (1999–2000) only and NICE will review the available evidence, wherever it comes from, in a full appraisal this year, in time to offer guidance to the NHS for the 2000–01 flu season. All available evidence will be carefully considered as part of this appraisal.

  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what supplies of influenza vaccine are held within the North Essex Health Authority by the authority itself, its trusts and by its GPs; and if he will estimate the number of patients this will treat. [105281]

  Yvette Cooper
  The information requested is not available centrally.
  334W
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent discussions he has had with health authorities concerning the availability of influenza vaccine and the promotion of its use. [104911]

  Yvette Cooper
  [holding answer 17 January 2000]: The aim of the influenza immunisation policy is to protect those at greatest risk of severe or complicated illness before flu viruses begin to circulate in the community. Ideally people who are in the risk groups recommended for vaccine should have been immunised by now. Flu immunisation delivery is through general practice and general practitioners who order the vaccine direct from the manufacturers. Flu immunisation was well-publicised last autumn and local and national campaigns were run to try and improve vaccination rates. The Chief Medical Officer held a press conference and wrote to GPs about flu immunisation. Circulars on winter planning stressed to health authorities the importance of promoting flu immunisation as part of this planning and as part of the winter 1999–2000 campaign the National Health Service Executive sent all health authorities an information pack to encourage local activity.

  7.7 million doses of flu vaccine were distributed this season. This is the highest ever and manufacturers have advised that they have over half a million doses available.

  Preventive Health Care
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the demand placed on NHS resources by the provision of preventive health measures in(a) Staffordshire Health Authority and (b) the United Kingdom. [105161]

  Yvette Cooper
  The South Staffordshire Health Authority published "Inequalities in Health" in March 1998 identifying its main health needs. It has a higher percentage than the national average of GPs engaged on health promotion generally, and in the management of diabetes and asthma specifically (nationally: 98 per cent., 96 per cent. and 96 per cent. respectively; South Staffordshire: 99 per cent., 98 per cent. and 99 per cent.). £274,000 was allocated this year to the North Staffordshire Health Action Zone for smoking cessation work.

  For 1999–2000 health authorities received an average increase in their allocations of 6.6 per cent.

  Across England, health authorities, in partnership with National Health Service trusts, primary care groups, local authorities and local stakeholders, determine how best to use their funds. Health promotion in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales is the responsibility of the devolved administrations.

  Cervical Cancer
  Ms Perham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to the answer of 21 December 1999,Official Report, column 508W, on plans to incorporate the human papilloma test in cervical cancer screening, when he will make a statement on the advice on HPV testing he received from the National Screening Committee following its meeting on 8 December 1999. [105190]

  Yvette Cooper
  At its meeting on 8 December, the United Kingdom National Screening Committee considered an outline proposal to pilot the use of HPV
  335W
  testing as triage for mild and borderline smears in the National Health Service cervical screening programme. We will make a statement as soon as we have had opportunity to consider all aspects of the National Screening Committee's proposals including service provision, finance and any wider implications.

  BCG Vaccinations
  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many children received BCG vaccinations on the basis of clinical need in(a) England and (b) Brentwood in the last 12 months. [105192]

  Yvette Cooper
  The information as requested is not available. The latest information available about BCG vaccinations is contained in the Department of Health's Statistical bulletin, "NHS Immunisation Statistics, England: 1998–99", at Tables 8 and 11, copies of which are available in the Library.

  Physiotherapists
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he plans to take to improve the recruitment and retention of physiotherapists in the NHS. [105840]

  Mr. Denham
  The national recruitment, retention and vacancy survey published in September 1999 gave us the latest authoritative data on staff vacancies from 98 per cent. of National Health Service trusts. It shows that only 3.3 per cent. of physiotherapist posts have been vacant for three months or more in England.

  We are ensuring that effective recruitment and retention policies are in place to make the best use of trained staff and that training levels are sufficient to get a better match between supply and demand.

  We are taking a number of steps which will help to address the issue of recruitment and retention of physiotherapists. These include the publication of the framework for the management of human resources for the whole of the NHS, "Working Together: securing a quality workforce for the NHS", which sets targets for local employers to improve recruitment and retention year on year. We have issued guidance to the service on improving working lives and we will shortly be issuing guidance on Lifelong Learning and Continuing Professional Development.

  We are also modernising services and modernising employment practice in the NHS: developing more supportive, flexible and family friendly working practices; extending and improving investment in lifelong learning and professional development; tackling violence and racism in the workplace; involving staff in the way services are delivered and in the changes and developments that affect their working lives.

  We have accepted in full the pay increases recommended by the Pay Review Body for Nursing Staff, Midwives, Health Visitors and Professions Allied to Medicine (including physiotherapist) for 2000–01. The Review Body has recommended an across the board increase of 3.4 per cent. for 2000–01 and for the second year running these increases will be paid in full without
  336W
  staging. Taken together with last year's award, this means that physiotherapists will have received real-terms increases of over 5 per cent., the best settlement for over ten years. Some targeted key groups of staff have received substantially larger awards: last year, newly qualified basic grade physiotherapists received pay increases worth 8.4 per cent.; this year, about 4,500 experienced Senior II physiotherapists will receive increases worth between 8.1 per cent. and 8.4 per cent.

  NHS Budget
  Mr. John M. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of the total NHS budget in the current financial year is accounted for by(a) administration, (b) the purchase of drugs, (c) remuneration of medically-qualified staff and (d) research into improved techniques and treatments; and what the percentages were in 1970. [105995]

  Mr. Denham
  This information is not available in the exact format requested for this year, and not at all for 1970.

  Of the forecast total gross expenditure on the National Health Service this year of £43 billion, the projected breakdown is 1 per cent. for Department of Health administration, 2 per cent. for Central Health and Miscellaneous Services1 and the remaining 97 per cent. for Hospital, Community and Family Health Services2.

  Of the Hospital Community and Family Health Services2 total, expenditure on drugs accounts for 11.5 per cent., 4 per cent. accounts for NHS management costs and 1 per cent. accounts for the NHS research and development Levy3.

  Information on remuneration is not yet available on remuneration of medically-qualified staff for 1999–2000 but in 1998–99 remuneration for medical staff accounted for 13.1 per cent. of the Hospital, Community and Family Health Services total of £39 billion.

  Notes:

  1. Hospital, Community and Family Health Services include NHS hospitals, community health, family health services and related services and NHS trusts.

  2. Central Health and Miscellaneous Services includes the Welfare Food Scheme, EEA medical costs, expenditure on medical, scientific and technical services predominately on the Public Health Laboratory Service Board, the National Biological Standards Board, the Microbiological Research Authority and the National Radiological Protection Board.

  3. The NHS R&D programme provides the evidence base to help with clinical excellence, better quality services and the formulation of policy. R&D programmes also continue to trial and test medical advances and service innovation and to evaluate much recent policy innovation to ensure that good practice is shared and barriers to implementation are overcome.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the total budget of the NHS in the current financial year, expressed in pounds per head of the population; and what the corresponding figures are for(a) the Netherlands, (b) Belgium, (c) France and (d) Germany. [105990]

  Mr. Denham
  Gross total NHS expenditure in England is forecast to be £43,049 million in 1999–2000. This is £868 per head of population. The equivalent UK figures are £52,645 million and £887 per head. It is not possible
  337W
  to provide similar comparisons to this figure for Belgium, Netherlands, France and Germany because the data are not available.

  The latest comparable data are produced by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). The table gives public and total healthcare expenditure in dollars per capita for the countries quoted above. All figures are for 1997.

  It should be emphasised that figures for the different countries are not strictly comparable because of the different definitions of health spending, for example where the boundary between health and social care is drawn.

  Expenditure per head: $PPP 1997

  Country

  Public healthcare expenditure per head of population ($PPP 1)

  Total healthcare expenditure per head of population ($PPP)

  UK

  1,177

  1,391

  France

  1,520

  2,047

  Germany

  1,822

  2,364

  Netherlands

  1,404

  1,933

  Belgium

  1,549

  1,768

  1 Purchasing Power Parity (PPP) is an exchange rate determined by relative price levels and equates the prices of a representative bundle of goods in the countries concerned.

  Source:

  OECD Health Databank 1999

  Death Rates (Suicides and Accidents)
  Mr. Dobbin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to reduce the death rate from(a) suicide and (b) serious injury from accidents by 2010. [106160]

  Mr. Hutton
  The development of strategies to reduce suicide and serious injury from accidents are a major part of the Government's programme outlined in the White Paper "Saving Lives: Our Healthier Nation". The National Service Framework for Mental Health sets a specific

  Number of 24 hour staffed beds by Health Authority 1998–99 to 1999–2000

  Health authority

  Region

  1998–99 outturn

  1999–2000 quarter 2

  Bradford

  Northern and Yorkshire

  10

  10

  Calderdale and Kirklees

  Northern and Yorkshire

  278

  278

  Durham

  Northern and Yorkshire

  0

  29

  East Riding

  Northern and Yorkshire

  183

  213

  Gateshead and South Tyneside

  Northern and Yorkshire

  8

  8

  Leeds

  Northern and Yorkshire

  0

  0

  Newcastle and North Tyneside

  Northern and Yorkshire

  153

  165

  North Cumbria

  Northern and Yorkshire

  0

  0

  North Yorkshire

  Northern and Yorkshire

  98

  98

  Northumberland

  Northern and Yorkshire

  34

  34

  Sunderland

  Northern and Yorkshire

  44

  44

  Tees

  Northern and Yorkshire

  17

  17

  Wakefield

  Northern and Yorkshire

  113

  113

  Barnsley

  Trent

  0

  0

  Doncaster

  Trent

  15

  15

  Leicestershire

  Trent

  95

  95

  Lincolnshire

  Trent

  0

  0

  North Derbyshire

  Trent

  0

  0

  North Nottinghamshire

  Trent

  0

  0

  338W
  standard for health and social services to prevent suicides. The forthcoming National Service Framework for Older People will include a section on the prevention of falls.

  A high level national Task Force on accidents, accountable to the Chief Medical Officer, will be appointed shortly to ensure that the essential groundwork is in place to targets on accident prevention set out in the White Paper. In addition, we are in the process of bringing together the necessary expertise to work across Government to drive forward a whole range of initiatives to make progress towards achieving the targets to reduce suicide. We also provide funding for voluntary groups to support specific initiatives in both areas.

  Folic Acid
  Mrs. Brinton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how he proposes to consult on the practical and legislative implications of the report of the Committee on Medical Aspects of Food and Nutrition into the universal fortification of flour with folic acid. [106206]

  Yvette Cooper
  [holding answer 24 January 2000]: The report, "Folic Acid and the Prevention of Disease", from the Committee on Medical Aspects of Food and Nutrition Policy considered the public health implications of fortification. A public consultation will be undertaken shortly inviting comments on the report's conclusions. Ministers will take into account the views expressed before deciding on policy.

  Psychiatric Beds
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many 24 hour-staffed beds for people with severe and enduring mental illness there are in each health authority in England; and how many there were in each of the last three years. [106751]

  Mr. Hutton
  The information requested has been collected centrally only since 1998–99. The following are the numbers of 24 hour staffed beds for people with a mental illness in each health authority in England for 1998–99 and the first two quarters in 1999–2000. In those authorities where centrally collected data show no beds, developments are taking place locally to provide care in appropriate settings.
  339W

  Number of 24 hour staffed beds by Health Authority 1998–99 to 1999–2000

  Health authority

  Region

  1998–99 outturn

  1999–2000 quarter 2

  Nottingham

  Trent

  64

  70

  Rotherham

  Trent

  0

  0

  Sheffield

  Trent

  37

  37

  South Derbyshire

  Trent

  31

  31

  South Humber

  Trent

  0

  0

  Bedfordshire

  Eastern

  46

  46

  Cambridgeshire

  Eastern

  12

  12

  East and North Hertfordshire

  Eastern

  12

  12

  Norfolk

  Eastern

  0

  77

  North Essex

  Eastern

  20

  30

  South Essex

  Eastern

  187

  187

  Suffolk

  Eastern

  6

  6

  West Hertfordshire

  Eastern

  30

  36

  Barking and Havering

  London

  0

  0

  Barnet

  London

  15

  15

  Bexley and Greenwich

  London

  8

  8

  Brent and Harrow

  London

  32

  32

  Bromley

  London

  10

  10

  Camden and Islington

  London

  60

  60

  Croydon

  London

  0

  0

  Ealing, Hammersmith and Hounslow

  London

  39

  43

  East London and City

  London

  106

  106

  Enfield and Haringey

  London

  56

  56

  Hillingdon

  London

  0

  28

  Kensington, Chelsea and Westminster

  London

  13

  13

  Kingston and Richmond

  London

  62

  62

  Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham

  London

  138

  142

  Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth

  London

  185

  185

  Redbridge and Waltham Forest

  London

  50

  50

  Berkshire

  South East

  0

  0

  Buckinghamshire

  South East

  29

  29

  East Kent

  South East

  45

  45

  East Surrey

  South East

  21

  21

  East Sussex, Brighton and Hove

  South East

  175

  175

  Isle of Wight

  South East

  0

  8

  North and Mid Hampshire

  South East

  167

  167

  Northamptonshire

  South East

  10

  10

  Oxfordshire

  South East

  0

  20

  Portsmouth and South East Hampshire

  South East

  47

  54

  Southampton and South West Hampshire

  South East

  83

  83

  West Kent

  South East

  0

  0

  West Surrey

  South East

  0

  51

  West Sussex

  South East

  18

  18

  Avon

  South West

  0

  0

  Cornwall and Isles of Scilly

  South West

  20

  20

  Dorset

  South West

  55

  55

  Gloucestershire

  South West

  0

  0

  North and East Devon

  South West

  44

  44

  Somerset

  South West

  108

  108

  South and West Devon

  South West

  67

  59

  Wiltshire

  South West

  150

  150

  Birmingham

  West Midlands

  53

  63

  Coventry

  West Midlands

  27

  27

  Dudley

  West Midlands

  155

  155

  Herefordshire

  West Midlands

  14

  15

  North Staffordshire

  West Midlands

  0

  0

  Sandwell

  West Midlands

  0

  10

  Shropshire

  West Midlands

  0

  0

  Solihull

  West Midlands

  9

  9

  South Staffordshire

  West Midlands

  4

  4

  Walsall

  West Midlands

  10

  10

  Warwickshire

  West Midlands

  0

  0

  Wolverhampton

  West Midlands

  6

  8

  Worcestershire

  West Midlands

  0

  0

  Bury and Rochdale

  North West

  11

  11

  East Lancashire

  North West

  11

  11

  Liverpool

  North West

  0

  10

  Manchester

  North West

  87

  94

  Morecambe Bay

  North West

  53

  53

  North Cheshire

  North West

  24

  24

  340W 341W

  Number of 24 hour staffed beds by Health Authority 1998–99 to 1999–2000

  Health authority

  Region

  1998–99 outturn

  1999–2000 quarter 2

  North West Lancashire

  North West

  26

  36

  Salford and Trafford

  North West

  54

  54

  Sefton

  North West

  0

  0

  South Cheshire

  North West

  40

  40

  South Lancashire

  North West

  33

  33

  St. Helens and Knowsley

  North West

  22

  22

  Stockport

  North West

  16

  16

  West Pennine

  North West

  0

  0

  Wigan and Bolton

  North West

  37

  37

  Wirral

  North West

  0

  5

  England

  3,998

  4,331

  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many acute psychiatric beds there are (1) in each health authority in England; [106747]

  (2) in each London health authority. [106752]

  Average daily number of available acute psychiatric beds by Health Authority 1997–98

  Health authority

  Region

  Average daily number of available psychiatric beds

  Bradford

  Northern and Yorkshire

  308

  Calderdale and Kirklees

  Northern and Yorkshire

  403

  County Durham

  Northern and Yorkshire

  503

  East Riding

  Northern and Yorkshire

  279

  Gateshead and South Tyneside

  Northern and Yorkshire

  374

  Leeds

  Northern and Yorkshire

  708

  Newcastle and North Tyneside

  Northern and Yorkshire

  506

  North Cumbria

  Northern and Yorkshire

  325

  North Yorkshire

  Northern and Yorkshire

  530

  Northumberland

  Northern and Yorkshire

  230

  Sunderland

  Northern and Yorkshire

  323

  Tees

  Northern and Yorkshire

  393

  Wakefield

  Northern and Yorkshire

  341

  Barnsley

  Trent

  186

  Doncaster

  Trent

  210

  Leicestershire

  Trent

  563

  Lincolnshire

  Trent

  529

  North Derbyshire

  Trent

  244

  North Nottinghamshire

  Trent

  235

  Nottingham

  Trent

  498

  Rotherham

  Trent

  261

  Sheffield

  Trent

  403

  South Derbyshire

  Trent

  514

  South Humber

  Trent

  138

  Birmingham

  West Midlands

  856

  Coventry

  West Midlands

  129

  Dudley

  West Midlands

  166

  Herefordshire

  West Midlands

  80

  North Staffordshire

  West Midlands

  510

  Sandwell

  West Midlands

  132

  Shropshire

  West Midlands

  270

  Solihull

  West Midlands

  160

  South Staffordshire

  West Midlands

  258

  Walsall

  West Midlands

  124

  Warwickshire

  West Midlands

  276

  Wolverhampton

  West Midlands

  124

  Worcester

  West Midlands

  157

  Bury and Rochdale

  North West

  189

  East Lancashire

  North West

  329

  Liverpool

  North West

  302

  Manchester

  North West

  412

  Morecambe Bay

  North West

  368

  North Cheshire

  North West

  232

  North West Lancashire

  North West

  558

  Salford and Trafford

  North West

  584

  Sefton

  North West

  253

  South Cheshire

  North West

  222

  South Lancashire

  North West

  132'

  St. Helens and Knowsley

  North West

  194

  342W
  Mr. Hutton
  The table shows the average daily number of available acute psychiatric beds by health authority in England, derived from information obtained at trust level.
  343W

  Average daily number of available acute psychiatric beds by Health Authority 1997–98

  Health authority

  Region

  Average daily number of available psychiatric beds

  Stockport

  North West

  206

  West Pennine

  North West

  334

  Wigan and Bolton

  North West

  402

  Wirral

  North West

  313

  Bedfordshire

  Eastern

  439

  Cambridge and Huntingdon

  Eastern

  355

  East Norfolk

  Eastern

  698

  North and East Hertfordshire

  Eastern

  170

  North Essex

  Eastern

  483

  North West Anglia

  Eastern

  258

  South Essex

  Eastern

  488

  Suffolk

  Eastern

  351

  West Hertfordshire

  Eastern

  218

  Barking and Havering

  London

  519

  Barnet

  London

  486

  Bexley and Greenwich

  London

  664

  Brent and Harrow

  London

  394

  Bromley

  London

  673

  Camden and Islington

  London

  497

  Croydon1

  London

  —

  Ealing, Hammersmith and Hounslow

  London

  659

  East London and The City

  London

  501

  Enfield and Haringey

  London

  486

  Hillingdon

  London

  117

  Kensington, Chelsea and Westminster

  London

  646

  Kingston and Richmond

  London

  196

  Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham

  London

  309

  Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth

  London

  529

  Redbridge and Waltham Forest

  London

  625

  Berkshire

  South East

  446

  Buckinghamshire

  South East

  330

  East Kent

  South East

  265

  East Surrey

  South East

  320

  East Sussex

  South East

  490

  Isle of Wight

  South East

  85

  North and Mid Hampshire

  South East

  210

  Northamptonshire

  South East

  374

  Oxfordshire

  South East

  328

  Portsmouth and South East Hampshire

  South East

  437

  Southampton and South West Hampshire

  South East

  289

  West Kent

  South East

  561

  West Surrey

  South East

  465

  West Sussex

  South East

  561

  Avon

  South West

  628

  Cornwall and Isles of Scilly

  South West

  210

  Dorset

  South West

  525

  Gloucester

  South West

  255

  North and East Devon

  South West

  413

  Somerset

  South West

  412

  South and West Devon

  South West

  393

  Wiltshire

  South West

  570

  England

  36,601

  1 Croydon Health Authority shows no available beds for 1997–98. This is because the hospital sites in the health authority area have their Trust headquarters in a neighbouring health authority.

