Sitting of 7 July 2000

Preamble
The House met at half-past Nine o'clock
PRAYERS
[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]
PETITION

  Laindon Shopping Centre
  9.33 am
  Angela Smith: I present a petition on behalf of more than 600 residents of Basildon and Laindon and users of the Laindon shopping centre, who are concerned about security and the decoration of the centre. They ask for
  an immediate review of all decorating, cleaning and security needs of the Centre in co-operation with traders and customers,
  and urge that
  such work be undertaken as soon as possible.
  Failing this,
  The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons consider placing a duty on private owners of such centres to provide for adequate cleaning, maintenance and security.
  And the petitioners remain.
  To lie upon the Table.

  Hunting with Dogs
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Robert Ainsworth.]
  9.34 am
  The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Jack Straw): First, may I briefly inform the House about a separate matter? The draft Bill on football hooliganism should be available in the Vote Office by 10.30 this morning.
  The second preliminary point that I should like to make is to present my apologies to the House for the fact that I shall have to leave the Chamber at about 10.45. I know that the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) is in a similar position. I hope that the House will take into account the fact that this is the ninth occasion on which I have been on my feet in the House in the past 15 days.
  Mr. Peter Luff: Too much legislation.
  Mr. Straw: None of the debates has actually been on legislation, although some have had a legislative purpose. We have had many fewer Bills than in similar Sessions that I recall, certainly in the 1980s.
  Let me turn to the subject of the debate, which is the Report of the Committee of Inquiry into Hunting with Dogs in England and Wales, Command Paper 4763. The issue of hunting has aroused great controversy over much of the past 20 years. Sixteen Bills have been presented to the House in that period. The strong feelings about it in the House are reflected in public sentiment, both for and against.
  All parties have long accepted that the issue of whether to ban hunting should be determined by free votes of right hon. and hon. Members. That remains the Government's position. At the general election, we said in our manifesto that we would advocate a free vote on the issue. Although it was not explicit, the implication was that such a vote, or set of votes, could have a legislative effect.
  The House usually deals with such issues by way of private Members' Bills, but that procedure can prove inadequate to bring hotly contentious matters to a conclusion. That was true for the vexed issue of Sunday trading, on which, after 20 private Members' Bills and one failed Government Bill, the previous Administration wisely decided to bring the issue to a conclusion by providing a Government Bill that offered a range of alternatives, on which there were then free votes. We have decided to adopt a similar approach with hunting.
  The resolution of the central question—to ban or not to ban—should not be delegated to an outside committee, however expert or eminent. It is plainly a matter for Parliament. However, we decided that a committee could prove invaluable in informing and illuminating the debate.
  As the House knows, Lord Burns accepted my invitation to chair such a committee. Its four other members were Dr. Victoria Edwards, principal lecturer in land management at the university of Portsmouth, and a non-executive board member of the Countryside Agency and the Forestry Commission; Professor Sir John Marsh, emeritus professor of agricultural economics at Reading university; Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, emeritus

  525
  professor of animal pathology at the university of Cambridge; and Professor Michael Winter, professor of rural economy and society at Cheltenham and Gloucester college of higher education. The team was appointed for its expertise in fields relevant to the inquiry's work.
  Lord Burns conducted the inquiry in an extremely open manner. He and his colleagues made great efforts to reach different communities and to speak both to those involved in hunting and to those opposed to it. They witnessed a variety of forms of hunting, commissioned research from academics and held public meetings in various parts of the country. I am deeply grateful to Lord Burns and the other committee members for the way they went about their work and completed this very thorough report.
  Mr. Andrew Robathan: I am grateful to the Home Secretary for giving way so early in his speech. He said that the free vote is the means by which the debate will be brought to a conclusion. Let us suppose that the Houses of Parliament, in their wisdom, were to decide that there should be no ban on fox hunting—no change in the status quo. Would he accept that that had brought the issue to a conclusion?
  Mr. Straw: Yes, of course. If Parliament had decided that it was in favour of no change to the Sunday trading laws—or, as I and a number of others wanted, more limited change—that would have been the end of the matter. That must be the case with this issue.
  In my statement on 12 June I expressed the hope that hon. Members would read the committee of inquiry's report, and I hope that those Members who are present today have had the time since then carefully to study its contents. I am pleased to be able to tell the House that the report has been welcomed by those most closely involved in the issue. The two organisations that led on giving evidence to the inquiry, Deadline 2000, the umbrella group for those seeking a ban on hunting, and the Countryside Alliance, which favours hunting, have both been positive in their response to the report. I understand that Deadline 2000 regards the report as thorough and cogent, and that the chairman of the Countryside Alliance has said that he has nothing but admiration for it. There has been a recognition that the inquiry tried to appreciate the complexities of the issue.
  It may help today's debate for us first to recall the report's conclusions about the extent of hunting with dogs, who takes part in it, and why. I asked the inquiry to examine the hunting with dogs of foxes, deer, hares and mink. We are all familiar with the best known and most visible type of hunting: the traditional fox hunt of mounted followers and a pack of hounds. Such an image is ubiquitous—indeed, the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) admitted in an earlier debate, when she was a partisan against hunting, that such scenes adorn her dining room curtains. I am told by those who know about these things that given her personal opposition to hunting, such behaviour is regarded in some quarters as post-modernist irony.
  Mr. Edward Garnier: I am always happy to share a joke with the Home Secretary, not least because sometimes he actually understands them, unlike some of those who sit alongside him.
  526
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) not only has hunting scenes on her dining room curtains, but I can tell the House that she also has hunting maps on the walls of her dining room. She clearly takes a great interest in hunting and its practices.
  May I make an introductory point that the Home Secretary may be able to deal with at this stage? The cost of the report to the public is£32.50. That is quite a lot of money for many people. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree with me that the readership of this good report would be far wider if the price of the document were much lower? Is it not an irony that we get the report free, yet I suspect that an awful lot of Members have not even read it?
  Mr. Straw: We have to work on the assumption that, as hon. Members get the document free, those taking part in the debate have read it—although it may become apparent whether individuals have read it during the debate. The price is too high, but the hon. and learned Gentleman should bear in mind the fact that it is available free on the internet and in every public library, so that makes a big difference.
  Although I am always happy to share a joke with the hon. and learned Gentleman, I ask him not to damage my reputation any further with faint praise.
  Mr. Eric Forth: I do not want to let the Home Secretary's modern point about the internet pass without saying that I hope that he does not assume that everyone in the country possesses a ghastly computer, knows how to use it or is plugged into the even more ghastly internet.
  The serious point is—I hope that the Home Secretary will take it seriously, given the point that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) made—that the Government must not assume that everyone in the country has access to the internet and use that as an excuse, or an alternative to making available such important information. I am sure that the Home Secretary understands that point, and I hope that he will acknowledge it.
  Mr. Straw: I take that point, but as the right hon. Gentleman makes a partisan point, let me make one in return. I regret the fact that the report costs£32.50. We have tried to ensure that it is available, and the internet is now widely accessible, although I fully accept not in every home. We are responsible for this price, but up until the early 1980s Government documents were available cheaply because they were subsidised. The Conservative Government pushed up the real cost of Hansard by a factor of 10. I did a study on that in 1993, and I greatly regret that increase, because that was when the rot set in. I must raise this matter with my good friends in the Treasury, but I believe that Government documents should be available as cheaply as possible.
  Mr. Tom King: I have in my hand Contract 7, which is the Bateson and Harris report. It is particularly relevant, and follows on from the Bateson report. I am not sure whether the Home Secretary has had a chance to read Contract 7. I would be surprised if he had, because it is a substantial, 100-page document.

  527
  Yet it is not in the report: it is on the CD ROM. That reinforces the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth). It is an extremely germane document for those interested in the welfare of hunted animals. It has been published in a modern way, and I am not sure whether there is a printed version. I can see those in the official Box shaking their heads, which gives me the answer. There is no printed version available at any price
  I inquired about this CD ROM last night, and the Library was not too confident about how to use it, but they switched on to the Home Office website which contains the Burns report, and it was printed out, which was helpful. As my right hon. Friend said, if people are not plugged into the computer—many of my constituents on Exmoor are not computer literate—they will have no access to the report.
  Mr. Straw: I shall consider whether a printed version can be made available. There is no perfect way of doing this, but Lord Burns was very concerned to ensure that the process and the product of his inquiry should be open. We have done our best to make it available using information technology. I realise that not all my constituents or those of the right hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) are plugged into the internet or, even if they are, know how to use it, which is a difficulty for anyone over a certain age, but people have access to public libraries, which are all plugged in, and we are doing much to improve the public library system.
  As the report details, hunting takes many forms. Topography, geography and farming activities in hunting areas—which all have an influence—vary greatly.
  Right hon. and hon. Members will note from chapter 2 of the report the number of registered hunts for each type of hunting, the number of occasions on which they meet and their estimated number of followers. The inquiry was not able to quantify accurately how much hunting takes place informally, but considered that it is likely to be extensive. Though a minority pastime, hunting has a significant following.
  The report found, not surprisingly, that farmers and landowners are at the heart of the activity. They benefit from pest control, and believe that they best understand the needs of the countryside. Although the inquiry was in no doubt that a few people hunt, often illegally, simply because they enjoy using their dogs to kill animals, it said that most enjoy hunting for a variety of other reasons. Some like riding horses, some like watching hounds work, and some enjoy the social life associated with it. Others appreciate the benefits that hunting brings to the rural economy.
  Mr. David Tredinnick: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will touch on drag hunting, because the report says that as a result of a ban there will not be an upsurge in drag hunting: it will not change materially or experience any major increase. As a former master of drag hounds, I learned to hunt with drag hounds, not fox hounds. The argument deployed by those opposed to fox hunting that there could easily be a switch to drag hunting is totally fallacious, because drag hunting is more akin to point-to-point racing or the grand national on occasions.
  Mr. Straw: I take the hon. Gentleman's point, and I hope that he is able to make it in his speech. I was not
  528
  going to touch on every aspect of the report, because I would be here until 2 o'clock if I did, but Members can make their points as they wish.
  The likely consequences for employment and the rural economy of a ban on hunting were a major subject of inquiry for the committee. Much of the recent debate has focused on the job losses that would result from a ban. The report acknowledges that this has been one of the main planks of the argument put forward by those who oppose a ban. As I told the House in my statement, the report concludes that
  between 6,000 and 8,000 full-time equivalent jobs presently depend on hunting.
  I stress that these jobs are the full-time equivalent. The report goes on to state that
  the number of jobs affected will be substantially greater than the full-time equivalent.
  The report focuses in particular on the effect that a ban on hunting would have on farmers. It reports that many farms operate at a loss and that farmers are the main beneficiaries of the system provided by hunting of pest control and a fallen stock service.
  Mr. A. J. Beith: Does the Home Secretary realise that some of the areas in which hunting is most popular, and provides jobs, are also areas that have experienced particularly severe job losses in agriculture? Suggestions that retraining or Government packages could replace the jobs lost in hunting and related spheres cannot be taken seriously.
  Mr. Straw: The right hon. Gentleman quotes the report accurately. It makes interesting distinctions between the possible effects in lowland areas and those in more remote upland areas. It also suggests that, in the long term—which it defines as seven to 10 years—although the aggregate effect in terms of job losses is likely to be very small, that aggregate would obscure effects in particular communities.
  The issues of cruelty and animal welfare have been crucial to the debate, and are central to the report. Chapter 6 discusses in detail the animal issues associated with hunting and other methods of pest control. The report gives the best evidence yet about the populations of the species, and mortality rates. It estimates that about 400,000 foxes die each year, and that the fox population varies during any year from about 200,000 in the pre-breeding season to three times that number in the post-breeding season.
  The committee found that, although not everyone accepts that it is necessary to manage the fox population, the great majority of land managers take that view. Culling is considered to be a substantial factor in the maintaining of a stable population. The right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) mentioned differences in different areas. Studies showed that, while hunting and terrier work accounted for the killing of 14 per cent. and 27 per cent. of foxes respectively in west Norfolk and the east midlands, it was as high as 70 per cent. in upland areas of Wales.
  The report found that there was virtually unanimous agreement that, if a stable deer population was to be maintained, about 1,000 deer needed to be culled in the

  529
  areas of Devon and Somerset that are covered by deer hunts, mainly because of damage to agriculture, forestry and conservation interests.
  Ms Linda Perham: The issues dealt with in the report are not of concern only to members of rural communities. In my London constituency, I have received nearly 300 letters about hunting with dogs. I have found that people throughout the country are very concerned about animal welfare issues, and want this awful practice to be banned.
  Mr. Straw: I know that the issue is hotly contested, in both rural and urban areas. It is crucial for us to understand that there is not an iron curtain between town and country. The town depends on the country, and the country depends on the town. What makes up our society is a mixture of the two.
  I know my hon. Friend's constituency well. It is overwhelmingly urban, but according to my recollection of many bus rides down the Southend arterial road, there are still some farms in the area. Although my constituency is very urban, it contains a large ward that is entirely in upland areas and contains mostly farms and sheep. It has only a small population. Nearly all of us have responsibilities to both town and country.
  Mr. Edward Leigh (: Will the Home Secretary give way?
  Mr. Straw: I will, but then I must make progress.
  Mr. Leigh: The report suggests that a middle way may be emerging. It suggests that the areas in which hunting takes place should be restricted, and that there should be restrictions in regard to cubbing, stopping earths and terrier work. Although the authors make it clear that they have not reached a conclusion, such a middle way might appeal to many people. Does it appeal to the Home Secretary?
  Mr. Straw: I never thought that I would live to see the day when the hon. Gentleman expressed approbation for a middle way. It shows the power of the idea.
  The hon. Gentleman's suggestion is certainly one of the options in the report. Obviously the issue arouses strong views among some people, although, while I have strong views about a wide range of issues, I have never had strong views on hunting during my time as a Member of Parliament. Others must reach their own conclusions, but I intend to wait until the options are clearly identified and then, if it is appropriate, offer the House my personal view.
  One of the report's key conclusions appears in chapter 6, which deals with the assessment of the welfare of animals that are hunted. It compares hunting to all other methods of killing, and points out that it must be seen in relative terms. It states:
  There is a lack of firm scientific evidence about the effect on the welfare of a fox of being closely pursued, caught and killed above ground by hounds. We are satisfied, nevertheless, that this experience seriously compromises the welfare of the fox.
  530
  The report also finds, however, that all methods of killing raise welfare issues. Chapter 6.61 makes important judgments about the different effects of controlling foxes in lowland and upland areas. It concludes that, in lowland areas, lamping—the use of powerful lamps at night, and the shooting of foxes that are caught by the lamps with high-powered and very accurate rifles—is the most humane method of killing foxes. However, it also states that in upland areas lamping is not possible in practice, and raises the question of whether methods other than the use of dogs are more or less humane.
  Mr. Nicholas Soames: Does the Home Secretary think that, in the light of the Government's foolish moves to grant access to all to heath and moorland by night, it is sensible to advocate lamping and the use of high-powered rifles?
  Mr. Straw: Although I am expert in a great many matters, happily one of the few matters for which I have no responsibility is legislation on the countryside. However, I will look up the point that the hon. Gentleman has raised, and get back to him.
  Mr. Luff: Will the Home Secretary give way?
  Mr. Straw: If the hon. Gentleman will allow me, I shall make some progress. Otherwise I shall detain the House, and myself.
  Other matters highlighted in the report would require consideration in the event of a ban. They include the recommendation of training for stalkers, concerns about the increased use of snares and the loss of the fallen stock service provided by hunts, and compensation.
  The committee received evidence about a number of practical effects of hunting that gave rise to concern. They include trespass, disruption and disturbance by hunts, concern about the fact that hunting is not open to public scrutiny, the practice of autumn fox hunting, digging out using terriers, and the stopping up of badger setts. Those points are made in chapter 9. Chapter 9.47 points out that England and Wales, unlike most other countries, have no statutory regulation or licensing of hunting. The committee concluded that, in the absence of a ban, those matters should be considered.
  Mr. James Gray: Will the Home Secretary give way?
  Mr. Straw: I promise to give way later, if I make some progress. I have already given way many times.
  Some of the concerns raised would require legislative action, but it would not be appropriate to deal with them in separate legislation ahead of a Bill on hunting. The relevant hunting bodies will want to consider each concern carefully, and to think about whether any changes to hunt rules could be made to deal with them.
  The committee concludes that it is a reasonable assumption that any adverse impact on animal welfare is greater in the case of hunting not undertaken under the auspices and rules of the various hunt associations. Those rules were recently strengthened by the establishment of an independent supervisory authority. The committee suggests, in the absence of a ban, a licensing system to control all forms of hunting.

  531
  As I made clear in my statement, there will be a Government Bill in the next Session. The Government remain neutral: their role in presenting a Bill is that of a facilitator, enabling Parliament to reach a conclusion. Our task will be to ensure that the Bill is manageable in Parliament, and that it contains workable proposals. We have not reached a final conclusion on the options, not least because we want to hear hon. Members' opinions first. No final decision has been made about the number of options, but I believe that, if the Bill is to be manageable, it should contain no more than a handful of options, reflecting the proposals made by those on all sides of the debate.
  I suggest—it is a matter for the House—that the broad options are as follows: to maintain the status quo, which would involve negativing the Bill; a wide-ranging ban along the lines of the Bill promoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Foster); a more limited ban aimed at restricting the hunting of particular species, or taking account of particular differences in geography, topography and animal welfare; much tighter regulation, for example through the creation of a licensing authority; or the delegation of one or more of those decisions to local communities through local referendums, although the House would wish to take into account the strong recommendation against that option made by the Burns committee.
  As the House may be aware, the Welsh Assembly recently passed a Conservative motion to the effect that decisions on hunting in Wales should be the Assembly's prerogative. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales and my hon. Friend the First Secretary have advised Parliament and the National Assembly for Wales respectively that hunting is not a devolved issue. They have also explained that any ban would require primary legislation, which is a matter for Parliament. I assure the House that, on that issue, as always, my right hon. Friend and I will continue to discuss with the First Secretary any primary legislation that affects Wales.
  The 40 Welsh Members of Parliament are as representative of Wales as the 60 Assembly Members, and I am sure that their voices will be heard during the passage of the forthcoming Bill. As I said in my statement to the House on 12 June, hon. Members will be free to table amendments proposing that decisions on the matter should be taken by the National Assembly for Wales. However, the Government position is that the matter has not been transferred to the Assembly, and is therefore the responsibility of this House.
  Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: The Home Secretary will be aware that I tabled a written question, which was answered yesterday, asking him what estimate he had made of the number of extra firearms licences that would be needed for lamping foxes at night; what implications there would be for safety; and what compensation provisions the Bill would contain. I had a rather unsatisfactory reply from the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. O'Brien)—who is on the Treasury Bench—which stated:
  The consequences of a ban on hunting with dogs will be considered as the legislative options for a Hunting Bill are drawn up.—[Official Report, 6 July 2000; Vol. 353, c. 301W.]
  532
  Could the Home Secretary tell me when I will receive a proper reply to my questions, and when he will properly consider all those questions? Will he deal with them in good time so that, when a Bill is published, hunting folk can know exactly what to expect?
  Mr. Straw: I think that the hon. Gentleman is being rather ungracious about that. The Home Office goes to very considerable lengths to provide as much information as possible to all right hon. and hon. Members who ask questions. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, who answered that question, tells me that we do not have that information or estimate now. However, we shall do our best to get it as the debates unfold. The legislation will not be before the House until after the end of this Session.
  The proposed options will, of course, be susceptible to amendment as the Bill makes progress. In framing alternatives, we shall certainly take into account the concerns that were expressed by various hon. Members, and reflected in the report, with the idea of different regimes applying as between upland and lowland areas.
  My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, who is beside me on the Treasury Bench, has held meetings with the main umbrella organisations—Deadline 2000, the Countryside Alliance and representatives of the Middle Way group, which. involves the hon. Members for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik) and for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff).
  Mr. Luff: And the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mrs. Golding).
  Mr. Straw: Yes—and my hon. Friend.
  My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary has asked the umbrella organisations to present proposals later this month. I am sure, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that should any of the hon. Members just mentioned be fortunate enough to catch your eye, they will tell the House the rationale behind their proposals.
  The Government will not be committed to any particular option for reform. As we have made it clear, we shall give Parliament the opportunity to vote on the merits of all the main options. All Labour Members, including Ministers, will have a free vote on all options.
  Mr. Owen Paterson: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Straw: I am going to conclude; I am sorry.
  It is too early to be precise about the procedural mechanisms for such a Bill. However, as I have already indicated, we believe that it should follow the model that was used for the Sunday Trading Act 1994. For that legislation, the then Government ensured that this House could choose between options for reform, and that, when the legislation proceeded to the other place, arrangements were made for the same choice between options to be made available there. Although that legislation was delivered to the other place in the form decided in votes by this place, the Government tabled in the other place the options that were available to this place.
  As we all know, discussion of hunting is often characterised by strongly held views. Those who are opposed to it often focus solely on the welfare of individual animals, whereas the hunting community have often argued their case from the standpoint of the activity

  533
  as part of an integrated social, economic and environmental management system. The report deals with those apparently irreconcilable differences by carefully and independently analysing each separate issue. I believe that it is evident that the report has gone a considerable way towards achieving a wider agreement about the analysis of the issues.
  What the report does not do is to arrive at any overall conclusion on the value of hunting or the implications of a ban. It is up to each right hon. and hon. Member to reach a conclusion on that matter. In so doing, I urge all right hon. and hon. Members to consider the report as a whole. It is a valuable document, and I thoroughly commend it to the House.
  10.6 am
  Mr. David Lidington: I should first like to express to the House my apologies—which I have already communicated to Ministers and to the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes)—for the fact that, like the Home Secretary, I shall have to leave before the conclusion of the debate. However, I shall, of course, study the Hansard reports of the speeches that I shall be unable to hear in person.
  Also like the Home Secretary, I pay tribute to the work done by Lord Burns and his team. They were clearly given a difficult, complicated and controversial task and a tight time scale within which to complete it. It is a tribute to the thoroughness and impartiality with which they set about that task that, by and large, their bona fides have been accepted by partisans on both sides of the debate.
  At one stage, Lord Burns and one of his colleagues visited my constituency, to visit the hunt kennels of the Old Berkeley Beagles. From talking to constituents who met him, his team and the observers from the campaigning organisations on each side of the argument, I know that my constituents were impressed by the courtesy and thoroughness of the questioning and by the serious approach that Lord Burns and his colleagues brought to their inquiry.
  The report discussed numerous issues, such as the relationship between hunting and conservation, the economic impact that a ban would have, particularly on upland rural areas, and hunting's social and cultural importance in some of the country's most remote rural districts. I should like to deal first, however, with what I regard as the central issue of the debate: the conflict between two principles, each of which is admirable and important—individual liberty, and the improvement of animal welfare and the prevention of cruelty.
  Ultimately, the judgment that each hon. Member will have to make in a free vote will depend mainly on how we deal with the tension between those two principles. My view, having studied the Burns report, remains that the principle of civil liberty and individual choice should be overturned by legislative actions only if there is an overwhelming case in favour of such Government intervention. I believe that the evidence presented by the committee of inquiry, far from providing evidence that such an overwhelming case exists, leads one to conclude that there are very good reasons why, in this debate, we should indeed prefer the cause of individual liberty.
  534
  Even those who argue for a ban generally concede that, by its very nature, a ban generally amounts to a serious intrusion by government and legislative action into individual freedom. One thing that comes through in the report is that many of our fellow citizens—even though they are in a minority—enjoy hunting, as participants or spectators. The statistics are printed in appendix 7 of the Burns report on page 203. About 27,500 people are subscribers to hunts and 38,500 are members of hunt supporters' clubs. Elsewhere in the report, the inquiry team draws attention to the fact that far greater numbers of people attend hunt functions, point-to-point events and other social and sporting activities related to hunting, even if they do not participate in hunting in person.
  Dr. Nick Palmer: The hon. Gentleman initially argued that the question was a balance between animal welfare and liberty. He now appears to be arguing that the number of people involved is crucial. The logic of that, to take a classic example, would be that bear baiting would be all right if it were popular, but that we could ban it if it were not.
  Mr. Lidington: An important point of principle would still be at stake if Parliament outlawed a lawful recreation enjoyed by 65 people, let alone more than 65,000. The fact that hunting is a minority activity is not in itself a reason to introduce a statutory ban. Many of those involved in hunting or who support it feel strongly and passionately about their case. Whenever I talk to some of my constituents, such as the Baroness Mallalieu, I realise how passionate is their commitment to hunting, which they regard as having an economic and cultural importance to rural areas, quite apart from the principle of individual freedom which I have discussed.
  Sir Nicholas Lyell: On the widespread support in the country, it is not only a question of numbers and passionate feelings. Is it not the case that every acre in the United Kingdom over which the 150 or so hunts pass is hunted over with the active permission of the farmers who own and farm that land and who strongly support the continuance of hunting?
  Mr. Lidington: My right hon. and learned Friend makes a powerful point, which I shall develop shortly.
  I have never taken part in hunting or felt that I wanted to do so. I do not share the strong and passionate feelings of those who participate in hunting. However, I feel strongly that, in the absence of an overwhelming case for legislative intervention, it is wrong for the state and the law to intervene to stop people participating in activities which at the moment are lawful. The Burns committee draws attention to the issue of civil liberty and individual freedom when it discusses the possible grounds for challenging a statutory ban on the basis of the European convention on human rights which, of course, the Government have incorporated into domestic law. The committee singles out two possible legal grounds on which such action could take place.
  Paragraph 10.9 of the report refers to article 8 of the ECHR, which deals with
  the right to respect for private and family life.
  Article 8 states:
  There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of…