  Source:

  Annual Körner return KH03—'Bed Availability and Occupancy'

  Consultants (Suspensions and Dismissals)
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many NHS consultants in England have been dismissed on(a) clinical and (b) other grounds, in each of the last three years. [106538]

  Mr. Denham
  Disciplinary action is the responsibility of local National Health Service employers. Information on NHS staff who have been dismissed is not collected centrally, but may be obtained from individual NHS employers.

  Wheelchairs (North-West)
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what is the average length of the waiting list for an electrically powered(a) indoor and outdoor and (b) indoor NHS wheelchair in the North West; [106471]

  (2) how many additional electric powered (a) indoor and outdoor and (b) indoor NHS wheelchairs will be made available in the North West for the year 1999–2000; [106474]
  345W
  (3) what is the waiting time for electrically powered (a) indoor and outdoor and (b) indoor NHS wheelchairs in the North West; [106473]

  (4) how many electrically powered (a) indoor and (b) indoor and outdoor NHS wheelchairs there are in the North West. [106472]

  Mr. Hutton
  The current forecast, at Q2, is that 398 electrically powered indoor and outdoor wheelchairs will be available in the North West for 1999–2000, compared with a year end figure of 331 for 1998–99.

  Other information is not readily available on a regional basis. The following figures relate to North West Lancashire Health Authority area:

  Forty-two electrically powered indoor and outdoor wheelchairs and 97 indoor National Health Service wheelchairs (including outdoor powered, attendant controlled NHS wheelchairs) will be made available to new recipients in 1999–2000.

  There are currently 277 indoor (plus 17 outdoor, attendant controlled) and 981 indoor/outdoor electrically powered wheelchairs in North West Lancashire.

  Nineteen people are awaiting home or clinic assessment for electrically powered wheelchairs and 41 for indoor NHS and outdoor attendant controlled, electrically powered wheelchairs.

  The present waiting times for electrically powered indoor and outdoor and indoor NHS wheelchairs are 12 weeks and 40 weeks respectively.
  1 Figure does not include all wheelchairs available for 1999–2000.

  Cancer Services
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what plans he has to audit the Calman-Hine recommendations on the organisation of cancer services; [106123]

  (2) what role the Commission for Health Improvement will play in the implementation of the Calman-Hine recommendations. [106124]

  Yvette Cooper
  [holding answer 24 January 2000]: We are committed to improving the quality of cancer services through the implementation of the "Policy Framework for Commissioning Cancer Services" (the Calman/Hine report) and subsequent evidence-based guidance.

  The National Health Service Executive is currently developing national standards and performance indicators, based on the Calman/Hine report and guidance, which will be used by providers, commissioners and regional offices to deliver and measure continuous quality improvement in a consistent manner across the country within a national quality management framework. The NHS Executive will shortly be consulting on the draft standards and performance indicators prior to national roll-out from April 2000.
  346W
  We have asked the Commission for Health Improvement to conduct a national review of the implementation of Calman/Hine as one of its first major tasks when it begins work in April.

  Intensive Care Beds
  Mr. Grieve
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) pursuant to his oral statement of 18 January 2000,Official Report, column 702, where the additional intensive treatment unit beds provided this year have been made available. [106807]

  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the hospitals in which the new intensive care beds referred to by him in his oral statement of 18 January 2000,Official Report, column 702, are located. [106443]

  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secrertary of State for Health if he will publish a list of the locations of the 100 additional intensive care beds which he has provided. [106205]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 24 January 2000]: We will publish this information in due course.

  Hearing Aids
  Mr. McWalter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to extend access to digital hearing aids to those who are hard of hearing and who have additional impairment of other faculties. [106451]

  Mr. Hutton
  We will be starting a project in England later this year to trial digital hearing aids for National Health Service patients. This project will help inform our plans to modernise hearing aid services. We anticipate that the project will cover 20 hearing aid departments and that an estimated 20–30,000 patients will benefit from the scheme. Ultimately, the project will lead to improvements for all NHS patients.

  Mrs. Betty Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the timescale is for the completion of the review by the NHS executive working group on hearing aid services; and if he will place a copy of the report of the working groups in the Library. [106834]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 25 January 2000]: The working group established by the National Health Service Executive was set up to identify areas for development in hearing aid services. There are no plans to publish a report of this work.

  We will be starting a project in England later in the year to trial digital hearing aids for NHS patients. The pilot project will help inform our plans to modernise hearing aid services. We anticipate that the project will cover 20 hearing aid departments and that an estimated 20–30,000 patients will benefit from the scheme. Ultimately, the project will lead to improvements for all NHS patients.

  NHS Direct
  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health by what means and from what sources nurses have been recruited for NHS Direct. [106785]
  347W
  Ms Stuart
  Nurses wanting to apply to NHS Direct find that this is no different from applying for any job elsewhere in the National Health Service. Many of the jobs are advertised in the Nursing Times and Nursing Standard as well as local papers, job centres, NHS trust newsletters and bulletin boards. NHS Direct has deliberately recruited nurses from a wide range of different backgrounds. Some will be from a hospital background but others will be from primary care or will have been working outside the NHS. NHS Direct has also provided opportunities for disabled and work-injured nurses. Many staff who work for NHS Direct do so on a part time basis allowing them to combine working for NHS Direct with other clinical duties.

  NHS Funding
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent representations his Department has received about alternative arrangements for funding the NHS. [106544]

  Mr. Denham
  The Department receives many representations about alternative arrangements for funding the National Health Service. All suggestions received are considered on their merit and it remains the Government's policy that the NHS should be funded through public expenditure.

  NHS Pay
  Mr. Austin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health for what reason the offer to professional NHS staff not covered by the Pay Review Body was lower than that for staff covered by the Pay Review Body. [106840]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 25 January 2000]: The pay increases recommended by the independent review bodies reflected the particular circumstances of their remit groups. The pay of professional staff in the National Health Service not covered by the review bodies is negotiated in the Whitley Councils. For 1999–2000 higher offers have been made to some non-review groups in recognition of their particular recruitment and retention difficulties.

  Mr. Austin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the overall increase in the pay bill for NHS professional staff not covered by the Pay Review Body awards and instead covered by that part of the offer on long-term pay specified for April 2000. [106838]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 25 January 2000]: The increase, for 2000–01, currently on offer to those staff within the National Health Service, but not covered by the Review Bodies, is 3.25 per cent. or £300, whichever is the higher. Overall it is estimated that this will add £210 million to their paybill.

  Mr. Austin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the overall increase in the pay bill for NHS staff covered by the Pay Review Body following the awards announced on 17 January. [106837]
  348W
  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 25 January 2000]: Following the full implementation of the Review Bodies' recommendations on pay, it is estimated that an additional £570 million will be added to the paybill of those National Health Service staff directly covered by these awards during 2000–01.

  Mr. Austin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much it would cost to pay all professional NHS staff not covered by the Pay Review Body the difference between the 3.4 per cent. offered to nursing staff and professions allied to medicine covered by the Pay Review Body and the 3.25 per cent. offered to staff not covered by the Pay Review Body. [106841]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 25 January 2000]: To pay all non-Review Body staff an additional 0.15 per cent. would add an estimated £10 million to the National Health Service paybill next year.

  Mr. Austin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when a decision on expanding Pay Review Body coverage to all professional NHS staff will be made. [106839]

  Mr. Russell Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to include other NHS staff within the Pay Review Body that covers dentists, doctors and nurses. [106574]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 25 January 2000]: Proposals to modernise the National Health Service pay system set out in "Agenda for Change" include bringing some smaller groups of highly qualified staff within the scope of the Nurses and professions allied to medicine Pay Review Body, without changing its fundamentally professional character. This issue is part of continuing discussions with NHS Unions aimed at reaching agreement by summer 2000.

  Generic Drugs
  Mr. Peter Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health to what extent(a) the availability of generic drugs has improved and (b) the Category D List has decreased; and if he will make a statement on the impact of such changes on such drugs' overall cost to the NHS since August 1999; and if he will make a statement. [106871]

  Ms Stuart
  [holding answer 25 January 2000]: There are some indications that the supply situation for generic drugs is easing. The number of drugs on the Category D list—and therefore regarded, under the existing reimbursement system, as being in short supply—has fallen in the last three months. The position since August 1999 is shown in the table.

  The cost of generic drugs to the National Health Service is continuing to rise, though the rate of increase is slowing down. On 21 December last year we announced additional in-year funding of £90 million to help the NHS manage the pressures from generic prices on health authority budgets.
  349W

  Number of preparations or packs in Category D since August 1999 1

  Number

  1999

  August

  176

  September

  190

  October

  196

  November

  175

  December

  109

  2000

  January

  96

  1 The figures relate to the month in which scripts are dispensed

  Food Poisoning
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the numbers of cases of(a) salmonella enteritidis, (b) other strains of salmonella and (c) e.coli-type infections in each (i) region and (ii) nation of the United Kingdom, and (iii) in total, in each year since 1994. [106708]

  Yvette Cooper
  [holding answer 25 January 2000]: Information on the numbers of cases of Salmonella and E.coli O157 infections within England and Wales is collected by the Public Health Laboratory Service. The tables detail (a) numbers of Salmonella enteritidis (b) numbers of E.coli O157 reported to the PHLS Communicable Disease Surveillance Centre and Laboratory of Enteric Pathogens by year and NHS Region since 1994.

  Data on other strains of Salmonella are not routinely produced.

  The PHLS can only provide data for England and Wales. Information on data from Northern Ireland and Scotland should be sought from their respective Administrations.

  The table provides details of the numbers of cases of Salmonella enteritidis (all phage types) reported to the Public Health Laboratory Service Communicable Disease Surveillance Centre and Laboratory of Enteric Pathogens by year and NHS Region, since 1994.

  NHS Region

  1994

  1995

  1996

  1997

  1998

  Northern

  889

  799

  1,197

  1,120

  751

  Yorkshire

  1,682

  1,391

  1,793

  1,802

  1,245

  Trent

  1,422

  1,360

  1,725

  1,982

  1,365

  East Anglia

  837

  748

  842

  1,057

  729

  North West Thames

  1,130

  1,069

  1,233

  1,513

  1,195

  North East Thames

  1,217

  1,181

  1,145

  1,684

  1,212

  South East Thames

  1,242

  1,074

  1,051

  1,659

  1,251

  South West Thames

  1,218

  1,114

  1,168

  1,869

  1,334

  Wessex

  1,090

  972

  987

  1,423

  985

  Oxford

  1,048

  993

  1,100

  1,398

  988

  South Western

  1,254

  1,307

  1,256

  1,820

  1,530

  West Midlands

  1,591

  1,359

  1,702

  1,826

  1,240

  Mersey

  549

  530

  791

  804

  605

  North Western

  1,166

  1,186

  1,366

  1,423

  926

  Wales

  1,036

  961

  900

  1,528

  1,041

  Total

  17,371

  16,044

  18,256

  23,008

  16,397

  Note:

  Data for 1999 are not yet available

  The following table provides details of the numbers of cases of E.coli O157 reported to the Public Health
  350W
  Laboratory Service Communicable Disease Surveillance Centre and Laboratory of Enteric Pathogens by year and NHS Region, since 1994.

  NHS Region

  1994

  1995

  1996

  1997

  1998

  1999

  Northern

  54

  79

  33

  38

  49

  145

  Yorkshire

  21

  47

  76

  112

  113

  99

  Trent

  41

  65

  105

  156

  78

  97

  East Anglia

  30

  35

  38

  69

  46

  47

  North West Thames

  14

  28

  30

  49

  58

  33

  North East Thames

  14

  15

  20

  45

  31

  36

  South East Thames

  13

  26

  34

  43

  54

  59

  South West Thames

  10

  29

  12

  28

  33

  53

  Wessex

  32

  76

  27

  58

  45

  38

  Oxford

  25

  28

  24

  44

  36

  28

  South Western

  35

  89

  83

  104

  93

  109

  West Midlands

  46

  106

  57

  137

  76

  85

  Mersey

  14

  25

  21

  47

  28

  28

  North Western

  36

  63

  64

  114

  87

  161

  Wales

  26

  81

  36

  43

  63

  66

  Total

  411

  792

  660

  1,087

  890

  1,084

  Note:

  1999 data are provisional

  Health Service (Somerset)
  Mr. Ashdown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many(a) intensive care beds and (b) general hospital beds there were in (i) East Somerset and (ii) Somerset in each year from 1980; what is the latest available estimate in each case; and if he will make a statement; [106766]

  (2) if he will estimate the number of intensive care beds per head of population in (a) each English county and (b) Somerset Health Authority for each year since 1992; and if he will make a statement. [106740]

  Mr. Denham
  Information on the average daily number of beds by ward type for each National Health Service trust is published annually in "Bed Availability and Occupancy, England" and is available in the Library. The latest information is for 1997–98. 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. Ashdown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people have been on hospital waiting lists in(a) East Somerset and (b) Somerset in each year since 1992, giving figures on a quarterly basis since 1997; and if he will make a statement. [106767]

  Mr. Denham
  Information on waiting lists is published monthly (quarterly before April 1998) and is available in the Library.

  Mr. Ashdown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will estimate the number of hospital operations in East Somerset Health Authority(a) postponed and (b) postponed solely at the discretion of the authority, in each quarter since 1995. [106741]

  Mr. Denham
  Information on the number of operations cancelled for non medical reasons on the day patients are due to arrive or after arrival in hospital is published quarterly and is available in the Library.
  351W
  Mr. Ashdown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will estimate the number of(a) nurses and (b) doctors working for each Somerset health authority for each year since 1992; and if he will make a statement. [106742]

  Mr. Denham
  Information on National Health Service manpower is published annually in the Department of Health Medical and Dental Workforce census, the Department of Health Non-Medical Workforce Census and the General and Personal Medical Services Statistics for England and Wales which are available in the Library.

  Milk Tokens
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to review the 9 per cent. levy against retailers in respect of milk tokens sent to the Welfare Food Reimbursement Unit. [106967]

  Yvette Cooper
  The Welfare Food Scheme is currently under review and the nine per cent. levy will form part of that review. Any proposals for change to the scheme will be subject to Parliamentary approval.

  Accident and Emergency Departments (Barnet)
  Sir Sydney Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what were the total costs of funding the accident and emergency departments within the Barnet Health Authority area in each of the last five years. [106873]

  Ms Stuart
  The table contains information on the purchase of accident and emergency healthcare by Barnet Health Authority for the financial years 1994–95 to 1998–99.

  Barnet Health Authority purchase of healthcare: Accident and Emergency 1994–95 to 1998–99

  Financial year

  Total expenditure (£)

  1994–95

  4,438,795

  1995–96

  4,605,000

  1996–97

  4,816,000

  1997–98

  4,184,000

  1998–99

  6,141,000

  Source:

  1. Annual financial returns of health authorities 1994–95.

  2. Contract documentation, Barnet HA and Welhouse NHS Trust, 1995–96.

  3. Annual Accounts of Health Authorities 1996–97, 1997–98 and 1998–99.

  Diabetes
  Mr. Dawson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he will make needles and re-usable pens for the treatment of diabetes available free on prescription. [106964]

  Mr. Denham
  We have consulted on proposals which would include allowing insulin pen needles and reusable pens to be prescribed by general practitioners on the National Health Service. We have received representations from most of the organisations consulted. We are considering them, and are seeking clarification on certain points before we make our final decisions.

  NHS Staff (Employment Contract Renewals)
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) NHS medical staff, (b) NHS staff who were members of professions allied to medicine and (c) NHS nursing, midwifery and health visiting staff did not have their contract of employment renewed in each NHS region, in each year since 1995. [106679]

  Mr. Denham
  Information on National Health Service staff who have not had their contract of employment renewed is not collected centrally, but may be obtained from individual NHS employers.

  Health Spending (Southend)
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received on the impact of Southend borough council's SSA on health spending; and if he will make a statement on the recent meeting between hon. Members, councillors, officers and the Minister of State. [107269]

  Mr. Hutton
  I met representatives of Southend borough council and hon. Members from Southend on 10 January where they outlined the local situation with regard to their SSA. The meeting mainly discussed the financial difficulties the local authority is facing particularly with regard to mental health and learning disability client groups. I am currently considering whether there is any underspend in this year's mental health care grant which may provide additional support to the borough council. I agreed to examine what extra assistance the social services inspectorate could provide to support the authority.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he will reply to the question tabled for answer on 8 December by the hon. Member for Walthamstow relating to the review of NHS guidelines for the treatment of people from abroad. [107133]

  Ms Stuart
  I replied to my hon. Friend on 26 January.

  NHS Net
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects all family doctors to have access to NHS Net; what is the total estimated cost to public funds of NHS Net; and if he will make a statement. [107082]

  Ms Stuart
  All family doctors will have access to NHSnet by the end of 2002. NHSnet is a managed service and has no capital costs to public funds. The annual cost of access to NHSnet for health authorities and National Health Service trusts is £3.8 million. The annual cost of access for general practitioners will be approximately £19 million once they are all connected. This sum includes managed services such as routers and firewalls as well as costs for 24-hour/7 day network access.

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the percentage of(a) registered disabled people, (b) women, (c) people from ethnic minorities and (d) people from (i) independent schools, (ii) grammar schools and (iii) other schools employed by his Department in each of the years (i) 1970, (ii) 1979, (iii) 1989 and (iv) 1999. [107012]

  Ms Stuart
  We do not collect information about the educational background of staff. Available information is set out in the table.
  354W

  Percentage

  1970

  1979

  1989

  1999

  DHSS 1

  DHSS 1

  DHSS 1

  DH

  DH

  (a) Disability2

  n/a

  n/a

  —

  1.3

  6

  (b) Women

  40

  63

  64

  351

  57

  (c) Ethnic minority4

  n/a

  n/a

  —

  4.7

  14

  1 Until 1989 the Department of Health and Social Security were a single Department (DHSS)

  2 Figure not available for the number of people with a disability before 1985. The 1989 figure is "registered disabled"; the 1999 figure is those with a self-declared disability

  3 Women in DH workforce after the split of DHSS

  4 Figure not available for number of people from an ethnic minority before 1989

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by The Lord Bishop of Lincoln): The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

Remploy
Lord Morris of Manchesterasked Her Majesty's Government:
What representations they have received in relation to job losses at Remploy.
Lord Bach: My Lords, since April 1999, when Remploy's modernisation plans became known, the Government have received 160 letters about them. My honourable friend the Minister for Disabled People has met formally with the Remploy Consortium of Trades Unions, with John Edmonds, the General Secretary of the GMB, and with representatives of the Friends of Remploy Group of Members of Parliament. Contrary to press reports, there have been, and will be, no job losses among disabled factory employees at Remploy.
Lord Morris of Manchester: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for his reply. While I know that there are those in Whitehall who see Remploy as "yesterday's idea"—never having met a single employee—is he aware that protecting jobs there is today's most compelling priority for thousands of severely disabled people? Did he see reports in The Times and the Independent recently that,
"Ministers privately admit they would like to shut all 87 Remploy factories"?
Can my noble friend now refute that and allay employees' fears by making it absolutely clear that choice for disabled people must include supported employment?
Lord Bach: My Lords, I happily refute the suggestion that my noble friend brings to the attention of the House. It is certainly not the feeling in Whitehall that Remploy's factories are yesterday's jobs. Remploy, which is a non-departmental public body with a grant from the Government, is a commercial enterprise. Therefore, it is clear that demand is needed for its products. We live in a period of rapid industrial change. However, it is the intention that more people will be employed by Remploy by the year 2002. There are about 10,000 employed now both in the factories and in Interwork; that is, mainstream employment. It is hoped that 11,000 will be employed by the year 2002.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that I have seen the report that Remploy will continue to employ as many people as before?
1662
However, has the noble Lord seen reports in the press about Remploy closing several of its factories in different parts of the country? Can the Government reconcile those two reports?
Lord Bach: My Lords, over the past few days I have seen many newspaper articles concerning Remploy, a large number of which lacked the basic ingredient of accuracy. It is certainly not the intention that a number of Remploy factories will be closed down and will not become part of other Remploy factories.
The House should know that on 4th January a new chairman, Mr Alan Pedder, took office at Remploy. He has already begun to consider a scheme for the future operations of Remploy in the year ahead. I am happy to tell the House that, as I understand it, the unions, who of course have an important part to play in this matter, are content to wait to see what Mr Pedder comes up with. So far, the signs are good. I hope that the House will forgive me if I take just a moment or two to describe the key elements in his new plan.
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Bach: I shall do that as quickly as I can as it is important. The plan proposes,
"An emphasis on creating more opportunities for greater numbers of disabled people, including expansion of Interwork and progressions; a much greater emphasis on using the existing Remploy factories to provide training, development and progression for its employees and moves by Remploy to continue to modernise its factories to drive for increased business opportunities".
I hope that gives noble Lords a flavour of the vitality and new ideas that the new chairman has brought to Remploy.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that I believe that he has answered many of the anxieties about potential unemployment at Remploy, as publicised widely in the press? Is not the nub of the problem that there has been a significant fall in the demand for Remploy's products, yet none of us wants to see any of these jobs lost? Would not the best way to tackle this matter—in addition to the plans of Remploy—be a short-term increase in Remploy funding to enable the changes to be phased in gradually, and a massive amount of retraining for those workers who want jobs? That, in addition to the pledge of no unemployment, will certainly satisfy many people who I know are concerned with Remploy.
Lord Bach: My Lords, any ideas that my noble friend has in this field will be looked at with considerable care. I shall ensure that Mr Pedder, the new chairman of Remploy, receives a copy of today's Hansard containing the proposal that my noble friend has put forward.
Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, while I agree absolutely with the Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, that it is important that Remploy should

1663
continue, because it is extremely important for disabled people, the replies that the Minister gave contradicted one another. In one reply he said that there was not a demand for the products while in another he talked about the new chairman and his mission statement. However, there was no mention of design, research, market research or marketing. An interested outsider would consider that to be the fundamental problem with Remploy. Will the Minister consider giving a good grant to a good market research agency or a design consultancy to make sure that Remploy produces the right products? Then it would not need continuing subsidies. That would be a good solution.
Lord Bach: My Lords, I hope that my answers were not contradictory. Remploy has to live in the real, commercial world of today. I am sure that the noble Baroness and the House will be pleased to hear that Remploy has already appointed a sales and marketing director in order to consider exactly the kind of problems that the noble Baroness has mentioned. Of course Remploy's factories need to be modern, up to date, and able to sell their goods.
Lord Rix: My Lords, can the Minister assure the House that the new style Remploy will make job opportunities available to people with a learning disability?
Lord Bach: My Lords, I can satisfy the noble Lord on that point. My answer is "yes".

Exchange Rates
3.8 p.m.
Lord Taverneasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will recommend to the Bank of England the use of a policy of sterilised intervention on the exchange rates in order to reduce the value of the pound.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: No, my Lords, the best contribution the Government can make to exchange rate stability, consistent with their objective of a stable and competitive pound over the medium term, is to maintain sound public finances and low inflation.
Lord Taverne: My Lords, do not the Government agree that at the moment the pound is uncomfortably high and way above its fundamental equilibrium rate? Do not they accept that, while seeking to maintain the value of the pound against market sentiment is likely to fail, the quite different proposition of buying foreign exchange and selling pounds in order to depress the pound can be much more successful? If the Government are worried about the inflationary consequences, may I refer them to a persuasive paper, written by Peter Bofinger of the European Parliament, which seems to demonstrate that inflationary effects can be contained by the judicious selling of bonds, as
1664
was practised very successfully by the Bundesbank in 1992 and 1993? Does it not follow inexorably that my request should be seriously considered?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for attempting to improve my economic education and for his references to the literature. There are different views about the strength of the pound. I am aware that there are views held by manufacturing industry and the TUC which coincide with those of the noble Lord, but they are by no means universally held. As to the original Question about intervention, I remind the noble Lord that our total UK foreign currency assets, held both by the Bank and by the Treasury, are equal to 20 per cent of the daily trading in sterling on international markets. I do not think we will get round that by any of the alternatives proposed by the noble Lord.
Lord Shore of Stepney: My Lords, I am sure that the Minister will agree that this matter requires the most careful and serious consideration. We are doing well economically as a whole, but there is no doubt whatever that our agriculture and manufacturing industries are under great pressure, and have been for some time. They are facing falls in output and, above all, losses in the export markets. It is no good ignoring that; we have to do something. Even accepting the handing over of the Chancellor's former powers of control over interest rates to the Bank of England—I do not wholly agree with that, but having swallowed it—surely it is possible for the Chancellor, with the Governor, to modify the terms of reference so that inflation within the ceiling of 2.5 per cent is not the only consideration taken into account when interest rates are set. To complete the point, does the Minister accept that, above all, the greatest single factor dominating the level of sterling is the differentially high interest rates in London which suck in so much footloose money?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, my noble friend also seeks to improve my economic education. I am grateful to him for that. I do not think the Government can be accused of being indifferent to the importance of the Question, as I thought my noble friend implied. It is simply not the case that manufacturing output fell at any stage over the past two and a half years. It was stable for some time rather than rising, but it did not fall. On the most recent figures—those for the third quarter of 1999—export volume, excluding oil and erratics, rose by 6.8 per cent, with exports of goods surpassing the levels of the year before that. Manufacturing output recorded growth, and most forecasters expect manufacturing growth to increase by between 1.5 and 2 per cent this year. It is of course a serious problem, but it should not be exaggerated.
Lord Saatchi: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for reminding the House that Britain's official reserves amount to 20 per cent of a day's trading. In fact, they represent 5 per cent of total trading on the global currency markets. In the light of

1665
that, and perhaps of his awareness of the survey published this week which showed that despite our strong pound and despite being outside the euro Britain is still the tight of as the most attractive single place on the planet for investment outside America—in flat contradiction of government statements on that subject—does the, Minister agree that it would be better if the Government would not prevaricate but say straight out that intervention to lower the rate of sterling should be utterly rejected; and that we should take the view, as do the Americans, that if we have a strong exchange rate for our currency, we should simply say "Hooray"?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am very interested in the noble Lord's choice of words. He said that we are attractive for investment despite the fact that we are outside the European currency. I do not think that is the view of his party. It thinks that we are attractive to investment because we are outside the European currency. The facts I have given are not in contradiction with government policy but with the policy of the Opposition. I thought that I had already sufficiently clearly rejected the option of using a policy of intervention, sterilised or unsterilised, in the exchange rate.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I would not dream of endeavouring to teach economics to the Minister or to any other noble Lords, but would my noble friend care to remind the House that sterling fell continuously from 1982 to 1987—I shall not remind your Lordships which party was in power at that time—and that the balance payments on the whole worsened and manufacturing suffered? That might suggest that perhaps the connection between sterling and the real economy is by no means as simple as some commentators suggest.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am sorry that my noble friend does not think that I—or, indeed, any of your Lordships—are sufficiently qualified to be his students in economics. My noble friend is right. If I had had the time, I would have rejected the view of my noble friend Lord Shore that we should set the Bank of England an exchange rate target in addition to the inflation target.

Equality for Women
3.17 p.m.
Lord Trefgarneasked Her Majesty's Government:
What are their achievements in the pursuit of equality for women.
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Jay of Paddington): My Lords, the noble Lord tempts me to make a 15-minute speech, but looking at the clock I shall confine myself to an Answer highlighting the Government's achievements which have improved women's economic equality.
1666
First, the introduction of the minimum wage has had the greatest impact on the wages of women and has reduced the gender pay gap. The increase in child benefit of 36 per cent between 1997 and 2000 and the further above-inflation increase expected has been a substantial improvement in payments direct to the purse rather than to the wallet. Women who have family responsibilities and who, in common with eight out of 10 mothers, work outside the home, have also had their circumstances improved by the New Deal programmes, the national childcare strategy and the childcare tax credit. All of these changes greatly increase the economic equality of women. It is a record of which we are proud.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I am grateful to the Leader of the House for that reply. Does not she agree that the Government's achievements in this area are in no way enhanced by exaggeration or error? Has the attention of the noble Baroness been drawn to a recent report from the Women's National Commission, chaired by the noble Baroness, Lady Crawley, where, on page 11, it claims that this Government include the first woman leader of your Lordships' House, which of course is not the case?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I acknowledge that mistake. My noble friend Lady Crawley has done so also. I would certainly underline the record of the noble Baroness, Lady Young. She has been most helpful to me in my present post.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, does the Leader of the House agree that although sex discrimination legislation and equal pay legislation have done great work, they are in need of more than temporary repair and requires a substantial overhaul to make them user friendly and intelligible and to ensure that they are effectively enforced by procedures that do not involve only bringing individual cases?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord that there is much about the present legislation that is very cumbersome. The Government have said—I am working closely with my colleagues in the Department for Education and Employment on this—that when legislative time allows we shall want to make changes which will make it possible, for example, for individual women to take cases against employers. At the moment it is very difficult for any employee to be successful in such a suit unless they are backed by a major organisation or have, for example, trade union representation on a big scale.
Baroness Crawley: My Lords, may I first apologise to the noble Baroness, Lady Young—I have written to her in these terms—for the mistake in the Women's National Commission's annual report. I welcome the comments of my noble friend the Leader of the House on the economic benefits that women have gained. Those advances will mean that many millions of women's lives will be improved in this country. Does my noble friend agree that there is still a terrible

1667
scourge in this country? I refer to the violence that is meted out to women and children and to many pregnant women. What are the Government doing to combat this culture of violence?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for setting the record right about her organisation's report. The Government regard the strategy Living without Fear, which we published last summer—the first national government strategy on violence against women—as the basis for work that will be taken forward in this field. The report was determined to make it generally understood that violence against women is a crime. In that respect, £6 million of the Government's crime reduction programme has been specifically directed to improving services in this area. We hope also that over the next few years we will be able to establish multi-agency partnerships working at a local level, first, to identify the fact that violence against women is a crime which has to be more widely acknowledged before it can be dealt with, and, secondly, that local services should support the victims, particularly the children of victims, of this crime.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, following on from the question of the noble Baroness, Lady Crawley, can the Leader of the House remind us why Jack Straw, the Home Secretary, has allowed Mike Tyson into this country?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, that is a question on which there are many different views. I personally have been concerned about some of the aspects of the violence against women crimes which were given undue publicity around the visit of Mike Tyson. But as the Home Secretary himself explained, it was felt that in this instance the economic fall-out, as it were, from not allowing Mike Tyson to visit the country, in terms of the benefit from the sporting activity associated with him, was in a sense something that had to be given the first priority.
Earl Russell: My Lords, following the noble Baroness's reply to my noble friend Lord Lester, is she yet in a position to respond to the proposals of the Equal Opportunities Commission for improving the equal pay legislation; and if not, when will she be?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, we have responded to the quinquennial report of the Equal Opportunities Commission, to which I think the noble Earl refers, on the revision of the Equal Pay Act. As I said in my answer to the noble Lord, Lord Lester, it is not the Government's view that total reorganisation of the full legislative package is necessarily the way forward on this matter. There are measures—for example, I mentioned the minimum wage—which
1668
have already decreased the pay gap in this country. We still have a long way to go. We will indeed introduce such legislation as I outlined in my response to the noble Lord, Lord Lester, to try to improve the ways in which the equal opportunities arrangements are fulfilled.
The Earl of Listowel: My Lords, is the Leader of the House aware of the Steps programme, introduced by a local authority in the north-east, to encourage women onto the local council there? Does she not agree that it is important to encourage women, particularly women from sink housing estates, not only to be involved in their local community but to be involved in local government and, if possible, central government, because of the experience that they can bring?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I very much agree with the noble Earl's point. It is important that we do everything, particularly at the local level, to encourage women to play a proper role. As the noble Earl may be aware, it is the Government's aim to have 50 per cent of public appointments going to women. For example, in the National Health Service I am pleased to say that we have already reached 49 per cent in terms of appointments to NHS boards—a 10 per cent increase since we took office.
Baroness Platt of Writtle: My Lords, what are the Government doing to encourage women into science, engineering and technology? My noble friend Lord Trefgarne, through the Engineering and Marine Training Authority, runs the insight courses. The previous government set up within the Department of Trade and Industry the Women's Development Unit for Science, Engineering and Technology. The Equal Opportunities Commission, together with the Engineering Council, set up the "Wise Buses", which have helped hundreds of thousands of young girls in schools to have experience of hands-on technology. Those programmes are now coming off the road through lack of money. Fifteen per cent of undergraduates in engineering are now women, but we have a long way to go. If we do not make a greater effort, we shall move backwards. What can the Government do to help?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I agree with the noble Baroness about the need to maintain a gender focus in this area. There are particular needs around what one might call the new technology in ICT, e-commerce and those areas where women have not necessarily been the ones who have taken up the opportunities in further education. I know that my colleagues in the Department for Education are looking closely at the development of the curriculum in this field. I have personally been in conversation with Professor Susan Greenfield about ways in which outside organisations, like the one she heads, can be involved in giving a lead in science education.

Arable Area Payments and Wildlife
3.25 p.m.
Baroness Byfordasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they consider that the new rules under Part I of the Arable Area Payments Guide will be beneficial to wildlife.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Baroness Hayman): My Lords, we are concerned that the clarification to the rules on field boundaries set out in Part I of the latest edition of the Arable Area Payments Guide should not be detrimental to wildlife. The guide urges farmers that, if they need to adjust the width of a field boundary, they should seek advice on minimising any environmental impact of such a change.
Baroness Byfo rd: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that response. Does she not agree with the RSPB, which last weekend said that these subsidy changes are out of step with the Government's environmental objectives as they will reduce the important areas for wildlife, such as field margins, and may even lead to the greater destruction of hedges? Surely that is something the noble Baroness will riot wish to see.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, we would certainly not wish to see those kinds of detrimental effects. We have advised farmers who face a problem that we do not want them to cut back their hedges, some of which may be legally protected, too severely or to plough right up to the base of the hedge. In some cases, the answer may be to adjust a claimed area. That goes back to the ruling about being able to claim these payments only for cropped areas. In other cases, it may be possible to enter the land into set-aside or into an agri-environmental scheme. So there are some alternative courses of action.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, do the Government intend to issue a detailed memorandum on the document that is mentioned in the Question—Part I of the Arable Area Payments Guide? If the arrangements as set out in Part I are carried through unamended, by how much will the individual payments to farmers deteriorate and by how much will the cost to the Exchequer therefore increase?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, it is difficult to give the precise figures for which my noble friend asks because at the moment we do not know exactly how much land will potentially be affected. I understand that on a sample of around 5 per cent of arable land perhaps 4 per cent of fields within that would be affected. It applies only to land that is used for the cultivation of cereal, oil seed, peas and beans. It is highly unlikely that pasture and forage fields will be affected. Crops such as potatoes and sugar beet are totally unaffected. My noble friend asked for a detailed memorandum. I shall certainly check on the usual procedure, but the document referred to is an
1670
explanatory guide that is published on a two-yearly basis and updated every year. It is in the form of guidance notes to farmers to help them to fill in their IACS forms. I am not sure whether it is therefore appropriate that it should be subject to parliamentary procedures.
The Earl of Courtown: My Lords, can the Minister tell the House whether the regulations will be retrospective?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I do not believe that the regulations will be retrospective in looking at claims made for past years. The Court of Auditors and EU visits have considered the IACS scheme in some detail. As the noble Earl is probably aware, in this country farmers have been able to claim on the basis of fields recorded in the Ordnance Survey, but there has always been an understanding that that is a surrogate for cropped areas and that within that no more than 2 metres of uncropped areas should be the subject of a claim. We are responding to the concerns raised by the auditors to ensure that there are no improper claims, and it is prudent for us to do that to protect the taxpayer and individual farmers.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, will the Government ask MAFF to make an assessment of the impact of these regulations on wildlife? If that assessment discovers that there will be particularly big problems for wildlife, what are the opportunities to review the decision and their time-scale?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, it is not a decision to review the situation. What we have done is to clarify the regulations for payments to be made under the arable area payments scheme. As to the main question put by the noble Baroness, both arable field margins and species-rich hedgerows are priority habitats under the UK biodiversity plan. MAFF is the lead partner with responsibility for increasing those habitats, and we must monitor what is going on. We have grant-aided over 5,600 miles of hedgerows. The additional funding for country stewardship schemes which has been announced will allow us to do even more, which means that we shall increase the number of hedges and field margins through other schemes.

Business of the House
3.32 p.m.
Lord Carter: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House to know the dates of the Easter Recess. Subject as always to the progress of business, the House will rise for the Easter Recess at the end of business on Maundy Thursday 20th April. The House will sit at 11 a.m. that day. The House will return from the Easter Recess on Tuesday 2nd May.
I have also received a number of representations from all sides of the House on the subject of a half-term break. Like all Chief Whips, my opening position on

1671
all such proposals is to say "No". That is a stance which tends to firm up during negotiations. However, in this particular case I am conscious that because Easter is very late this year it is a long run from Christmas to Easter. Accordingly, I am happy to announce it has been agreed through the usual channels that the House will rise for half-term at the end of business on Wednesday 23rd February and return on Monday 28th February. The House will sit at 11 a.m. on Wednesday 23rd February. This half-term break is not a precedent for future Sessions.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his announcement about Easter and the so-called "half-term break" of one extra day. I wonder whether the half-term is necessary. However, if the Government's stamina is such that they need a break, so be it. I trust that when the Government run into timetable problems in the summer, they will remember that this gratuitous extra day was offered by the Government and not demanded by the Opposition.
As to the Easter break, can the noble Lord confirm that Easter this year is almost as late as it is possible to be? Can he also confirm that whenever it has been as late as this in the past, the break has been taken in the week before rather than after Easter? Can the noble Lord also confirm that some local education authority schools in England and all those in Scotland go back immediately after Easter, and, therefore, those noble Lords with children, or—dare I say?—grandchildren, are likely to see very little of them over the so-called "Easter break"?
Lord Carter: My Lords, I suggest that the Opposition Chief Whip has a chat with his noble friends and other noble Lords with children who asked me about a half-term break. If at the end of the Session the only problem that I have had is confined to one day of business management, I shall be fairly relaxed.
As to the timing of the Easter break, the noble Lord will be aware that there were two proposals for the management of business which would have allowed the House to take the break before Easter. However, the Opposition were unable to agree to them, and I have therefore had to go for the normal break, which is the week after Easter.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, why on earth do we need a half-term break? There has never been such a break before, and I had not heard of it until about an hour ago. I do not know from where this great effort sprang. I do not believe that it came from our side. If it arose on the noble Lord's side, is it not a pretty poor show that the first thing that Peers do when they come here, at the request of Mr Blair, is ask for a half-term break because it is too busy for them? That is absurd. I believe that we should not have it.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I can assure the House that I was approached by a number of Peers from all sides of the House who suggested that it would be a good idea this Session because of the long run. As to naming
1672
them, as the Leader of the Opposition said, the sources of Chief Whips, like those of journalists, are always private.