  535
  certain criteria which would justify such legal intervention, including
  national security, public safety,…the economic well-being of the country
  and
  the protection of health and morals.
  The committee concludes that there is a debate about the application of article 8 to a possible ban on hunting and states that, at the very least, it is arguable that hunting is a private, not a public, activity as it takes place because individuals choose privately to get together and engage in hunting on privately owned land with the permission of its owners. The committee goes on to argue that a challenge under article 8 would presumably have to be resisted by the supporters of a ban on the grounds that a ban was necessary for the protection of morals. That is quite a problematic argument. and I counsel those who argue strongly for a ban to consider whether their support for that would be compatible with their support for the incorporation of the ECHR.
  Mr. Beith: Does that not present the Home Secretary with a problem? When the Home Secretary certifies that the Bill is compliant, will he not have to specify the effect of the different options? I hope that the Home Secretary will consider that. Would the hon. Gentleman like to encourage the Home Secretary to reflect on the procedure involved, as the Bill would require a conditional certificate?
  Mr. Lidington: The right hon. Gentleman makes a very good point indeed, and I endorse his request to the Home Secretary to make such provision on each of the options that the Government are currently drafting.
  Mr. Ivor Caplin: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that Deadline 2000 presented evidence about the ECHR from an eminent QC?
  Mr. Lidington: Yes, indeed. The Burns report refers to the different legal opinions that Deadline 2000 and the Countryside Alliance presented to the committee of inquiry. I am struck by the committee's conclusion on page 160 of the report. As always, it uses cautious language, and states:
  Legislation to ban hunting might be open to challenge under Article 1 Protocol I—
  which I want to discuss in a moment—
  and…Article 8 (respect for private life) of the European Convention on Human Rights.
  Article 1 of the first protocol deals with the right to
  the peaceful enjoyment of…possessions.
  It states:
  No-one shall be deprived of his possession except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of international law.
  It goes on to state that those provisions
  shall not…impair the right of a state to enforce such laws as it deems necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest or to secure the payment of taxes or other contributions or penalties.
  Two points arise from that aspect of the law. First, could restrictions on the use of property such as land and animals—in this case, horses and hounds—be justified as
  536
  a point of principle under the ECHR? Secondly, if a ban could be justified, could it be enforced in compliance with the ECHR in the absence of compensation for the owners of property for the deprivation of the right to which they were entitled under the convention and the Human Rights Act 1998?
  Clearly, the question whether there could be an effective challenge brings us either to an argument of principle or to a legal argument relating to the Human Rights Act and whether a ban could be demonstrated to be justifiable on the grounds that it was necessary to prevent cruelty to animals. Burns addressed that point directly. In the context of human rights legislation, he asked whether legislators could point to unnecessary suffering or some other reference point beyond mere disapproval to reflect the general interest.
  The central argument of those who support a ban is that hunting inevitably involves cruelty, and that the need to end that cruelty outweighs the restriction on individual freedom. The Burns committee chose its words carefully when it concluded that hunting with hounds
  seriously compromises the welfare of the fox.
  By extension, therefore, the implication is that it would seriously compromise the welfare of any hunted animal.
  However, the committee added that the question of hunting with hounds should not be considered in isolation. I have never heard it argued in any debate that foxes or any of the other quarry species should be protected by law. The assumption, even among ardent supporters of a ban, is that some methods of control, culling or wildlife management would still be needed. People do not argue that foxes should enjoy the legal protection granted to badgers, for example.
  Mr. Desmond Swayne: Another question has to do with what a natural death for foxes in the wild consists of. Some hon. Members seem to believe that elderly foxes go into retirement care homes. Life in the wild can be unpleasant, even without hunting.
  Mr. Lidington: My hon. Friend makes an important point. Foxes do not go to retirement homes, and they are not taken to the vets to be put to sleep when they hit old age or are injured in the wild.
  The Burns report makes it clear that arguments about alleged cruelty caused by hunting must be considered alongside an assessment of the alleged cruelty intrinsic to other methods of animal control. It states that
  the welfare of animals which are hunted should be compared with the welfare which, on a realistic assessment, would be likely to result from the legal methods used by farmers and others to manage the population of these animals in the event of a ban on hunting.
  I submit that any method of control that results in death should be considered to "seriously compromise the welfare" of the animal concerned.
  The report deals with other methods of control. Several of my hon. Friends have referred to lamping, which is the method that the committee appears to prefer. The inquiry reported that, in many areas of the country, lamping would be neither feasible nor safe.
  The inquiry team also discussed shooting with shotguns, snaring, and trapping, and it referred in passing to the poisoning or gassing of animals. It is currently illegal to gas or poison foxes, although the Government have a gassing programme for badgers.
  Mr. Luff: The National Farmers Union sent a letter to Members of Parliament this week, in which it stated:
  Effective and humane lamping requires a level of expertise which is in short supply; moreover there is increasing evidence of it becoming less effective due to foxes becoming "lamp-shy".
  It is therefore wrong to regard lamping as some sort of panacea.
  Mr. Lidington: My hon. Friend makes a good point. The inquiry concluded:
  None of the legal methods of fox control is without difficulty from an animal welfare perspective.
  It is difficult to shoot a fox accurately without wounding it, and snares and traps may affect species other than the quarry species that landowners want to control. Most reasonable people would appreciate that other methods of control are no less cruel and inflict no less damage to animal welfare than hunting with hounds.
  I would go further. I think that the Burns report's discussion of animal welfare gives too little weight to the fact that, because hunting exists, many farmers and landowners tolerate the presence on their land of foxes—and deer—in much greater numbers than they would otherwise allow. Burns acknowledged that when he concluded that a ban on deer hunting would make an alternative system for culling on Exmoor and in the Quantocks essential and urgent. He also recognised that getting agreement from local farmers and landowners to such a culling programme would probably be very difficult to achieve, and that considerable resentment would be aroused if deer hunting with hounds were to be banned.
  Mr. Robathan: We hear a great deal about how much more effective and humane shooting would be. I suspect that, given my previous career, I have fired more bullets from rifles than any hon. Member currently in the Chamber. My aim was sometimes accurate, and sometimes not. What is certain is that there is no certainty that one will hit the target at which one shoots. I have also shot many animals, with mixed success. Even my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames), who is rabbiting on behind me, may have missed the odd target from time to time.
  Mr. Lidington: Some people who support a ban find it difficult to accept that Conservative Members who take part in various field sports, such as my hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan), speak from experience about alternative forms of control.
  Mr. Malcolm Savidge: Given what the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) said, does the hon. Gentleman think that the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames) should feel a little worried about being compared with a rabbit?
  Mr. Lidington: Perhaps I should not have accepted that intervention. Moreover, the hon. Gentleman should remember that we are debating a possible ban on hunting in England and Wales. He might prefer to make representations about this matter in respect of his constituency to the Scottish Parliament.
  The Government must answer a number of questions when they come to frame the Bill for inclusion in the Queen's Speech this autumn. A number of hon. Members
  538
  have mentioned the economic impact of a ban. The right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed pointed out that the economic impact would be felt disproportionately in the most remote areas of England and Wales—and especially in remote upland areas, where the crisis facing agriculture is greatest, and where it is hard to see how alternative forms of employment could be provided.
  Mr. Gray: I want to allay a myth that comes from the Burns committee, about which the NFU is particularly upset—the entirely false distinction between upland and lowland areas. The NFU makes it plain that, agriculturally and in terms of pest control, we should not make that distinction.
  Mr. Lidington: My hon. Friend makes his point. It is clear from the Burns report that the loss of jobs is a burden that would fall especially hard on the remoter upland areas, precisely because alternative employment is rare and because the interconnection between agriculture, hunting and other forms of economic activity is more intricate and delicate in those areas.
  I hope that, when the Government introduce their Bill, they will say how, if at all, they plan to assist those people and parts of country that would be most hard hit if a ban were enacted by Parliament. I hope, too, that the Government will make it clear how they intend to help farmers to replace the fallen stock service that hunt kennels currently provide. On the evidence presented in the Burns report, the 200 hunts that were surveyed dealt with 336,000 carcases. Every sector of farming is facing deep recession, so it will be hard for farmers to shoulder the burden of additional charges for the disposal of fallen stock, quite apart from the animal welfare implications involved if farmers have to send injured stock long distances so that they can be disposed of humanely at a distant abattoir.
  I am conscious of the fact that many hon. Members on both sides of the House wish to take part in the debate.
  Mr. Paterson: Does my hon. Friend agree that it would be helpful if the Government were to provide a schedule not only of the costs of compensation and the fallen stock service, but of the estimated costs of the extra policemen and, possibly, prison space that will be required, given that resistance to such a measure will be massive?
  Mr. Lidington: It would be interesting if the Home Secretary were to make available to the House as background information for our debates on the Bill the representations made to him by the Association of Chief Police Officers about the challenge that the police would face in implementing any ban. Again, attention is drawn to that point in the Burns report.
  I believe that this thorough report makes no case whatever for a ban on hunting with hounds. On the contrary, I argue that running right through the report is evidence to show that hunting plays an important part in rural areas and that the harm to animal welfare of alternative methods of control would be at least as great if hunting were abolished by law. I hope that those hon. Members who have campaigned and argued for a statutory ban will not just pay lip service to the report, but will weigh its evidence and learn from its conclusions.
  10.34 am
  Mr. Gordon Prentice: I apologise to the House because, unfortunately, I will not be able to stay for the entire debate. I have to go to Exeter to attend Labour's national policy forum, where we are forging the policies that will take us into our second term. One of those policies will not be a ban on hunting with hounds because the issue will be resolved in this Parliament. That is the reason why I have publicly congratulated my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary on giving a commitment to introduce a Government Bill in November. There will be a free vote on a multi-option Bill, which will put the issue to bed at long last.
  Burns has produced a good report, packed solid with facts and figures on hunting with dogs, but of course it does not touch on the ethnical dimension, which was outside the Burns committee's terms of reference. That is unfortunate because many people believe, as I do, that it is repulsive to kill animals for fun. That is what we are talking about.
  Mr. Robathan rose—
  Mr. Lembit Öpik rose—
  Mr. Prentice: I do not have much time, but I shall give way.
  Mr. Öpik: I shall not detain the hon. Gentleman for long. He says that it is repulsive to kill animals for fun; presumably he would include fishing and shooting in his list.
  Mr. Prentice: That is so predictable.
  A couple of years ago, during the debate on the Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Foster), Polly Toynbee wrote an article entitled "Labour should go to earth on fox-hunting". She was against Labour introducing a ban, but she said:
  Fox-hunters are not pest-control exterminators on horseback nor a mounted job-creation scheme. They are people out enjoying themselves.
  Their best argument is that hunting is fun. Many people go hunting because they enjoy it. There is a difference of opinion on the ethical position, I think that killing a wild mammal for fun is repellant, but the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik) disagrees with me.
  Mr. Öpik rose—
  Mrs. Llin Golding rose—
  Mr. Prentice: I shall not give way for the moment.
  The key conclusion in the Burns report is that hunting with dogs compromises the welfare of the hunted animal. It is cruel. Deadline 2000—the umbrella organisation that includes blue chip animal welfare organisations, such as the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals—endorses the view expressed in the Burns report that the central issue is that the killing of foxes and other animals is cruel. The formulation used in the Burns report is that the welfare of the hunted animals is "seriously compromised," which, in effect, means that it is cruel.
  Mr. Robathan: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Prentice: Not for the moment, no.
  540
  The issue is not one of town versus country, nor of Labour versus the Conservatives. I visited the Burns website this morning and read the evidence that had been submitted to Burns from the Conservative Anti Hunt Council. I do not know whether the shadow Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe), is a member, but, Mr. Deputy Speaker, your distinguished predecessor in the previous Parliament, Dame Janet Fookes, is a member of that council. The man who was the standard bearer in the London mayoral elections, Steven Norris—a prominent Conservative—is leading member of that council. In fact, he is a vice-president. Other Conservative luminaries are members, including the stargazer, Dr. Patrick Moore, and the hon. Member for Rochford and Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor). Many Conservatives believe, as I do, that hunting is cruel and should be banned. The issue is not about Labour versus the Conservatives, nor the town versus the country; it is about cruelty and killing for fun.
  Mr. Robathan rose—
  Mrs. Golding: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Prentice: Not for the moment.
  When I was minded to table my amendment to the Countryside and Rights of Way Bill, I received lots of letters from people all over the country on this issue—80 per cent. in favour of an outright ban and 20 per cent. very hostile.
  Mr. Gray: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Prentice: Not for the moment.
  I received a charming letter from a shepherd, although those who believe the propaganda might think that if anyone would be hostile to people such as me it would be a shepherd—someone who cares for his flock. However, he is a
  shepherd, a countryman, and I know exactly what these sadists do…to think that people make a living on the torture of animals is obscene.
  I think that it is brutalising.
  There was a demonstration in Parliament square a fortnight ago when my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary made his statement. I went out to see what was happening, and came back here to call the demonstrators a rabble. Two men positioned themselves directly behind me and from them came a constant stream of vitriol. I would not engage them in conversation nor would I move. I received a stream of abuse. Killing animals for fun and engaging in systematic cruelty brutalises people.
  Mr. Robathan: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Prentice: Not for the moment.
  I have a letter here that says, "You stinking little rat." It comes from Christopher Baker of Broad Oak House, Odiham, Hampshire.
  Mr. Ian Cawsey: What is his phone number?
  Mr. Prentice: It is 01256 702482. Mr. Baker says: GO TO HELL. May you rot.
  That is what we are dealing with. People feel very strongly about these things.
  Mr. Gray: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Prentice: Not for the moment.
  Mr. Luff: Will the hon. Gentleman give way on that point?
  Mr. Prentice: Yes, on that point.
  Mr. Luff: It should be made clear that Members on both sides of the House have been sent abusive letters on this subject. I have received some of the most upsetting correspondence that I have ever had, damning me and my family to hell for daring to propose a compromise. It is not right for the hon. Gentleman to suggest that the traffic is one way.
  Mr. Prentice: I do not resile from what I have said. Today, the Countryside Alliance is demonstrating outside my constituency office. Members would not necessarily wish that on my staff.
  Mr. GarnierI am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. Does he agree that rather than rehearsing some of the abusive correspondence that he has no doubt received, it would be far better for us all if he and I agreed that there should be a much more relaxed and rational debate about access and field sports, which is what we agreed while sipping champagne on a first-class aeroplane journey to Korea not long ago?
  Mr. Prentice: At least the hon. and learned Gentleman did not revisit the cost of the Burns report, which is a relief.
  I am concerned about the understated threat that there will be a reaction if Parliament is minded to legislate to ban cruelty and killing for fun. A correspondent got in touch to say:
  The Poll tax unrest was nothing compared to what is now going to happen.
  To people who write such letters, I say that the House is the democratic forum of the nation. If we decide that the law is to change, people will just have to accept the fact and move on. In that respect, I shall refer to correspondence from the master of my own fox hunt in Pendle.
  I do not represent an urban constituency, and in the northern part of my area there is a hunt, which runs over the border in Ribble Valley. The master wrote to me last month in measured terms, saying that were Parliament to ban hunting with hounds, that would have a devastating effect on the countryside—as if I do not live there; as if I do not hold surgeries there week in, week out; and as if I do not speak to people in the countryside. The master tells me that there would be problems in the countryside and that a ban would be an economic catastrophe. The whole thing is completely fanciful.
  The master says that
  the Hunt acts as an important social base for farming communities
  542
  and refers to "dances and social evenings". That may be so, but it can still have its dances and social evenings without those being linked to cruelty and killing for fun. There is a big drag hunt in Cheshire and I am sure that it holds social evenings and dances. People can dance the night away, but that need not be connected with killing for fun. In his last paragraph, Mr. Bannister echoes the previous letter that I read to the House. He tells me:
  There is considerable unrest in the countryside and it would be very sad if hunting were abolished by law.
  Here is the vision of "Apocalypse Now":
  This could see the countryside on the march again, where some one million people would certainly descend on London and the police would have an incredibly difficult job of policing the countryside where there could be a possibility of thousands of law abiding citizens breaking the law for the first time.
  When I read that letter, I wondered what my reaction would have been 15 years ago had I received from the president of a miners lodge in Nottinghamshire a letter written in such terms saying that the miners would be on the march against the Thatcher Government, that a million people would descend on London and all havoc would be let loose. There would have been an incredible reaction.
  To Mr. Bannister and those who think like him, including Opposition Members, I say that I am relieved that my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench have decided to introduce a Government Bill that will not put anyone in a corner. A multi-option Bill will accommodate the views of Liberal Democrat Members and some of my hon. Friends as well. I believe that that is the way forward and I wish the Bill well.
  10.48 am
  Mr. Tom King: I owe the Minister an apology. I fear that he might be a lonely man when he makes his winding-up speech, as I am afraid that I, too, am unable to stay. He faces the awful prospect of speaking to an empty House.
  Mr. Leigh: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As every Member who has spoken so far has to leave the debate early, might those who will stay to the end be given precedence?
  Hon. Members: Hear, hear!
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Unfortunately, the occupant of the Chair is not always aware of the detailed plans of every Member of the House.
  Mr. Soames: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I will be here to the very end. May I be advanced accordingly?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Chair carefully notes that point of order.
  Mr. King: I have no doubt that my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames) will stay to the end and longer.
  The Home Secretary rightly said that this will be the 15th debate on hunting in 20 years. I have taken part in almost all those debates, and I have heard too many

  543
  speeches like that by the hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice). We owe it to Lord Burns and his report to discuss the matter more sensibly and with rather more insight, instead of speaking from entrenched positions and expressing entrenched views. As far as the hon. Member for Pendle is concerned, the Burns report might as well not have been produced. In the past, we had what could be described as a dialogue of the deaf. We knew before the debate started what people would say and, to put it bluntly, there was considerable ignorance about a number of the issues involved.
  In his foreword to the report, Lord Burns makes the point that the issue is not simple; it is not a simple matter of cruelty and killing for fun. In some parts of my constituency, hunting is an extremely important and significant issue. Burns and his colleagues identified that in the report. However, in other parts of my constituency, there are people who write exactly the sort of letters that the hon. Member for Pendle referred to. They are appalled, disgusted and sometimes very irritated by the behaviour of the hunt and the conduct of its supporters on occasions. I am familiar with the issues on both sides.
  Now there is no excuse for anyone to speak from ignorance, because the Burns report makes an important contribution to the debate. I trust that anyone involved with the issue in future will make themselves familiar with it. I welcome the report. I pay tribute to Lord Burns and his colleagues and I am grateful for the time that they spent on it. Part of Exmoor is in my constituency and, although I do not think that this is a reflection on the hon. Member for Taunton (Jackie Ballard), the boundary commission is now proposing to transfer the rest of Exmoor from her constituency to mine. That may be a coincidence, but I do not think that the people of Exmoor will fight passionately to keep the hon. Lady as their Member of Parliament in future.
  Turning to the Burns report and its appendices, I do not think that the hon. Member for Pendle has read Contract 7, which appears in one of the appendices. It is available only on CD-ROM. I understand that in the interests of speed in producing the report, there has to be a whole series of additional volumes. God knows what the report would have cost otherwise. However, I understand that public libraries will provide photocopies of 100 pages, if necessary. The seventh contract is the research contract for Sir Patrick Bateson and Professor Harris. My point is that the material is now available to enable people to talk with rather more knowledge and information.
  I shall concentrate on two issues of particular significance in my constituency—stag hunting and the hunting of deer. I shall leave others to address fox hunting. I add in passing that Lord Burns and his colleagues dealt with two issues very usefully. The first is the silly argument about drag hunting that has come up before; it has been difficult to explain to some hon. Members why drag hunting is not an alternative, and it is sometimes proposed as if it were a way out. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex has referred to that. Secondly, Burns addressed the silly and rather offensive argument that people go hunting to kill for pleasure.
  The Burns report acknowledges that hunting is a minority pursuit. As my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) made clear from the Front Bench, there is nothing wrong with that. Burns makes it clear from the start that if the majority want to make
  544
  any changes, the onus is on them to determine their entitlement and the grounds on which to take what in many circumstances any democratic society would consider an unacceptable step. The majority have a duty to the minority, especially given that in this case a huge number of that majority are totally uninformed about the issues and the facts.
  As the Burns report made clear, in certain areas hunting is a majority pursuit that commands majority support. The following quotation from paragraph 4.43 of the report relates particularly to my constituency. It states:
  support for hunting and a belief in its importance to individuals and the community, is substantially greater for residents and interviewees in the Devon and Somerset study area…For example, a half of all respondents in the Devon and Somerset study area thought that hunting was very important or fairly important to their daily lives.
  The hon. Member for Pendle made some rather flippant comments about whist drives and dances.
  Mr. Clifton-Brown: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it not a long-held tradition of the House that an Member who makes a speech should stay in the Chamber at least to hear the following speech, instead of leaving after five minutes?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: It is indeed understood that when an hon. Member has addressed the House it is normal for him to remain at least to hear the next speech.
  Mr. King: Paragraph 4.54 of the report states:
  It is clear that, especially for participants in more isolated rural communities, hunting acts as a significant cohesive force, encouraging a system of mutual support. Farmers and other landowners—many of whom feel increasingly isolated—are both the linchpins and the main beneficiaries of the system. Many of them also value hunting as an expression of a traditional, rural way of life and would strongly resent what they would see as an unnecessary and ill-informed interference with it. As a result it would increase their sense of alienation.
  I have tried to make that point in the House on previous occasions. It is a conclusion of Lord Burns and his colleagues in their report, and they are absolutely right.
  Mr. Soames: I have heard my right hon. Friend make this point before, but I had not previously seen it for myself until this year when I went down to visit the Devon and Somerset staghounds. One gets some idea from being there and seeing it that hunting is one of the most important aspects of their lives for hundreds of people for whom there is very little else in that part of the world, and for whom the hunt truly provides a framework for their lives.
  Mr. King: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We are talking about a whole lot of people, many of whom do not hunt and are not involved in the hunt in any way, but for whom it provides a framework for community life. It is important to understand that the issue is more complex and difficult than one would think from the simplistic comments that we have heard from the hon. Member for Pendle.
  The Burns report refers briefly to the history of stag hunting. The Devon and Somerset stag hunts were formed in 1855—150 years ago—because of concern at the virtual disappearance of the herd of deer on Exmoor.