Learning and Skills Bill [H.L.]
3.35 p.m.
Lord Bach: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lady Blackstone, I beg to move the Motion standing in her name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That it be an instruction to the Committee of the Whole House to whom the Learning and Skills Bill [H.L.] has been committed that they consider the Bill in the following order:

Clause 1,

Schedule 1,

Clauses 2 to 19,

Schedule 2,

Clauses 20 to 26,

Schedule 3,

Clauses 27 to 30,

Schedule 4,

Clauses 31 to 45,

Schedule 5,

Clauses 46 to 49,

Schedule 6,

Clauses 50 to 98,

Schedule 7,

Clauses 99 to 113,

Schedule 8,

Clauses 114 and 115,

Schedule 9,

Clauses 116 to 118.—(Lord Bach.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Race Relations (Amendment) Bill [H.L.]
3.36 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Bassam of Brighton): My Lords, I beg to move that the Report be now received.
The House may be assisted in its deliberations this afternoon if I explain the Government's intentions with regard to two sets of amendments which were to be discussed during today's Report stage of the Race Relations (Amendment) Bill. In making these comments I express personal gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Lester, for his great assistance in these areas and to other noble Lords for making clear their ideas about the two issues on which I wish to comment this afternoon.
Your Lordships will be aware that the Government are deeply committed to achieving a major change in race equality in our country. The Race Relations (Amendment) Bill is an important part of our programme to ensure that the public sector sets the pace, as my right honourable friend the Home Secretary said, in its drive towards race equality. We demand that the clearest possible message be sent out

1673
that discrimination is not acceptable and will not be tolerated. The Government, therefore, propose two changes to strengthen the provisions of this Bill.
First, after careful consideration we have decided to extend the indirect discrimination provisions of the Race Relations Act 1976 to the functions of public authorities to be caught by the Bill. We intend to table an amendment to provide precisely for that. We have always been in favour of this principle but have been concerned, we believe rightly, to ensure that any such provision is effective without leaving public bodies open to routine or vexatious legal challenge in circumstances where their policies are entirely proper.
Since the Bill was published, however, we have listened carefully to the arguments put forward and concluded that, on balance, the risk of spurious challenge is outweighed by the importance of the principle of including in the Bill indirect discrimination in respect of public sector functions. Direct and indirect racial discrimination is already prohibited under the terms of the Race Relations Act 1976 in the fields of employment, training, education, housing and the provision of goods, facilities and services in respect of the public and private sectors. The Act is already being extended by the Bill to new fields in the public sector which have previously been determined by case law not to be a service and to which prohibitions on direct or indirect discrimination do not therefore apply. The Act will now extend to areas such as the implementation of central and local government regulatory, economic and social policies and law enforcement in respect of indirect discrimination.
Secondly, the Government have always seen the importance of the duty to promote equality as a positive way of eliminating unjustifiable indirect discrimination in these and all other fields. Our setting of targets for ethnic minority recruitment, retention and promotion, and our guidelines for maintaining race equality inter-policy development and implementation are two examples.
We are already committed to placing the promotion of equality by public bodies on a statutory footing. We shall reinforce that commitment by bringing forward a government amendment to the Race Relations (Amendment) Bill to enshrine the principle on the face of the Bill as a positive duty, leaving room for consultation on how exactly the duty will operate in practice and how it will be enforced. Those are two important issues. The amendment will be brought forward at Committee stage in the Commons. Meanwhile, we are considering whether there should be any procedural safeguards consistent with the principle of non-discrimination.
I hope that that clarifies the position from the Government's point of view. These are significant changes. I believe that they will be broadly welcomed and I look forward to support from all corners of the House in ensuring that the amendments work to improve the quality and the nature of race relations in our country. They are important steps towards that objective.
Moved, That the Report be now received.—(Lord Bassam of Brighton.)
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, first, I should like to thank the noble Lord for that formal announcement of the Government's position on the Bill, which will no doubt be helpful for later debate. The actual announcement of the change of policy was, in accordance with our new, modernised constitutional convention, made on Tuesday by Mr Alastair Campbell. We read it in our morning papers yesterday. It was made again by the Home Secretary, and the text of the statement that the Minister has just read out was placed in the Library yesterday. However, its formal repetition by the Minister today is helpful.
Perhaps I may congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Lester, on his success in these two matters. However, some points remain to be dealt with. First, in Committee a few days ago the Minister told us, in effect, that sensible government would become impossible if the amendment were carried. He told us that an indirect discrimination law did not fit well with law enforcement or with social and economic policies. He told us that it would become a matter for the courts to decide whether much government policy was justified and gave examples of the policies that he thought would be at risk; namely, the New Deal for young people, winter fuel payments for pensioners, employment and education action zones, and so on. But now we are told that such court challenges do not matter any more.
I do not blame the Minister. He has said nothing that the Home Secretary has not previously said. The Home Secretary now says that the risk of challenge is minimal. It seems to me that the authority of Home Office statements is damaged by this change of policy—Home Office thinking changes 100 per cent from one week to the next. Are the Minister and his colleagues now convinced, for example, that what they said about the effect on law enforcement is rubbish? The case made by the Minister previously was pretty unconvincing, but nor has he given any reason to be convinced in the opposite direction.
A further difficulty arises from the Minister's statement. The Government are now in effect saying that without the two important amendments the Bill will not do, and that it is rubbish, particularly in regard to indirect discrimination. Yet we are asked to pass the Bill and send it, unamended, to the Commons. The House of Lords, whose composition was decided by Parliament only a few months ago, is asked to send to another place an ineffective Bill. Why not amend the Bill at Third Reading? There is provision for us to do so. The Third Reading is not due for another week; indeed we should be entirely happy to postpone Third Reading if more time is required to sort out the necessary amendments—although they were drafted some time ago by the noble Lord, Lord Lester.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for giving way. Perhaps I may clarify one matter. If the Government need time to make sure that the legislation is sensibly drafted, what on earth is the

1675
objection to the other place dealing with the matter when the Government have had time to consider it, then returning it to this House—the "half House" rather than the full House; Parliament presently being one and a half Houses, as it were—for us to examine at that stage?
3.45 p.m.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, my objection is to this House being asked to send rubbish to another place. That is what the Government say the Bill now is. They say that it is incomplete and that it must be changed in a serious way. That is not acceptable. This House should not be asked to pass a Bill that is nonsense and which we know will be profoundly changed, when there is a perfect opportunity for us to change it. It is not as though this has happened at the last minute. The Third Reading is still to come. The Bill can, and should, be altered before it leaves this House.
Lord Peston: My Lords, listening to the noble Lord, Lord Cope—towards whom I am normally sympathetic—speaking for the Opposition, I am pleased for once that I was never made a Minister. Obviously, the Government can never do any right! I took part in the previous debate, and I am impressed that the Government have listened. If in future, as I very much hope, this House is to function as a place where the Government listen to reasoned debate and change their mind, I hope that the Opposition will not turn on them for doing exactly what we hope will happen. I do not believe that the Bill is rubbish. As I understand matters, the Minister argued the case as he saw it at the time. He listened to some of us. I am flattered that he was persuaded and he is now trying to do something about it. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Lester: I can wait for the Bill to return from the Commons. However, I accept the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Cope, about amour proper. In that sense, I should prefer this House to make the changes. But it is merely a matter of amour proper. I do not think that I shall fail to rest over Easter because I have to wait for the Bill to return to this House.
My main point is to say thank you for this proposal. The Government have listened and have moved in the right direction. I, for one, very much look forward to seeing the amendments as specifically drafted.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, first, I thank the Minister for his extremely helpful statement, and I thank all noble Lords who have supported the changes proposed by the Government. Secondly, there is nothing in the criticism that the announcement was in some way inappropriate. My understanding is that because the Conservative Party was having fun and games in another place the announcement was not able to be made as was intended. As a result—
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, with respect, perhaps I may correct the noble Lord. The announcement was made on Tuesday. It was in
1676
yesterday morning's newspapers. Anything that might have happened yesterday and might have been affected by what happened in another place is not related to that.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, that is not quite right. The official announcement was made by the Home Secretary at about 5.30 yesterday evening. There may have been a leak in the newspapers, but I know for certain, because I inquired of the Home Office as to exactly when the statement would be made, that it was not made until 5.30p.m. yesterday. The reason it was made in the way that it was—namely, in a Home Office press release—was that it could not be made in another place for the reason that I have given. As I understand it—the Minister will no doubt say whether I am right or wrong—the intention was that there would be an Answer to a Parliamentary Question in another place. However, that is a minor point.
To return to the main point, we should congratulate the Government on listening and considering the arguments carefully on two very difficult questions. Perhaps I may explain briefly why they were difficult. It will save me having to move amendments later, so to do so briefly now will mean that I am not wasting time but saving it.
The concept of indirect discrimination and the difference between it and direct discrimination is something that only very few people in the world understand. It was entirely understandable that the Government would be troubled that their economic and social policies might be challenged time and again in the courts and that they would spend their time having to answer litigation instead of getting on with running the country. Therefore, careful analysis was needed of the case law which indicates that judges do not try to run the country and gives the Government the benefit of the doubt on matters involving economic and social policy. Other government departments had to be consulted because what is being provided in the Race Relations (Amendment) Bill will surely need to be included in due course, in, for example, the sex discrimination legislation. When that is amended, indirect sex discrimination by government will have to be tackled as well.
Five different government departments at present deal with equality. That is regrettable because it makes a co-ordinated approach more difficult. The Home Office, dealing only with race, had to consult widely on the concept of indirect discrimination.
From the speeches at Second Reading of the noble Lord, Lord Cope, and the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, it is clear that they are in favour of including the concept of indirect discrimination in the Bill. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Cope, described the Bill, in emotive words, as a "sham". I would never have dreamt of doing so. The noble Viscount, Lord Astor, indicated that he wanted to listen carefully to the Government's reasons for not including the concept in the Bill.

1677
If Members on all sides of the House are agreed that the concept should be included, the only question is how it should be drafted. It is an easy matter to leave out the exception and to include indirect discrimination. There may need to be a procedural safeguard so that the Government are given a breathing space for a couple of months, as they are in the education sector, before proceedings are launched in this area; and they need time to think about the way to do that. I should have thought that it could be achieved by Third Reading because I do not think that it requires much careful drafting.
The more difficult matter is the positive duty, the second change the Government propose to make. The Government have always been committed to placing themselves and all public authorities under a positive duty. They have done so in the Northern Ireland Act. That is entirely commendable. The only argument was whether they would include the positive duty in the Race Relations (Amendment) Bill or later. Sensibly, the Government have decided to do so in this Bill. It will be a kind of experiment enabling one to see how the measure works in this country as well as Northern Ireland.
The amendment I have drafted gives the Government leeway to be able to consult with the Commission for Racial Equality, and more generally, and, by regulation to be approved by Parliament, to deal with the crucial matters of monitoring and enforcement. If the Government were to accept that approach, little redrafting would be required. On the other hand, if reasons about which I do not know make it more diff cult for that to be achieved by Third Reading next week, it would be sensible to have the matter dealt with properly in another place. I am sure that there will be no real issues of principles as those are common ground on all sides of the House. We can then deal with the matter at that stage.
I shall not move amendments on either subject. Therefore, perhaps I may add a couple of points. From what I read in the Daily Mail and from what I heard on the radio this morning about the views of Mr Gerald Howarth MP, speaking for the Conservative Party in another place, there seems to be a suggestion that by extending the law on indirect discrimination the Government will in some way hamper the police. That is complete rubbish and shows a total misunderstanding of discrimination law. The police have always been subject to the law on racial discrimination. The complaints that black people have made about police misconduct and malpractice have not been about indirect discrimination in the technical sense, but about racial assumptions about people affecting matters such as the stop arid search power: the notion that more black people than white people are stopped and searched, and so on. That is covered by direct discrimination.
In the wake of Macpherson, senior police officers across the country recognise that they must eliminate racial discrimination from their practices. They understand the need to secure full public confidence in all parts of the community. The notion that these changes will affect the police is completely misguided.
1678
They will affect government departments and the way in which other public authorities function. They will have to have regard to the question asked by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, of an Attorney-General in a case in which I was involved: Is the maxim, "Think before you speak" incompatible with good government? The Attorney-General did not know how to reply.
The Government will now have to think before they act. I am sure they do so already. But that will not affect the police. They must think before they act because of the law which already forbids direct discrimination. Therefore, it is wholly unfair and misguided to attack the Government on the basis that they are handicapping the police. On the contrary, the police understand that they must not discriminate directly or indirectly.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps I may make it clear that my complaint about the Bill being nonsense at this point refers to the issue about indirect discrimination. I should be happy to leave the second point—positive duty—for amendment in the Commons. But I do not think that we should send a Bill to the Commons—the noble Lord rightly says that I described it as a "sham"; and it is still so at present—without the indirect discrimination clause being included if the Government argue successfully for that. I am glad to have the noble Lord's confirmation that that can readily be drafted in time for Third Reading either on the present timetable or with a further postponement of Third Reading.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I agree that if it can be done by Third Reading, it should he clone. I shall not move those amendments today. It would waste the time of the House. There must be an offence called "wasting House time". Instead I shall leave the issue. The Government will no doubt then consider the matter. If they are able to table an amendment in time for Third Reading, so be it. If not, it is always open to any Member of the House to table amendments in order to raise the issue at that stage to see whether it is necessary to leave it over.
As regards the positive duty, I do not press the Government to attempt to get that right by next Thursday. That is unreal and not fair to them.
Earl Russell: My Lords, as one who in the past has made one or two critical remarks about the Government's attitude to this House, I feel it incumbent on me to express my intense pleasure that on this occasion the Government have listened to this House, have thought hard about the advice of this House, and have taken the necessary action. I express my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Bassani of Brighton, and through him to the Home Secretary.
I have in the past made far too many criticisms of hastily drafted legislation to be in a position to make any complaint if the Government, determined to get it right, take a little time to do so.

1679
Finally, does the Minister understand why, when I listened to the noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley, I was reminded of a remark made by the noble Lord, Lord Healey? When he was Secretary of State for Defence he said that offering defence cuts to the Left is like throwing herrings to a sea lion. I am not a sea lion.
The Lord Bishop of Oxford: My Lords, from these Benches, I add our appreciation to the Government without any sense of smugness or crowing. It is a real tribute to the quality of debate in this House and to the capacity of the Government to listen and respond to rational argument. Many Members of this House will deeply appreciate this move.
However, one point of clarification is needed in the light of the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Lester. Does the stop and search power come under the heading of direct discrimination rather than indirect discrimination? There is a great deal of confusion about this. It was widely reported in the press during the past week that driving home through London the Bishop of Stepney was stopped for the eighth time. I have never been stopped when driving through London or Oxford. Is the stop and search policy something which we have overlooked? Does it count as direct discrimination? Is it inadvertent indirect discrimination? We need clarification about the stop and search policy and what is and what is not allowed.
4 p.m.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, perhaps I may give some help. If the police stop and search black people more than white people in a given area because of prejudice or stereotyping, that is direct race discrimination. If the police impose a requirement for granting bail which applies equally to everyone in a formal sense—such as one has to have fixed employment or a fixed address—and that hits disproportionately at gypsies, although it is not intended to but has that effect, and a member of the Roma community challenges that decision and uses figures to support the challenge, that would be indirect discrimination.
The problem is that these are not watertight concepts. Very often a complainant needs to bring a case raising both. If one reads Dr Marion Fitzgerald's evidence to the Royal Commission on criminal procedure she explains why the concept of indirect as well as direct discrimination is very important. I hope that I have clarified the position, but if I have failed, all I can say is that I have also failed in the courts to explain it as well.
Baroness Howells of St Davids: My Lords, I warmly welcome the news that the Government have ensured that the provisions of the Race Relations Act on indirect discrimination will apply to public bodies in respect of their functions. This is a decisive step towards meeting the aspirations of the findings of the Macpherson report that our public bodies set themselves the highest standards and that they are seen to keep them and that they lead by example.
1680
I thank my noble friend Lord Bassam of Brighton for the way in which he has conducted the dialogue on this Bill. As promised, my noble friend and his colleagues have kept their door open so that alternative views can be discussed. We should be proud that at last we have a listening government.
The Government's handling of this Bill has been exemplary. In the course of the dialogue they have listened. Their announcement shows that they have also acted. I commend my noble friend on that. I express a debt of gratitude to all noble Lords who contributed to this Bill and especially to the noble Lord, Lord Lester, whose knowledge of the Race Relations Act is second to none. He spoke not only with the vested interest of the architect of the Act itself, but as someone who cares passionately about fighting discrimination and promoting human rights.
I also pay tribute to the officers of the CRE for their close working with the Government in this matter. This Bill is the first major piece of legislation in the field of race relations since 1976. It follows three reviews of the Race Relations Act by the CRE, which went largely ignored by previous Home Secretaries.
The CRE's latest review in 1998 recommended some 50 changes to make the Act stronger and more effective. This Bill has a long way to go in realising those aims. But this step taken by the Government should be applauded. It makes our country a better place to live for all its citizens.
Your Lordships may be aware that the chairman of the CRE, Sir Herman Ouseley, will be retiring from that position in the very near future. I believe that this Bill will serve as a tribute to his reputation as someone who has stood up and can be counted on when fighting for racial equality. The Government's announcement could not be more timely to a man who gave all of his time and eloquence seeking equity and justice.
I am pleased for the many millions of people who have over many years suffered discrimination on racial grounds in whatever form. If anyone deserves a tribute for perseverance in the face of adversity it is the black community, which has been the victim of both direct and indirect discrimination.
I said in Committee that I believed that this Bill had the potential to be one of the Government's flagship Bills. It has kindled the beacon of equality about which the Home Secretary spoke in another place last year. It is now the responsibility of all to see that the beacon burns brightly as an example to Europe and beyond for many generations to come.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, I would like to echo the tributes which have been paid to my noble friend for the work that he has done on this Bill and indeed for all that he has done to promote racial equality going back over a period of 25 or more years and for most of the time that I have been in political life. I remember very well the signal contribution that he made to the original Race Relations Act in the middle 1970s. Because he has been involved in every single piece of legislation since then, the words that he has spoken

1681
both in this House and in the discussions we have had with the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, have fallen on receptive ears.
I thank not only my noble friend but also the Home Office and the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, not just for what he has done on the Floor of the House, but for the careful way in which he has listened to representations 'behind the scenes and brought in experts to take account of the views which your Lordships have expressed. I believe that we should be tremendously grateful to the Home Office. It is not very often that I find myself saying these nice things about the Home Office, but this is one occasion on which we can be completely unreserved in expressing our gratitude for the way in which it has handled the discussions on this Bill and its final outcome, which seems to be wholly admirable.
With some hesitation, perhaps I may add one word to what my noble friend said as regards the stopping and searching of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Stepney. From reading the account of that incident in the newspaper, it seems that the police acted unlawfully. It is clear that when the Bishop asked the police why they had stopped him they had no reason whatsoever to do so. But they went further and required the right reverend Prelate to open the boot of his car when they had no possible excuse for that action.
I believe that disciplinary action should be taken against police officers who exceed their responsibilities and step outside the law on stop and search which is perfectly plain. One has to have a reasonable excuse for believing that a law has been broken before someone is stopped. In the case of the right reverend Prelate there was no such excuse.
That matter aside, I repeat that we have an excellent offer from the Government. It would be churlish not to accept their condition that they need a little more time to put it in place. I am perfectly happy with the solution that the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, offered, with the rider suggested by my noble friend that if anyone wants to return to this matter they can do so at Third Reading. I believe that the Rouse should be well content.
Baroness Whitaker: My Lords, in adding my congratulations to those of Members on all sides of the House on the responsiveness of my noble friend, I should like to add one point. He is responding to a much more diverse House than during the passage of the previous race relations legislation. He has taken full advantage of the range of experience that your Lordships have and which can be called on. That fact should now stand the Government in good stead for future legislation. When we come to consider the future of this Bill I hope that, with the experience of my noble friends, we can also look at the definition of public authorities That has not been mentioned and I would not seek to raise it in any amplified way now.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, having received words of praise from all corners of your Lordships' House, I feel humbled. There has been a
1682
most unusual and exceptional outbreak of friendship within the Chamber and we should be grateful for it. I am sure that it will last as long as it needs to. The noble Earl, Lord Russell, said that he wanted to express his intense pleasure. I have never before experienced his intense pleasure and it is a most welcome circumstance. I am delighted with your Lordships' response.
The noble Lord, Lord Cope, said that he was still to be convinced, but he seems to take a lot of convincing either way. In Committee, he was not convinced by the Government's answers in the other direction, stating:
"I do not believe that to he a strong argument".—[Offical Report, 11/1/00; col. 566.]
At col. 567, he said of the Government's position:
My conclusion is that if the Government want to persevere with the clause in its present form [indirect discrimination not being taken into account] they must make a much better case than they have so far".
Which way does he want it? Does he support the Government in their development of policy as set out today or is he against the policy development? I fail to understand where Members opposite are coming from on this.
I had hoped that they would join with us in seeing this as an important area of policy development. It is worth reminding your Lordships that for 18 years we had no legislation or commitment from the Conservative government towards improving the quality and nature of race relations. We went through some traumatic times on race relations matters. I well remember the impact of the Scarman Report and the many things it revealed to us about ourselves. Surely, that was a golden opportunity for the Conservative government to consider their position and improve and strengthen race relations. They did not and consistently failed to do so.
We have now brought forward legislation which addresses many serious issues rightly raised in the context of the Macpherson Report and the inquiry into the death of Stephen Lawrence. This is an historic opportunity and we need to grasp it. In the changes that we have announced that we shall bring forward in another place we have demonstrated that we have done exactly that.
Perhaps I may comment on the remarks of the right reverend Prelate and his concerns about stop and search in order to clarify the Government's position. We always believed that what we had in terms of the draft Bill, and what was contained in earlier legislation, dealt directly with the effects of what in most circumstances might be perceived as direct discrimination emanating from certain police operations and actions. We believe that to be the case. What we have announced today does not change the situation. We remain convinced that stop and search is a highly valid, effective method of police intervention to prevent criminality in all forms. That remains the case and we fully support it. What we have announced today changes nothing in regard to the way in which the police work. Fears have been whipped up by others inside and outside this Chamber and they are wrong to address the issue in that way.