  545
  At that time there were thought to be fewer than 100 deer on Exmoor. Since hunting was introduced and the deer management system, of which hunting is a key integral part, the deer population has increased. There is a considerable spread in the estimated numbers. The figure given by the staghounds on their best count from visual observation was about 2,500, but the Langbein study on dung deposits produced a figure of between 3,000 and 6,000. Whatever the figure, it is clearly a herd in very good health that is well cared for under a deer management strategy that has ensured the survival of the deer—which, as I have often said in the House, have not survived as well in almost any other constituency in the country.
  Lloyd George, in 1917, was concerned about the virtual disappearance of stags from the deer herd in the Quantocks. The Quantock stag hounds was established then and the deer management system was developed, and now there is an extremely healthy herd of between 700 and 800 stags. The deer are enormously valued. They are valuable for tourism, and people who do not want to hunt come to see them. The deer do not hide for fear of being shot at any moment. Every year, 1,000—Lord Burns confirms the figure—are either killed on the road or culled. That keeps the deer population in balance and protects their environment from being destroyed by the deer themselves. Most are culled by shooting and some by hunting.
  Paragraph 5.75 of the Burns report says:
  It is generally accepted that red deer numbers in Devon and Somerset need to be controlled. Hunting with dogs presently accounts for about 15 per cent. of the annual cull needed to maintain the population at its present level. However, because of the widespread support which it enjoys, and consequent tolerance by farmers of deer, hunting at present makes a significant contribution to management of the deer population in this area. In the event of a ban, some overall reduction in total deer numbers might occur unless an effective deer management strategy was implemented, which was capable of promoting the present collective interest in the management of deer and harnessing such interest into sound conservation management.
  That, far more lucidly than I could have expressed it, is precisely the argument that I have put to the House. We must maintain the community of interest of the people who live in Exmoor and the Quantocks, with the farmers and country people, the conservationists, the deer societies, the Exmoor Society, the Exmoor national park, the Quantock rangers and the Countryside Commission, all of which contribute to a complicated and subtle, but proven, system of deer management, which has led to the establishment and maintenance of those wonderful herds. An ill-thought-out ban, imposed in the absence of any alternative deer management strategy, would put at risk the very survival of the deer. That is the implicit concern in the Burns report.
  Mr. Tony Banks: If one wants to ensure that there is an adequate stock of deer, of course deer management schemes are absolutely necessary—they are there to provide good quarry—but how does the right hon. Gentleman explain the fact that there are good thriving herds of deer in Scotland, where, as I understand it, there is no deer hunting?
  Mr. King: The problem in Scotland is entirely different. It is partly a matter of terrain. I have stalked in
  546
  the great open hills of Scotland. Coping with deer management in the wooded combes of Exmoor and the woods and plantations of the Quantock hills is an entirely different problem.
  There has to be culling, and most of it is done by rifle, but it is not easy. This is supposed to be a joined-up government, but new legislation allows everybody to wander at will at night over heath and moorland, at the same time as the Government are actively promoting more lamping and rifle shooting at night. That is heading for a serious problem.
  Mr. Banks: Oh, come on.
  Mr. King: If the hon. Gentleman does not understand the problem, that betrays his ignorance.
  Mr. Banks: I can tell the difference between a fox and a human being.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We have had sufficient sedentary interventions now. Hon. Members who want to speak must seek to catch my eye later.
  Mr. King: The key point is that the farmers, in particular the hunting farmers, feed the deer. The Forestry Commission and the National Trust have plantations and woods on the top of the Quantocks. That is where the deer lie up by day. By night, they come off the hills and down to all the 280 farms that are contiguous with the Quantocks. They graze there and in some cases do significant damage. From time to time, a non-hunting farmer comes to me to ask for a night licence to shoot, because 50 deer are standing in his crops.
  The tolerance of the community has sustained the deer over the years. A lot of the farmers hunt and support the hunt. The House does not understand the gravity of the crisis and the scale of the depression in farming. The consequences of a ban could be very serious indeed for the deer.
  Mr. Gray: My right hon. Friend makes a powerful point about a healthy deer population. Does he agree that Lord Burns implies a similar result with regard to foxes, saying that the healthiest populations tend to be in the areas that are most heavily hunted—the west country and the midlands—whereas in East Anglia, where the concentration is exclusively on game shooting and the gamekeepers are very active, there is an extremely unhealthy population of foxes?
  Mr. King: That is a powerful point, but if my hon. Friend will excuse me, I will not get on to the subject of foxes.
  Were the cruelty so great as to be unacceptable, we would have to consider whether, notwithstanding the considerations that I have outlined, the rights of a minority might have to be overridden by the power of a majority. That is why I was so interested to read Contract 7, the research contract attached to the Burns report. I significantly prefer Contract 7 to the earlier, solo version by Professor Bateson, which members of the National Trust council were given 24 hours to read before the meeting at which they decided to ban stag hunting on National Trust property.

  547
  I did not regard that version as a fair representation of the situation and I am glad that a more measured approach, with more balanced science, was taken in the joint universities study, led by Roger Harris. That study has now been incorporated into the report, and I much prefer Bateson 2 to Bateson 1, as it puts the issues of cruelty and suffering in relation to hunting in a much more balanced context.
  There are undoubtedly passions on both sides, but it must be recognised that for the deer of Devon, Exmoor and the Quantocks, a deer management strategy, incorporating hunting, has led to the survival and improvement—nay, restoration—of those wonderful herds. Now that the Burns report is available, the House has no excuse for taking a sudden and impetuous decision, based on emotion and ignorance. Ignorance is no longer possible, because the evidence is available. I hope that people will now understand the issues more clearly.
  The report contains a strange phrase about seriously compromising the welfare of an animal. What does shooting do to the welfare of an animal? Shooting has its problems, hunting has its difficulties, and gassing, trapping and snaring have even more. The basis of certainty—which the majority would need to have to take away from the minority the right to pursue a legitimate activity—does not exist. The onus of proof lies on the majority, and that is the challenge. The Burns report has made it clear that that onus of proof is not achievable.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Several hon. Members rose—Before I call the next hon. Member, I recognise that many hon. Members are seeking to catch my eye. Unless contributions are reasonably brief, several of them will be disappointed.
  11.11 am
  Mr. Ivor Caplin: First, I can tell the House that I intend to be here until the bitter end today. I pay tribute to Lord Burns, who did an invaluable job in informing this important debate. The right hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) made a point about the Countryside and Rights of Way Bill that I did not understand. People want to walk through the countryside in the daytime in order to see it, so the right hon. Gentleman's point about night-time access is something of a red herring.
  It is good to see several members of Standing Committee C, of which I enjoyed being a member of in 1997–98, in their places. My memories of the Committee were reawakened by reading the report of its proceedings in the past few days and by seeing the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) on television yesterday. I managed to continue to disagree with almost everything he said when he was interviewed with my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Angela Smith), except his valid point that the Burns report is now an important document that all hon. Members should consider.
  I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary on setting up the Burns Committee, on the way in which it was conducted, and on bringing the matter to the House for debate. I have exchanged correspondence with Mr. John Jackson, the chairman of the Countryside Alliance, who is also the chairman of a company in my constituency. His letter to me of 1 October 1999 states:
  I gave you my own views on the desirability of an independent public inquiry when we first met. The more I have become involved in all this, and particularly now that we have the Joint Universities
  548
  Study, the more I am convinced that this is the right thing to do. The hunting community and others who would be affected by any ban on hunting will follow the lead of the Alliance on this matter. The march at Bournemouth this week—
  which, for the benefit of the uninitiated, was during the Labour party conference there
  was in essence a demand for a public inquiry in support of my own open letter to the Prime Minister.
  That is clear evidence of the Countryside Alliance's preference. It wanted a public inquiry and the Home Secretary responded positively to that request, although any of us who have been involved in animal welfare for some years had some deep suspicions about the make-up of the Burns committee and what it was set up to do. However, the report allays those suspicions and I share the view that both sides of the argument appear to have reached in favour of accepting the outcome of the Burns committee.
  I shall examine three key areas of the committee's report—the control of pests, the rural economy and the question of replacements for hunting, such as drag hunting. The issue of pest control is especially interesting. In the report, the committee reaches several conclusions. On page 89, it states:
  the overall contribution of traditional foxhunting, within the overall total of control techniques involving dogs, is almost certainly insignificant in terms of the management of the fox population as a whole.
  It continues:
  shooting, however, has a much greater capacity to reduce fox populations.
  It also makes the point that cubbing
  has no significant effect on the longer-term population unless it reaches very high levels.
  Mr. Öpik: Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that Lord Burns acknowledged large regional variations? For example, in upland areas such as mid-Wales, hunting makes a more significant contribution to fox control.
  Mr. Caplin: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman has been listening at my office door, but my next point is about the difference between lowland and upland areas, which Burns addresses on page 91.
  Mr. Garnier: We had many interesting discussions in Standing Committee C, but does the hon. Gentleman accept that Lord Burns—through no fault of his own, but because of the timetable he faced—was not able to take evidence during the cub hunting season in the autumn? He was appointed in December and had to report by June, so much of the evidence that he might have taken was unavailable to him.
  Mr. Caplin: Lord Burns had plenty of time to complete his inquiry and I do not sense from the report that he needed more time.
  I return to the point made by the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik). The Burns report states:
  In upland areas, where the fox population causes more damages to sheep-rearing and game management interests, and where there is a greater perceived need for control, fewer alternatives are available to the use of dogs, either to flush out to guns or for digging-out.

  549
  It is obvious that the report takes a rounded approach to the issue of control. The committee advocates the use of dogs to locate foxes and flush them to waiting guns, an issue that we discussed at length in Committee. The report specifically mentions the upland areas of Wales.
  When we consider the role of traditional hunting as an efficient method of fox control, and put it into the context of the quotations I have cited from Burns, it is apparent that the effect of hunting is negligible in lowland areas. In upland areas, however, dogs may play an important part. While the use of terriers seriously compromises foxes' welfare, the use of dogs to flush foxes to waiting guns can be humane and effective if properly controlled.
  The right hon. Member for Bridgwater mentioned deer and stag management, but pest control and management can be oversold. I had hoped that the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Dr. Brand) would be here, because he could tell the House that the Isle of Wight had no foxes until they were introduced so that they could be hunted.
  Mr. Swayne: The New Forest lost its buck hounds a couple of years ago. This year, I have received a huge number of representations complaining about the intensity of the deer cull being carried out by the Forestry Commission. The buck hounds never killed many deer, but they did disperse the deer throughout the forest. Now, deer congregate in remoter parts of the forest, precisely where the Forestry Commission does not want them; as a consequence, many more have to be killed.
  Mr. Caplin: I enjoy driving through the hon. Gentleman's constituency and seeing the wildlife of the New Forest, but I do not make a habit of stopping.
  Next, I come to the issues relating to the rural economy, which Lord Burns addressed at some length in chapter 3. In a crucial passage, he says:
  We estimate that somewhere between 6,000 and 8,000 full-time equivalent jobs presently depend on hunting, although the number of people involved may be significantly higher.
  However, he says that it is possible that, in the short term, as few as 700 jobs and a proportion of about 1,500 direct equivalent jobs are supported by hunt-related activities. That is a key part of the report, whichever side of the argument one is on. The Countryside Alliance and those who hunt have advanced the economic argument forcefully for years, but now is the first time that those issues have been properly studied. Lord Burns goes on to say that there might be some long-term impact arising from a ban and that it might take seven to 10 years for diversion of activities.
  I started to think about a similar example of an argument about jobs. As the Member of Parliament for a seaside town with a nearby airport and ports, I remembered the odd debate that we had just over two years ago about duty free. We were told by campaigners that 10,000 or 15,000 jobs would be put at risk by the ending of duty free, but what has happened since it was ended? There has been no impact in terms of job losses at Gatwick airport or Newhaven port or anywhere else in Sussex. Sometimes, it is fair to take accusations about job losses with a pinch of salt.
  Mr. Leigh: Does the same argument apply to Rover?
  Mr. Caplin: We are debating the Burns report and I am drawing out the economic arguments it contains. My
  550
  point is that the forecast of 15,000 job losses resulting from the ending of duty free has not been realised, and Burns himself concludes that a ban would result in the loss of far fewer jobs than the Countryside Alliance has claimed, and also that they might take time to work through.
  Mr. Gray: The hon. Gentleman is making light of job losses, which is rather worrying for the 10,000 to 12,000 people who Lord Burns says may be involved in hunting. He lightly dismisses Rover, but think of the fuss in the House when there was the prospect of 5,000 or 6,000 jobs being lost in the west midlands. My goodness, here we face 10,000 to 12,000 jobs being lost in already deprived and remote areas of the countryside, yet the hon. Gentleman makes light of it, saying, "Look what happened in respect of duty free—there's nothing to worry about, chaps." There is a heck of a lot to worry about and there are 10,000 to 12,000 people out there worrying about it right now.
  Mr. Caplin: First, I did not dismiss the issue of Rover. I have been involved in economic discussions for many years, so the hon. Gentleman is not correct. Secondly, I did not dismiss the hunting job losses—I raised them to draw out Burns's conclusion that, although there is an economic argument to be made, it is not as significant as those who have campaigned to maintain hunting—to maintain the status quo—have claimed. I am using duty free as an example. I accept that we will have to wait and see what happens following a ban, but it strikes me that the economic argument is not as significant as has been claimed.
  Mr. Ian Cawsey: Is my hon. Friend aware that the Burns inquiry said that direct job losses would number about 700, but that other job losses would be linked to changes in horse riding habits, and that those jobs would not be lost if those habits did not change and people did not reduce the number of horses they kept? Is he also aware that, in a recent poll of horse riders, less than 1 per cent. said that they would reduce the number of horses they kept or their riding activities if hunting with dogs was banned?
  Mr. Caplin: I am now worried that other colleagues have been listening at my door, because again that is precisely the point that I was about to make. Perhaps the corridor outside my office is full of colleagues listening out for the contents of my next speech.
  Last week, a gentleman who holds what I consider to be sensible views on many issues told me that he was worried about a ban on hunting because of the impact it would have on point-to-point and its horses. That is a ludicrous argument, as the statistics cited by my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole (Mr. Cawsey) demonstrate. It would be helpful if the debate did not get side-tracked into point-to-point, shooting and fishing, which formed no part of Burns inquiry and are not on the agenda.
  Mr. Paterson rose—
  Mr. Caplin: I knew that that would get the hon. Gentleman on his feet.
  Mr. Paterson: Only yesterday, I received a letter from the British Horseracing Board saying that point-to-point

  551
  would be reduced by 25 per cent. in the event of a ban on hunting. The turnover of point-to-point is £22 million. There would be a significant loss which is not justified by Burns's conclusions.
  Mr. Caplin: The hon. Gentleman is aware that I strongly support horse racing: we have a race course in Brighton and a dog track in Hove. However, I do not believe that point-to-point and racing would be affected by a ban.
  On the question of whether drag hunting could provide a sufficient replacement for hunting with dogs, I thought that drag hunting was fox hunting without the fox. Burns does not share that view, which is fair. However, he does say that that the sport could be adapted, and that some drag hunts try to duplicate some of the typical hound work and unpredictability of fox hunting. Perhaps the masters of the drag hunt who are not in their places should consider whether that could be a possibility in the longer term.
  Mr. Luff: That is such a distortion of the Burns report. Let me quote the crucial conclusion:
  It is unlikely that either drag and bloodhound hunting or drag coursing would of themselves mitigate to any substantial extent any adverse effects on the rural economy of the social life of the countryside arising from a ban on hunting.
  Mr. Caplin: I accept that, but earlier the report states:
  There is also possible scope for developing other forms of cross country riding, possibly on a fee-paying basis.
  My point is that there is an opportunity to develop drag hunting.
  I welcome the idea of a Bill with options, which my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and the Home Office have proposed. I hope that when the House takes a democratic decision, there will be no interference after the House of Lords has arrived at its conclusions and the democratic will of this House has prevailed, as it should. Ultimately, every individual Member of Parliament has to make up his or her own mind on the issues. Before the general election, I told my constituents in Hove and Portslade that I would support a ban on hunting with hounds. I stood by that statement in the vote in November 1997, and the Burns report has reaffirmed my belief that imposing a ban would be right. In the autumn, it will be time for us to move on and let the House make a necessary final decision.
  11.29 am
  Mr. Lembit Öpik: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to contribute to the debate.
  To some extent, my speech is a request for feedback from those who unquestionably follow such debates in Hansard. The Middle Way group hopes to act to some extent as a facilitator to those who are not comfortable either with the more traditional position of no change, or with a total ban on hunting with dogs.
  Much has been said about the Middle Way group. We have been called the Trojan horse by the League Against Cruel Sports, which says that we are advocates for the status quo. Interestingly, the Countryside Alliance has accused us of being a Trojan horse for those who support a ban. I am encouraged. The Middle Way group has
  552
  drawn succour from the fact that both sides at times have been suspicious of our motives, but here we stand. I hope that down the years people have become a little more confident that that cross-party organisation is genuinely seeking to find an accommodation that balances the concerns that all hon. Members have, and balances animal welfare considerations with human rights.
  Dr. Palmer: Just to clarify, the hon. Gentleman refers to the Middle Way group quite grandly as an organisation. How many hon. Members belong to it?
  Mr. Öpik: We may be small, but we are perfectly formed. Despite accusations that we have received £50,000—I think that that was the figure—from the Countryside Alliance, having done the calculation, we estimate that the entire expenditure of the Middle Way group in the roughly two years of its existence is under £3,000, including room bookings and stationery, so we are a small group. We have enough right hon. and hon. Members and Lords to constitute the organisation, but our resource is our idea. That is what we stand on, although if anyone wishes to make significant contributions to the group, no reasonable offer will be refused.
  The goal of the group is straightforward. We aim to put forward proposals that, nominally, at least 80 per cent. of the British population would find reasonable and a sensible way forward. A secondary but necessary step in achieving that leads us to our second goal: to act as the facilitator in the wider debate, if we can. We would like to develop that role, if hon. Members and organisations found that helpful, and perhaps even to promote public debate and public meetings, where all sides were able to put their views forward and the public were able to judge the merit of what was said.
  The principles of the Middle Way group are straightforward. First, we seek to balance animal welfare concerns with human rights. Secondly, we believe that fox numbers need to be controlled. I think that all sides agree on that point now. The question, therefore, is not, in the group's view, whether we kill foxes. The question is how best to do it.
  Thirdly, we believe that there is a civil liberties issue that must be addressed. Of course it is right to be concerned about welfare of animals, but we believe that sometimes in the debate the animal welfare considerations have overridden concerns that we have had about human rights considerations.
  That is a vexed issue. For example, I asked the hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) whether he would also ban fishing and shooting. There is no doubt that fishing seriously compromises the welfare of the fish. Again, the hon. Gentleman did not respond to that explicitly. Our view in the Middle Way group is that there is a lack of consistency at times in how some people treat the question of hunting foxes with dogs—proposing a ban—and how they handle other sports which they have explicitly said they would not ban.
  Mr. Banks: The hon. Gentleman is a perfectly decent fellow. I have heard him use those arguments before about fishing. Perhaps he could tell me the position of the Middle Way group with regard to angling. While he is at it, what is the position of the Middle Way group with

  553
  regard to hare coursing and deer hunting? He must appreciate that the person who takes the middle way usually gets shot at by both sides.
  Mr. Öpik: I am sure that that is not an implied threat by the hon. Gentleman, who I do not believe has a gun licence, I am relieved to say. The Middle Way group's position is clear. We do not seek to stray beyond the question of fox hunting at this stage. The hon. Gentleman is entitled to ask that question, but the reason why we have restricted ourselves, for now at least, to fox hunting is not that we do not have personal views—I do have personal views, which I have privately shared with him and others; I am not worried about doing that—but that the group is limited in its resources, and the key issue facing the House at the moment is fox hunting. As we get feedback, which I hope we will do, and as the debate evolves, it may be constructive to discuss the issues relating to hare coursing, and deer and stag hunting, as the Burns inquiry does. Perhaps that is the right way forward, but in this brief speech I would not wish to go that far. I hope that the hon. Gentleman, even if he is a bit frustrated by my answer, at least acknowledges its sincerity.
  The reason why I mentioned fishing is that we are concerned that there is consistency in how we handle all the issues. I have made that point; I do not wish to repeat it. It is worth bearing it in mind that the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals has determined that, in its judgment, fish do feel pain, so the issues that we are discussing with regard to fox hunting could be validly applied to fishing, too.
  The final principle by which we operate is a belief that dialogue will improve the outcome of our debate as a whole. We work on the assumption that, if we enter a genuine dialogue, listen, and use the Lord Burns report as our biblical guide to the debate, the sum total of the legislation that we produce will make more sense and will be regarded as fair by the public, even if, at this point, there are still entrenched views on the matter.
  It is worth stating that the Middle Way group was one of the first to call for an inquiry last year. We were glad when the Government were clearly thinking along the same lines. In that context the group said that we would respect and honour our commitment to take the inquiry's position as an objective input, and that therefore, even if some of the outcomes were not what we would have wished, we would use them as a starting point. On that basis, I am encouraged to hear what the hon. Member for Hove (Mr. Caplin) has said. He too is illustrating that people who have had strong views on the subject are beginning to think about it in a more informed and objective fashion. I praise him—I had lots of exchanges with him on Standing Committee C—for seriously and constructively entering the debate.
  The Middle Way group has looked at the Burns inquiry. There are some clear implications. I do not wish to go into those in any detail because other hon. Members will unquestionably explore them further. If the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, he may do so, but it is interesting to note the recognition that practice varies widely between, for example, upland and lowland areas, and that hunting with dogs is a significant form of fox control in
  554
  many upland areas, including mid-Wales. It is also interesting that guns are not a surefire way to dispatch foxes. There are cases of foxes being wounded. That could be regarded in some ways as more compromising than killing a fox outright with dogs. Other arguments have already been advanced—I do not wish to repeat them—with regard to economic considerations.
  The Middle Way group has tried to include all that in its deliberations. I should like to lay out what we believe should be the way forward. We will make the submission to the Government in the hope that it is constructive to the debate. Any hon. Member or member of the public who wishes to examine our proposals in detail will be most welcome to contact us. We will do our best to supply the information that they need.
  In one sentence, the Middle Way group's proposal is to set up a statutory independent hunting authority, known as Offox, with the power to regulate fox hunting and fox control with a series of regular—
  Mr. Savidge: Foxoff.
  Mr. Öpik: I knew that I would regret calling it Offox here, but there we go. I hope that the name sticks.
  It would have a series of inspectors who could drop in unannounced to any of the fox hunts throughout the country to ensure that standards of welfare and procedure were in line with the code of practice. The whole thing would be paid for through a licensing system. Our intention would be that it cost the taxpayer nothing.
  Mr. Gray: Has the hon. Gentleman noticed that there is a curious omission from the Burns report? It talks briefly about licensing, but then says that there are no examples in this country of licensing of fox hunts, ignoring the fact that the Government themselves license 25 packs that hunt on Ministry of Defence land and 100 or so packs that hunt on Forestry Commission land. Would that not be a good exemplar to use in the possible licensing regime that he describes?
  Mr. Öpik: That is the case. I interpreted Lord Burns as saying that there was no nationally established formal and statutory licensing system. As the hon. Gentleman says, however, there are local examples and the industry has made efforts at self-regulation. There are established licensing procedures in other countries, and other hon. Members may wish to expound those.
  In giving a little more detail on the Middle Way group's proposals, I shall highlight the areas in which we should most welcome feedback from the public or from hon. Members.
  First, there are two choices on the make-up of the independent hunting authority. We could take the approach exemplified by the Northern Ireland Executive and Assembly, in which people explicitly aligned with one or other side of the debate are appointed according to quotas that ensure a consensual way forward. If that can be done in the vexed political environment that used to exist in Northern Ireland, it can surely be done in a hunting authority.
  Alternatively, we could have a regulator with no personal interest in or stated concern about the subject. He or she could invite contributions and make an objective

  555
  analysis. Both options are viable, and we shall make a decision on where we stand during the next two weeks. All contributions on the matter are welcome.
  The next point at issue concerns who would create the code of practice. We believe that the Government should provide a steer on aspects of the code such as hunting with dogs, and the many other possible ways of dispatching foxes. The details, however, should be developed by the independent hunting authority, perhaps after informal liaison with the Home Secretary.
  What should the code cover? We think that it should involve all forms of hunting, including hunting with dogs, gun packs, foot packs, horse-borne hunts, snaring, lamping and other forms of fox control. It should cover the use of terriers, which has been highly contentious. It should also cover dog welfare standards and the breeding of foxes, the blocking up of earths and the use of artificial earths. The code should include guidance on seasons and on trespass and public safety. That list may not be exclusive, and we should be happy to consider other contributions to it.
  Mr. Leigh: I have considerable sympathy with what the hon. Gentleman advocates, which ties in with what the Burns report says. The problem, however, is that we must ask whether the other side is prepared to compromise. If we give concessions on all those matters—terrier work, artificial earths, stopping up or even agreeing restrictions on the areas hunted—will the other side be prepared to compromise? I fear not.
  Mr. Öpik: If the Middle Way group had£30 million, we would put all our proposals on billboards, which would hopefully influence the other side. As it is, our only weapon is the strength of our argument. To be fair to the other side, however, my colleagues and I are beginning to detect increasing dialogue, largely prompted by the Burns report. If we are to be successful, it will be on the basis of good faith, and that is beginning to develop. Time will tell.
  We believe that it would be inappropriate to tie up the police in enforcement, so inspectors should have strong powers allowing them to drop in on hunts unannounced to determine whether codes are being adhered to. Sanctions should involve anything from cautioning to revocation of licences. Civil proceedings should be appropriate if the statutory code is violated. We could revoke a licence either for an individual huntsman or for an entire hunt. Certain qualifications should be necessary before a licence is granted. There are many superb huntsmen in the country, and any worth his or her salt would not be frightened by having to qualify for a licence.
  Licences should also include details that will cover the cowboys who have brought hunting into disrepute. It should be required that a huntsman telephones a central number before going outside his or her prescribed area of normal operation. That would ensure that a record was kept, which would stop cowboys going out of towns to operate in unprescribed and unregulated ways.
  How would all that be paid for? A licensing fee of somewhere between£35 and£70 per head of those who hunt would allow the operation to be self-funding. It would cost about£1 million to do all that I have described, although my group is looking into the figures in detail.
  Mr. Clifton-Brown: The hon. Gentleman is offering a useful solution in a reasonable and moderate way.
  556
  My only criticism is that he may be suggesting a very bureaucratic regime. How would the independent supervisory body mesh with his regulator and the licensing system? He may be suggesting considerable bureaucracy to deal with a relatively simple problem.
  Mr. Öpik: I can answer that in a single sentence: the independent hunting authority would have direct responsibility for the inspectors, who would report back to it. We do not envisage a separate regulator and authority; they are one and the same. The hon. Gentleman is right, however, to say that we must not disappear into bureaucracy. The scheme could work efficiently because there are hundreds rather than tens of thousands of hunts. In addition, as the inspectors would operate geographically, some informal contact could be swiftly made.
  I have outlined the key areas that the Middle Way group seeks to promote. The system would cost about£1 million a year, and we shall make a specific submission on that to the Government. We hope that our proposals will provide a constructive dialogue that satisfies the needs both of those offended by what they regard as the barbaric practice of fox hunting and of those who feel that their civil liberties will be put at risk by a ban.
  Let us talk: the Middle Way group has no monopoly on good ideas, although our principles mean that we can only support an outcome that is fair, that balances animal welfare with human rights and that respects individual liberties. We must listen to each other and respect the strong emotions that the subject raises. We ask only that other organisations on both sides of the debate do that. If we do, we may find a way forward that satisfies the needs of the main organisations as well as the need for freedom.
  The Middle Way group is happy to discuss, in bipartisan terms, the possibility of regional debates on the matter, perhaps covered by the regional media, so that we can widen discussion among the public. At a time when we are on the brink of securing a lasting peace in Northern Ireland, where so many deep divisions existed, it would be ironic and a tragedy if the combined might of the British political system were unable to find lasting, cross-body agreement on fox hunting.
  11.48 am
  Mr. Ian Cawsey: I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik) for the way in which he made his case. I served with him on Standing Committee C, so the manner in which he spoke did not surprise me. We have had many interesting debates, and I am sure that we shall continue to do so.
  I join the general welcome for the report of the Burns inquiry, and I congratulate Lord Burns on his work. I was among those hon. Members who signed an early-day motion expressing concern about the membership of the inquiry. Having expressed that opinion so publicly, it is right that I should say publicly today that I think that they have done a good job. I want to make sure that that sentiment appears in Hansard so that people may know where I stand.
  My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary made the reasonable point that the report is so comprehensive that no one can be expected to speak on every part of it. If anyone did, only one or two speakers would take us all the way to 2.30 pm. I shall speak mainly on the report's animal welfare implications, and a little on the way ahead.

  557
  I am glad that there will be a free vote, so that hon. Members from all parties can reach their own conclusions. When considering mink, hares, foxes and deer, we need first to ask whether those animals should be controlled at all. If the answer is yes, then the debate should be about the best, most effective and most humane way to do that.
  Is it necessary to control foxes? Some people do not believe that it is, but foxes are classed as a pest and their numbers have to be controlled. However, is hunting with dogs necessary to achieve that control? The submission of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to the Burns inquiry stated that hunting with dogs was irrelevant in pest control.
  The hon. Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) made the interesting intervention—if I understood him correctly—that, in effect, hunting with dogs was a service to elderly foxes. I am not sure whether the foxes would see it in that light or whether they would welcome it. However, that point does not stand up to examination according to the inquiry; it pointed out that 40 per cent. of fox deaths were of cubs and took place during the cubbing season—those are not elderly foxes by any stretch of the imagination. Many fox cubs will, of course, die of natural causes—perhaps as many as half of them. If we remove that number from the total of those hunted by dogs, the remaining number is small, so hunting with dogs as a form of pest control for foxes is not necessary.
  Mr. Gray: With respect, I think the hon. Gentleman has missed the point that my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) was making. Hunting with hounds is selective killing. Those foxes that are least able to look after themselves—the old, infirm and sick—are the most likely to be caught by hounds. Young, fit foxes are much more likely to escape. Hunting with hounds carries out a useful animal welfare function that could not be achieved by lamping, for example, which is indiscriminate; it kills pregnant vixens, dog foxes and cubs. If there is a fox, the farmer shoots it. Hunting with hounds is selective.
  Mr. Cawsey: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's intervention. He used the word "young". I can only repeat that 40 per cent. of the foxes killed by hunting with dogs are cubs—young foxes. Furthermore, they are killed by a different form of hunting—one that many people feel is most offensive. The cubs are encircled and driven back. Indeed, foxhound puppies are trained to kill the fox, and if they are not able to do so—even as puppies—they are promptly dispatched with a shot in the head. Those practices do not provide good animal welfare arguments.
  I was pleased to see that the Burns report dealt with the argument that, when a fox is hunted by a pack of dogs, it will be killed instantly by the lead hound with a bite on the back of the neck. I have never believed that claim and am pleased that Burns seems, finally, to have destroyed that myth—[Interruption.] If the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) wants to speak, I am happy to take an intervention.
  Mr. Gray: I did not want to intervene twice on the hon. Gentleman, but he plainly has not read the report. Lord Burns concludes that nearly all hunted foxes are
  558
  killed almost instantly. Of the 16 post-mortems that are included on the CD-ROM, 14 demonstrated that the fox had been killed by a single bite on the back of the neck. The Burns report makes it clear that fox hunting with hounds does indeed result in the instantaneous death of the fox.
  Mr. Cawsey: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I have read the Burns report two or three times in great detail. It states that it is not the case that, when a fox is killed by a pack of dogs, it is always by a single bite on the back of the neck.
  In Standing Committee, on 28 January, the hon. Gentleman stated that it was always the case that the fox was killed by a bite on the back of neck. The Burns report has shown that that is not the case, so I do not withdraw a word of what I said.
  Mr. David Maclean: May quote a sentence from page 117 of the Burns report? Paragraph 6.48 states:
  There seems little doubt, however, that in the vast majority of cases the time to insensibility and death is no more than a few seconds, bearing in mind the great disparity between the size and weight of the fox and the hounds.
  Mr. Cawsey: Indeed. However, that does not get away from the point that foxes are not killed by a single bite on the back of the neck by the lead hound. Furthermore, as we know, hunting with dogs is not relevant as a form of pest control. I find the whole process objectionable—including the chase and the stress to the fox.
  Mr. Maclean: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way again. For the sake of brevity, I quoted only the last part of paragraph 6.48. The first part states:
  Arguably, the precise cause of death is irrelevant. What is more critical is how quickly insensibility and death result and how much suffering, physical or mental, the fox experiences.
  The paragraph then continues with the sentence about death taking only a few seconds, which I quoted earlier.
  Mr. Cawsey: I am most grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for those helpful comments. Burns also notes that the process can take up to 31 minutes and sometimes longer. That is objectionable.
  I have never believed the argument that, once the dogs catch the fox, death is necessarily instantaneous. Although it is not the intention of anyone who hunts, every year, some domestic animals or pets are attacked—they are in the wrong place, at the wrong time and the dogs chase the wrong quarry. When that happens, the hunt instantly acts to rescue the pet; sometimes, sadly, it is dead, but if it is alive, it will be treated by a vet. The fact that those animals survive tends to militate against the argument that death is instantaneous. Furthermore, the treatment is usually for bites to the belly, the back leg or the tail—it is far more likely that packs of dogs approaching an animal will attack in that way. Such incidents occur every year.
  I do not believe that hunting is necessary for pest control or in order to avoid cruelty.
  Dr. Palmer: Perhaps we could include paragraph 6.44 of the report in our reading. It states that
  there is evidence from farmed foxes that fear and anxiety are experienced by foxes in response to stressful stimuli—
  such as the chase.
  Does my hon. Friend agree that many of us are worried as much about the stress caused by the chase as about the death itself? The chase will affect all foxes alike—be they healthy, young or old. Any fox that is chased will suffer stress.
  Mr. Cawsey: I agree with my hon. Friend. The right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe), who is now the shadow Home Secretary, made that case very well on the Second Reading of the Bill promoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Foster). She said that the whole issue was about the chase. If one agrees that foxes have to be killed in one way or another, we must consider whether they have to be put through an unnecessary process before that takes place.
  Mrs. Golding: My hon. Friend keeps saying that he does not believe that hunting with dogs has anything to do with pest control. However, if man wishes to take the trouble to try to preserve our indigenous species, that is the only way of controlling mink, which has no known predator.
  Mr. Cawsey: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. Her support for mink hunting is legendary in the House, and I shall come to the subject of mink hunting later in my speech.
  If one accepts that hunting with dogs is not necessary for the pest control of foxes and one believes that there are better methods of controlling their numbers, surely we should use those other methods in the localised areas where that is necessary. I was pleased that the Burns report said that lamping
  has fewer adverse welfare implications.
  We all know that lamping takes place, and it is the way ahead. Before the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire jumps up to intervene, I should say that the report accepts that that argument might not apply in uplands areas. There are problems to be dealt with in such areas and we must consider them. I hope—I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister is listening to this—that, when we receive the list of options to vote on, the use of dogs for flushing out in upland areas is included on it. Hon. Members will then be able to decide for themselves whether the use of dogs in that way should be allowed.
  Nobody in the House would argue against the need to control the number of deer. However, as has already been pointed out, the use of dogs in the hunting of deer is already banned in Scotland. The Burns inquiry clearly concluded that stalking and shooting was the best method of controlling deer and it made the further good suggestion that competency and training should be part of that process. I hope that hon. Members will take that suggestion on board.
  The process of getting rid of deer is unnatural. As Burns points, it can often take two days. The deer is tracked on the first day and one returns the next morning to see whether it is still there. The chase then begins and it can take place over an extremely long distance because
  560
  the deer is quick but low in stamina and the dogs are slow but high in stamina. The deer will be chased to the point of exhaustion and it will be shot anyway.
  The Bateson report and Contract 7 show that there are stress factors involved in that. I should be surprised if any hon. Member needed to see a report to work that out. Although they are not easy to watch because they are distressing, there have been videotapes showing the end of a hunt when the deer has reached the point of exhaustion. We have seen a deer trying over and over again to jump over a fence, and being unable to do so because it is exhausted. It looks over its shoulder to see the dogs getting nearer and nearer, and eventually the dogs reach the deer. It is surrounded and hounded and finally dispatched. It is time that, as in Scotland, we banned that practice.
  Most hon. Members know that the number of hares in this country is declining. The former Government, under the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major), signed up, as part of the United Kingdom's biodiversity action plan, to increasing the number of hares in Great Britain. We have yet to stop the decline, let alone achieve a growth in their numbers; hunting hares in that context seems almost perverse. I accept that there are local issues, but it is interesting to note that gamekeepers in those areas say that shooting is the best method of dispatch. From an animal welfare perspective, I hope that most hon. Members agree with the point in the Burns report that dogs do not always kill hare quickly. I hope that we shall bear that point in mind when we consider the options before us.
  Much anger and irritation is expressed in these debates when the people against hunting refer to it as the killing or abuse of animals for fun. A Conservative Member said that most people who take part in hunts do not do so to kill animals for fun, and I agree with him. However, if there is one form of hunting that is an abuse of animals for fun—and even for gambling—it is hare coursing. That takes place in my constituency and I wish to praise my local newspaper, The Epworth Bells. It may not be read too widely by hon. Members, but it is a good read and has an excellent monthly column from the local Member of Parliament. Because of its readers' views on hare coursing in the Isle of Axholme, it is has expressed its great concern about the practice. I hope that we can all reach the rapid conclusion that hare coursing has to go.
  On mink, I do not disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mrs. Golding) that mink numbers need to be controlled. However, like Burns, I would argue that very few mink are controlled by hunting with dogs. Trapping is the method used to control mink numbers in a particular area. The Burns report says that hunting mink has no significant effect on mink numbers nationally or, indeed, regionally. I should be surprised if hon. Members wanted to pursue that.
  Mrs. Golding: I agree that hunting mink has little effect on mink numbers, which is why they are increasing and more and more of our wildlife is being destroyed. If any action against mink is prevented, the risk to our wildlife is increased.
  Mr. Cawsey: I do not disagree with the need to control mink numbers. It is a great shame that there are mink at all. That problem originates from fur farming, which I am pleased to say the House is dealing with.

  561
  Research shows that hunting with dogs for mink on river banks destroys wildlife and damages the environment. A balance must be struck.
  Mrs. Golding: I thank my hon. Friend for his indulgence. The Burns report says that, although temporary damage may he caused to the environment, it is of no significance.
  Mr. Cawsey: I am grateful once again to my hon. Friend.
  I want to move on to the control of mink. When the issue was raised in Standing Committee C, there seemed to be some disbelief about it. Last week, an excellent article in The Independent on Sunday pointed out that the increase in the number of otters is doing more to depress mink numbers than anything else. Not for the first time, we find that nature balances itself better than interventions by man. As otters reclaim their natural environment and mink numbers decline as a result, it would be interesting to know why otter numbers are increasing. One reason is that they can no longer be hunted with dogs. Ironically, mink numbers are better controlled because of the ban on hunting with dogs than they are by hunting with dogs.
  Mrs. Golding: I am sorry to intervene again, but the truth is that mink are moving further and further afield, not disappearing. They can travel long distances very quickly.
  Mr. Cawsey: I can only point my hon. Friend to the latest reports, which show that mink numbers are falling as the creatures move away from their natural environment. I agree with my hon. Friend that we need to control mink numbers, but I do not agree that hunting with dogs is the right method of doing so.
  I wish to pick up one or two minor issues that have been raised. People talk about the welfare impact on the animals used in the hunting process: the hounds, terriers and horses. It has been argued that, if hunting were banned, the hounds would all have to be shot and could not live a natural life. It is no longer denied that the hounds would have to be shot anyway. I understand that the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals has said that, in the event of a ban, it will ensure that all the dogs are housed and cared for.
  Mr. Gray: That is ridiculous.
  Mr. Cawsey: The RSPCA is an honourable organisation and I have no reason to disbelieve it.
  The welfare of hounds can be compromised in the hunting process, not just because they are shot if they cannot keep up with the pack, but simply through the act of hunting. Sadly, we have seen that happen during hunt seasons, when dogs have run on to railway lines and been killed. Earlier in the debate, an Opposition Member said that hunts never go on land without permission. Unless Railtrack has actively given its consent for hounds to run on to its lines, which is unlikely, another myth falls to the ground. That is also true of terrier work, although I accept that hon. Members on both sides of the House do not support the continuation of terrier work.
  562
  It is inevitable that, from time to time, horses will get injured, but if one considers the range of activities for which horses are used, they are no more at risk when hunting with dogs than as a result of the other work that they do.
  Drag hunting has been mentioned several times today. To what extent can that make a difference if hunting with dogs is banned? It can make a difference, but it is difficult to predict what will happen if hunting with dogs is banned, although Lord Burns makes the point that people who own and ride horses will want to find alternatives because of their love of their horses and their love of horse riding. I think that there will be a growth in drag hunting, but I cannot predict to what extent.
  Other equestrian events will also take the place of hunting with dogs. Burns said that some farmers felt that there would be little incentive to allow hunts on to their land if they were only drag hunts, but I am not convinced about that. Drag hunts would generate income for farmers, and one of the most useful tasks that hunts can perform is to provide farmers with a fallen stock service. If farmers keep a drag hunt on their land, that service would continue for the future.
  It is worth bearing in mind the fact that many fallen stock initiatives are businesses that charge for taking the fallen stock and sell the fleeces. They use some of the meat to feed to the hounds, but much of it has to be incinerated. The Government provide for small incinerators to deal with fallen stock, and that will continue into the future. There is no reason why fallen stock services, equestrian events and drag hunting cannot replace hunting with dogs if it is banned, and provide that useful service for the countryside in a different way.
  The hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) made an extremely good point at the start of his speech. He said that this is a matter of individual liberty against animal welfare considerations. That is exactly the point that all hon. Members should consider as the debate continues. Unlike the other parties, the Labour party made a manifesto commitment to have a free vote on legislation to deal with this issue. It is important to ensure that that takes place during this Parliament.
  The very thorough and comprehensive report that Lord Burns and his team have given us is a great help to all hon. Members in coming to a conclusion on this issue, as is the Government's offer of options so that we do not have to give a straight yes or no. Hon. Members can consider the Burns report and decide how they want to vote.
  Lord Burns has done us a service. I sincerely hope that all hon. Members will read and carefully consider the report before deciding on the options they are willing to support or not, as the case may be. In that way, we will produce good legislation that will command widespread support throughout the country.
  12.12 pm
  Mr. Nicholas Soames: I join my right hon. and hon. Friends and other hon. Gentlemen in warmly congratulating Lord Burns and his team on producing a remarkable, fascinating, important and relevant report. For those who have studied it. perhaps one of the most impressive things—apart from the way it is written, and the fact that it has gone into the issue in great depth—is the astonishing efforts that those people

  563
  made to cover the ground. They made many visits to different types of field sports and occasions, on which they had a chance to put together the patchwork that makes up this profoundly difficult question. Lord Burns deserves the greatest credit for having done in such a short time what seemed to me at the beginning to be impossible. My anxieties were different from those of the hon. Member for Brigg and Goole (Mr. Cawsey), but I applaud the fact that he said that he had been anxious that Lord Burns would not have the time to carry out the work. Lord Burns has done it, and the House should be extremely grateful to him.
  The hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) referred to the Pendle Forest and Craven hunt and its master, Mr. Bannister, who wrote to him. I had the honour of being invited to speak to that hunt's supporters dinner last year. If ever there was an occasion on which one could see the tremendous strength of the tentacles of hunting that spread through the countryside, it was that dinner. People from all backgrounds and walks of life, of different persuasions and none, were together with a shared interest. They had a strong bond and an absolute commitment not just to hunting but to the countryside. I felt that the hon. Gentleman dealt with Mr. Bannister's letter in a disgraceful way. In my view, Mr. Bannister was making a profound and important comment.
  My second point concerns a matter that was raised by the hon. Member for Hove (Mr. Caplin). He is a nice man who has been led astray. He knows absolutely nothing about hunting—and I mean nothing. For that reason, his speech must lack all credibility, although I was delighted to note that he had clearly studied the Burns report. We are near neighbours in Sussex, and I have regularly asked the hon. Gentleman whether he has ever been hunting, or has any idea what actually happens. No, he has not; he has not a clue. I therefore believe that, although he made a good speech about Burns, that speech cannot have credibility because of his fundamental ignorance of what takes place. He is in the same position as all the people who have never looked at hunting, or tried to understand it.
  The report's main conclusion is that there are no good policy grounds for banning hunting. Lord Burns concludes that hunting with hounds has a role to play in pest control and species management, in rural employment, in social activities and in conservation. He does not conclude that it involves unnecessary suffering. I shall say more about that shortly, because it is an important and difficult issue.
  Let me make an important point about the Government's behaviour. Before the Burns report had even been produced, the Government decided to present a Bill with a format similar to that used for the Sunday trading legislation. That, in my view, makes the Government guilty of a serious deceit. It is outrageous that they should make up their mind before even seeing the report.
  The truth is that this is above all a matter of personal liberty, freedom and democracy. It is no part of the parliamentary process to foist on a minority the opinions and prejudices of a majority. Parliament should legislate to deal with activities that cause harm, as opposed to activities that certain people—for their own subjective reasons—profoundly, and in many cases entirely understandably, dislike.
  I accept that a majority of our fellow citizens disapprove of hunting with hounds. They are genuine in their disapproval, feel strongly about the issue, see it as a
  564
  moral issue, and would support a ban criminalising the activity. My argument is that those reasons do not begin to justify depriving the individual citizen of the right to take part in a lawful activity, and that the day on which that was held to be so would be a damaging day for all our freedoms.
  Hunting with hounds is a lawful activity, engaged in for centuries by ordinary men and women in the United Kingdom. Each person in this and every other civilised country has now, and always has had, the right to engage in, or desist from, such activities, according to his or her private inclination. Such freedoms are inherent in citizenship, and membership of a civilised society.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: The hon. Gentleman is making a central point. Does he accept that, although of course public opinion should not be a determinant—that is why we have a parliamentary process—it is entirely possible to argue that it is right to make something that was legal illegal, however long the legality has gone on? Indeed, the House did that quite recently in relation to firearms, because society's attitude had moved on. It is perfectly proper for Parliament to choose to make a practice illegal if it considers that to be in the country's interests.
  Mr. Soames: What is proper and what is not is a decision for individuals and Governments to make. I shall shortly deal with the only circumstances in which I think a ban could be imposed.
  The general public are not damaged by hunting. No one is compelled to hunt, nor are the rights of those who do not hunt infringed by those who do. It is hard to determine what most people know of the matter, or how it could be their business to intervene.
  Mr. Leigh: Does my hon. Friend think that we would have this problem if hunts were operated only in deep rural areas, away from towns, and people did not wear scarlet jackets? How much of this is inverted snobbery?
  Mr. Soames: I do not really buy very much of that. I think that wherever hunting took place, it would attract the type of opposition that it does. I shall deal in a moment with some of the objections to hunting that my hon. Friend has mentioned, concerning the type of ceremony attaching to it.
  Dan Norris: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Soames: No; I must get on. Mr. Deputy Speaker has made the point that many other hon. Members wish to speak. I am not being rude, I am merely asking the hon. Gentleman to allow me to make some progress.
  We will all be on dangerous ground if we genuinely begin to think that the views of casual majorities should be decisive in the framing of criminal legislation. Opinion polls in my constituency—which I have conducted myself in my constituency newspaper—have shown that a majority of the general public seem to disapprove of almost everything, including, inter alia, the Conservative party, buggery, tripe and black pudding, smoking, immigration, Radio 3—and, very likely, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the colour

  565
  of your front door, and indeed of mine. If all those, or more, are to be made the subject of criminal offences, we shall all be in jail before too long.
  The point that the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) made about a ban is very serious. I believe that a ban could never be justified unless its proposers could show that hunting is positively harmful to society. An appeal to the strong disapproval of a majority does not begin to prove the case for a ban.
  I should like to make a few remarks on the question of cruelty, about which people understandably, and rightly, feel strongly. I preface those remarks by saying that in no part of his report does Lord Burns conclude that hunting is cruel. Nevertheless, the issue of cruelty is important, and we have to make an objective judgment about what is or is not a tolerable level of cruelty to animals.
  I should therefore like the Minister to make for me an assessment of the following questions concerning cruelty, and to send it to me by letter. I should like him to assess—out of 10, with 10 being the maximum for pain and zero for none—the relative pain and suffering to animals caused by the following happenings: a man hunting a fox with hounds; a man shooting a fox; a man poisoning a fox—
  Mr. Cawsey: That is illegal.
  Mr. Soames: Exactly.
  The list continues: a man trapping a fox; a fox killing a pheasant; a fox killing a newborn lamb; a fox eating a pheasant chick as it hatches; a man shooting a pheasant; a man poisoning a rat; a greyhound coursing a hare; a stoat killing a rabbit; a cat playing with a dying mouse; a sparrowhawk killing a blackbird; a man keeping a wild bird in a cage; and a man keeping a dog on the wrong diet in an overheated house.
  That should keep Home Office officials busy for a day or two. It is difficult to place those actions in any objective order, and it would be even more difficult if the question were which one of them should be banned by law.
  Few of those who concern themselves with this debate challenge the need to control foxes. There are four ways of controlling foxes—shooting, trapping, hunting or poisoning—all four of which, of course, involve a degree of cruelty. However, for my part, I would guess that poisoning—which is illegal—is the cruellest, followed probably by shooting when the fox is wounded but not killed. Others, of course, will put the four in a different order. As I said, it is impossible to decide which action is crueller than any other.
  However, it can never be agreed that fox hunting should be singled out as the cruellest, and unacceptably cruel at that. Thus the real motive of those who wish to ban hunting can only be that the activity gives much pleasure to many. They spitefully seek to frustrate that pleasure by pushing the cruelty argument. After hunting is dealt with, they will turn to shooting, another sport that millions enjoy. Indeed, if cruelty were the real concern, we should start with the poisoning of rats, which is probably the cruellest thing that we do to a highly intelligent mammal. However, that is not a sport that people enjoy.
  566
  Foxes are not pets, but magnificent wild animals living the life of freedom and danger for which nature brilliantly designed them, as they have done for countless thousands of years. For centuries, their lives have been inextricably linked to the patchwork of our magnificent countryside, much of which, throughout the length and breadth of the land, was laid out for hunting and shooting. Indeed, those interests still do a great deal to shape the beauty of the landscape, and foxes share the marvellous woods, fields, hedges and hills with farmers and their livestock.
  On to this astonishingly intricate tapestry of history and ancient custom and practice, as delicate and fine as a silken thread, these bossy, largely urban know-alls are trying to thrust themselves with ignorance, arrogance and stupidity. They must understand, but they do not, that if they want foxes to observe—we would all love to have foxes to observe and enjoy—we must have hunting to make sure that they are there in the first place.
  Sadly, the greater part of those who oppose hunting do so because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) rightly said, fox hunting involves a blatant assertion of traditional English values which, unfortunately, are no longer admired as much as they used to be: good manners, ceremony, boldness and display, hierarchy, and easy courtesy—which, for its opponents, is almost impossible to understand. Above all, fox hunting involves the remarkable natural harmony between all those, whatever their background or occupation, who love hunting and enjoy comradeship in the life of our countryside and all that it means.
  That is obnoxious to those who despise hunting, many of whom were brought up in the genuine belief that the classes are still at war. I do not believe that any polytechnic-bred lout can see the pink coats—the young men, women and children who are well turned out on ponies and horses, on which a great deal of time and trouble have been spent, and which can sense the enjoyment and fun of the thrill, challenge and pleasure of the hunt and all that goes with it—without feeling the urge to pull down the symbols of authority and spit on a piece of old England.
  I conclude by saying that this wonderful and beautiful country, in which we are astonishingly lucky and privileged to live, is generally marked apart from less favoured nations by the tolerance, extraordinary good nature and generally civilised manner of its democracy and way of life.
  Dan Norris: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Soames: No, I will not.
  Those qualities are the envy of people the world over, and in many places, there remains in this land a richness and colour that is truly and wholly unique. Hunting is a part of that. All those who believe that to be the case, wherever they come from in the United Kingdom, will fight to the end to see that it is not cast aside.
  12.30 pm
  Dr. Nick Palmer: I should like to review the arguments in favour of the retention of hunting, but before I do so, I apologise to Lord Burns and his committee because, like my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole (Mr. Cawsey), I was sceptical that the report would produce a result that would satisfy most