1683
Perhaps at the outset of my announcement I was not as generous in my thanks as I might have been. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Lester, should be greatly thanked for his work on the Bill in this Chamber and behind the scenes. During our exchanges I learnt a great deal. I am not a lawyer—I do not have the benefit of a legal training—but I have appreciated the issues that have been raised, almost in the sense of a tutorial, and I have benefited greatly.
I also want to pay tribute to Members on the Labour Benches who made their views clear to me. They described them most candidly in your Lordships' House and raised important points privately. We have benefited from their wisdom and advice and that should not be underestimated. I pay particular tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Howells, who speaks from a rich experience, as I said on Second Reading. Her contributions have been very telling.
I hope that today in the further consideration of other issues and amendments we can move forward in a spirit of good will. It is an area of public policy making that requires that. We want fundamentally to change the way in which race relations work and are affected by legislation and there are important gains to be made here. None of us can afford to tolerate racism in any form, shape or manner. This legislation will help to empower people and authorities in tackling that and it will provide a positive platform on which we in government, the public service generally and those committed to improving the quality of race relations work in future. For those reasons, I am happy to have made the announcement today.
On Question, Motion agreed to; Report received.
4.15 p.m.
Clause 1 [Discrimination by police and other public authorities]:
Lord Lester of Herne Hill Lord Lester of Herne Hill moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1. line 9, leave out from ("a") to ("to") in line 11 and insert ("public authority").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 1, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 3 to 7, 11 and 13. We have had several full debates on the issue, so perhaps I may summarise them and suggest a practical solution.
The amendments are designed to replace Schedule 1, which gives a list of public authorities that would be subject to the extended Race Relations Act and to the duty that will be included when the Bill is amended in another place, with a substituted list giving the generic definition contained in Amendment No. 11. That amendment contains a general definition of "public authority" and comes from Section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998. It provides that:
"'public authority' includes any person certain of whose functions are functions of a public nature, but does not include either House of Parliament or a person exercising functions in connection with proceedings in Parliament".
The schedule is much wider than the equivalent schedule in the Northern Ireland Act. The schedule in that Act leaves a great deal of scope for ministerial
1684
discretion as to whether particular government departments—for example, the Home Office or the Lord Chancellor's Department—are to be added as public authorities and subject to the public policy duty to eliminate discrimination and to promote equality in the Northern Ireland Act.
The schedule in the Bill is broader and does not leave scope for such loopholes to be filled by ministerial discretion. However, a significant problem remains about the schedule. What happens when a privatised body is exercising public functions, which is not in the schedule even as presently drafted? The problem is that there is then a gap between the Human Rights Act, which forbids discrimination in relation to convention rights, broadly defines "public authority" and would cover a privatised body exercising public functions, and the Race Relations Act. That Act is a specific implementation of the Human Rights Act in the race discrimination sphere.
The amendments present your Lordships with an either/or choice; either have a specific list in the schedule or have a generic definition. The advantage of the Government's action arises in relation to a public duty, because when another place incorporates that duty into the Bill it will want to link it with defined public authorities. That is a very good reason for having a scheduled list.
On the other hand, in my view one also needs to have a catch-all, general definition which covers the privatised public authorities. In other words, I believe that one needs the schedule which these amendments would leave out, but one also needs the generic definition which Amendment No. 11 would put in. I thought about that only relatively recently. I confess that I had been prompted to do so by a little bird in the Home Office, if not one who speaks on behalf of the Government today. Therefore, the Government must not be bound by it, but the idea came as a result of my discussions. I believe that the answer to the problem may lie in keeping the scheduled list, but adding Amendment No. 11. One cannot do that with the amendments as they stand because they present the House with an either/or choice. I hope that I have sufficiently explained the issues. I beg to move.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Lester, has answered one of the questions that concerned me at Committee; that is, what was the practical difference between the two ways of defining the public authorities to whom the Bill is to apply. The practical difference appears to lie in privatised bodies exercising a public function. Clearly, it is right that through this legislation a privatised body which exercises public functions should not be placed in a different position from a public body which exercises the same functions. I believe that that is what lies behind it.
However, the solution now being offered by the noble Lord, Lord Lester, seems to me, if I may say so, a typical Home Office solution. It did not surprise me that he had been inspired to make that decision through conversation; that is, if we are not quite sure which is the best definition, let us have the belt and

1685
braces and make sure that both are included. That may be the right way to proceed. In some respects it is an abstruse legal point. We all sit in this Chamber as though in a seminar. I find myself in the same position as the Minister, learning more about the law as we go along. We have all learned that common law and other measures apply. Nevertheless, it is obviously neater that it should be in statute law as we are revising the statute law on this occasion.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, I believe that we are all in the same position of sitting at the feet of my noble friend in this seminar or tutorial to which the noble Lord, Lord Cope, referred. I believe that the last suggestion that was made is extremely ingenious because it gets round the objection that the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, put to us when we discussed the matter in Committee. However, one must have certainty in placing the duty on public authorities, as we intend to do. My noble friend's suggestion of having the two sets of definitions seems to get round that point. At the same time, it takes care of the point about which I was anxious and which I should like to repeat; that is, if we did not have the catch-all or generic definition, there could be a danger of mismatch between this legislation and the Human Rights Act.
The noble Lord, Lord Bassam, kindly wrote to me after the Committee stage. He said that the situation which I foresaw was unlikely to arise, and that there would be some difference in the way that the Human Rights Act and this legislation would apply. He said that if the situation did arise then of course the order-making power could be used to add the body to the schedule at the earliest opportunity. Therefore, any loophole could be closed quickly. I am not sure that that is completely satisfactory because, the timetable of Parliament being what it is, it may not always be possible to lay orders instantaneously. Therefore, there could be a period of time in which that kind of gap could exist between the two pieces of legislation.
If the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, will allow me to quote from his letter, I should like to lay before your Lordships another point which he made:
"Because of the differing natures of the RRA [Race Relations Act] and the HRA [Human Rights Act], it might not always be necessary to take such action. It would not necessarily be the case, if a court found that a body was carrying out functions of a public nature in the context of the HRA, that it would be necessary for that body to be listed in the Schedule to the RR(A)B [Race Relations (Amendment) Bill] in order for the function to be covered by the RRA. That would depend on whether or not the functions in question were already fully covered by provisions in the existing RRA. We would wish to take each case—if there were any—on its … merits".
I have tried to construe that paragraph. I spent a few minutes carefully examining the Race Relations Act, but could not for the life of me imagine the circumstances which the Minister was outlining. I believe that it would be helpful if the Minister could tell us this afternoon how a court could find that a body was carrying out functions of a public nature, yet it would not be necessary to extend the schedule so that
1686
that body was listed. I am sure that it would be most useful if the noble Lord could explain that to the House, as we would know whether or not a gap exists.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the Government considered carefully the points made by noble Lords at Committee stage on this issue. I note again what has been said this afternoon. However, we continue to believe that the approach that we have adopted in defining public authorities is the right one. Our main reason for maintaining that belief is that there is a need for clarity. If one looks at the schedule, it is crystal clear what is intended by way of definition. We believe that that remains the best way to deal with the matter. If a body is on the list, it is clear what is to be covered. There can be no argument about that. The noble Lord, Lord Lester, in a sense has anticipated one of the issues on which we wished to be clear; that is, it will be much easier to use the schedule if we move forward a positive duty to promote race equality. I believe that the noble Lord accepts that point and that he probably did so from the outset.
Of course, it is true that the Government believe that on balance the broad definition approach is right for the Human Rights Act. Obviously, we retain that position. While a list approach would have brought clarity there too, we judged—and we took that consideration on board at the time—that it would he inappropriate as we wanted to keep the definition broad so that domestic legislation would always be in step with developments in case law in Strasbourg.
However, it does not follow, as night follows day, that that approach is right for the Race Relations (Amendment) Bill or, for that matter, for the Freedom of Information Bill. Using the human rights approach in the context of this Bill would mean that it might not be at all obvious to public bodies how and whether the Bill affects them. The schedule approach makes it much clearer. We believe that such clarity is essential if the Bill is to work properly and effectively.
The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, raised the question of correspondence and, if I may, I shall try to deal with his point. He raised the issue of what might happen if the courts find that a body is a public authority for the purpose of the Human Rights Act, yet it is not listed in Schedule 1 to the Bill. As the noble Lord rightly drew to our attention, I wrote to him on that point. A copy of the letter has been placed in the Library of the House, where it is accessible for everyone to see. It may be useful if, again, I explain our thinking. First, we believe that it is highly unlikely that such a situation will arise because of the care that we have taken to ensure that the schedule is comprehensive. Of course, we are always open to suggestions as to how we may make it even more comprehensive than it is already.
Secondly, if such a situation arose where there was a gap, we could close the loophole quickly, as the noble Lord recognised, by using the order-making power in Section 19B(4) in Clause 1(1).
Thirdly, if a court found that a body was carrying out functions of a public nature in the context of the Human Rights Act, it would not be necessary for that

1687
body to be listed in the schedule to this Bill in order for the functions to be covered by the Race Relations Act. That would depend on whether or not the functions in question were already fully covered by the existing provisions of the Race Relations Act. All in all, we want to take each case on its merits.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, that is the point which I was seeking to elucidate. I was asking the noble Lord to give me an example of a case which is fully covered by the Race Relations Act and which therefore, when it came before the courts under the Human Rights Act, was deemed unnecessary by the Government to extend the schedule accordingly.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the point which the letter tried to convey was that some public authorities are already wholly covered by the Act; for example, education bodies are comprehensively covered and are also listed in Part III.
I believe that we can rely on the safety of the list. The noble Lord, Lord Lester, suggests that we should have an each-way bet on this to ensure that we are fully covered. I shall read with interest in Hansard what he said about that. I am not making any commitments one way or the other. But we are confident that the approach which we have adopted is sufficiently rigorous and thorough. On the basis of taking what we have said on trust, I hope that the noble Lord will be happy to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, I wonder whether I may clarify the position. I realise, to be fair to him, that he is dealing with an argument which arose from what I said rather than from the amendments in their present form.
But is it not the case that the list in the schedule at the moment does not include every body within the broad definition in Section 6 of the Human Rights Act, including a privatised body that is exercising functions of a public nature? That is the first question. I am sure that it is common ground that the schedule definition, although very broad, does not include as wide a group of public bodies as does the Human Rights Act.
Secondly, if it is right that there is that gap, what is the policy objection to keeping the schedule, which is clear and certain, for use with the public duty amendment but having a catch-all provision where one is not concerned necessarily with the public duty but with forbidding direct and indirect discrimination by public authorities?
Perhaps I may ask the Minister to look with an open mind at that point because it may be desirable to return on Third Reading with a different kind of amendment which keeps the schedule but also has a generic catch-all definition. Is he willing to undertake to consider that point as a different approach?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I understand the questions which the noble Lord is raising. It is
1688
common ground that the Government agree that private bodies exercising public functions should be covered by the Act in respect of those functions. We believe that the Bill as drafted allows such bodies to be added to the schedule. It is the Government's intention to do so. We should wish to consult widely on any such order.
The approach which the noble Lord has suggested this afternoon was not, as he says, the original general approach that he was going to suggest to us. I have listened carefully to his comments. As I said earlier, I am happy to consider what he has said and I shall read Hansard very carefully. I can see the beauty of his solution but other considerations may well apply.
We do not see any great difficulty in adding to the schedule. That is a simple and effective way of broadening the definition. But I undertake to have another look, without any commitment, at this matter. I appreciate the comments which the noble Lord has made and the points he has raised on this issue. I suggest that that is the best we can do this afternoon. I should be happier if we could leave the matter there.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the Minister for his reply. Without repeating what has been said, perhaps I may try to clarify for the last time today what this is really about.
I take as a hypothetical example a privatised prison organisation. Let us assume that that privatised prison organisation discriminates on racial grounds against a prisoner and the prisoner brings proceedings against the privatised prison body. Let us assume that the privatised prison body is not listed in the schedule, but there is no doubt that under the Human Rights Act, it would be a public authority which must not discriminate against somebody in the enjoyment of the right to liberty or something of that kind. Let us now assume that that victim brings proceedings against the privatised prison authority. What the Minister's letter to my noble friend Lord Avebury means is that there would then have to be case law to determine whether or not that privatised body was exercising a function which fell within Section 20 of the existing Race Relations Act.
I can only say, having read all the cases on Section 20, that the case law is in a complete mess and the case would have to go to the House of Lords. The correctness of the Re Amin decision would have to be reconsidered. That is what the Minister's letter really amounts to because one could not tell, without analysing all that case law, whether or not it was within Section 20.
The remedy given by the Government is to add to the schedule that body which I assume is not there already. That does no good for the victim because the victim's case will fail because the body has not already been included in the schedule. So there is a completely ridiculous gap and there will be a lot of litigation for no good reason.
Therefore, it seems to me that the solution is to distinguish between the positive duty which needs to be linked to the schedule and the general duty not to

1689
discriminate, with a remedy which needs also to have a generic definition. I hope that I have clarified where I stand on this. Therefore, I propose to reflect on this, as will, I am sure, the Government and then see whether it is possible to agree or, if we disagree, to return on Third Reading with an amendment which puts forward an option different from that suggested today. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 2 to 7 not moved.]
Lord Lester of Herne Hill Lord Lester of Herne Hill moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 2, line 21 at end insert—
("(9) Nothing in this section shall make unlawful any measures appropriate and necessary to meet the special needs of persons of a particular racial group or any measures designed to prevent or compensate for disadvantages suffered by persons of that racial group.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I think I am right in saying that the Government have already indicated in previous debates that they are sympathetic to the need for an amendment along these lines to widen the circumstances in which positive action can be taken to meet the special needs of persons of a particular racial group or any measures designed to prevent, or to compensate for, disadvantages suffered by persons of that racial group.
The amendment permits public authorities to take proportionate measures to ensure that the special needs of racial groups are met. It supplements the ability of public authorities to justify policies and schemes that are intended to benefit particular communities.
In Committee the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, said that he "saw merit- in the amendment and would like to take it away to consider. Section 35 of the 1976 Act allows positive action as regards access by ethnic minorities to facilities or services to meet their special needs in the context of education, welfare and ancillary benefits. As it stands, the section is too narrow and too confined in scope. Our amendment would expand the ability of public authorities to take positive action when appropriate to meet the needs of a particular racial group.
Where special measures are targeted on grounds such as language, employment history and prospects, or length of residence, that could potentially constitute indirect discrimination. That was one of the Government's objections to widening the law to cover indirect discrimination. The amendment will enhance the Government's ability to take special measures and reduce the possibility of spurious and misconceived cases.
The amendment reflects the European Commission's proposal for a racial equality directive. As I understand it, that directive has strong support within the Government and there is a similar exception in the directive. New Zealand has a similar piece of
1690
legislation in Section 73(2) of the Human Rights Act 1993, and I understand that Ireland is introducing a similar provision in its Equal Status Bill. So there is solid support for an amendment of this kind. I beg to move.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, I realise that there is a connection between this amendment and Amendment No. 2, which was not moved. That amendment dealt with indirect discrimination to which the noble Lord, Lord Lester, drew attention. My only doubt about this amendment is whether it is necessary. We know that any proper reason for an action—I do not refer to discriminating racially—is not covered by the Bill or the 1976 legislation. I share with the noble Lord, Lord Lester, the desire to avoid spurious and misconceived cases clogging up the courts and everybody's time. If it is necessary to achieve that, perhaps we need a provision of this character in the Bill. However, it seems to me that the principle, at least, is covered in the 1976 legislation and, therefore, in this legislation. If it is required, we should consider it, but I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, has reflected on it as he promised and we shall hear the results of his reflection now.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, as I explained when debating this amendment in Committee, it would allow positive action to be taken in the functions of public authorities to which Section 19B applies. The aim of positive action is to create a level playing field. The amendment broadly follows the approach taken in Section 35 of the Act which provides for positive action in relation to the access of racial groups to facilities or services to meet their special and individual needs in the context of education, training, welfare, or any ancillary benefits. In fact, there is a degree of overlap between this amendment and Section 35.
In Committee I agreed, as has been acknowledged, to give further consideration to this amendment. In view of the Government's decision to bring forward an amendment to extend Section 19B to include indirect discrimination, we need to consider the amendment further—as we are doing—in that context. To the noble Lords, Lord Lester and Lord Cope, I say that it would help all of us if this amendment were withdrawn. We need to reflect on it further. We need to engage in more discussions on how to bring forward something that is fit for the purpose. I am grateful to the noble Lord for tabling the amendment, but if lie will take that explanation as gospel I shall happily do some more work on the matter so that it fits with other parts of the emerging legislation.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, the word "grateful" will appear so often in this debate that those who have to report our words in Hansard will become tired of having to set it out. I am genuinely grateful. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill Lord Lester of Herne Hill moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 2, leave out lines 22 to 25 and insert—
("(1) Nothing in section 19B shall render unlawful any act done by a relevant person in carrying out immigration and nationality functions in affording persons of a particular nationality, religion, or ethnic or national origin special treatment on humanitarian grounds.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 9 stands in my name and those of the noble Baronesses, Lady Prashar and Lady Howells. In previous debates I have said a great deal about this matter. I shall not repeat what I have said. The Minister sent me two letters explaining the position within the Home Office. Having read the letter of 26th January I now understand better than I did before what the concerns are of the Immigration and Nationality Directorate. However, I am still concerned about the great breadth of the exception, as it stands, in authorising ethnic discrimination in respect of any aspect of immigration control or the conferring of naturalisation and the effect that that may have in damaging the good reputation of the Immigration Service.
I have already expressed those views, and I believe it would be more sensible not to add to my comments—I know other noble Lords wish to speak to this amendment—but to listen to the Minister's explanation. No doubt he will put on record the substance of his letters to me and consider the matter further. I beg to move.
Baroness Prashar: My Lords, before I speak to this amendment I want to congratulate the Government on the two announcements that have been made. The extension of indirect discrimination to public authorities is particularly welcome. However, on this issue, to date I have heard no clear or convincing case for the exception that would allow Ministers of the Crown and immigration officials to discriminate on grounds of ethnic and national origin. Nothing that has been put forward has convinced me. I have carefully studied the Minister's letter to the noble Lord, Lord Lester, which was placed in the Library, and that has concerned me even more. I shall quote the paragraph that causes me concern:
"It has also become clear during the course of our examination that it is also necessary on some occasions for the Immigration Service to differentiate between individuals on the basis of their ethnic or national origin. As an example, from time to time, the Immigration Service detects Chinese nationals with falsified documents that misrepresent them as Malaysian or Singaporean nationals of Chinese ethnic origin. Were this problem to grow significantly, it would be necessary for the Immigration Service to scrutinise with particular care the documents presented by these nationals of Chinese ethnic origin and to interview them".
I see the problem. My concern is that that would actually perpetuate stereotyping and that needs further consideration. Furthermore, in my view, this exception is incompatible with the principle of non-discrimination that the legislation is designed to serve. It will undermine the confidence of ethnic minorities in the legislation. I, for one, have vivid memories of the case of the East African Asians who, in 1968, were treated differently on grounds of their ethnic and national origin. As noble Lords know, the matter was
1692
taken to Strasbourg. That has had a long-lasting adverse effect both on ethnic minorities and on race relations generally.
Exceptions in immigration, as other matters, should be based on objective considerations, such as conditions in countries of origin or fear of persecution, and not on ethnic or national origins. I fear that this blanket exception will give unfettered power to Ministers of the Crown and immigration officials to discriminate on grounds of ethnic or national origin, which may be administratively convenient but in my view is totally unacceptable on any other reasonable grounds. For that reason, I urge the Minister to reconsider the position.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, the noble Baroness referred to the case of the Chinese who were detected at immigration presenting documents purporting that they were of Malaysian or Singaporean nationality. Can the Minister explain that a little further?
If those people were asylum seekers coming from the People's Republic of China, clearly they had good reason for presenting those documents because they would not be able to leave China and come to the United Kingdom as refugees using Chinese passports. As the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, knows well, the problem of false documents has been dealt with extensively on the Floor of the House and in the courts. It has been ruled that the presentation of false documents by an asylum seeker is not a criminal offence and that consideration of it must be deferred until the end of the asylum process. I am mystified, therefore, that the Minister should give that example in support of the Home Office policy on discrimination by the Immigration Service.
Conversely, I can see every argument for a provision such as that suggested by my noble friend because there are instances where the Immigration Service positively discriminates in favour of certain nationalities. For example, it is well known that the ports at entry treat Somali nationals favourably because they know what the situation is in Somalia. There is no proper government and people who belong to the wrong group are at risk of being killed by armed factions. Therefore, great sympathy is applied in consideration of applications for asylum by Somali nationals. More or less all of them are accepted as qualifying for exceptional leave to remain, and I have no quarrel with that when I look at the situation in their country of origin. But if it is necessary to allow that kind of thing to happen explicitly, a provision should be put on the face of the Bill while we have the opportunity.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, I too had the opportunity, thanks to the courtesy of the Minister, to see the letter of 26th January to the noble Lord, Lord Lester. On the whole I found it helpful in explaining what the Government were attempting to achieve.
The noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, quoted the example (given in the letter) of Chinese nationals with false documents. I make a distinction—it has been made many times before both in this House and