  567
  people's expectations of fairness and balance. To my astonishment, he has produced a report that almost everyone accepts as satisfying those requirements. That is a remarkable, rare achievement, and I congratulate Lord Burns and his team on the report. I hope that they write more reports on other subjects; we need their talents.
  I shall take up several issues that hon. Members—notably the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames)—have raised in defence of hunting and dispose of a couple of relatively exotic arguments. The hon. Gentleman suggests that critics of hunting are motivated by class hatred, perhaps because they come from polytechnics. I am not sure whether he would include the Conservative Anti Hunt Council or the shadow Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) in the group of people possessed by class hatred. Speaking personally, I have a master of fox hounds in my family and my father rode to hounds until he decided that it was cruel. We should not allow ourselves to be distracted by the totally irrelevant class issue. If fox hunting were conducted exclusively by members of the Trades Union Congress and leader writers on The Guardian, I would still be equally opposed to it.
  I shall move on to conservation. The hon. Member for Mid-Sussex says that foxes would not exist without hunting, from which we can conclude that, in those continental countries that do not have hunting with hounds, foxes have died out. That is manifestly not the case, and the argument cannot be seriously sustained that it would be the case in Britain.
  On the more serious issue of jobs, the Burns report identifies 700 full-time-equivalent jobs that would be affected and up to 7,300 jobs that would be indirectly affected by a ban on hunting. That is equivalent to a medium-sized factory spread across the whole of Great Britain. Many of the jobs are not in the countryside; they are in towns. Many of them are specifically related not to hunting, but to horses, and will not be abolished because of the alternatives that Burns identifies. In short, the loss of jobs is within the normal weekly fluctuation that we all see in our constituencies. In my area of Nottingham, we have lost many more jobs than that in the textile industry alone, and I do not recall Conservative Members making passionate speeches in their defence.
  Mr. Garnier: I most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way not only because I am great friends with many members of his family, but because, like him, I represent a textile area. If he had been a Member in the previous Parliament, he would have heard many Conservative Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton), make not only passionate but reasoned speeches about the demise of the textile industry. Although I am prepared to listen to the hon. Gentleman, I ask him not resort to generalisation.
  Dr. Palmer: I accept that there are certainly exceptions. I was referring to the right hon. and hon. Members who have spoken so far in the debate. I have not hitherto associated them with the defence of people who lose their jobs in the textile industry. However, perhaps I am wrong.
  In today's society, none of us—least of all Members of Parliament—have lifetime jobs. We have to accept that there may be circumstances under which our jobs
  568
  disappear, and those circumstances include changes of attitude within society to whether the activities on which our jobs depend remain acceptable. I shall return to the interesting points made by the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex on what can be acceptable. First perhaps, I should say a few words about control.
  Sir Nicholas Lyell: The hon. Gentleman is obviously making a thoughtful speech. Before he gets on to the detail, will he tell the House what the principle is which he thinks justifies the majority in a free society banning what has been until now the legitimate activity of a minority?
  Dr. Palmer: The hon. Gentleman raises an important point to which I shall respond later in my speech.
  Turning to the issue of control, Burns shows that around 400,000 foxes die each year. Of those, 10,000 are killed directly by hunts. That represents 2.5 per cent. A further 5,000 are killed by digging out, which many hon. Members, even among the supporters of hunting, seem willing to ban. If we add that figure, we end up with 3.75 per cent. Foot and gun packs kill between 7,000 and 10,000 foxes, adding another 2.5 per cent. So all forms of hunting kill a total of 6.25 per cent. of foxes killed each year. It is therefore not possible seriously to argue that hunting is a major form of pest control across the country. If right hon. and hon. Members speak to Lord Burns and his team—and I spoke to them at great length on this—they will confirm, as they do in the report, that in the Welsh uplands fox hunting with gun packs constitutes a significant element of control. In other areas Burns was convinced that it does not.
  Mr. Leigh: Assuming that the hon. Gentleman is right that hunting is not a significant form of pest control, does he at least accept that it is a significant impetus towards the conservation of the species?
  Dr. Palmer: No, I am afraid I do not. Obviously, I accept that people who want to hunt foxes have an interest in not letting them die out. That is why from time to time hunts breed foxes for hunting. I understand that the practice is disapproved of, but there have been recurrent cases. As I said earlier, foxes have not died out in countries that do not have hunting with hounds. There may be a greater or lesser degree of tolerance and the fox population may rise and fall for other reasons, but frankly, outside the Welsh highlands, the whole issue of pest control is a red herring. Elsewhere, foxes are not hunted primarily for the purposes of pest control.
  Mr. Gray: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of a test case in the 1980s when, for a number of reasons, fox hunting was banned on the royal artillery impact area on Salisbury plain for five or six years? Local farmers petitioned the Government once again to allow fox hunting because of the appalling depredation on piglets, lambs and chickens in the surrounding area. That is a very good example of exactly what happens to pest control when fox hunting is banned.
  Dr. Palmer: With respect, there are petitions on many subjects, but the figures show clearly that hunting does not have the impact that the hon. Gentleman suggests, because more than 90 per cent. of foxes die for some other

  569
  reason. If we had a form of control of measles which affected only 6 per cent. of cases, we would say that it was not an effective form of control. The same applies to hunting with hounds.
  On mink, the Burns report says quite explicitly that there is no significant impact at national or regional level on mink numbers. There may be a temporary local impact, but because of the high fecundity of mink, they rapidly breed again. Hunting is not an effective form of pest control. The situation is even more extreme with hares, because it is generally accepted that there is no need to control their numbers and that, in any case, coursing does not have that effect.
  The Burns report expresses concern that the number of deer will fall if hunting is banned, because the tolerance of farmers will decline. It is disingenuous to suggest that hunting is there primarily for pest control. I concede the point in the Welsh highlands, but in other areas it is not the main factor. If we are honest with one another, we will admit that.
  I agree with the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) that liberty is the central issue. We must consider whether the interests of animal welfare and a civilised society should outweigh the right of individuals to pursue a pastime that has existed for many hundreds of years, with the many colourful traditions described so evocatively by the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex. It was instructive to listen to him, because all the criteria that he listed for assessing whether a pastime is acceptable could have been applied to otter hunting or bear baiting. His central argument was that the freedom of human individuals should not be interfered with unless there is a risk of overwhelming damage to society as a whole.
  Mr. Luff: That is a misapprehension. I am from the middle ground, and I would oppose any sport whose sole point was barbarity and cruelty, as with dog fighting and bear baiting. That is not the point of fox hunting, and that is what distinguishes it from those sports that I would want banned.
  Dr. Palmer: I accept the hon. Gentleman's distinction, but I am not sure that all Conservative Members would agree with it. The history of debates on the matter shows that every such activity that is currently legal is swathed in a reassuring glow of familiarity. At the time, it was said that bear baiting was banned not because people were sorry for the bear but because it gave pleasure to the onlookers. That accusation recurs throughout the history of animal welfare legislation. Any practice that is legal is regarded as something that has always been done, that does not cause much of a problem and that it would be an intolerable intrusion to ban; but 20 years after it has been banned, people look back and wonder how we ever tolerated it.
  The hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) says that intention is crucial, but the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex says that the effect on society is the most important factor. If we have a society in which it remains legal to have prolonged chases of animals, ending in their killing, for entertainment, that society is degraded. The fact that it has been degraded for many centuries is not a reason to continue. We lower our self-respect by putting
  570
  our own entertainment before the animals' welfare. That is not something that our society, which is so rich in possible forms of entertainment, should continue to support.
  Sir Nicholas Lyell: Is the hon. Gentleman opposed to fishing?
  Dr. Palmer: I personally—and I do not speak for anyone else—am opposed to sport fishing in which the purpose is purely entertainment and to put the fish in a glass case on the wall. Many of my hon. Friends will disagree, but I think that it is wrong for the same reasons I have advanced.
  Mr. Gray: What about game shooting?
  Dr. Palmer: The same arguments apply, but I stress that I speak only for myself and I recognise that my views do not have widespread support.
  The hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire argued that intention is the crucial point. He said that people do not normally ride to hounds because they wish to cause suffering, and we accept that they are not gangs of sadists. People ride to hounds because they find it exciting and pleasurable, and they enjoy the fellowship and the day out. Nevertheless, we must accept—and those who hunt generally also accept—that it is a regrettable by-product that suffering is inflicted on an animal for a prolonged period. The argument that foxes enjoy being hunted has almost died out and one rarely encounters it now. Most people accept the balance: they enjoy hunting, but unfortunately the animal does not.
  People feel that there is much misery in the countryside anyway and if the fox was not being chased by them it would be chased by something else. Hunting is their pleasure and they want to continue to do it. I argue, as I argued to the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex, that that attitude should not be protected in this day and age. We have moved beyond the point at which it is acceptable to allow entertainment that has prolonged animal suffering as its by-product. Hon. Members may argue that other practices, such as factory farming, cause animal suffering. We accept that those other practices also need examination, and that has overwhelming majority support.
  Mr. Soames: The hon. Gentleman is making a serious speech and my intervention is not intended as levity. Does he favour a ban on football, given that the behaviour of many fans is wholly unacceptable in this day and age, that they degrade our society by their behaviour, and that policing them costs tens of thousands of pounds and the time of policemen who would be better occupied doing other things?
  Dr. Palmer: Such analogies are always interesting, but in this case the analogy breaks down, partly because everybody present is a willing participant. I know people who do not go to football matches because they are afraid of being beaten up, but their fears are probably exaggerated. It is open to people not to attend football matches, but that option is not open to the fox in a hunt.
  Mr. Cawsey: The hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames) mentioned policing costs. Is my hon. Friend aware that football clubs have to pay for policing costs but that it is provided free for hunts?
  Dr. Palmer: I did not know that. [Interruption.] If Opposition Members would allow me to continue, I would

  571
  be grateful. It is always possible to draw human comparisons, but part of the problem for many of us is the infliction of suffering on an animal which, by its nature, cannot be consulted. Another borderline case, often raised in the debate, is boxing. I do not like watching boxing matches, but I accept that people have a right to bash each other for pleasure or for money, if they wish to do so. That does not bother me, because it is a matter of free choice.
  In our day and age, we have moved beyond the stage at which we deny any rights to animals and deny them any consideration when we weigh up their interests against our pleasures. I do not want to sound puritanical: there are a great many pleasures in life of which I do not approve and of which Conservative Members would probably strongly disapprove, but which I do not believe should be banned. However, let us end the practice of sport at the expense of animal suffering. Let us pass a ban on hunting.
  12.50 pm
  Mr. Michael Howard: In what I hope will be a relatively brief speech, I shall concentrate on fox hunting. In common with the constituents of every Member of Parliament, my constituents are divided on the question. The kennels of the East Kent hunt are at Elham in my constituency, but I know that many of my constituents strongly oppose fox hunting.
  The merit of the Burns report, to which I pay tribute in common with every hon. Member who has spoken—even those who paid scant regard to its conclusions in their speeches—is that it focuses attention on the central question which, in my view, provides the key to an informed debate and decision on this subject. It is true that a ban on fox hunting would have some significant adverse consequences. It would lead to a significant number of job losses, although there is scope for argument about precisely how many. As several of my right hon. and hon. Friends have eloquently described, a ban would cause serious damage to the traditions of country life: it would cause real problems for farmers in terms of the collection and disposal of fallen stock; it would create extra problems for the police; and it would be seen by many people as a direct attack on their civil liberties.
  I do not underestimate the significance of any of those detrimental consequences of a ban—they are important and should not be ignored. However, my view has always been that, whatever the difficulties, the case for a ban would have to be seriously considered if it could be demonstrated—clearly demonstrated—that fox hunting is unique in the suffering that it causes to the fox in comparison with other methods of controlling the fox population. That has always struck me as the central question. The burden of establishing that there is unique suffering as a consequence of fox hunting must rest fairly and squarely on those who want to ban a practice that has been lawful for centuries, and it is a burden that must be plainly discharged.
  Therefore, for me, the key question is a comparative one, and I am encouraged to see that the Burns committee took precisely the same view. Paragraph 6.12 of the report states clearly:
  Animal welfare is concerned with the welfare of the individual animal, not the management of the Wider population. In assessing the impact of hunting on animal welfare we are persuaded that it is
  572
  necessary to look at it on a relative, rather than an absolute, basis. It should not be compared with only the best, or the worst, of the alternatives.
  The report continues, in paragraph 6.13:
  In the event of a ban on hunting, it seems probable that farmers and others would resort more frequently to other methods to kill foxes, deer, hares and perhaps mink. There would be a mixture of motives: pest control; the value of the carcass; and the recreational value to be derived from shooting. It follows that the welfare of animals which are hunted should be compared with the welfare which, on a realistic assessment, would be likely to result from the legal methods used by farmers and others to manage the population of these animals in the event of a ban on hunting.
  The committee went on to deal with those alternatives. In paragraph 6.59, it says:
  None of the legal methods of fox control is without difficulty from an animal welfare perspective. Both snaring and shooting can have serious adverse welfare implications.
  At paragraph 6.60, it reaches a "tentative conclusion"—not a firm, definitive and settled conclusion—that
  lamping using rifles, if carried out properly and in appropriate circumstances, has fewer adverse welfare implications than hunting, including digging-out,
  but it goes on to say that there would be a greater use of other methods where lamping is not feasible or safe, and that it is less confident that the use of shotguns, particularly in daylight, is preferable to hunting from a welfare perspective. It adds that the use of snaring is a particular cause for concern.
  Therefore, if one adopts the comparative approach set out in the Burns report and looks at the comparisons that the committee made of the effect on foxes of hunting with other methods of controlling the fox population, there is no support whatever in the Burns report for reaching the conclusion that fox hunting should be banned. The burden to demonstrate clearly that fox hunting causes unique suffering plainly has not been discharged. Although, as the committee now famously concluded, the practice of hunting seriously compromises the welfare of the fox, the fact is that many other methods of keeping the fox population under control, which would be used in the event of a ban on fox hunting, compromise the welfare of the fox to an even greater extent.
  Mr. Caplin: I am sure that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has had a chance to read paragraph 6.42, under the heading "The welfare of hunted foxes." It says:
  Unfortunately, there is very little by way of scientific evidence to help us in establishing the facts on these issues,
  so one could argue either my position or his.
  Mr. Howard: I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman—if he was listening—has already forgotten the point with which I started my speech. The onus is on him. It is for him and those who wish to ban the practice to demonstrate the need for that very clearly. It is for them to demonstrate clearly that the consequences of fox hunting uniquely cause suffering to the fox which is not caused by other methods of controlling the fox population. If he cannot discharge that burden, there should not be a ban. That is the answer to his intervention.
  Dan Norris: In working out whether the burden has been discharged, does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree with the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames) that we need to attend a hunt and to witness

  573
  it first hand to make that judgment, or does he share my view that that is plainly daft? We do not have to experience directly a number of things to have a legitimate view about them.
  Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames) has spoken for himself. I think that the more people know about any activity, the better informed their opinion is likely to be, but the hon. Gentleman's intervention is completely irrelevant because this is a debate on the Burns report and I am basing my observations entirely on that report.
  It is not surprising that the Burns committee should have reached the conclusion that it did. The same question was considered by the Scott Henderson committee, which was set up by the post-war Labour Government and which reported in 1951. Its report also adopted the approach that I have set out and that is adopted by the Burns committee. The Scott Henderson committee concluded:
  Any field sport which has a reasonable level of support and is a traditional activity of the countryside, and which has some utilitarian value, should not be interfered with except for some very good reason. Interference on the ground of cruelty would be justified only if it was shown that the amount of suffering involved was excessive or unreasonable.
  It went on to conclude, applying those criteria:
  None of the field sports at present practised (except possibly, after inquiry, and in certain districts, otter hunting) should be prohibited on grounds of cruelty alone.
  I have attached great weight to the Scott Henderson report in reaching the view that I have always held about fox hunting. I could never quite see how, if it approached its task in good faith—as I was sure it would—the Burns committee would be able to reach any different conclusion. I was not surprised, therefore, to find that it had, in effect, reached precisely the same conclusion. In my view, it is the only conclusion that can be reached on the evidence.
  Those who seek to ban fox hunting have wholly failed to establish that it causes more suffering to foxes than the other legal methods of keeping the fox population under control, which would be more greatly used if hunting were banned. In short, the Burns report makes it crystal clear that there is no animal welfare case for banning fox hunting. That means that there is no case for banning fox hunting, and it should not be banned.
  I wish to make just one more point. The future of fox hunting in Scotland will be decided by the Scottish Parliament. There can therefore be no justification for right hon. or hon. Members of this House who sit for Scottish constituencies taking any part in the decision on fox hunting in England and Wales. Were they to do so, they would violate the most basic tenets of democracy. I very much hope that they will exercise restraint.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has no objection to a Scottish Member chairing the proceedings.
  Mr. Howard: I take the greatest pleasure in welcoming you to the Chair of our proceedings, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You may even be setting a precedent by intervening in a speech.
  574
  I hope that those Members who represent Scottish constituencies will exercise restraint. I am not hopeful that they will.
  1.2 pm
  Mr. Keith Darvill: This is the first time that I have been able to contribute to a debate on animal welfare. I shall make a few points about democracy and Parliament before turning to animal welfare.
  Before the general election in 1997, hunting was debated at length in my constituency. The previous Member, Sir Nicholas Bonsor, was closely attached to field sports organisations and held strong views in support of hunting. That was well known in the constituency, and was a matter of repeated debate when he attended public meetings and throughout the campaign. For those interested, the issue was one of those relevant in the general election. I made it clear that I felt that a ban would be right. In my election literature and newsletters, I advanced that position.
  After the election, I, like all hon. Members, received a lot of correspondence on the matter. About 400 to 500 letters have supported a ban, and about half a dozen have supported hunting.
  Mr. Gray: Has the hon. Gentleman spotted appendix 3 to the Burns report, which makes it plain that the committee invited the public to write to it? Some 5,945 people did so; of them, 5,669 supported fox hunting and only 263 opposed it. Why should that be?
  Mr. Darvill: I cannot explain that. My own experience has helped me to reach my view of how Parliament should deal with the matter. I recognise that those representations were made to the Burns inquiry, but I shall outline the representations that I have received on the matter. As Parliament is making the decision, we need, as part of our deliberations, to weigh up what our constituents are saying. We also have to consider what we say to the electorate when we seek election. If, in the run-up to an election, we argue in support of a ban, we have a mandate to carry it out. If one changed one's mind after weighing up the evidence, one would be answerable to one's electorate.
  I take this matter seriously. It is incumbent on all Members of Parliament to study the report and listen to the debates so that we can understand the issues on which we shall legislate. Because of that, I attended a hunt. One of my constituents, who hunts regularly, wrote to me acknowledging that I had taken a view on the matter, but asking me to go with him to the hunt. At some ungodly hour on a Saturday morning, I was taken to a hunt somewhere in mid-Kent. I was treated courteously. I was shown around and was told about stock, the welfare of dogs and so on. I did not witness the hunt itself, but I listened to the representations that were put to me. They certainly carried some weight, especially those concerning the social aspects of hunting. I acknowledge the points made by many Opposition Members on such matters. The hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames) asked how many Labour Members had witnessed a hunt. Some of us take our responsibilities seriously and are prepared to listen and to engage in debate.
  Another factor was the Labour party's point of view in the run-up to the election. We received election material on animal welfare, including a well-designed document

  575
  with a picture of a fox on the cover, headlined "New Life for Animals". That sent a message to those who elected us that we would do something about the matter.
  Our manifesto promised that there would be a free vote. That implied that Parliament would legislate. That is an important democratic issue—if candidates promise to legislate, but then move away from that, it leads to derision from the electorate. Many people feel that there should be legislation.
  Mr. Öpik: If a report, such as the Burns report, changed perceptions of the merits or demerits of a course of action, does the hon. Gentleman agree that, in those circumstances, the Government would be obliged to do the right thing, rather than to follow a line that might have become redundant?
  Mr. Darvill: Indeed. We have the duty to understand the Burns report. It is our right and duty to debate it, as we are doing. No doubt when the Bill is introduced there will be further detailed discussion. We are under a duty to hold that debate throughout the country so as to explain the issues. Opposition Members, including the hon. Gentleman, do that well; they make their views known. The hon. Gentleman and others have made their case on television.
  The hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) made a good point when he said that we had to find a balance in the legislation between the ethical and moral arguments and the removal of the rights of individuals. The legal arguments are set out clearly in the Burns report—although inevitably, there are two legal opinions on compatibility with the European convention on human rights. The first is the Fitzgerald opinion that was obtained by the Countryside Alliance. It considered whether a ban could be tested in the European Court. The other is the Pannick opinion, which concluded that
  we do not consider that hunting with dogs falls within the concept of private life at all.
  The point behind that opinion is that if hunting with dogs were considered to be purely private, it could be tested in the European Court, which might well overturn any legislation to ban it.
  We must consider those opinions when we decide whether any Bill that we pass will be successful. One significant issue is whether a ban would lead to the "protection of morals" and, notwithstanding the opinions of Opposition Members, I believe that there is significant evidence that the welfare of foxes and other animals is compromised by hunting. The implication that I take from the Burns report is that hunting has an adverse animal welfare effect. I appreciate that there are strong arguments on both sides, but I have come to the conclusion that the welfare of animals is paramount and that leads me to support the introduction of legislation.
  Mr. Luff: In the context of the argument that the hon. Gentleman is making so moderately and reasonably, may I remind him of paragraph 59 of the Burns report? It says:
  None of the legal methods of fox control is without difficulty from an animal welfare perspective.
  I invite him seriously to consider the Middle Way group solution about which at least three of us in the Chamber are anxious to speak—one already has. It might persuade an hon. Gentleman of such reasonable views.
  Mr. Darvill: I said that it is incumbent on us to consider all the animal welfare issues—which, in a very
  576
  good report, Burns highlighted. To that extent, the inquiry it has performed a service. I am pleased about today's debate and I will be pleased when we debate the Bill that is introduced.
  If the matter is ever tested in the European Court, it will consider whether the House has appreciated the wider issues involved. When other European countries have introduced bans, they have not been tested and that fact must weigh in our minds when we are considering any Bill.
  The arguments of hon. Members on both sides have been made perfectly adequately, but there is a strong case for introducing a Bill because of the democratic argument that I made earlier. I passionately believe that we should have a free vote and I shall be very interested to study the options that are presented. I will treat them with an open mind but bearing in mind the assurances that I gave my electorate. The sooner we have the debate and deal with the detail, the better.
  I am pleased that the Government commissioned the report, that they have indicated that a Bill will be introduced, and that the debate will lead to a decision. If we do not come to a conclusion, the sovereignty of Parliament and the way in which we conduct our business will be prejudiced. People take the issue seriously and it is incumbent on us to do something about it.
  1.14 pm
  Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I very much welcome the opportunity to contribute to the debate. I represent a substantial number of hunts—perhaps more than any other Member of Parliament—so my constituents will be greatly affected by any ban.
  I welcome the Burns report as an authoritative and comprehensive work on the hunting of animals with dogs. It is a well-researched document that was produced in a short time, and I congratulate Lord Burns and his team on it. It is the first authoritative work since the Scott Henderson report of 1950. That report presaged the return of a Conservative Government after a Labour Government who had a majority of 145 in 1945. Just six years later, in 1951, the Conservative Government had a working majority of 65. Perhaps history will repeat itself.
  I wish to raise one or two important issues. The Burns report deals with the governance of hunting. I would welcome a strong self-regulating body, so I welcome the creation of the independent supervisory authority for hunting. I have corresponded over a number of years with the Masters of Foxhounds Association, which has hitherto had that role. It has not always been as strong as it might have been and I have corresponded with it specifically about the blocking of roads, the uncourteous behaviour of hunting participants, and trespass. Those who participate in hunts should behave with the highest probity. Their maxim should be to cause as little inconvenience to the public and those who do not wish to participate as possible.
  Equally, I would welcome greater openness through the creation of independent inspectors. That would take away some of the mystique of, and suspicion about, hunting.
  Has the case for a ban been made by reasonable people? The report makes much of the social activities that hunts generate, but does not say an awful lot about the social fabric of the countryside—the fact that farmers plant and