1693
elsewhere—between those who, for obvious reasons, are obliged to travel on false documents (or for that matter with no documents) and those who when they arrive attempt to deceive our Immigration Service by presenting false documents. It may be that they do not realise the quality of our Immigration Service or the way in which it works. But that is a different matter from someone escaping from China or some other country where they are being persecuted. To arrive here and attempt to gain entry on false documents needs a lot more explanation. That is why the Home office is concerned, and the Minister indicates concern in his letter, that the Immigration Service should be able to scrutinise entry particulars carefully on arrival. It is not only the Chinese, of course; there will be comparable cases from other parts of the world from time to time.
Lord Bassani( of Brighton: My Lords, your Lordships will recall that when the House debated this matter in Committee, I explained the Government's view that the proposed amendment would leave the immigration system without adequate legal protection. I also explained why we considered it necessary to retain the existing proposed exemption for immigration and nationality functions in Clause 1, new Section 19C. The effect of the amendment would be to remove the existing formulation and replace it with a much narrower provision covering special treatment on humanitarian grounds.
I made clear our view that the existing legal safeguards provided in Section 41 of the Race Relations Act 1976 would be insufficient to allow the immigration system, which necessarily involves some discrimination on grounds of nationality or, on occasions, ethnic or national origin, to continue to operate as Parliament intended. The Government's view has been informed and supported by the case law.
Any system of immigration control necessarily involves discrimination on grounds of nationality. I hope that there is now common agreement on the need for an exemption that allows immigration staff and Ministers to discriminate on grounds of nationality where such discrimination is properly authorised or required.
I understand the noble Lord's concerns about the exemption for immigration and nationality functions in relation to discrimination on grounds of ethnic or national origins. Noble Lords will recall that in Committee I undertook that the Government would look again at these issues in detail. It is for that reason that the correspondence referred to was conducted.
We carefully considered whether the exemption in relation to ethnic or national origin is necessary and if so, whether it should be narrowed. As I explained earlier, that was the purpose of our correspondence; that is, to advise Members of our considerations and to try to be helpful. We concluded that the exemption in its current form in Clause 1, new Section 19C, is necessary and that there is no real scope for restricting it further. There is at least one precedent for Parliament permitting distinctions to be made by reference to a person's origin in this context; namely,
1694
Section 41(3)(a) of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 which re-enacts an amendment made to the Immigration (Carriers' Liability) Act 1987 made by the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993.
As I made clear in Committee, we believe that the exemption is necessary to allow the immigration system to handle asylum applications and cases requiring exceptional treatment on compassionate grounds. The noble Lord made clear his view that the courts would not find that the Home Office had acted unlawfully in cases where differential treatment had been provided to different ethnic or national groups because of the situation in their countries of origin. However, as I also made clear, we simply cannot afford any degree of ambiguity to arise in relation to the immigration and asylum system. We are required in practice to operate policies that are country specific, and to treat applications alike without always considering the individual circumstances of a person falling within the relevant ethnic or national group and who is from the country concerned.
I listened with care and interest to what the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, had to say in support of the amendment. Although in a historical sense I can understand her concerns about the issue, it has become clear to us during the course of our examination of the situation that it is necessary, on some occasions, for the Immigration Service to differentiate between individuals on the basis of their ethnic or national origins. I shall go through the example I gave in the letter again because it is important to understand it. From time to time, the Immigration Service detects Chinese nationals with falsified documents that misrepresent them as Malaysian or Singaporean nationals of Chinese ethnic origin. As has been said, were this problem to grow significantly, it would be necessary for the Immigration Service to scrutinise with particular care the documents presented by these nationals of Chinese ethnic origin and to interview them. But with 89.1 million passenger arrivals in the United Kingdom during the last financial year, of which 12.2 million were subject to immigration control, even with the best will in the world the Immigration Service does not have the capacity or the resources to interview every Malaysian or Singaporean seeking to enter the country, irrespective of their ethnic origin. An assessment of risk, based on available intelligence, must be made. Moreover, it has to be said that this risk assessment may sometimes have to be based on the ethnic or national origin of passengers. I give way.
5 p.m.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I am most grateful. I am very worried by the answer and the explanation that has been given. Perhaps I may clarify exactly what we are talking about. If one were dealing with would-be immigrants who were white—that is to say, European in appearance—who came, say, from the Russian Federation, there would be no basis to treat them differently because of their ethnic origin or the kind of grounds mentioned in the letter.

1695
The Minister is saying that because people look Chinese we must reserve the right to single them out for special treatment on the basis of their appearance—their ethnic characteristics—and the fact that they are not white. We could not do that with anyone who was white because there are no distinguishing ethnic characteristics of that kind. If that is what is being said, does not the Minister realise that that is quite different from singling out people on the basis of their country of origin or their nationality: it goes to the root of what they are and cannot help being because of their ethnicity, their colour or race. Does the Minister recognise that? Am I correctly understanding what is said in the letter and what is being said by him today?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am trying to explain to the House that, yes, there will be some circumstances where, on the basis of careful intelligence and a risk assessment, we have to make that judgment based on what is perceived as an individual's ethnicity.
Perhaps I may develop the point further. During 1999, the Immigration Service detected more than 5,000 attempts to enter the United Kingdom using forged or counterfeit travel documents or visas. The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, quite understandably referred to the circumstances in which someone might use documents of that sort because he is fearful of the situation in the country from which he originated and this is the best way to effect an escape. However, I urge noble Lords to accept that it is the case that scams are being operated essentially by people who are seeking to come to the United Kingdom because it is an attractive place to live and because it is in their economic interests to come here. These scams are being operated to get round the effect of our immigration legislation. That cannot be acceptable. It is in such extreme circumstances where we suspect that sort of criminality that we feel we need this exemption. That is why we are putting forward this argument.
We do not desire pro-actively to discriminate. But if we do not have the capacity to mount such operations, with a carefully thought-through risk assessment, our system of immigration control will be fundamentally weakened. We do not believe that that is desirable or that that has been Parliament's intention in the past. We do not believe that it accords with legislation that we have recently put on the statute book through the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999.
I believe that the case we have made highlights the very real challenges faced by immigration staff in performing their duties. I ask noble Lords to bear in mind the fact that they are very difficult tasks to fulfil. We take the view that immigration staff need very clear and transparent guidance to ensure that they respect the rights of others. There is no argument about that. The exemption for immigration and nationality functions in Clause 1 will provide Ministers with the framework within which to provide guidance. The latter is very important in this context and I ask noble Lords to reflect on that.
1696
As far as possible the guidance will be published for Parliament and the public to see in line with the Government's commitment to openness and very much in line with our commitment to ensure that we operate our legislation within a framework that combats racism—whether direct or indirect—in all its forms. We must have immigration procedures and practices that will be thoroughly reviewed to ensure that the only discriminatory activity that is necessary and can be justified is covered by clear guidance, approved by Ministers, and that any discriminatory activity which cannot be justified is eliminated. That must be our policy objective.
I hope that noble Lords will accept my explanation. On that basis, I also hope that the noble Lord will accept that we have considered these issues very carefully and, as a result, he will feel able to withdraw his amendment. We believe that this exemption is very important; we believe in the strength of our case; and we believe that it is right to protect the integrity of our immigration system.
Baroness Prashar: My Lords, I do not underestimate the difficulties faced by the Immigration Service—
Lord Bach: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Baroness, but I must remind the House that this is the Report stage of the Bill. I believe I am right in saying that after the Minister has responded and sat down, only the mover of the amendment may speak. I apologise, again, for interrupting the noble Baroness.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I am glad and grateful that the Minister has given his explanation, but I am very concerned about the matter. Like everyone else, I am strongly against any form of dishonesty or evasion of immigration control and in favour of firm, fair and effective immigration control. That is not in issue. I accept that the policy must be based on nationality and country of origin; and, indeed, humanitarian considerations, together with other special grounds. But what worries me—
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord, but perhaps he will bear with me for a moment.
I have explained carefully that we intend to consider and publish guidance in this field. Clearly we will have to publish such guidance and, obviously, we will have to take on board comments made by your Lordships and others. I should like to think that, in the guidance, we can tackle the concerns and issues that the noble Lord has quite properly raised on the Floor of the House this afternoon. I make that point because I believe it might help the noble Lord in determining how he wishes to proceed with the amendment.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, guidelines are crucial and they must be transparent. I also believe that they should be subject to parliamentary scrutiny and approval. I add the words "and approval" because

1697
I think that this is quite an exceptional situation where Parliament should act as a watchdog over any approval of ethnic discrimination of this kind. However, perhaps may try to explain why I am so concerned.
Everyone in this House understands that the police must not use their stop and search powers on the basis of racist assumptions. But if they cannot stop black people because of their ethnicity, they cannot take a short cut and say, for example, with regard to the Chinese, "We think that there is a great deal of criminality of a particular kind among the Chinese community, so anyone who looks Chinese will be stopped and searched for the very important function of detecting and prosecuting crime". The Home Office has accepted, and we have accepted in this legislation, that that conduct must be unlawful.
It is unconscionable for a public officer to treat one person worse than another in exercising the powers of the state because of that person's ethnicity. There is no difference between ethnicity and a person's colour. If you look Chinese, it does not matter whether it is because you look yellow or have Chinese features; it is to do with characteristics that you cannot help. For the Immigration Service to stop and search in precisely that way on the basis of ethnic stereotyping is, I suggest, equally unacceptable. No guidelines are going to make it acceptable.
The point is that as a matter of principle immigration officers should not be stopping, searching and interviewing people differently because they are black, Chinese or because of any other ethnic reason. I very much hope that between now and Third Reading we will be able to find an appropriate form of words. It would be very sad if the Bill were to leave this House with a very important fundamental principle still being contentious.
I am very grateful for the letter and the explanation I have received, but I still think it is contrary to the very principles of the legislation to allow immigration officers to treat people differently because they look Chinese any more than because they come from the Caribbean and they are black. I see that we are dealing not with colour discrimination but ethnic discrimination. For the reasons I have given, I do not think that this is acceptable. The noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley, very helpfully throughout these debates has taken exactly the same point of principle, distinguishing between ethnicity and nationality. We all see the reasons why the Home Office must distinguish on the basis of nationality, country of origin and humanitarian considerations. I very much hope that we can make progress on this between now and Third Reading to find a form of words which will give the Home Office all the protection it needs without undermining the very principles of the legislation. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 3, line 12, leave out from ("or") to end of line 13 and insert ("where such a decision has been made, to any act done for the purpose of making a decision about instituting criminal proceedings."").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the Government's policy objective with Section 19B of Clause 1 will preserve the role of the criminal court as the sole forum for determining guilt, while keeping the exemption in Section 19B as narrow as possible. I think there is agreement on all sides that this is a proper and necessary objective.
At Committee stage the noble Lord, Lord Lester, brought forward an important amendment to narrow this exemption. I said in Committee that the Government felt that the clause was broader than would be ideal and I indicated that we would wish to bring forward an amendment which would meet our concerns in relation to the decision-making process while narrowing the exemption as much as possible. I believe that the Government's amendment achieves that objective.
It is intended to leave significant but remote acts such as the initial arrest itself and, where appropriate, the gathering and assessment of evidence subject to Section 19B. However, it would continue to provide the protection that we believe is necessary for acts done for the purpose of making a decision about instituting criminal proceedings which may result in any decision not to prosecute.
The Government believe that if the role of the criminal court as the sole forum for determining guilt is to be preserved it is every bit as important to protect such acts from action under Section 19B as it is to protect the decision not to prosecute. As was acknowledged on all sides at Committee stage, there is a balance to be struck between two laudable aims and objectives. On the one hand, there is the need to ensure that individuals have a right to a remedy where discrimination has taken place and, on the other hand, there is the need to ensure that matters of criminal guilt are determined in the criminal court. I believe that this amendment strikes the right balance and on that basis I would commend it to your Lordships. I beg to move.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, we welcome and strongly support this amendment. It tightens the language in a satisfactory manner. It reduces the scope of immunity from racist acts to the minimum necessary to protect the rights of the accused. We therefore support the amendment.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Lester, is much more able to judge the effect of the amendment than I am. I just wish to probe for a few moments what it actually achieves, because I am not quite clear. The amendment refers to the purpose of making a decision about instituting criminal proceedings, but at least some of the actions of the police in the course of the investigation will be about deciding whether or not an individual committed the

1699
offence which is being investigated. They will be gathering evidence, looking at alibis and many other things. They will be asking themselves in the first place: did this man or woman commit the offence? Have we got the right suspect? Secondly, they may well ask themselves: if we have got the right suspect can we bring the case to court successfully and should we institute criminal proceedings?
Many of their actions in interviewing a person, even in arresting somebody, seems to me to be about trying to decide whether they have indeed got the right suspect and whether they have sufficient evidence to institute criminal proceedings. I am not quite clear therefore that any act done for the purposes of making a decision on instituting criminal proceedings does not actually also cover a large part of police investigation. Certainly it would be arguable in many cases in court.
In probing what these things mean and why they are necessary I do not necessarily want to be taken as having gone along with the proposition made here. The noble Lord, Lord Lester, said in connection with the last amendment that I had been concerned about ethnicity and immigration during our Committee stage debates. However, I was actually probing at that stage as to whether or not ethnicity was a necessary consideration in regard to immigration. I was neither supporting nor rejecting that proposition, but one does need to understand the legislation to make sure that the Government are achieving what they wish to achieve. The same principle applies to this amendment.
I do not want the actions of the police to be impeded, as it were, by legislation of this character when they are making a decision about criminal proceedings. However, I am not quite sure whether the actual wording of this amendment achieves that aim. An act done for the purpose of making a decision about instituting criminal proceedings seems to me to include many of the activities of the police.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am not quite sure what further reassurance I can offer the noble Lord other than to reflect that it is necessary in some cases, for the purposes of gathering and assessing evidence, to conduct matters in the way that we are suggesting, particularly where criminal proceedings are to be instituted, and which may ultimately result in a decision not to prosecute. In such cases the act would be exempt, as it rightly should.
The noble Lord raises an understandable concern, but I think we have addressed that and I felt that we had matched pretty accurately the commitment that was made to the noble Lord, Lord Lester, at Committee stage which achieves our objective in relation to the decision-making process leading up to the taking of a decision about instituting criminal proceedings but without excluding all acts leading to a decision not to prosecute. On that basis—
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, I do apologise for interrupting the noble Lord, but can he tell me whether it is the Government's wish that the actions of the
1700
police in interviewing somebody, in assessing an alibi and so on, should be relieved by Section 19B from the provisions of this Bill, as expressed in that section?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, without wishing to be too precise, as I understand it, that is our intention. I hope that that helps the noble Lord.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 11 not moved.]
Schedule 1 [Public Authorities]:
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 10, line 26. at end insert—
("(4) Sub-paragraphs (1) and (2) shall not take effect until the Scottish Parliament have approved the provisions of this Act which cover matters devolved under the Scotland Act 1998.").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, this amendment concerns Scotland. We debated this matter in Committee. The Bill covers some devolved responsibilities, notably criminal justice. The Government have corresponded with the Scottish Executive and have apparently received the latter's blessing for the changes that are involved. However, the Government have not consulted the Scottish Parliament on the matter. The Minister sent a helpful letter to my noble friend Lord Cope explaining why the Government had not done so. However, I still have some anxieties on this matter.
Concern has been expressed in Scotland that the Immigration and Asylum Bill, as it then was, gave the Home Secretary powers to rehouse asylum seekers in Scotland without consulting the Scottish Parliament. Your Lordships will know that criminal justice and housing constitute devolved responsibilities as regards Scotland. Recently my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy tabled a Starred Question on the arrangements being made for accommodating asylum seekers in Scotland. In his reply the Minister referred to negotiations that were taking place with regard to the public and private sectors. I understand that these negotiations are being held with local authorities and, presumably, with the Scottish Executive. If housing is a devolved responsibility, how is it that the Scottish Parliament is bypassed in the negotiations just because it is not involved in procuring housing in Scotland?
The Government should clearly state their policy on this matter. During debate on the then Scotland Bill, the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, said that the Westminster Parliament,
"would not normally legislate with regard to devolved matters in Scotland without the consent of the Scottish parliament".—[Official Report, 21/7/98; col. 791.]
It seems to me that we are to a degree legislating with regard to some matters that have been devolved, but the consent of the Scottish Parliament has not been sought. I hope that the Minister will explain the position as regards criminal justice and housing responsibilities. I beg to move.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, we oppose this amendment as being inconsistent with the scheme of devolution to Scotland. Schedule 5 to the Scotland Act

1701
1998 sets out what are called "reserved matters". A reserved matter at Section L2 to Schedule 5, on page 90 of the Act, refers to,
"Equal opportunities, including the subject-matter of … the Race Relations Act 1976".
That means that responsibility for the Race Relations Act 1976 lies within the Parliament of Westminster and not within the Scottish Parliament. There is a good reason for that; namely, the right to equal treatment without racial discrimination is a fundamental civil right of every citizen of the United Kingdom which should be enjoyed in the same way in every part of the kingdom and should not be able to be diluted or varied within the quasi-federal system that Parliament has approved. It would be entirely disruptive of a scheme to implement our international obligations under the various human rights treaties were there to be any difference in that respect. Therefore, there is no point in consulting the Scottish Parliament as a matter of comity on a matter for which the Scottish Parliament cannot exercise legislative powers. For those reasons, we oppose the amendment.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, noble Lords will recall that equal opportunities legislation is reserved to the UK Parliament by the Scotland Act 1998. It is therefore for this Parliament to legislate on such matters.
The inclusion of the Scottish Administration in Schedule I to the Bill is intended to ensure that the administration in Scotland is covered by the Bill while treating its legislative powers in the same way as those of the UK Government. The Government have made clear the circumstances in which they will seek the consent of the Scottish Parliament to legislation dealing with devolved matters. These were announced by the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, in this House on 21st July 1998 at col. 791 of Hansard.
Noble Lords may wish to note that the Government have prepared guidance on the operation of the Sewel convention. This guidance was published as Devolution Guidance Note 10 on Friday 21st January and copies are available in the Library. In terms of this guidance, the consent of the Scottish Parliament will be sought where a Bill contains provisions applying to Scotland and which are for devolved purposes, or which alter the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament or the executive competence of Scottish Ministers. Consent is not required where a Bill relating to reserved matters merely contains provisions which make incidental or consequential changes to Scots law on non-reserved matters.
The consent of the Scottish Parliament to the Race Relations (Amendment) Bill as introduced to this House is not required under the terms of those arrangements. However, as noble Lords would hope and expect, there has been contact at both official and ministerial level on the application of the Bill to devolved Scottish public bodies. This contact will continue throughout the passage of the Bill. I hope that on the basis of that clarification setting out the Government's position on the matter, the noble Viscount will withdraw his amendment. It has been a
1702
helpful probing measure and I trust that our response will have satisfied him as regards the way in which we intend to proceed.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Lester, uncharacteristically, entirely missed the point of my amendment. I never suggested that anything concerning the main functions of this Bill should be devolved to Scotland. I am well aware that equal opportunities legislation and the Race Relations Act are specifically reserved to Westminster. However, the point I was making, which the Minister has partially answered, is that areas which are covered by this Bill are areas of devolved competence within the framework of criminal justice. I shall not press the matter this evening. However, between now and Third Reading I shall write to the Minister setting out the areas that cause me concern.
The Minister did not address a matter that I specifically referred to; namely, housing. I hope that he will address that matter. The Government have a perfectly reasonable policy of housing certain people in Scotland but how do the negotiations with Scottish local authorities on housing square with the devolved responsibility of the Scottish Parliament as regards housing? That is how I understand the matter, but I stand open to correction if I have misunderstood the position. I hope that the Minister will comment on that point.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, perhaps the best course would be to correspond with the noble Viscount on this matter setting out how we see these arrangements working in the light of the Sewel convention.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for those comments. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 13 not moved.]
5.30 p.m.
Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 4, line 40. leave Out ("relevant") and insert ("police").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of this government amendment is to clarify the drafting of this provision. Paragraph 4(b) of Section 76A in Clause 3 provides for the settlement of claims against a chief officer of police to be paid from the police fund if the settlement is approved by the "authority". This amendment is simply intended to make clear that the "authority" being referred to is the "police authority"—it is a technical amendment—as it is that authority which must approve any settlement paid out of the police fund. I commend this drafting amendment—that is what it is—to the House. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Cope of Berkeley Lord Cope of Berkeley moved Amendment No. 15:
Page 6, line 7, leave out ("other than damages").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, here I venture again into the legal field, with the immediate caveat that I am not a lawyer; I am here to learn as much as to do anything else.
The amendment seeks to address a matter which was of concern to us in Committee, where things got extremely complicated. It addresses the problem of the interaction between criminal proceedings, on the one hand, and civil proceedings for racial discrimination under this Bill, on the other. As the Bill presented to the House now stands, a civil court can award damages but not an injunction in a civil case for racial discrimination unless it is satisfied that there would be no prejudice to the criminal case or, for that matter, to the criminal investigation if the case was still at an earlier stage.
Under the original Bill it seemed that it might also not have been possible for the court in the civil case to grant a declaration saying, for example, that unlawful discrimination had taken place in a particular instance. Subsequently, I understood from the letter of the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, to me of 25th January that a declaration might be considered a finding rather than a remedy and, therefore, not prevented by the clauses as they stand.
The noble Lord, Lord Bassam, has also tabled Amendment No. 16, which is to be discussed with Amendments Nos. 15 and 17, and makes clear that a declaration can be given by a civil court in any case. It gives equivalent wording to cover Scotland where, of course, as usual the wording is slightly different.
Amendment No. 15 returns to a point that we discussed in Committee as to the difference between "damages" and "other remedies". As we have now dealt with the declaration issue under Amendment No. 16, it would seem that the only other remedy available is an injunction of some kind. For the benefit of the non-lawyers present, I should explain that, as I understand it, the important difference is that damages are awarded to compensate someone for a discrimination which has already taken place and which has been declared to be unlawful—they are to remedy something which has happened in the past—whereas an injunction is intended to look to the behaviour of people in the future and to prevent them continuing with the unlawful discrimination or whatever it may be. So an injunction looks to the future whereas damages, as it were, seek to remedy what has happened in the past. That is an important distinction, which I well understand.
But the underlying difficulty seems to remain. In principle we do not want a civil case to prejudice, to get in the way of, a criminal case. I said in Committee—I shall repeat it in case any noble Lords should misunderstand—that I do not take the view that every criminal case is automatically more important or more significant than any civil case can be. Clearly that is not so. There can be criminal offences of a small nature which are not very important, and there can be very serious racial discrimination involved in a civil case.
1704
The unlawful discrimination involved in a civil case may be much more important than a small theft or a small criminal offence. None the less, it seems to me that the criminal law should be, as it were, satisfied in general before the civil case comes along.
There are two ways in which this can happen under the Bill. One way is under the later provisions which provide for a stay of civil proceedings. Under those provisions the civil proceedings wait until the criminal proceedings are completed; and then they are resumed as soon as the criminal case is finished and carried through to their conclusion. However, it seems to me that even a declaration—and certainly damages—could affect a criminal case. For example, if the police were found by a civil court to have collected evidence using unlawful discrimination, surely that evidence would be tainted in the criminal case—it might even be inadmissible in the criminal case. That would be quite right if the evidence had been improperly obtained through something that was unlawful from the point of view of the Bill. However, there may be other cases where that was not so but, none the less, the declaration could affect the criminal case.
So far as concerns damages, it could be at least difficult in many cases for the civil court to assess damages if there is a related criminal case still proceeding. It seems to me that the civil court would have to wait until the criminal case was completed to know what the damages should be. The result of the criminal case will affect the decision about the amount of damages.
I am not criticising what the Government are trying to achieve, as I understand it, by these positions. I am trying to tease out, as much as I can, whether the Government have got it right and, for that matter, precisely what they are trying to achieve. As I understand it, with the aid of Amendment No. 16 they seek to achieve that someone will be able to obtain a declaration that there has been unlawful discrimination and able to obtain damages for unlawful discrimination in the past, but they will not be able to obtain an injunction to have the discrimination stopped should it take place in the future.
I am afraid it is still unclear to me why it is necessary to make such a clear distinction between these different remedies and I think it is right to share my doubts with the House. I do so by moving this probing amendment. I beg to move.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Turner of Camden): My Lords, I must inform the House that if Amendment No. 15 is agreed to I cannot call Amendment No. 16 due to pre-emption.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, the more I listen to the noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley, the more I realise that he would have made an excellent lawyer and I would have made a terrible accountant.
In speaking to his amendment and explaining why I am not in favour of it, I hope it will be convenient to the House if I speak also to Amendments Nos. 15 and 17 as they deal with a linked subject matter.

1705
The issues with which the amendments are concerned are how to preserve a fair balance between effective remedies for the victims of race discrimination, on the one hand, and preserving the integrity of criminal proceedings and the presumption of innocence, on the other. Sections (4D) and (4E) of the amended Race Relations Act would give the courts very wide protective powers to ensure that the integrity of criminal proceedings and the presumption of innocence are well safeguarded. I have every confidence in the vigilance of the courts in protecting the presumption of innocence and the integrity of the criminal process.
The objection to Amendments Nos. 15 and 17 is that they would deprive victims unnecessarily of effective remedies for race discrimination and at the same time would disable the Commission for Racial Equality—I am using shorthand in what I am saying—from having the benefit of a declaration or finding, which could be used in cases of persistent discrimination or for formal investigations. Amendment No. 15 would deprive victims of a remedy if there was a possibility of prejudice. I do not consider that an award of damages would cause prejudice given that proceedings can by stayed in any event under new Sections (4D) and (4E).
Amendment No. 16, by contrast, meets the point that was raised in Committee. It allows declarations as well as damages t o be granted, as the noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley, pointed out. That would enhance the CRE's investigative ability and answer the concerns raised in Committee. For those reasons, I oppose Amendment No. 15.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, I am grateful to him for his flattering comments. My amendment would not deprive someone of a remedy or, for that matter, a declaration, though it might postpone that remedy or whatever.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I stand corrected. It would deprive the victim of a speedy remedy in circumstances where there would be no necessity for depriving the victim of that remedy and disable the Commission for Racial Equality from being able to use its investigatory and monitoring powers. I stand corrected. The word "speedy" should be added.
Lord AveburyMy Lords, I can see only one problem. New Section (4E) states:
"Where no decision to institute criminal proceedings has been made, the court shall not grant a stay … unless it is satisfied that the continuance of those proceedings would be contrary to the public interest".
But let us suppose that the criminal proceedings are not in contemplation at the beginning of I he proceedings in the civil court, but that half-way through those proceedings the police decide, in consultation with the CPS, that there are grounds for taking criminal proceedings against an individual. In those circumstances, I do not see how new Section (4E) would come into play. The civil court would not have known that the criminal proceedings were in contemplation if
1706
that was not the situation until half way through the case was being heard in the civil court. I wonder whether that poses a difficulty for the protection of the criminal proceedings which otherwise is admirably provided by the amendment in question.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, perhaps I may help him by pointing out that new Section (4D) would apply at any time during the trial of the civil proceedings if in the course of that trial a decision were taken to institute criminal proceedings. New Section (4D) would come into play and the court would exercise its prophylactic powers if it were necessary to do so.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, with his usual wisdom, my noble friend has cleared up that point. I am very satisfied with his explanation.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I can see that, before too long, I shall be out of a job! I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lester, for his telling intervention.
The intention of new Section (4A) of Section 57 of the Act, as inserted by Clause 4 of the Bill, is to ensure as far as possible that courts are satisfied when granting a remedy that the remedy sought would not prejudice the investigative or prosecution process. There is now an understanding in the House that that is the case. This aim has, of course, to be balanced by the need to ensure as far as possible that the claimant in a civil case has access to a remedy where he or she has suffered discrimination.
The debate on this provision at the Committee stage was very useful, with helpful points made on all sides. We all learnt from that debate. The Government have considered those points and agree that, logically, damages and a declaration ought to be treated in the same way under this provision. If there is no need to restrict the court's ability to award damages, as we believe, then nor can there be any need to restrict the court's ability to make a declaration. The Government's amendment would therefore remove the restriction on the court's ability to make a declaration. I should also say that the provision as amended would also not restrict the court's ability to make a finding, since a finding is not a remedy. I do not think that it was ever the Government's intention in this instance to restrict the court's ability to make a finding since the award of damages is predicated on a finding. Nor was it the Government's intention to restrict the ability of the CRE to carry out its proper monitoring and enforcement functions under this legislation.
The Government's main concern in this matter has always been to ensure that injunctive relief is provided only where the court is satisfied that it would not prejudice the investigative or the prosecution process. The Government are proposing to leave unamended the test that should be applied when the court is considering granting injunctive relief, since they continue to believe that this is the proper test to be applied in these circumstances.

1707
The amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Cope, would, we believe, tip the balance in the wrong direction, making it unnecessarily difficult for a court to award a victim of race discrimination the remedies of damages or a declaration. We consider it highly unlikely that the award of damages, or a declaration, would of itself prejudice criminal proceedings or investigations, once a finding of discrimination has been made.
There is a difference in kind between injunctive relief and other remedies. Injunctive relief could require some action to be taken—for example, in relation to evidence that has been gathered, or is in the process of being gathered, that could compromise a criminal investigation or proceeding. Other remedies such as the award of damages could not have that kind of effect.
Where some prejudicial effect could arise from the very finding of discrimination, we are proposing that, rather than prevent a claimant from getting a finding, or any remedy at all, the courts will be able to stay the proceedings until that risk has passed. It is therefore, in our view, unnecessary and undesirable to restrict the claimant's rights to redress in this respect.
On that basis, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Cope, will feel able to withdraw his amendment and support that of the Government.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, I already support the Government in their amendment. As usual, after these debates, I am better informed. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 16:
Page 6, line 7, after ("damages") insert ("or
(b) a declaration or, in Scotland, a declarator").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 17 not moved.]
Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 18:
Page 7, leave out lines 3 to 32 and insert—
(""(4A) In section 19B proceedings, subsection (2)(b) does not apply in relation to a failure to reply, or a particular reply, if the conditions specified in subsection (4B) are satisfied.
(4B) Those conditions are that—

(a) at the time of doing any relevant act, the respondent was carrying out public investigator functions or was a public prosecutor; and

(b) he reasonably believes that a reply or (as the case may be) a different reply would be likely to prejudice any criminal investigation, any decision to institute criminal proceedings or any criminal proceedings.

(4C) For the purposes of subsections (4A) and (4B)—
"public investigator functions" has the same meaning as in section 57;
1708
"section 19B proceedings" means proceedings in respect of a claim under section 57 which has arisen by virtue of section 19B."").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I think it was established at the Committee stage that there is a good deal of common ground here. We are agreed on all sides on the importance of the questionnaire procedure and we are agreed on the need to ensure that the procedure is not used in such a way as to prejudice criminal investigations or proceedings.
At the Committee stage the Government accepted that there was some force in the argument that it may be unnecessary to provide an opportunity for an early court decision on whether a refusal to respond to a questionnaire issued under Section 55 of the Act is reasonable where a public investigator or prosecutor believes that a reply may prejudice a criminal investigation or proceedings.
However, as we said then, we feel that it is essential to make clear on the face of the Bill the circumstances in which a Section 65 questionnaire need not be completed by a public investigator or prosecutor. That will be to the benefit of claimants, investigators, prosecutors and the court alike.
The Government's amendment removes the ability of public investigators and prosecutors to apply to the court for an early ruling on whether an adverse inference will be drawn from a refusal to respond to a Section 65 questionnaire. Instead, it makes it clear on the face of the Bill that the court should not draw an adverse inference from the failure of a public prosecutor or public investigator to reply to a Section 65 questionnaire if the respondent reasonably believes that to reply would be likely to prejudice any criminal investigation, any decision to institute criminal proceedings, or any criminal proceedings.
The amendment is consistent with the theme running through Clause 4 of striking a balance between the ability of an individual to seek redress through the civil courts while ensuring that the commitment to reduce crime and the fear of crime, to dispense justice fairly and effectively, and to promote the rule of law is not weakened or undermined.
For the reasons given, we think it preferable to have clarity on the face of the Bill in this matter. That will benefit claimants as well as investigators and prosecutors. On that basis, I trust that noble Lords will agree to the amendment. I commend it to the House.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, we are very glad that the Government have met us completely on this point. The amendment removes from the Bill an unnecessary procedural provision regarding questionnaires. I am glad that the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, who raised this matter previously, is in her place. We now have the happy result of a clear, coherent provision in the Bill. We support the amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 19 not moved.]

Census (Amendment) Bill [H.L.]
5.52 p.m.
Lord Weatherill: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
Before introducing the Bill, I should declare a personal interest in that I am involved with the Inter-Faith Movement, having served in the last war with the Indian army, with Sikh, Muslim and Hindu troops.
This is a short Bill but it is, none the less, a very important one. I believe that it has general support among your Lordships. It is aimed at effecting a necessary change to the Census Act 1920 in order to enable a question on religious affiliation to be included in the next census of population in England and Wales in April 2001.
The proposal to include such a question was set out in the Government's White Paper on the 2001 census published last March, and has the endorsement of a wide range of fait organisations. In particular, it has had the support of the Commission for Racial Equality, the Inner Cities Religious Council and the Home Secretary's Race Relations Forum.
A question relating to religion would be new to the census in England and Wales, and responses to the question would help to provide information that would supplement the output from the ethnic group question by identifying ethnic minority sub-groups, particularly those originating from the Indian sub-continent. It would help to provide baseline figures against which the Government could monitor possible racial disadvantage and social exclusion within particular minority groups.
More people are choosing to identify themselves in terms of their religion or culture. The 2001 census provides a unique opportunity to collect information from groups such as Muslims, Sikhs, Hindus and others who increasingly prefer to identify themselves in this manner.
Public tests of census questions have shown the proposed question on religious affiliation to be acceptable; that form-fillers understand the question; and that the quality of the response is sufficiently high for reliable information to be obtained. The question was satisfactorily included in the census rehearsal in April last year.
The amendment to the Census Act is necessary because the schedule to the Act, which specifies those matters in respect of which particulars may be required to be stated in census returns, does not currently provide for particulars on religion to be recorded. Most of the questions that are traditionally asked in the census are specifically covered in paragraphs 1 to 5 of the schedule; others that may from time to time be required are covered by paragraph 6, which provides for,
"any other matters with respect to which it is desirable to obtain statistical information with a view to ascertaining the social or civil condition of the population".
Legal advice over the years, however, has been that religion is not a matter of either social or civil condition, which attributes are to be regarded as more
1710
earthly than heavenly, and that a change to the legislation would therefore be necessary. But not until considering the question of the forthcoming census has a sufficiently strong case been made for the inclusion of a question on religion to warrant the necessary change to the census legislation.
Clause 1 of the Bill would have the effect of adding "religion" specifically to those particulars which may be required to be provided in the census.
Clause 2(2) limits the extension of the Bill to England and Wales only. Under the terms of the Census Act, the Registrar General for Scotland is responsible for taking the census in Scotland, and under the terms of the Scotland Act 1998 a census is now a devolved matter. Thus it is for the Scottish Executive to consider whether or not a similar question on religion should be included in the census in Scotland, and it will subsequently be a matter for the Scottish Parliament to approve any such proposal.
The Bill would effect the necessary change to the Census Act to enable a question on religious affiliation to be included in the 2001 census. I believe that the Bill represents an important step towards helping to improve race relations in this country. I commend it to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Weatherill.)
5.57 p.m.
Lord Newby: My Lords, we on these Benches welcome the Bill and are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Weatherill, for introducing it. We have been impressed by the evidence that we have received from a number of bodies in regard to the benefits that might be expected to accrue if and when the Bill is brought into effect.
For example, the Religious Affiliation Sub-Group of Churches Together in England has identified six benefits to the country from this measure. It would help deal with the background to some questions of discrimination; it would be useful in terms of health and community care planning; it would help form the basis for planning in respect of religious education; it would have some relevance in the regeneration of inner cities; it would be extremely helpful in connection with voluntary sector religious groups; and, moving to more earthly matters, it would provide some business benefits in terms of marketing strategies for some companies.
I have been particularly impressed by the evidence that we have received from the Board of Deputies of British Jews. For perfectly understandable reasons, the board has weighed concerns about personal security and confidentiality of data against the benefits that it believes will accrue from the question. The conclusion reached by the board is that Jewish welfare and social organisations will be better able to understand the health and residential conditions of elderly Jews or young people. Communal resources can then be targeted more efficiently. Communal

1711
authorities will be able to plan education, housing and social care on the basis of firm information. That argument has also been made by other groups.
It can also be argued that this House has a particular interest in ensuring that this measure is introduced. If the Wakeham report is implemented there will be representation in your Lordships' House of non-Christian religions based on the size of those communities in the nation. As page 154 of the Wakeham report demonstrates, the present estimates of the numbers in those groups are very imprecise. It would be useful if your Lordships had more precise numbers for planning purposes. I suspect that before we consider detailed provisions for the stage two reform of your Lordships' House the census will have been completed and analysed.
So far, so good. But there is a major flaw, not in the Bill but the proposed question. While it would be easy to gain useful information from the proposed question about minority religious communities, for many purposes it would not be possible to do that for the Christian community because it lumps all Christians together. While that has many benefits, for the purposes of education and social welfare planning one needs to know the number of adherents to the Church of England, the Catholic Church and minority Christian religions. Without that breakdown the census would be of much less use than would otherwise be the case.
If one takes the obvious example of education, on the basis of the census figures it would be easy to consider the provision for Muslim schools, if that was to be considered. But if one considers the recent initiative by the Church of England related to the scope for the establishment of further Church of England secondary schools, in which the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, is involved, frankly this census would be of no value. I believe that the simple remedy is to have a breakdown in the "Christian" column between the major Christian groups.
That is a concern of the Religious Affiliation Sub-Group of Churches Together. It states that the Christian category should be sub-divided but does not believe that that issue received proper attention during the consultation process. I believe that we should look at the issue again. This happens already in New Zealand and Australia. It is a very simple change, and I do not know why it has not been dealt with in the form of the questions up to now. Perhaps it is believed that the census is too long. However, much of the potential benefit of the question is negated unless there is a breakdown of the Christian religion.
It may be that there is a stronger case for including this question in the census in Scotland. I understand why it is not thought to be necessary at the moment, but if there is a breakdown of the Christian faith in Scotland it will provide the Scots with a considerable amount of useful information. While it is for the Scots to make that decision, if for our purposes we take a lead in this matter they may reconsider the issue. In supporting the Bill, I make the plea that the question
1712
be looked at again, and I should be grateful for any reassurance from either the Minister or the noble Lord, Lord Weatherill, that that will happen.
6.4 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Lincoln: My Lords, the bishops of the Church of England have long recognised the changing nature of our society and the importance of other faiths within it as well as the need to improve race relations. Therefore, we welcome wholeheartedly the inclusion of this particular question in the 2001 census. I rise to support the noble Lord, Lord Weatherill, in introducing this Bill.
The noble Lord, Lord Newby, raised the question of dividing the Christian religion into denominations. From my experience over the years, particularly recently, the Church of England has suffered from comments in the press about religious affiliation based on denominations. That is extremely difficult to record. Time and time again churches in my diocese of Lincoln, where sadly in many areas the Church of England is the only Christian church working in rural communities, find themselves ministering to Christians of several denominations. We are glad to offer hospitality to Roman Catholics and the opportunity for them to celebrate mass in our country churches, and to provide pastoral care in various ways.
Although one welcomes a more detailed picture of religious affiliation across the whole of society today and supports the point about planning, the more one goes into it the more complicated the issue becomes. I hope that it can be given consideration, although I quite understand if those who draft this Bill refrain from going into great detail. On behalf of the Church of England, I strongly support the inclusion, in the census form, of the question of religious affiliation.
6.8 p.m.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I hope that I shall be forgiven for intervening in the gap, but I do not intend to speak for long. I rise to speak with some trepidation bearing in mind that all the religious groups, including the Church of England, appear to support this Bill. I have some fears about this measure. I am not at all sure that we should allow yet another notch in the ratchet of state intervention into private matters in the form of this particular Bill. Nor am I happy that people should be required to state their religious beliefs in a census. I have always been under the impression that that is a private matter. I and many others are aware that in Germany a certain gentleman called Hitler would have found such information very useful. Although it seems inconceivable that we should ever have such a creature governing this country, even that may happen. Therefore, I am not happy that people should be required to state their religion on a census form.
It may be that I am wrong. The sidenote to Clause 1 states that,
"Particulars in respect of religion may be required".