  577
  maintain woodland, hedges, fences, drains and other rural features. It is partly as a result of the tremendous co-operation between hunts and farmers that land management is of such high quality. I do not say that if hunting were banned tomorrow—I hope that it will not be—the countryside would start to run down immediately. However, I believe that over a period, the ban would have an effect on land management.
  Is the case for a ban reasonable? Deadline 2000 argues, in paragraph 10.16 of the Burns report, that there should be no compensation. As I said in an earlier intervention, I have tabled a parliamentary question on aspects of compensation. If the Government get as far as introducing a Bill but do not prescribe some form of compensation, there will almost certainly be a challenge in the European Court of Human Rights. I did not mean to be unreasonable when I intervened on the Home Secretary, and I hope that the Under-Secretary will now consider carefully my parliamentary questions and answer them as soon as possible so that everybody can consider the implications.
  Paragraph 10.33 of the report says that Deadline 2000 wants hunting banned within two months of Royal Assent. That seems totally unreasonable. It is even thought to be unreasonable by the Burns committee, which, at paragraph 10.35, says:
  There are stronger arguments for allowing a reasonable period of adjustment. This would enable more time, for example, to reduce naturally the number of hounds…
  That must make sense. I sometimes wonder about the role of the RSPCA and Deadline 2000, and whether they are really concerned about cruelty to animals or merely about political correctness.
  The strongest argument against a ban is the liberal toleration of minorities. Throughout the 18th and 19th centuries, this country had a tremendous reputation for housing philosophers, poets, writers and others who, had they remained in their own countries under the authoritarian regimes that existed in other parts of Europe, would have been sentenced to death. It is partly because we tolerated people whom other countries would not tolerate that our cultural history is great today. Once a Government, whether Labour or Conservative, start to become illiberal or oppressive and to ban minorities of which they disapprove, where will it all end? Will shooting be next? What about angling? What about the breeding of animals for red meat? Even racing may be considered cruel to horses.
  Hunting is an entirely voluntary activity and should be a matter for individual conscience, not one with which a politically correct Government should interfere. I plead with Labour Members for tolerance. I do not like drunken football hooligans going abroad and giving this country a shocking name, but I do not want to see football banned. Vast numbers of the public are sympathetic to hunting but do not wish to participate. Indeed, at paragraph 4.45 the Burns report cites the MORI poll's finding that a mere 25 per cent. of respondents were opposed to hunting, which incidentally was lower than the number of those who supported it. A large number of people in the middle do not mind much either way. It also found that two-thirds thought that hunting played an important part in rural life.
  578
  I can testify that in my constituency hunting plays an important part in our rural fabric. I welcome the debate, and I sincerely hope that the Government are listening with an open mind to all the proposals, and that we do not necessarily have to go as far as a Bill to ban hunting.
  1.20 pm
  Mr. Tony Banks: I join the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) and others in welcoming the Burns report. I also welcome my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary's statement and the Government's intention to introduce a Bill. The only small criticism I would make is that that should have been done some time ago.
  The hon. Members for Cotswold and for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) referred to the conflict between individual liberties and animal welfare, and said that there were sincere arguments on both sides. Their conclusion was that a ban would be an intrusion into personal liberties. There has been much talk of the European convention on human rights and possible challenges in a higher court. The only voice that is not heard is, naturally, that of the animal being hunted. When I hear about all these individual rights, I wonder who is speaking up for animal rights. I believe that animals have rights, but unfortunately the only people who can decide how their rights should be protected are human beings, many of whom spend much time abusing animals.
  I should like briefly to deal with three issues raised in the Burns report on fox hunting. The first is the argument about pest control, which one often hears from those defending fox hunting. It is arrant nonsense. If the fox is such a pest, why is there a close season on fox hunting? I have never understood the logic of that. For example, there would not be a close season on cockroaches, mice or rats, so if the fox is a pest why on earth is there a close season?
  Mr. Clifton-Brown: There is a good, practical reason for having a close season. Hunting stops when foxes become pregnant and have their cubs. It would be quite wrong to hunt pregnant vixens.
  Mr. Banks: Let me think this through. If one has a pest, one stops hunting it while it breeds more pests. I do not want foxes to be hunted, because I do not believe them to be a pest, but I am trying to follow the logic of the pest control argument. The hon. Gentleman's argument is logically absurd. If the fox is a pest, surely the very time to hit it is when it is breeding more pests. I would not do that, but that is the logic of the argument.
  Mr. Gray: Perhaps I can clarify the matter for the hon. Gentleman. There is no close season on foxes. Most of the foxes killed in this country are killed in the middle of the summer, and that often includes pregnant vixens. Of the 400,000 foxes that are killed in this country every year, most of them are shot, and mostly during the summer. If a pregnant vixen can be caught and shot, that is much more efficient than hunting it with hounds. The only close season is on hunting with hounds, as it is viewed as unsporting and uncivilised to chase a pregnant vixen with hounds. Farmers and others whose activities replace hunting will kill foxes all year round.
  Mr. Banks: There is a certain inconsistency between the arguments of the hon. Members for Cotswold and for

  579
  North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray). Of course I understand that it is unsporting to hunt a pregnant vixen, but I would not hunt a vixen anyway. If the hon. Gentlemen think about it, the argument that the fox is a pest is not consistent with having a close season.
  Mr. Clifton-Brown: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Banks: I shall give way for the last time, because other hon. Members want to speak in the debate.
  Mr. Clifton-Brown: The hon. Gentleman speaks of inconsistencies. Why does Burns recommend a close season for the hunting and shooting of hares?
  Mr. Banks: I am not interested in what Burns says about close seasons for anything. It cannot possibly be argued that the hare is a pest. In fact, I do not want any foxes to be hunted, whether they are pregnant or not. I am merely pointing out that the hon. Gentleman cannot argue that the fox is a pest and then try to defend the existence of a close season.
  Mr. Öpik: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Banks: No, I cannot.
  What the hon. Member for Cotswold says is nonsense. If the fox is a pest, why were foxes introduced to the Isle of Wight? If the fox is a pest, why does the Royal Beaufort hunt maintain artificial earths, and offer the fox dead chickens and lambs?
  I suspect that the one thing the hunts do not want is the disappearance of the fox from the rural landscape. That would take away the fun—not the fun of being able to see the wonderful fox, of course: it is possible to see many foxes in any town centre, thanks to the fast-food restaurants that we have nowadays. This is not about seeing a beautiful fox; it is about having the beautiful fox available to be hunted. The Burns report concludes that there is little evidence to support the view that the fox is a significant agricultural pest. So much for the pest control argument.
  My second point concerns jobs. I welcome the evidence in the report about the number of jobs involved. At last we are getting round to something on which we may all be able to agree. The report maintains that between 6,000 and 8,000 jobs are involved, but suggests that only about 700 people are directly employed. That must be contrasted with some of the ludicrous figures that have been bandied around during all the years for which I have been on this side of the argument—although generally on the other side of the Chamber. I refer to my wish for a ban.
  In March 1997, I believe, Lady Mallalieu claimed in another place that 150,000 jobs were at risk. Where the noble Baroness got that figure I have not the faintest idea, but it has come down: the Countryside Alliance now gives a figure of about 16,000. However, that still does not accord with what Burns said. I note that the website still gives a figure of just under 16,000.
  Mr. Gray: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Banks: No. The hon. Gentleman is being unfair to his own side. More Conservative than Labour Members
  580
  are waiting to speak. I am prepared to argue with the hon. Gentleman either in or outside the House at the time of his choice, because he does not frighten me, but I shall not do so at this very moment.
  The Countryside Alliance is still making up figures. So much for the objectivity of the Burns report.
  Mr. Gray rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) should allow the hon. Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks) to make his speech. That is the best thing that he can do.
  Mr. Banks: I am deeply grateful for your protection, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I know what it is like to be hunted, having just returned from negotiations on the venue for the 2006 world cup. If I had not already been persuaded of the arguments, I would certainly be on the side of the fox now.
  I would never be dismissive of job losses. Even one person's job is that person's whole life. However, I do not remember Opposition Members protesting so strongly about the tens of thousands of jobs that were destroyed by the policies of their Government in the mining, steel and manufacturing industries. We would have welcomed their support, but we did not get it. We heard then of economic implications, imperatives, the market and so forth—and tough luck on the miners, the steel workers and the manufacturing workers. Now Opposition Members come here and expect us to be overawed by a possible loss of 700 jobs.
  Mr. Paterson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Banks: No.
  As I have said, I am not dismissive of the jobs argument, but in the final analysis it does not swing the overall argument. Jobs must have been involved in all the bloodsports that have been banned by Commons legislation—badger baiting, cock fighting, dog fighting, bull baiting and otter hunting.
  The book "Roads to Ruin"—hon. Members should read it—gives various examples of debates in the House on social reform in which the employment issue was used to argue against reform. The argument against stopping little boys being sent up chimneys was that such a ban would cause great unemployment among poor families in urban areas. The employment issue was also raised in the slavery debate. People probably argued against abolishing witch burning on the grounds that it created jobs for those who lit the faggots.
  Ultimately, the jobs argument is simply not persuasive. If one believes Burns's figures—that 700 people are directly employed by the hunts—one should conclude that, even with the current state of the rural economy, they should be easily absorbed.
  The third and final issue that I should like to address is that of individual rights, which was raised by the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) and addressed by other hon. Members. The hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) also raised the issue of minority rights and the banning of a lawful activity.

  581
  When my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Dr. Palmer) raised the issue of bull baiting, he was laughed at by the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff)—who is clearly a civilised man and believes that bull baiting is an abhorrent practice. I hope and trust that all hon. Members agree that it is an abhorrent practice. Nevertheless, the arguments that were assembled in the House to defend bull baiting are of the same order as those now being used by Opposition Members to defend fox hunting. That point could not have been made with greater clarity than it was by the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames). I love the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex—in a very non-erotic way—but he really is an unreconstructed old snob. My own feeling—I have great regard for him—is that he should be set in a vast tub of aspic and turned into a tourist attraction. I believe that people would pay good money to come and see a perfectly preserved example of that endangered species, snobbus gargantuus. He used all the same arguments that were used in a debate in the House on 24 April 1800. Some of his predecessors were probably here for that debate, if he was not here himself, arguing exactly the same points.
  In 1800, Sir William Pulteney attempted to introduce legislation to abolish bull baiting. The opponents of that legislation—it really is worthwhile reading that debate—used various arguments that are almost identical to those now being used by pro-hunters—including the fear of unemployment, the inadequacy of the alternatives, and the idea that such reform should be regarded as the thin end of the wedge. All the arguments that we have heard today were used on 24 April 1800.
  Sir Nicholas Lyell: Is the hon. Gentleman equally opposed to fishing?
  Mr. Banks: I do not quite understand the point of that question, which has nothing to do with the flow of my argument. I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman was listening to my argument. I used to fish quite often, and I was very good at angling, for which I won quite a few prizes. However, I would not do it now because there are a number of things about it that concern me.
  One always has to draw lines—that is what politics is all about. One does not say, "We'll do nothing unless we can do everything", because that is an absurd argument. I have drawn a line. Regardless of whether angling is morally justifiable, I see a difference between it and fox hunting. The point is that, although I would no longer participate in angling, I have made that distinction. I am perfectly happy saying, "I am prepared for angling to continue, but I want a ban on fox hunting." One has to remember that, in politics, one can always oppose one action by saying, "Why don't you do all these other things as well?" That is not what we intend to do.
  In the debate of 24 April 1800, Mr. Windham played the libertarian card, just as the Opposition Front Benchers have today. His arguments read like the mantra of today's hunting supporters. He argued that there were other, more pressing issues on which to legislate. He said that it was not an issue for Parliament; that a ban would set the sport's supporters against its opponents; that there were
  582
  already enough laws to prevent abuse; and that minority rights had to be considered, along with the sport's social value.
  Mr. Windham argued that the bull derived pleasure from the activity, and passed the baton on to George Canning, another libertarian and a great Foreign Secretary. Indeed, many would say that he was one the greatest Foreign Secretaries that we have had, begging the pardon of my right hon. Friend the present Foreign Secretary. Mr. Canning said that he could not think of a more absurd Bill that had ever been brought before Parliament and asked, "What could be more innocent than bull baiting?"
  In case hon. Members have forgotten, bull baiting involved a bull being tethered to the ground, so that it had no means of defence. Dogs were set on it and would tear at its head, chest and legs. Bulls often had their nostrils stuffed with pepper to drive them mad and a notorious tale was quoted in the House of how a bull had had its hooves sawn off to deprive it of any recourse whatever. According to Mr. Windham, the bull enjoyed that, which is why Mr. Canning said that there could be nothing more innocent than bull baiting.
  Those examples show that nothing that we do in this House has not been done before. No arguments have been posed that have not been mounted before. I urge Opposition Members to read the arguments that were being made in relation to the banning of abhorrent practices which I know none of them support. In a few years' time, when someone else stands up to speak, they will put fox hunting in the same category as hare coursing and deer hunting, and be trying to imagine how any civilised person could actually have done those things.
  1.36 pm
  Mr. Peter Luff: Until today, I thought that the only thing on which I agreed with the hon. Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks) was supporting Chelsea football club. I now discover that I also agree with him about, not exactly the irrelevance, but the relative unimportance of the jobs argument in relation to this issue. Characteristically, the hon. Gentleman put his case well, but the robustness of his speech may have given us a clue about why we lost our bid for the world cup.
  The flaw in the final, rather entertaining, part of the hon. Gentleman's speech, is that he has not read the Burns report, or has read it only selectively. Unlike the bulls that used to be baited, the foxes are going to die anyway, and Burns judges that other methods of control have their own problems from a welfare perspective. With respect, the argument is different, and the hon. Gentleman has not correctly understood the distinction between two different activities involving animals.
  Like many people—probably on both sides of the House, to be honest—I believe that the debate on fox hunting that we are being forced into as a country and as a Parliament is largely a distraction from more important issues. However, it matters fundamentally because of its implications for minorities. I vividly remember going to the Birmingham rally of the Countryside Alliance last year and hearing a leading member of the Muslim community speak in favour of the right to allow English and Welsh men and women to continue to hunt, which he thought was an important minority right. The audience was moved by what this Muslim had to say about fox hunting, and Government Members should think carefully before dismissing the argument about minorities.

  583
  Like everyone who has spoken in this debate, I think that the Burns report is excellent. It has its flaws, born of being a little rushed. A year, rather than six months, would have led to a better report, as there are issues that Lord Burns has not addressed properly, such as the way in which foxes are conserved by the practice of fox hunting, and too much emphasis is put on control. The implications of the welfare of hounds have not been considered properly, and neither has the importance of fox hunting to the landscape, and so on. Ultimately, that does not really matter, as two issues are at stake in the debate. On one side of the scale is animal welfare, and on the other, the freedom of individuals to do as they choose with their lives. Where does one strike the balance? How does one weigh those two issues?
  I have a suggestion for the Select Committee on the Modernisation of the House of Commons. On unwhipped votes at least, hon. Members on both sides of the House should have to be able to demonstrate that they have studied the issues before being allowed to take part in the debate or vote. Certainly, if hon. Members were forced to read the Burns report from beginning to end and demonstrate an understanding of it, it would be impossible for any of them to conclude that fox hunting should be banned. However, I must part company with my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames), as the report does not suggest that one can leave fox hunting as it is; it highlights serious flaws and shortcomings in current practices, which need regulation. That goes to the heart of the Middle Way group's proposals, to which I shall return in a few moments.
  I have one real fear. There are three of us in the Chamber who represent in Parliament the middle way, or compromise; besides myself, there are my hon. Friends—as I shall call them for these purposes—the Members for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mrs. Golding) and for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik). I fear that we are being drowned out by the forces on either side of the argument. We have no money for advertising campaigns or public relations stunts. All we have is the power of our argument, to which I hope hon. Members will pause and listen, as I believe that there is scope for compromise on this issue.
  Mr. Caplin: I said earlier that a party that tells the electorate that it will do something during a Parliament—in this case, introduce a ban on fox hunting—should carry on and do it. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that?
  Mr. Luff: No, I do not. First, the Labour Government have already met their manifesto commitments. Secondly, when the facts change, I change my mind, and I would hope that the Government would do the same. Not only have the facts changed with the publication of the Burns report, but the compromise that the Middle Way group has put forward was not on the table at the time of the last election. I urge the hon. Gentleman to open his mind to the changed facts and consider the possibility of compromise.
  The implications that a ban would have for farming and for social life in the countryside have been mentioned already. However, sufficient note has not been taken of the strength of support for fox hunting in rural areas. The Burns report states, on pages 75 and 76, that 60 per cent. of people in the study areas—where I accept fox hunting is practised—oppose a ban on hunting. Paragraph 4.35 is especially interesting. It states:
  584
  Broadly speaking, support was highest in all areas amongst men, older people, those who had lived in the area for a long time, people working in rural occupations and those in lower social class bands.
  Many people think that the argument is between toffs and the rest of us, but that finding shows that it is not: support for fox hunting is widely spread among the rural communities of England and Wales, and is concentrated not at the top, but at the bottom of the social class bands.
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) dealt with the animal welfare points. The report does the argument a great favour by showing that drag hunting does not represent a viable alternative—another point that has already been made in the debate. However, there is still a need to emphasise the practical difficulties of a ban.
  Paragraph 10.28 of the report states:
  Consideration should be given to whether any ban would be manifestly unjust, bearing in mind the activities caught and not caught by it.
  Paragraph 10.29 states:
  Consideration should be given to whether any ban could be framed sufficiently clearly to enable people to regulate their conduct.
  The difficulties are clearly huge, and the report also looks at the problems of enforcement.
  It is clear that fox hunting has no adverse implications for animal welfare. Quite the opposite: animal welfare would probably suffer, at the margin, if fox hunting were banned. A ban would have real economic and social implications for rural communities, and there would be practical difficulties in implementation and enforcement.
  However, does that suggest that fox hunting should continue in its present form? I say that it does not. The Burns report also states that hunting poses serious problems concerning trespass and safety, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) said in his excellent speech. Moreover, chapter 9 of the report deals with other problems, such as the openness of hunting, the length of the season, terrier work, and stopping up. Those issues need to be addressed.
  Mr. Leigh: In his discussions with the Government as the representative of the Middle Way group, has my hon. Friend detected any sign of nervousness among Ministers about taking on such a large minority, of about a quarter of a million people? If a compromise solution along the lines that he suggests—the adoption of licensing, for example, and the ending of practices such as terrier work—were to be accepted, is there a possibility that some progress might be made?
  Mr. Luff: I must say that the Under-Secretary, who is to respond to the debate, has been scrupulously fair and independent, although he has always made it clear that he personally favours a ban on hunting. It is clear that the Home Office intends to take the Middle Way group's proposals seriously, just as it will proposals from other quarters. I am entirely confident about the way in which the Home Office has handled this matter.
  However, some Ministers do seem to be expressing some concern. I thought that the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food seemed to hint that a compromise might be preferable. My hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) may be right: it is possible that some Ministers recognise the difficulty and, in the light of the Burns report, the illogicality, of proceeding to an outright ban on fox hunting.

  585
  The hunting fraternity has moved, and the independent supervisory authority for hunting has been established, but that welcome step is not enough to give my constituents confidence about the problems that cause so much aggravation. The largest number of complaints about fox hunting made by the general public to Burns concerned trespass and public safety. Hunts do not deal with those issues very well, and greater sanctions are needed if they are to be addressed. We wish to develop the independent supervisory authority for hunting.
  I do not want to read things into the Burns report that are not there, but helpfully, a form of licensing system is discussed in paragraphs 9.49, 9.50 and 9.51, as follows:
  A system of this kind would also assist, in the absence of a ban, in tackling illegal hunting. In particular, it would make it easier to deal with those intent on illegal coursing, or on badger baiting, since they would require a licence to hunt.
  Clearly the Burns report identifies real benefits that would flow from our proposals.
  If something causes problems and we do not like it, should our first reaction be to ban it, or to control it? The motor car kills thousands of people every year, but we do not ban it; we seek to control it with speed limits, traffic lights and the highway code. Alcohol causes huge problems, and we control its sale and availability. Smoking kills people; again, we seek to control it. We give people the option of no-smoking carriages; we do not say, "Ban, ban, ban."
  The Middle Way group's proposal, which is based on licensing hunts, with sanctions for those who breach the terms of those licences, and the codes of conduct, represents the way forward. The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire—who for these purposes is my hon. Friend—estimates that our proposals would cost about£1 million. It is a "give or take" figure, which we are trying to hone down. That represents about£2,500 to£5,000 a hunt, or about£25 to£50 for each subscriber. Those are the orders of magnitude. There would be no burden for the taxpayer, but there would be an additional cost to hunts, which they can ill afford. Many of them face financial difficulties—hunting is in decline in this country—but such sums are affordable.
  I shall conclude my remarks because other hon. Members wish to speak. I urge hon. Members to read the Burns report. I have heard much praise for him today, and I am reminded of the words of Mark Antony in "Julius Caesar":
  I come to bury Caesar, not to praise him.
  Labour Members have come to bury Burns by praising him, and it is important that the report be read objectively and fairly.
  In the notes that I took when we met the Prime Minister last November, I wrote:
  Genuinely believe this is a tough option, developed by people whose first concern is animal welfare, that will appeal to all sensible people and improve the welfare of the fox.
  I stand by those remarks today.
  In a letter to us, the NFU said:
  An absolute ban on hunting with dogs in all circumstances would represent a draconian oppression of a legitimate activity, and would lead to a significant and most unwelcome fresh burden on Britain's badly suffering farming industry. We believe that a Parliament
  586
  which has historically prided itself on its protection of minorities should approach any changes in the present law in that direction with extreme caution.
  I believe that that is the conclusion of the Burns report, and I hope that hon. Members can be so persuaded.
  1.48 pm
  Mr. Malcolm Savidge: It is wonderful what can be learned in the Chamber. Until I heard the speech of the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames) in aspic, I would never have guessed what the Conservative party, buggery and tripe had in common.
  In the light of the comments of the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington), it behoves me to defend the right of a Scots Member of Parliament to express a view; and, in the light of the comments of the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), to defend the right to have not only a voice, but a vote on the matter. I do so in the light of the fact that the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) introduced a ten-minute Bill to deny us those rights. That was an attempt to answer the West Lothian question. I would say—having heard, at great length over many years my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), who used to represent West Lothian, ask that question—that it is a silly question
  In that sense alone, I found the solution proposed by the right hon. Member for Birkenhead to be appropriate: it was a silly answer to a silly question. It has been suggested that we should not have the right to vote or speak on matters devolved to Scotland. I believe that there is a simple anomaly, which is open to a simple and fairly straightforward constitutional solution. Basically, the simple position is that if the House decides to devolve a matter anywhere to another Parliament or Assembly, no Member, from wherever, will have the power to determine it here. However, if the House decides to reserve any matter anywhere to itself, all Members of the House, from wherever, have the power to determine it. If there is a growing feeling that there is a need for devolution to England—there may be such feeling—that should be resolved in the logical constitutional way by devolution to either an English Parliament or the English regional assemblies.
  Mr. Gray: Those are fine words, but will the hon. Gentleman explain why I can have no say, influence or vote on fox hunting in Scotland, although he has the temerity to come to the House to speak and vote on fox hunting in my constituency of North Wiltshire?
  Mr. Savidge: I shall return to that specific point.
  Mr. Garnier: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. This is a fascinating discussion, but it is not germane to the debate on the Burns inquiry. A number of us who have been here all day would like to contribute. If the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Savidge) wants to discuss the West Lothian question, perhaps he should do so on another occasion.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I say to the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Savidge) that he has made his point and that he must get on to the terms of the debate. He is entitled to speak as this is an Adjournment debate.
  Mr. Savidge: A specific point has been made that is germane to whether Scots Members are allowed to

  587
  express a view and vote on this matter. That is why I make my point. My argument is not primarily with the right hon. Member for Birkenhead, but with some of his strange bedfellows. For example, I have been attacked in my local newspaper, the Evening Express—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. May I say, as nicely as possible, that I have given the hon. Gentleman an instruction to get on to the terms of the debate? Perhaps he can raise that matter another time.
  Mr. Savidge: Very well, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but that creates a difficulty because I am trying to respond to points made in debate.
  For me, this is a matter of democracy. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole (Mr. Cawsey) have said, a free vote was promised in the Government's manifesto. Before devolution in 1997, there was a free vote of the only elected Chamber of the British Parliament, which was carried by 411 votes to 151. If there is an anomaly to be resolved, I suggest that it is how it can be that we have such arcane, anarchic and anachronistic Standing Orders that a small minority of Members—
  Mr. Paterson: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. This is tearful. There are six packs of hounds in my constituency and I would like to talk about the Burns report. Is it in order to bang on about Standing Orders?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I remind the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North that he has no need to tell me about Standing Orders—I know a lot about them, which is why I am here. This is an Adjournment debate on the report of the committee of inquiry into hunting with dogs in England and Wales. He must address that matter, not Standing Orders or anything else.
  Mr. Savidge: Am I allowed to say that it is unfortunate that a private Member's Bill was stopped? Surely that must be pertinent—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have given the hon. Gentleman a great deal of leeway, but if he does not accept my ruling I may have to instruct him to resume his seat, although I am reluctant to do so. He has my instructions and it is clear what I want him to do.
  Mr. Savidge: This is an important issue of animal welfare, but animal welfare is not my top priority, as human rights and human survival are more important. However, consideration of this issue also involves an important matter of democracy. To use a well-known phrase, we are dealing with unfinished business and, indeed, the settled will of the people. As the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex recognised, opinion polls have shown steadily that more than 70 per cent. of the British people want a ban on hunting with hounds. I believe that that is the unfinished business of the British Parliament and the settled will of the British people: therefore I will support the ban here and in the Scottish Parliament.
  As well as being an issue of democracy, it is also a moral issue. I have to make a confession—on the moral issue, some people might accuse me of prejudice. Let me explain where I could he regarded as being prejudiced and not taking sufficient account of the arguments.
  588
  I have a strong prejudice. I believe that throwing Christians to lions was wrong. I confess that when I visited the coliseum, they were not throwing Christians to lions, so I suppose that the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex would say that I know nothing about the issue. I expect that the appropriate defenders of the sport would have said that too. We should lend our ears to the Romans and countrymen alliance because they had at least one good argument.
  Mr. Leigh: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. This is all very interesting, but the Burns inquiry was specifically excluded from considering ethical questions. We should be debating the Burns report on the effect on the countryside of hunting.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: If hon. Members will allow me to take those decisions, I shall decide whether the hon. Gentleman is straying from the question before us. So far, he is all right.
  Mr. Savidge: I am not impressed by the argument that there was not sufficient conclusive scientific evidence that Christians did not enjoy being thrown to lions, although I believe that an objective report suggested that it could have seriously compromised their welfare. I am not particularly impressed by the argument about the jobs of the coliseum workers, the lion keepers and the rest, as I am not totally persuaded that there could not have been other forms of entertainment. I tend to think that apart from the direct employment, the multiplier that was used to suggest indirect employment was a rather curious one, even in the objective report, and that the money that was spent could probably have been spent elsewhere and caused other jobs to be created. I am not even impressed by the argument about the culture, the framework of life and the traditional human values which we heard about from the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex in respect of hunting; presumably it was the bread and circuses argument in Roman times.
  Nor am I impressed by the argument that a ban on throwing Christians to lions would have criminalised good, law-abiding Roman citizens. People who claim to be law-abiding provided that the law does not affect what they want to do have a rather poor definition of law-abiding. On that basis, one could say that drug pedlars, rapists or murderers would be law-abiding if only we had not passed laws against them, and that when the burglar is not a-burgling or the costermonger is not cutting up his mother they are just as good as any honest men.
  Nor do I consider good arguments what one might call the middle way—that had the throwing of Christians to lions been licensed and controlled and had there been a body—perhaps we could call it Oflion—to look after it, that would have provided a reasonable solution to the problem.
  Mr. Swayne: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I hope that it is a point of order.
  Mr. Swayne: I hope that you can assist the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is there a provision in the Standing

  589
  Orders in which the Speaker, in communication with the president of the Royal College of Psychiatrists, can determine whether or not an hon. Member remains sane?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: If there were such a provision, I would certainly be a very busy man indeed.
  Mr. Savidge: The hon. Gentleman would put himself at risk there.
  Mr. Luff: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Savidge: No. I am sorry, but I am about to conclude.
  I am not even in favour of the suggestion that there could have been local referendums, although at least one could claim that coliseums were fixed places, so it would not have been quite as stupid as making that proposal in respect of events which, by their nature, outrun geographical boundaries. That would not be constitutionally sensible.
  Nor do I take the argument that because the emperor and the upper classes attended such events at the coliseum, should they have been stopped that would have been the politics of envy. Nor do I believe that a ban would have represented a serious intrusion on the individual liberties of circus goers.
  There is, however, one very good argument that members of the Romans and countrymen alliance would have advanced. They could have said that at least they did not have Christians chased for miles, to the point of exhaustion, before enjoying watching them being torn apart: now that would be barbarous and cruel. That is barbarous and cruel. That is why I believe that we should ban hunting with hounds, be it of hares, deer, foxes or mink. This is a matter of democracy, because it is the unfinished business of the House and the settled will of the British people.
  2 pm
  Mr. David Maclean: On behalf of all Opposition Members, I wish the Minister a speedy recovery from his operation. Let us hope that he is back on his horse soon—but not too high a horse.
  We have heard some good and thoughtful contributions from both sides of the argument, but listening to the hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) and the hon. Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks), for example, I felt that this was a sad day for democracy and a worrying one for politically incorrect minorities, and the final nail in the coffin for the Government's protestations that they believe in social inclusion. Thank goodness not all Labour Members took that line.
  The Government have affirmed that they will introduce legislation that will inevitably lead to a ban on hunting, even though the excellent Burns report produced not a single scrap of evidence to justify that. Conservative Members accept that the freedom of the individual must be constrained when there are overwhelming public policy reasons for doing so, but in this case there are none at all.
  For a ban to have any justification, those who oppose hunting would have to demonstrate that it is substantially worse as a means of control than the available
  590
  alternatives—a point powerfully made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard).
  Mr. Garnier: I feel a sense of frustration, in that my right hon. Friend, my hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson) and I are the only three Members of Parliament who made submissions that are listed in the Burns report. Does he agree that the points made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) are incontrovertible and that if people cannot be bothered to read the Burns report, they should at least read the Hansard report of his speech?
  Mr. Maclean: My hon. and learned Friend is absolutely right. My right hon. and learned Friend's contribution was superb, with his customary logic—and I do not have to say that, as I no longer depend on him for my employment.
  If there is to be any justification for a ban, it must be shown that any legislation will enhance animal welfare. Unless Parliament has objective, sustainable evidence of that, it will be wrong in principle to legislate. Burns has failed to show that there is any evidence that a ban would enhance animal welfare. Rather, the evidence is to the contrary.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames) said, it is no part of our democratic inheritance to foist on a minority the prejudices and opinions of the majority. Parliament should legislate to deal with activities that cause harm, not those that certain people, for their own subjective reasons, dislike.
  Mr. Caplin: Does the right hon. Gentleman object to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary's proposal to put a number of options before the House?
  Mr. Maclean: I object to a ban on hunting now that we have the Burns report, because it contains no evidence to suggest that a ban is sensible or morally correct or that we should overrule our fundamental human freedoms. There has already been a free vote in the House. We have new evidence in the form of the Burns report, so Labour Members should be able to get off the hook on which they have hoist themselves.
  Dr. Palmer: The right hon. Gentleman says that there has been a free vote, but does he not agree that it is fundamentally unsatisfactory that the vote was frustrated by filibustering and that, with the Burns report, it is reasonable to return to the issue?
  Mr. Maclean: I have turned up here every Friday, hoping to speak on the Medical Treatment (Prevention of Euthanasia) Bill, promoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton), and I understand that we are still on clause 1 because Government Members are using legitimate parliamentary procedures to ensure that it does not advance by one inch. If the hon. Gentleman will join me in condemning that practice, I will condemn other practices in the House that I may dislike.
  Dr. Palmer: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way again?
  Mr. Maclean: No; I have heard enough from the hon. Gentleman today, if I may say so, and I have very

  591
  little time. The freedom of each individual to hunt with hounds is no different in principle from the freedom to fish, shoot, eat meat, drink alcohol, smoke a cigarette, watch football, gamble on the lottery or worship as one chooses. A free society is one that jealously protects the freedoms of its individual citizens and the acid test of a free society is the extent to which individuals and minorities are permitted to exercise their rights. It is for those reasons that I maintain that those individuals who hunt have rights, and a right is only of real value when it is a right to disagree with the majority.
  Many points have been covered in today's debate, which has been worth while. It is only a pity that we did not have the debate before the Government announced their intention to ban hunting, even before Lord Burns had presented his report. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex was right to condemn the Government for that.
  Mr. Banks: The Burns report is evidence that we can use when the legislation comes forward. It does not compel us to accept it or to reject it. Does the right hon. Gentleman think that anyone on either side of the argument has been convinced by anything in the Burns report?
  Mr. Maclean: No one has been convinced by listening to the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues today. It is interesting that Labour Members have paid polite attention to Bums. They congratulate Lord Burns on an excellent report and then find every excuse possible to avoid its conclusions. Burns has shot the fox of the anti-hunting extremists and Labour Members do not like that.
  We would have enjoyed the contribution from the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Savidge) more if it had not prevented other hon. Members from participating. There is nothing more likely to inflame English and Welsh country people than if Scottish Members come to a debate on the Bill, make their points and then attempt to vote. The Government have unbalanced this Parliament by having two classes of MP. A group of MPs from Scotland have additional rights. If they use those legal rights to vote on this English measure, that will do more than anything else to stir up English nationalism.
  Mr. Savidge rose—
  Mr. Maclean: I shall not give way, because I must push on. I congratulate the hon. Member for Hove (Mr. Caplin) on his contribution, which I enjoyed, although—like many Labour Members—he tried to play down the job losses. The Burns report is clear that up to 8,000 jobs could he lost, not the mere 700 that the hon. Member for West Ham suggested. Burns goes on to suggest that many more people depend on hunting for their incomes, and that is why it is legitimate to talk of some 13,000 to 14,000 people who could be affected by a ban on hunting.
  The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik) and my hon. Friends the Members for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) and for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) also made some telling speeches. I urge the Government to listen carefully to some of the solutions that they advanced. I do not entirely agree with everything that my hon. Friends suggested, but they may have a solution that would go some way towards getting the Government off the hook and preventing a clash with rural people that would result in a further crisis in the countryside.
  592
  The hon. Member for Broxtowe (Dr. Palmer) said that the loss of jobs would be within normal fluctuations. That may be true numerically, but we have never before had a Government deliberately creating unemployment by banning a legal activity. That is what makes the job losses so unacceptable. They are unacceptable because they are totally avoidable, if only people were unprejudiced enough not to ban hunting.
  We have had many interesting contributions today, but not sufficient comment—in my view—on the social and cultural aspects of hunting. Coming from the Lake district, I am biased in many ways, because I see the deep social and cultural attachment that my constituents have to hunting.
  About eight years ago, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe and I negotiated at the Earth summit in Rio and agreed on the Rio declaration on sustainable development, principle 22 of which states:
  Indigenous people and their communities, and other local communities, have a vital role in environmental management and development because of their knowledge and traditional practices. States should recognise and duly support their identities, their culture and interests and enable their effective participation in the achievement of sustainable development.
  Do not all my constituents in the Lake district and the rural communities identified by Lord Burns, and all the constituents of other Members of Parliament from other parts of England and from Wales, qualify as an indigenous people in their local community? Should not the Government recognise and support their identity, their culture and their interests? Should not the Government enable them to participate in sustainable development, as the hunts have done for 200 years, and not now brand them as social outcasts to be reformed?
  The key point in the debate, superbly emphasised by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe, is Burns's conclusion:
  None of the legal methods of fox control is without difficulty from an animal welfare perspective. Both snaring and shooting can have serious adverse welfare implications.
  Of course, there are clear welfare implications arising from all legal methods of control: when a fox gets a bullet in the head, there are adverse welfare implications. However, the crucial point is that Burns has not ruled that hunting with hounds is especially welfare unfriendly by comparison with all the other methods of fox control. If Labour Members ban hunting with hounds, they must accept responsibility for the fact that, throughout the country, to control a pest—a serious pest in certain parts of the country, where farming and livestock considerations dictate that it must be controlled—people will use other methods which, although legal, are equally, and in many cases more, welfare unfriendly and more inhumane than hunting with hounds.
  When we read the Burns report, we find that, despite the huge amount of superb work that was carried out, it provides no evidence in any chapter to demonstrate that hunting should be banned—not from a social perspective, or from an animal welfare perspective, and certainly not from an economic perspective. All the arguments are on the side of my right hon. and hon. Friends and me, and support the case that we have advanced today. We can see that there is no overwhelming welfare reason to ban hunting and that there is therefore no public policy imperative that can overturn the fundamental freedom of an individual to participate in country sports.

  593
  To me, the debate on hunting is not about economic issues, environmental issues, or even animal welfare issues. The issue at the heart of the debate is an ethical one—it is the question of personal liberty. At stake are the rights and freedoms of individuals. The question of a ban on hunting is one that affects every person in this country, whether or not they have ever seen a horse or a hound or a hunt. My reason for opposing a ban, now that we have conclusive proof that there is no overwhelming welfare reason to impose one, is founded on my belief in the importance of a tolerant free society, the defining characteristic of which is that the rights of minorities are tolerated and respected. This country has a long tradition of tolerance of which we can rightly be proud.
  I accept that the majority of Members of Parliament support a ban on hunting, but that, in itself, is not sufficient to justify a ban. The disapproval of an activity by the majority in a society does not, of itself, provide the case for the criminalisation of that activity. The only justifiable ground on which to take away an individual's right to act as he chooses is when doing so is irrefutably in the overriding interests of society as a whole. No one who has read Burns could argue convincingly that the prohibition of hunting would meet that criterion. Like many others, hunting is an issue on which each individual should be allowed to arrive at a personal moral judgment.
  Even at this late stage, I appeal to the Government not to pursue what will inevitably be a confrontation with country people. Do not turn 250,000 honest, law-abiding British subjects into criminals. Do not alienate them further by forcing them to accept the Government's prejudices, their Back Benchers' prejudices and their value systems.
  I live in the countryside. I see my constituents at work and on social occasions. They are quiet, placid, law-abiding people—the salt of the earth. All other hon. Members will say the same of their own constituents, but the Government are dangerously provoking them. They are playing with fire. I beg them not to ignite the powder keg that is smouldering in the countryside. I ask them to look for a way out and discuss with the Middle Way group and other organisations methods by which they can get off the hook on which they have hoist themselves.
  The argument is not just about the countryside. Anyone who cares for the right of individuals to make personal choices must oppose a ban on hunting. We have traditionally looked to Parliament to protect the rights and freedoms of minorities, even though it has the power to take away all our freedoms. It can act totally, utterly illiberally if it wishes. It can ban hunting, fishing, shooting, boxing, motorcycle racing, the reading of certain books and lots more besides. We have the power to do it, but the exercise of that power would diminish Parliament. Our people would be less free. They would be subject to the tyranny of the prejudices of the majority.
  All hon. Members have a sacred duty to ensure that this country does not sacrifice our liberal traditions in pursuit of some artificial goal of conformity, sentiment and political correctness. It has taken us 300 years to construct this tolerant liberal democracy of ours. I urge the Government not to ban things just because they dislike them; that would take us back to a new dark age of bigotry, intolerance and strife.
  2.17 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Mike O'Brien): I welcome the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) back to the Front Bench. It has been some time since he has been there. We noticed the absence from the debate of the somewhat sidelined and semi-detached right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe), who has been replaced by her former colleague at the Home Office. I suspect that we would have had different fireworks at that Dispatch Box if she had braved the pack behind her. None the less, we welcome the right hon. Gentleman to his role.
  My position on hunting is a matter of record, but there are concerns about civil liberties in banning anything. Sometimes it is justified, but I do think—it is a personal view—that the onus is on those who seek to legislate to justify it. That is the way in which I approach the issue. However, I am here as a Minister to set out the view of the Government. This is the third or fourth occasion on which we have had a full debate on hunting since 1997. I have looked at some of the arguments in the previous debates. It is clear that strong emotions were expressed, but that there was a lack of consensus on the basic facts and consequences of a ban. It could be said, to some extent, that there was heat but not much light.
  On most questions before the House, there is the ability to debate around known facts using independently corroborated analysis. That enables the debate to be more focused and sharp. Fox hunting was an exception. Each side had it own version of "the facts." The purpose of the Burns report was to better inform the debate. Judging by the standard of today's debate, I think that it has achieved that objective. Whether hon. Members are banners, regulators, civil libertarians or undecided, they are better informed as a result of the report. Each side can better marshal its facts and arguments. It is a tribute to the Burns inquiry that the main parties who gave evidence to it have expressed broad satisfaction with the outcome. I believe that hon. Members will want to add themselves to the list of those who salute the Burns report and the members of the inquiry team.
  Before I deal with the points that have been raised, I should like to say a few words about the report and the Bill. Hunting is a contentious issue and passions run high. Because of that, Lord Burns could have chosen to conduct the inquiry in a closed manner. On the contrary, he sought to conduct the inquiry very openly. He made the evidence available on an inquiry website. The oral evidence sessions were conducted in public and transcripts were posted on the website. Research papers commissioned by the committee were made available in draft and discussed at seminars, and were made available to the public.
  As has been shown today, some might disagree with some conclusions in the report. That is inevitable, but the report and the evidence put to the inquiry have contributed enormously to improving our debate. That open approach has been echoed in the discussions that I have held with the umbrella groups to which my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary referred in his speech. Of course, some parts of the issue are incapable of being resolved to everyone's satisfaction. That is why we aim to facilitate a constructive debate and resolution of these issues.
  Let me briefly tell the House the results of the meetings that I have had with the Countryside Alliance, Deadline 2000 and the Middle Way group. I do not propose to hold

  595
  meetings with a large variety of other organisations, but, as some have said that they wish to speak to me, I make it clear that I am happy to consider written representations. I met the umbrella groups separately last week, and all the meetings were constructive. I told them that the Government were neutral on the issue of a ban on hunting.
  The Home Office aims to develop an approach as open even-handed as possible to the options in the Bill, in order to give Parliament a manageable choice. I asked the umbrella groups for proposals on the options by mid-July, with a view to a having couple of weeks of discussion between officials and the groups on how we can put the detail of their proposals into a Bill and an overall package that we can present to the House.
  The umbrella groups were given the same offer of reasonable access to the Home Office Bill team and meetings with me if there was a particular issue to resolve over the next few weeks. Each group was told that we hoped to submit proposals to parliamentary counsel by September. I could not guarantee that we would hold consultation on all the clauses, but I hope that that will be possible. I said that the Government fully retain the right to frame our Bill, but we shall seek to do so fairly and are interested in the views of the various umbrella groups on how that can be done.
  The Bill needs to be manageable and the options as straightforward as possible. I am grateful to each of the organisations for the constructive way in which they approached those meetings. I am happy to receive representations from right hon. and hon. Members, either through the usual channels or in other ways.
  I shall now deal with some of the points made in an extremely good debate. Many excellent speeches were made in favour of banning fox hunting. My hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole (Mr. Cawsey) set out his view, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice), who argued his case passionately.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Dr. Palmer) displayed his passion not only on fox hunting, but on a ban on shooting and fishing. I have to make it clear that the Government will not ban shooting and fishing. We have no intention of doing so. There is no possibility that that will be done by this Government.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Upminster (Mr. Darvill) said that he had attended a hunt, but still favoured a ban.
  Sir Nicholas Lyell: Would the Minister explain on what basis of principle the Government will support a ban on hunting?
  Mr. O'Brien: I have just said that the Government are neutral on the issue of a ban on fox hunting. We seek to facilitate a full and proper debate on the matter so that those who favour hunting and those who favour a ban may be able to put their views. The Bill will set out various options, including those proposed by the supporters of regulation or of bans on particular types of hunting. We shall try to ensure that everyone can have their say. In due course, Parliament will no doubt decide.
  Sir Nicholas Lyell: Do the Government have a principled basis on which they are prepared to defend the rights of minorities?
  Mr. O'Brien: The Government are extremely concerned to ensure that all minorities have the right to
  596
  pursue activities that are proper, legitimate and justified. From time to time, on a decision of the House, minorities have been unable for various—often good—reasons to undertake an activity that they want to pursue. The fact that a group of people are a minority does not guarantee them the right to do what they want. It is a matter of whether there is a legitimate and proper justification for the action. That is what the House will have to consider.
  We heard good contributions not only from the hon. Members for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik) and for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) but also, in an intervention, from my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mrs. Golding)—all of whom are members of the Middle Way group. The hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) made a good contribution in defence of hunting, as did the right hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King), the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames), the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard)—if there is time, I hope to return to his comments—and the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown).
  The hon. Member for Aylesbury pointed out that we would need to consider carefully the Human Rights Act 1998 in relation to this issue. That is correct. The right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) joined him in suggesting that the Government would have to deal with great care with section 19 certificates. That is true.
  Clearly, there are differing views as to compatibility with the convention; the Government will consider the points that have been raised before coming to a conclusion as to how to proceed. In any event, hon. Members will be aware that one of the leading experts on the convention, Mr. David Pannick QC, believes that a measure would comply with the convention. Obviously, such matters need to be examined.
  The hon. Member for Aylesbury suggested that we needed to consider compensation. In his opening speech, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said that the Government were considering compensation and would express a view in due course. We paid some compensation when handguns were banned. Serious issues arise as to the extent of any necessary compensation. I welcome the continued support of the Opposition for the Human Rights Act, whose provisions were made law with all-party support.
  I hoped to be able to deal with such matters as fallen stock and employment, but as time is short I must move on to other points. The hon. Member for Mid-Sussex wanted me to assess the relative pain—on a scale of one to 10—in a series of painful-sounding incidents. He asked me to reply by letter. He is quite entitled to commission the research himself, but I do not propose to ask officials to do so. He made a specific request and that is my response.
  The hon. Gentleman also suggested that the Government were being deceitful by proposing provisions similar to those under the Sunday Trading Act 1994, before the report came out. However, everyone already knew that the matter was complex. It was clear from the evidence to Burns that options were needed and that they should be more than merely "Ban" or "No Ban". That is why we felt that provisions similar to those of the shops Act were appropriate. We did not need the Burns report to know that—although the report is, of course, enormously valuable.

  597
  The way in which the case has been put has benefited from the report. Our manifesto commitment is for a free vote. That has been delivered, but there are many issues on which both sides still do not agree. We decided that an independent inquiry would inform the debate. We are helping, with a Government Bill, to ensure that the debate is conducted in a way that enables the House to arrive at a full and proper conclusion, so as to resolve the matter once and for all.
  It being half-past Two o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

  DELEGATED LEGISLATION

    BROADCASTING
    Ordered,
    That, for the purposes of its approval, the amendment (Cm 4797), dated 3rd July 2000, to the Agreement (Cm 3152), dated 25th January 1996, between the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport and the British Broadcasting Corporation shall be treated as if it were an instrument subject to the provisions of Standing Order No. 118 (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation).—[Mr. Dowd.]