1713
But in this House we are always told that "may" means "shall". Therefore, this will be a requirement. When the Minister replies, can he tell the House what will happen to those who refuse to disc:lose information about their religious beliefs? Will they be fined; and if they fail to pay will they be clapped in gaol? I may well test it myself if the Minister's answer is not what I hope it will be. In a debate of this kind the fears that I have described should be raised. I am surprised that those fears have not been raised by many others who are concerned about the mass of information about our private affairs that is available to the state.
I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Weatherill, will be able to reassure me that people will not be fined for refusing to answer this question or put in gaol.
6.10 p.m.
The Earl of Northesk: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Weatherill, not only on introducing the Bill but on the clarity of his explanation of its provisions. Mindful of the significance of the noble Lord's interventions in the past Session, I am sure that this measure will attract rather less heat.
I am conscious, too, of the Minister's very considerable expertise in statistics—a career spanning over 30 years. To that extent, the Bill may well be something of a busman's holiday for him. The noble Lord has earned this reward—if that is what it is—for his tireless efforts over the years at the Dispatch Box. I must give credit where it is due, especially as I am aware how much of an inconvenience it has been for the noble Lord to make himself available tonight.
We can all agree that the Bill is uncontroversial. I hope, therefore, that I shall be forgiven for asking a few questions about its provisions and on one or two wider issues. By way of reassurance, we on these Benches have no objections to the Bill in principle. However, we feel that there are elements of sensitivity here which justify making response to it by the public optional rather than compulsory. Accordingly—I hope that it will give the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, some satisfaction—we are minded to seek amendment of the Bill in Committee to accommodate this concern.
As the noble Lord, Lord Weatherill, explained, the purpose of the Bill is to authorise a question on religion to be included in the 2001 census for England and Wales. Noble Lords will be aware that the judgment as to where to strike the correct balance with respect to the legitimate rights of individuals to privacy is a fine one. Thus, while most of us will be relaxed about the proposition, there will be some who are more ambivalent, who may feel that the question is a step too far—a case of Government poking their nose into areas beyond their remit. After all, for many people religion is very much a matter of conscience. Even though the data obtained by the census is subject to confidentiality, should not that conviction—a personal thing—be respected? I acknowledge the support that the Bill has from all sides of the faith
1714
community. Indeed, I am grateful to the BBC for receiving a transcript of a recent "Thought for the Day" in which Indarjit Singh made the wholly valid point that,
"Yes, religion has over the years become a private matter, something we don't talk about in polite conversation. But this was never the intention of the founders of our great faiths".
It seems to me that to the extent that,
"religion has over the years become a private matter",
that privacy should be respected.
Equally, while I have not researched the approach of other countries to this in any detail, it is interesting to note that, for example, the Australian census question on religion is optional.
Quite rightly, the Census Offices have conducted a consultation exercise on this to ensure, among other things, that the proposition will have,
"no significantly adverse effect on the Census as a whole, particularly the level of public response".
I simply ask this. What evidence has been adduced to confirm this? In other words, at what percentage of failure of the public to respond would the value of the overall data sample be compromised?
That leads me to a related consideration. It is one which, from a logical basis, constitutes a further justification for making the question optional. In the context of the Bill, and as the noble Lord, Lord Weatherill, has explained,
"Responsibility for statistics in areas where policy responsibility is to be devolved will lie with the Scottish, Welsh and Northern Ireland administrations".
On the surface, all is good and well. But if, as stated, the Government's intention is to engender more and better information about racial disadvantage and social exclusion, it is at best curious that, in this instance, Scotland is currently to be excluded front the data series. In the face of that, objective opinion could be tempted to conclude that there is a feeling that these problems do not exist north of the Border. That would be absurd.
In turn, it begs the question whether the data series compiled by the census will have any UK-wide relevance. No doubt the Minister, given his statistical background, will be able to reassure me on that point. For my part, I merely flag up our concern in this area that our ability as a nation to comply with our international statistical obligations—for example, to the European Union—could suffer from inconsistency and a lack of co-ordination. As Building Trust in Statistics points out:
"Official statistics need to be of assured quality, and be compiled and presented in a way which is free of political interference".
The key here is in terms of compilation and presentation. In other words, how valuable can a data series be that excludes a core element of the nation's population?
I note that the Government have expressed their own concern about this at paragraph 4.10 of Building Trust in Statistics. Indeed, there is a wider problem here. For example, education, and thereby statistics relating to it, is a responsibility for the Welsh

1715
Assembly. But the responsibility to enact the primary legislation remains here in Westminster. Thus, it is all very well for the Welsh Assembly to consult widely about, let us say, the Learning and Skills Bill but the value of such an exercise is undermined if its results and relevant statistics are not readily available to Members of both Houses here in Westminster. No doubt this is a subject to which we shall return in a variety of different contexts. It is enough to say here that, given this background, there is scope for concern about the integrity of the census' outcomes.
The document, The 2001 Census of Population pre-dates Building Trust in Statistics by some six months. It is no surprise, therefore, that it contains no references to the Government's appointment of a national statistician and proposed establishment of an independent statistics commission. Perhaps the Minister could confirm whether the intention is to bring responsibility for the census within the remit of this new arrangement? If so, will appropriate levels of funding—over the 13-year period 1993–2006 it is currently estimated to be £254 million—be made available over and above the
"provision that has [accordingly] been made available for this purpose"—
that is, the Commission—
"following the Comprehensive Spending Review"?
As a codicil to the Bill, the Minister will be aware that I have been banging the drum, albeit in a minor way, for the Government's proposals for statistics to be put on a statutory basis. Building Trust in Statistics states that,
"The Government acknowledges the arguments for legislation but has decided to implement the new arrangements on a non-statutory basis in order to secure the benefits as soon as possible".
They also state their intention to keep the matter under review. In the absence of a fully fledged statistics Bill, that has to suffice. None the less, in the appropriate context of this Bill and for the record I simply reiterate that we would prefer that the Government come forward with firm legislative proposals for their statistics agenda sooner rather than later. I make the obvious point that the measure before us today is statistical in character and that the likelihood is that adequate legislative time will be found for its passage through Parliament.
I began by affirming that we on these Benches are content to support the Bill, subject only to the reservation that I have defined. Needless to say, I look forward to the replies of the Minister, or from the noble Lord, Lord Weatherill, to assist us in deciding whether it will be appropriate to amend the Bill in Committee. In the meantime, I conclude with good wishes to the noble Lord, Lord Weatherill, and to the Government, and the hope that we shall be able to pass the Bill to another place in as fit a condition as we can.
6.19 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Weatherill, for bringing forward and explaining the Bill and to all
1716
noble Lords who have taken part in this short debate. The Bill will be particularly welcomed by many members of ethnic minority communities who regard the census as an important opportunity for them to identify themselves in terms of their religion, in addition to the census question on ethnic groups.
The Bill makes it possible for the census to collect the sort of information that it needs to monitor possible racial discrimination and social exclusion, particularly at the level of local communities, which is the sort of geographical area level for which only the census is able to provide statistics that are on a reliable and consistent basis across the whole country. I shall come to what I mean by the "whole country" later on.
The noble Lord, Lord Newby, helpfully gave six reasons how this data could be used and why that is desirable. We subscribe to all the reasons. The Office for National Statistics, which is the department responsible for carrying out the census in England and Wales, has for the past four years conducted an extensive programme of consultation with users on their requirements for information from the 2001 census. It carried out a series of both small and large-scale public tests and cognitive research—namely, research about meaning—on possible census questions, to make sure that they meet a set of four strict criteria. These are: first, that there has been a clearly demonstrated need for the information obtained; secondly, that user requirements cannot be adequately met by information from other sources; thirdly, that they should be shown in tests to have no significantly adverse effects on the census as a whole, particularly the level of response; and fourthly, that practicable questions can be devised to collect the data that is sufficiently accurate to meet users' stated requirements.
It is particularly important that the ONS should apply these criteria to a potential question on religion because we have not asked such a question in a census in England and Wales in the past. So a special task group was convened by ONS in March 1996 to consider the case for a possible question on religious affiliation in the 2001 census. This religious affiliation sub-group of the 2001 census content working group comprised members of a wide range of faith organisations as well as government departments with an interest in the sort of information that such a census question might provide. In particular, in addition to those mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Weatherill, the organisations involved included the Muslim Council of Britain, the Board of Deputies of British Jews, the Network of Sikh Organisations, the Buddhist Society, the National Council of Hindu Temples and the Zoroastrian Trust Funds of Europe, and a number of representatives from Christian Churches in Britain.
Public reaction to a census question on religion was assessed in two major tests of census questions, in the 1997 census test and in the 1999 census rehearsal. The evidence suggests that the public are generally prepared to answer the question, at least to a level

1717
comparable with those of other census questions, and that the quality of responses is sufficient to provide the sort of information that would meet users' needs.
The Government have confirmed their intention to include a question on religion in the 2001 census, as we proposed in the White Paper published last March. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Weatherill, pointed out, it is necessary to amend the Census Act 1920 before we can do that. The schedule to the Act prescribes matters in respect of which particulars may be required to be stated in census returns. The noble Lord, Lord Weatherill, has clarified why a question on religion may not be included under the provisions of paragraph 6 of the schedule. Legal advice has consistently been that there is no specific guidance as to what is meant by the term, "social or civil condition" in paragraph 6. The words must be given their ordinary meaning when interpreting the statute. Legal advice has been consistently that a change in the legislation is necessary.
The noble Earl, Lord Northesk, and my noble friend Lord Stoddart asked whether the proposed question on religion could be included in the census on a voluntary basis. We thought about that a great deal. We have come to the conclusion that it would not be a good idea. Perhaps I may set out in some detail why we think that. First, the value of the census is that it does indeed encompass the whole population of the country at a single point in time. The purpose of a religious question is to complement the proposed question on ethnic groups, but particularly the identification of different sub-groups within south Asian communities who increasingly prefer to describe their culture in terms of their religion. The noble Earl suggested that there may be some sensitivity about that, but I believe that the overwhelming support of the faith groups is sufficient evidence.
Secondly, when we tested the question on religion we showed it to be no more sensitive than any other questions traditionally asked in the census. In practical terms it has been shown that making a question voluntary seriously affects the response not only to the question itself where response bias could devalue the information obtained, but also as regards other questions because people are confused about some questions being voluntary and others being compulsory.
We take the arguments about a voluntary question very seriously. Voluntary questions are not part of a procedure that is normal in a census. There would have to be exceptional circumstances to depart from that. My noble friend Lord Stoddart asked what would happen if someone—he even went so far as to say himself—refused to answer such a question. I am not sure whether I should say this in public, but I do not believe that he would be fined or put in prison. In practice, for the first time next year there will be encouragement for households to return their census forms by post rather than having them collected by an enumerator. They will be involved only when the forms are not returned by post. I do not believe that a representative from the Office for National Statistics is going to come round and say, "You did not answer
1718
Question 33(c). I am taking you down to the police station". I do not believe that we need go to that extent or worry about the analogies with Hitler that my noble friend suggested. Confidentiality of the census has been a tradition and a requirement for 200 years. Confidentiality within the household is important. If any member of a household does not want his or her answers to be revealed to anyone else, it is possible to have a separate form and for it to be returned in a sealed envelope. Confidentiality from government has always been a requirement; in other words, no government department knows the identity of anybody giving a specific answer to a question or answers given by any individual. There is also confidentiality against outsiders in a sense that answers relating to individuals or even being identifiable from the use of enumeration districts, are not made available outside.
For all those reasons we do not believe that it would be a good idea to have a uniquely voluntary question. We hope that we can persuade the noble Earl, Lord Northesk, of that argument.
The question of devolution was raised. It is indeed a devolved matter. The noble Earl quoted from paragraph 10 of the White Paper Building Trust in Statistics. In particular the White Paper notes,
"Where policy responsibilities are devolved, increasing divergence in policies to reflect the circumstances of particular countries is possible. It is expected that statistics collected to monitor and inform these policies will reflect this".
The Scottish Parliament will have the opportunity to debate the proposals for the census in Scotland when it considers the draft Scottish census order on 10th February. At present it is possible or even likely that there will be no question on religion in Scotland.
The noble Earl, Lord Northesk, asked whether that would pose difficulties for us in our international statistical obligations. The purpose of having that question on the census is not really to collect national statistics, with millions of people subscribing to particular religions, but to provide the information on a local basis for local use by ethnic communities, religious organisations and for those in government and in the voluntary sector concerned with local social conditions and public policies. Information on a nationwide basis on issues of this kind can be obtained, and I declare a past interest, by sample survey. I do not believe that we shall run a serious risk of defaulting on our international obligations.
There is also a responsibility for producing statistics from the census in Wales. Under the terms of the Census Act, the Registrar General is responsible for the census in both England and Wales and he will make available statistics which are appropriate to the requirements of the National Assembly for Wales and to other users.
The noble Lord, Lord Newby, questioned whether it was sufficient to have a single category for all Christian denominations. My first answer is that no firm need for that further division was expressed by the Christian communities. I understand his point, but it fails to meet the criterion of a clearly demonstrated need for the information obtained.

1719
There are difficulties in framing questions that would identify particular Christian communities. If we are precise about the Church of England and the Catholic Church, as I am sure we can be, it is more difficult to be precise with regard to other denominations. I shall not go into the issue of the Wee Frees and the subdivisions which have been further subdivided. However, one can anticipate the difficulties. It is true that once one starts on that route one might start to distinguish between Shi'a and Sunni Muslims and between different organisations within the Jewish faith. There is a write-in question if anyone feels impelled to be more precise, but we reached the conclusion that a more detailed question would not fulfil the strict criteria for introducing additional questions.
If the Bill is passed, the Government propose to make the necessary legislative arrangements to provide for a question on religion to be added to those which have already been approved for inclusion in the 2001 census after your Lordships have had an opportunity to consider the census order. The Government support the Bill. We believe that it has cross-party support, with the exception referred to by the noble Earl.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I had not wished to interrupt my noble friend's flow because it was useful for him to put the case, but I wonder whether he will answer two questions. Bearing in mind that the latest issue of Social Trends shows that today religion is a minority activity, what efforts were made during consultation to obtain the views of people who are not religious and who have no religion? Secondly, can there be no provision for conscientious objection to answering that question, because I have such an objection?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I thought I had answered my noble friend's first point by saying that we shall not pursue him and throw him into gaol. He has a conscientious objection and will not answer the question. That is likely to be the end of the matter.
The question is: "what is your religion?". The first option offered is, "None". I understand that the general secretary of the National Secular Society spoke on the radio this morning objecting to the question, so my noble friend's first question has some point. However, although I share his lack of belief, I do not believe that he is right. It is desirable that we should have such a question for social rather than inquisitorial reasons. I am convinced by the demand, particularly within the ethnic minority communities. that this is a logical extension of the ethnic question which proved to be successful in the previous census and which will be completed and made more comprehensible if the question on religion is included.
The Government support the Bill. It seeks to implement the proposals set out in the White Paper.
1720
I can assure your Lordships that the Bill is compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights and it is in line with the Government's initiatives on race relations and social exclusion. I hope that your Lordships will give it a swift passage.
Lord Monson: My Lords, perhaps I may put one question to the Minister before he sits down. Why is the Committee stage of this not entirely uncontroversial Bill scheduled to take place one week from today? Surely, so early in the Session it is not customary for there to be such a short interval between Second Reading and the Committee stage.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I understand that the date was agreed with the usual channels.
6.35 p.m.
Lord Weatherill: My Lords, I, too, thank noble Lords who participated in this short, important debate. In particular, I thank the Minister, who dealt fully with many of the technical questions raised tonight. I hope that in the light of what has been said by the Minister the noble Earl will not feel constrained to table an amendment in Committee. If he does, we shall have to deal with it.
Perhaps I may say to the noble Lord, Lord Newby, that in the wording of the question, which was set out in the Government's White Paper called The 2001 Census of Population, published in March, the several tick-box categories proposed were "None"; "Christian (including Church of England, Catholic, Protestant and all other Christian denominations)"; "Buddhist"; "Hindu"; "Jewish"; "Muslim"; and "Sikh". A further category also allows for those who cannot find an appropriate category to tick to assign themselves to whatever religion they wish by using a write-in option. I hope that that goes some way towards putting the noble Lord's mind at rest.
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, what when I considered moving the Bill. I, too, shared his concern about the possibility of happenings such as those he mentioned. However, I hope that I may put his mind at rest by quoting a letter which I received from Jon Sacker, Director of External Issues of the Board of Deputies of British Jews. He stated:
"The Jewish community in Britain has previously been opposed to such a question. After a debate in July 1999 at which all the pros and cons were fully aired, the Board of Deputies voted overwhelmingly to support the inclusion of the question.
The concerns that have been raised are about personal security and confidentiality of data. These concerns are important and must be respected. But we have recognised that if personal security were ever to become an issue in Britain, our enemies would not need census files. Most Jews live in neighbourhoods that are easily recognised by synagogues, kosher food stores or Jewish schools. Information about Jewish people and organisations is more readily obtainable by reading Jewish newspapers or purchasing the guidebooks than by scanning the anonymous statistics of a census report".

1721
I hope that that puts the noble Lord's mind at rest.
I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, was present, so perhaps I may remind your Lordships that during my Speakership of the other place I well remember Mr Enoch Powell pronouncing a sad truth. It was:
"Small wonder that politicians too frequently get it wrong because they make guesses about the future guided by inaccurate statistics from the past".
1722
It is important that the next census is accurate. For the reasons stated, I believe that it is important that there should be a question on religion. It will be helpful if the Bill passes through both Houses in time for the 2001 census. I hope that it will be approved by the House.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
House adjourned at twenty-one minutes before seven o'clock.

  International Conventions: Explanatory Memoranda
  International Conventions: Explanatory Memoranda
  Burma: Imprisonment of James Mawdsley
  Burma: Imprisonment of James Mawdsley
  Burma: Human Rights
  Burma: Human Rights
  Higher Education: Expenditure
  Higher Education: Expenditure
  Sand Eels
  Sand Eels
  EU: Over-quota Fish Catches
  EU: Over-quota Fish Catches
  Health Authorities: Eligibility Criteria
  Health Authorities: Eligibility Criteria
  Social Inclusion Action Plan
  Social Inclusion Action Plan
  Sports Tourism
  Sports Tourism
  Knives Act 1997
  Knives Act 1997
  Offences Against the Person Act 1861
  Offences Against the Person Act 1861
  Criminal Law Revision Committee
  Criminal Law Revision Committee
  Task Forces
  Task Forces
  Attendance Centres
  Attendance Centres
  Security Service: Accountability
  Security Service: Accountability
  Police Authorities: Funding
  Police Authorities: Funding