  Prison Suicides
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Dowd.]
  2.30 pm
  Mr. Bob Russell: If today's debate results—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. Hon. Members must not walk in front of the hon. Gentleman who is addressing the House.
  Mr. Russell: If today's debate results in one fewer suicide in prison, it will be worth while. However, I am looking for much more than that, as, indeed, I am sure the Minister is. Something must be done to reduce the growing number of suicides in prison, which last year reached a record of almost eight every month.
  Suicide rates in prison are 10 times higher than the rate in the community outside. That is a horrific statistic, with which none of us can be content. Far from suicide levels in prison being higher than in the population at large, they should be lower—and they would be, if "safe cells" were installed, particularly for remand prisoners and those with a known psychiatric history. In my opinion, the latter category should not even be in prison in the first place.
  In the past decade, more than 600 men, women and children took their lives in English and Welsh prisons. The number of suicides has nearly doubled in the past 10 years. I do not have the figures for Scotland and Northern Ireland, but I have heard nothing to indicate that levels there are lower than in England and Wales.
  Two thirds of suicides are by prisoners on remand—people who have not been convicted of a crime. Yet remand prisoners constitute only about a fifth of the prison population, and many remand prisoners are subsequently found not guilty or given a non-custodial sentence. The Howard League for Penal Reform reports:
  Remand prisoners often experience the worst conditions in the prison system. Adults are remanded to overcrowded local prisons with limited facilities and over-stretched resources. High numbers mean that prisons can do little more than house and feed these people. It is not unusual for such prisoners to be confined to their cells for 23 hours a day.
  That is a shocking indictment of our prison system as it relates to remand prisoners.
  Today's debate is not about whether we have too many people in prison, although I believe we do; nor is it about calling on the Government to reduce the prison population, although I wish they would at least bring the UK's figures into line with those of all the other countries in the European Community. Today's debate is exclusively about the unacceptable number of suicides in our prisons and about one specific measure that should be taken more seriously than it currently is, so that suicides would become extremely rare rather than commonplace, as, sadly, they are at the moment. A suicide rate 10 times higher than that for the population at large indicates that there is something fundamentally wrong with prison life that needs to be addressed.
  Improved regimes, more purposeful time made available to prisoners rather than them locking them up around the clock; careful screening to identify those with potential suicidal tendencies; and a determination to stop

  599
  putting people in prison when a psychiatric place is more appropriate should all help to reduce suicides. However, important though all those measures are, the growing number of people taking their own lives in prison suggests that more needs to be done.
  The over-use of prison has led to many vulnerable people being incarcerated. The resulting overcrowding puts a strain on resources, as well as on relations between staff and prisoners, leading to inadequate standards of care for those at risk of suicide. About one third of those who take their lives in prison have a history of mental health problems. The Mental After Care Association contacted me this morning to ask me to bring to the debate the stark message that too many people with mental disorders are in prison, and to praise the work of the joint prison health care taskforce and the joint prison health policy unit in improving health care in our prisons.
  Last year, 91 people committed suicide in prison—the highest ever toll. Of these, 56 were unsentenced people, four were aged under 18; 15 were aged between 19 and 21; and five were women. I am advised that by yesterday, there had been 42 suicides in prisons this year.
  In 1997, a total of 69 people, 48 of whom were on remand, committed suicide in prison. In 1998, the figure was 83, of whom 50 were on remand. In the vast majority of cases, death was caused by hanging. So far, no prisoner has committed suicide in a safe cell.
  The provision for remand prisoners of safe cells, which offer no means whereby a prisoner can hang himself or herself, would result in a two-thirds reduction in prison suicides. If safe cells were more widely introduced in prisons, the figure would be reduced even further. The message is clear: safe cells save lives.
  I invite the Minister, in his summing up, to say what it costs the Prison Service, and the public purse more generally, to deal with a suicide. We know from Government figures that the cost of a fatal road accident is £1 million, but what is the cost of a suicide in prison? It is impossible to put a value on the traumatic consequences for the family when someone kills himself, or on the effect that such a death has on the prison staff who have to deal with it. However, if we can establish the true cost of a prison suicide to the public purse, it will put into perspective the extra cost of installing a safe cell compared with a more traditional cell—perhaps a fairer description would be an "unsafe cell".
  The Minister will be aware that I have recently tabled several parliamentary questions about safe cells. I should explain that my interest in this new concept of a prison cell is a direct result of being contacted by Mr. John Sadler, who represents one of the companies involved, whose international marketing office happens to be located in my constituency. The company, Velstone International Ltd., does not manufacture its products, of which safe cells are only one line, in Colchester, but I hope that in time expansion may lead to a local manufacturing base.
  For the technically minded, I should explain that Velstone is manufactured from a polymer matrix with an aluminium tri-hydrate mineral filler. Velstone solid surface material has the durability and richness of natural stone, yet it can be thermoformed, cut, shaped and profiled just like timber. As a layman, I can best describe the finished product as a single self-contained unit comprising moulded items of immovable and unbreakable
  600
  furniture. A bed, a table and a chair form part of the structure, as does a toilet and wash basin. All plumbing and electrics are encased in the moulding, and there are no hooks or fittings to which a ligature could be attached.
  Other advantages are the significant improvement in cleanliness and hygiene; the fire safety rating, which is in keeping with modern best practice; the reduction of search regime times; the eradication of vermin and bug infestation; and the savings made on expensive resources by water control devices.
  Safe cells cost more than traditional cells—I am told about an extra£10,000 per cell—but maintenance costs are much lower. Most important, however, is the fact that so far they have proved to be suicide resistant. They are designed for the 21st century, replacing outdated and substandard equipment—and they save lives.
  I understand that Britain's first safe cell was installed about five years ago in Witham police station in Essex. It is not just in prisons that such cells should be installed; police stations and courts should also have them.
  I am told that the first prison to have safe cells was Belmarsh in August 1997, followed by HMP Moorland, with two and eight cells respectively. The first major installation was at HMP Swaleside, when 120 were put in a new wing. There is some dispute, however, as to how many safe cells have been installed subsequently, for when is a safe cell not a safe cell?
  In response to a written question that I put to the Home Secretary in March, the Minister of State, Home Office, the right hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng), referred to proposals to install 576 cells in Rye Hill prison, scheduled to open in January 2001, which will incorporate the key elements
  of the Prison Service's new improved standard cell or "safe cell".—[Official Report, 13 March 2000; Vol. 346, c. 76W.]
  Would the Minister care to describe what elements of the safe cell concept and design will not be included in the Rye Hill cells? Furthermore, what is the difference in cost between the Rye Hill cell and a safe cell that contains all the elements, not just the key ones?
  In a written answer to me on 6 March, the Minister of State said:
  Private sector consortiums seeking to build and manage new prisons are required to reflect the design requirements of the Prison Service's improved standard cell in all new prison cells.
  He then added the highly significant words:
  While such cells may not be identical to those built by the Prison Service, all cells will incorporate the key elements of the Service's design specification.—[Official Report, 6 March 2000; Vol. 345, c. 546W.]
  Were the 1,088 safe cells installed in the last financial year in the privately managed Ashfield young offenders institution and in Forest Bank prison in Manchester in accordance with the full concept and design, or with the lower specification of what the Minister's colleague described in his written answer as the new "improved standard cell"?
  I am sure the Minister can confirm that there has been no incidence of self-harm or self-inflicted death in any of the safe cells that have all the elements, so why downgrade the design? Is it because the true safe cell is more expensive, and those behind the private finance initiative prison building and management programme want to cut costs by installing a lower standard of cell in terms of safety considerations?

  601
  With an estimated 56,000 cells in prisons—to which must be added many thousands more in police stations, courts and places such as Rampton—safe cells represent little more than 1 per cent. of the total number of cells. Meanwhile the suicide rate in our prisons continues to increase.
  I should like to place on record my appreciation of Her Majesty's Prison Service, particularly the suicide awareness support unit, for all that it is doing to deal with this appalling situation. Indeed, there is little doubt that if it were not for that unit, even more people would have killed themselves. It is thanks to the work of those responsible for drawing up a suicide awareness strategy—a partnership between the Prison Service and private industry—that the concept of a safe cell has been developed. That is the good news. The bad news is that too little is being done to install sufficient safe cells.
  In the words of the Howard League for Penal Reform:
  The State takes responsibility for the individual when it sentences them to imprisonment or when it remands them into custody pending trial or sentencing. The Prison Service, as an agency of the State, must then safeguard the health and well-being of each prisoner.
  With so many prisoners committing suicide, I submit that the state is failing in its duty of responsibility. I know that the Minister is as anxious as I am to see a reduction in, and hopefully a total elimination of, suicides in prison. I contend that the installation of safe cells that meet the full specification, not merely the requirements of a reduced standard, will achieve that objective.
  I urge the Minister, the Home Office and the Prison Service generally to use the term "safe cell" and not the term "new improved standard cell." I feel that the former conveys what this is all about, and should thus be used at all times in order to reinforce the importance of this whole matter.
  As a member of the Select Committee on Home Affairs, I shall be inviting colleagues to consider this matter in detail and to report to the Home Secretary. In the meantime, I invite the Minister to use her best endeavours to increase the number of safe cells as a matter of urgency.
  2.44 pm
  The Minister of State, Home Office (Mrs. Barbara Roche): I congratulate the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Russell) on his success in securing this important Adjournment debate. This is a vital subject to discuss, and I know that, as a member of the Home Affairs Committee, he takes a great interest in these matters, as does the rest of the Committee. I know from my time as a member of that Committee the importance of its work in this area.
  I welcome the opportunity to explain developments to improve measures intended to prevent prisoners from taking their own lives. The increase in the number of suicides in prison is a major cause for concern. My ministerial colleagues take a close personal interest in self-inflicted deaths, and fully support the Prison Service's commitment to do everything possible to reduce the likelihood of a recurrence of such tragedies. I thank the hon. Gentleman for putting on record his appreciation of the good work that the service has done.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng), the Minister of State, chairs a round table forum on suicides in prisons, and a twice-yearly meeting
  602
  between the Prison Service and a range of interested groups. Those groups include the Howard League for Penal Reform—mentioned by the hon. Gentleman—Inquest, the Prison Reform Trust and the Samaritans. That provides a useful opportunity for the sharing of ideas, and the sharing of the aim to work more closely to reduce the number of self-inflicted deaths in prisons. The director general of the Prison Service, Martin Narey, gives suicide prevention a high priority, and is personally committed to a reduction in the number of deaths in custody.
  Before discussing "safe cells", as the hon. Gentleman described them, I want to explain the strategy that the Prison Service has adopted, and how cell design fits in. The Prison Service strategy on caring for the suicidal was revised substantially in 1994, but is kept under continual review. The strategy is based on a multidisciplinary approach, involving all staff and, indeed, prisoners. It is based on good practice, and is widely agreed to be sound in principle. We are keeping the matter under constant review. Great emphasis is placed on inter-agency working. For example, a very good partnership has been developed between the Prison Service and the Samaritans.
  The Prison Service is developing a range of additional measures to enhance current suicide awareness strategies. They include the identification and dissemination of good practice, improving screening and induction processes to identify prisoners at risk more effectively, introducing alternatives to the use of strip-cell conditions in the care of the suicidal, conducting further research into suicide and self-harm, and improving cell design to provide a safer environment. That work is being informed by the recommendations of the chief inspector's thematic review entitled "Suicide is Everyone's Concern", and focuses particularly on local and women's prisons and young offenders institutions. The hon. Gentleman mentioned such institutions.
  Instructions and guidance to staff on caring for the suicidal are being re-examined and drawn together in a new Prison Service order to be issued later in the year. It will highlight good practice, and strengthen existing strategies to provide care for prisoners at risk. A new training programme for staff involved in the implementation of the suicide awareness strategy has also been developed, and is currently being introduced.
  As the hon. Gentleman said, the part played by the conditions in which prisoners are housed is recognised as an important factor in the Prison Service. However, that is only one element of the strategy that is needed: the main focus of what we are doing is on good staff-prisoner relationships. It is vital to deal with that difficult problem. The Prison Service has developed an improvement on what was known as the safe cell, which offers increased protection. That design has been introduced in some of the newest prisons, and in parts of older prisons where that is practicable.
  The concept of the safe cell followed a report, published in February 1997, which focused on the physical environment needed to produce a "safe" cell. Although originally aimed at those prisoners identified by staff as being at risk of self-harm, the cell design requirements specified in the report clearly contribute to increased control, better health and hygiene, lower maintenance, easier searching and improved cell life-cycle costs. As I said, the concept is a comprehensive one.

  603
  It was decided that, because of those additional advantages, it would no longer be appropriate to continue to describe the cell as a safe cell, but to regard it instead as the service's improved standard cell—which meets the standards that we want to achieve.
  The improved cell design has several features that can assist staff greatly in the difficult task of managing those at risk. The number of potential ligature points, for example, has been reduced as much as possible. A major source of ligature points is the cell window, which has been totally redesigned in the improved cell to minimise the opportunity for ligatures to be fastened to it or to parts of it. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will welcome that change.
  The improved cell will be included in all new houseblocks under construction at current establishments and at new prisons that are being built under the design, construction, management and finance—DCMF—initiative. Reference has already been made to the fact that 120 improved cells have been included in one wing of a new houseblock at HMP Swaleside. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will also very much appreciate the fact that, between them, the new prisons built at Agecroft and Pucklechurch have 1,088 cells that reflect the new design requirements. Additionally, the new prisons under construction at Marchington and Onley will similarly reflect those requirements. Invitations to tender for the next two DCMF new prisons will also require bidders to reflect the new standard cell specification.
  The design is well regarded both inside and outside the Prison Service. It is the model standard that has been adopted for future development in new prisons. Use of the improved cells also fits in well with the chief inspector's concept of healthy prisons and the work currently being done to develop a safer prisons standard.
  I am very pleased to tell the House that the improved cell is regarded as an important piece of design work by the Prison Service. It is very good also that the standard has been embraced not only by the Prison Service itself, but by the private sector involved in the building of new prisons. Many outside bodies, too, appreciate and have responded very favourably to the development.
  Although I understand the hon. Gentleman's remarks about the physical nature of the improvements needed to deal with those problems, I am sure that he will appreciate that the experience of both the Prison Service and the outside community is that suicide prevention is not only about such improvements, but can be a rather more complex issue.
  Mr. Russell: Does the Minister accept that not one of last year's 91 suicides or one of this year's suicides occurred in a safe cell?
  Mrs. Roche: I accept the hon. Gentleman's point. However, although restriction of access to means of self-harm may impact on impulsive individuals, when someone is truly determined to go along that path, they may still find a way to do so, and the experience of the Prison Service is that, unfortunately, that has been found to be the case. We need to take a holistic approach and examine that and other methods. For example, the dangers of over-reliance on physical prevention have been seen in previous use of strip-cell conditions. The Prison Service has abandoned that policy as inhumane and degrading to people who, in some cases, are vulnerable.
  What is required is for all prison staff to work with prisoners who may be at risk of self-harm to try and resolve their problems before they feel driven to try to take their own lives. It may be of interest to the House that fellow prisoners have a role to play. The listener schemes that are in place in the majority of prisons enable prisoners to discuss their feelings with a fellow prisoner who has been trained by the Samaritans. That is an excellent initiative, especially in cases in which prisoners feel unable to discuss their problems with a member of staff.
  Of course, the prison population includes many people in the at-risk group, including those who have been physically and sexually abused, substance abusers and others, as the hon. Gentleman dwelt on in his remarks. Despite the very sad rise in the number of deaths, it is important not to lose sight of the success stories. We know from our experience that good care and support from staff have saved many lives. That fact does not show up in any statistics so, sadly, it goes largely unreported. However, throughout the country, there are many excellent people in the Prison Service who have worked extremely hard in this area and, once again, I wish to pay tribute to them.
  Like the hon. Gentleman, I fully support the work of the Prison Service in this important area. I am very grateful indeed for the co-operation and multi-agency work of many agencies in the voluntary sector and other interest groups. This is a vital area, and we certainly need to do something about those figures. I am convinced that we can do that with the measures that I have outlined and the work in progress.
  I shall end as I began, and thank the hon. Gentleman for giving the House the opportunity to discuss the subject, however briefly, and for enabling me to put on record all that is taking place in this area.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at two minutes to Three o'clock.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  Advertising
  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how much has been spent by his Department on advertising in each year since May 1997. [125689]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 12 June 2000]: The Department's financial year starts 1 April and the advertising spend from April to March for each financial year from 1994 is as follows:

  Year

  £

  1994–95

  8,988,000

  1995–96

  9,293,000

  1996–97

  7,219,000

  1997–98

  6,500,000

  1998–99

  6,000,000

  1999–2000

  12,000,000

  Note:

  Figures exclude VAT

  The figures for 1994–95 to 1996–97 show the combined spends of the then Departments of Transport and of the Environment.

  Expenditure in 1999–2000 includes £3 million for the campaign to encourage voting in the GLA election and £4.6 million for the "Are You Doing Your Bit" campaign.

  Liquid Petroleum Gas
  Ms Atherton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to promote the use of liquid petroleum gas in cars. [128276]

  Mr. Hill
  The Government have introduced a number of measures to promote the wider use of liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) in recognition of the fuel's environmental benefits. The Energy Saving Trust's Powershift programme, which is funded by my Department, provides grants towards the additional cost of vehicles fuelled by LPG. Funding for this programme was increased to £10 million following the last Budget. LPG and other road gas fuels also benefit from a relatively low rate of fuel duty compared to petrol and diesel. From 1 March 2001, Vehicle Excise Duty for new cars will be graduated on the basis of CO2 emissions. Under the new scheme, LPG cars will benefit both from a modest discount and from generally having lower CO2 emissions than equivalent petrol cars. The Government are currently consulting on further tax discounts under the new company car tax regime, which comes into effect from 6 April 2002, for gas and electric cars.

  Exchange Flags Building (Liverpool)
  Mrs. Ellman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what progress he has made in recovering the regeneration grant awarded to the Walton Group in respect of Exchange Flags Liverpool; and if he will make a statement. [128635]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  Under section 175 of the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993, the Secretary of State appointed the Urban Regeneration Agency ("English Partnerships") to act as his agent in respect of the agreement to pay a City Grant to the Walton Group for the refurbishment of the Exchange Flags building, Liverpool. In that capacity English Partnerships carried out a review of the project and are pressing for repayment of the grant.

  Inquiries are in progress, and therefore it would be inappropriate for me to make any further statement at this time.

  Homelessness
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) what plans he has to introduce common arrangements for monitoring homelessness throughout the UK; [128896]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of current arrangements for monitoring homelessness in England. [128895]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Local housing authorities in England make quarterly and annual returns to the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions of data concerning their activities under the homelessness legislation. They also provide annually an estimate of the number of people sleeping rough in their area on any one night in June. The extent of the rough sleeping problem in England is monitored through single-night street counts, co-ordinated by local authorities and carried out in partnership with the local voluntary sector and volunteers. We are satisfied that these arrangements provide an effective means of monitoring homelessness in England. The Government currently have no plans to introduce common arrangements for monitoring homelessness throughout the UK.

  Mr. Love
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the arrangements for reviewing homelessness decisions made by local authorities under sections 202 and 203 of the Housing Act 1996; and if he will make a statement; [128905]

  (2) how many reviews were undertaken by authorities of decisions taken under section 202 of the Housing Act 1996 in (a) 1997–98, (b) 1998–99 and (c) 1999–2000 in each local authority area. [128906]

  Mr. Raynsford
  We will consider the effectiveness of the current arrangements for local housing authorities' review of homelessness decisions when we take forward the proposals for reform of the homelessness legislation set out in the Housing Green Paper, "Quality and Choice: A decent home for all". Information about the number of reviews undertaken by local authorities is not held centrally.
  311W
  Mr. Love
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to seek amendments to the provisions of Part VII of the Housing Act 1996 relating to intentional homelessness; and if he will make a statement. [128904]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The Housing Green Paper, "Quality and Choice: A decent home for all", sets out the Governments proposals for introducing more choice for existing and prospective tenants of social housing and for strengthening the protection available to homeless people. The Paper suggests that it may be possible to modify the rules of intentional homelessness if these proposals were adopted. The Government will consider responses to the Green Paper before deciding whether to take this forward, and would wish to discuss any proposals with representatives of local government, Shelter and others before introducing amending legislation.

  Planning (South-east)
  Mr. Norman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) what proportion of the potential growth areas and long-term potential growth areas in the draft regional planning guidance for the south-east are at risk or likely to be at risk in the future from potential flooding; [129072]

  (2) what area of land in the south-east planning area (a) consists of flood plains and (b) is liable to tidal or coastal flooding according to the Environment Agency's indicative maps; [129071]

  (3) what proportion of brownfield land available for development in the south-east planning area is at risk or likely to be at risk in the future from flooding. [129070]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Information about areas at risk from fluvial and other tidal or coastal flooding is based on best estimates and information about recorded events. It is provided in the form of maps held by the Environment Agency regional offices and supplied to local authorities.

  Ministerial Code
  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) on how many occasions since May 1997 Ministers in his Department have made a declaration of interest to their colleagues under circumstances envisaged in Paragraph 110 of the Ministerial Code; [129161]

  (2) if he will list the occasions since May 1997 on which Ministers in his Department have sought the advice of the permanent secretary under the circumstances envisaged in Paragraphs 118, 121 or 123 of the Ministerial Code. [129181]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  Information relating to internal advice and consultation is not disclosed under Exemption II of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  West Coast Main Line
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make improved timekeeping and extended boarding times on the Euston to Liverpool Lime Street line a condition for renewal of the West Coast main line franchise. [129601]
  312W
  Mr. Hill
  The present franchise for the West Coast main line is not due to be replaced until 9 March 2012. When replacing franchises, the Franchising Director will be seeking to improve services to passengers and improvements in performance. Boarding times at stations are an operational matter for Train Operating Companies and it is not envisaged that they will be the subject of specific franchise requirements.

  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what representations he has received about making the level of on-board service a condition of franchise renewal for the West Coast main line. [129600]

  Mr. Hill
  The Secretary of State has not received any representations about making the level of on-board service a condition of franchise renewal for the West Coast Main Line. The present franchise for the West Coast Main Line is not due to be replaced until 9 March 2012. This franchise, in common with all the other passenger rail franchises, does not contain any provisions stipulating which on-board services must be provided. It is not envisaged that there will be any such provisions in any of the replacement franchises.

  Rail Franchises
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) if he will ensure that, where a new franchise is awarded by the Strategic Rail Authority, the performance standards in the new franchise agreement are applied during the unexpired period of the old franchise agreement; [129687]

  (2) what powers the Strategic Rail Authority has to ensure a smooth and rapid transfer when it awards a new franchise to a company different from the one currently providing the service and the existing company decides to continue until its contract expires. [129705]

  Mr. Hill
  This would be a matter for negotiation between the Franchising Director and the existing and potential franchisees. In the event of failure to agree transfer arrangements in advance of expiry of the existing franchise, the existing franchisee would be obliged to continue to honour its contractual commitments.

  Atomic Energy
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what changes he plans to make to the location of intermediate and high level nuclear waste by the United Kingdom Government in the returns to the International Atomic Energy Agency for 2000; and what requests for environmental sampling have been received by the Government from the Agency since 15 May 1997. [129135]

  Mr. Meacher
  I am not aware of any requests from the International Atomic Energy Agency for returns about the location of intermediate and high-level nuclear waste, or on environmental sampling.

  New Trains
  Ms Osborne
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the further exemption order for the fleet of new trains to be introduced into service by Anglia
  313W
  Railways Ltd. and ScotRail Railways Ltd. in respect of provisions of the Rail Vehicle Accessibility Regulations 1998. [130052]

  Mr. Hill
  We have received further applications from Anglia Railways Ltd. relating to their Class 170/2 trains and ScotRail Railways Ltd. relating to their Class 170/4 trains. These seek to revoke the original Orders and replace them with new Orders. These have been discussed with our statutory advisers the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee.

  Exemption Orders relating to the exemption of the Class 170/2 and 170/4 trains have been laid in Parliament today. Copies are available from the Library.

  Abandoned Vehicles
  Mr. Love
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if his Department will commission research into possible links between abandoned vehicles, vandalism and other crime; and if he will make a statement. [128490]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  I have been asked to reply.

  While we have no current plans for research into links between abandoned vehicles, vandalism and other forms of crime, we will consider this area when we next review the forward work programme. We are mindful that abandoned vehicles can be an indicator of problems affecting a neighbourhood, and the local Crime and Disorder Partnerships do take into account action to address such issues when devising the local strategy.

WALES

  Council House Sales
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what discussions he has had with the First Secretary on the release of additional council house sales receipts; and if he will make a statement. [129501]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I refer my right hon. Friend to the reply I gave to him on 13 June 2000,Official Report, column 571W.

  Lords Lieutenant
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how much money his Department has spent in each of the last 10 years for which figures are available on(a) Lords Lieutenant and (b) their deputies in Wales. [129680]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  My Department holds information on Lords Lieutenant's expenditure for the financial years 1996–97 onwards. The total expenditure for each of these years is as follows:

  £

  Expenditure

  1996–97

  20,277.19

  1997–98

  21,120.85

  1998–99

  18,500.45

  1999–2000

  119,566.55

  2000–01

  24,539.00

  1This figure includes payments made by the Welsh Office to 30 June and by the Wales Office from 1 July.

  2To date.

  314W
  Information on expenditure prior to 1996 could only be obtained at a disproportionate cost.

PRIME MINISTER

  Adoption
  Ms Buck
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement concerning his review of adoption of children from care. [130095]

  The Prime Minister
  I have today published a study from the Performance and Innovation Unit (PIU), which forms the first part of my review of adoption. Copies of the study have been placed in the Vote Office and the Libraries. I asked the PIU to provide an initial assessment of the main problem areas, identify options and make recommendations to the Government on the use of adoption for children in the care of local authorities. The report contains a range of options for promoting greater use of adoption, and for making it faster and more straightforward. To ensure that there is the fullest possible debate on this issue, the report is published for consultation. In the light of views expressed in consultation we will then publish a White Paper before the end of the year setting out the Government's new approach to adoption, and including proposals for new legislation, to be introduced next year.

  Ministerial Code
  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Prime Minister (1) on how many occasions since May 1997 Ministers in the Cabinet Office have made a declaration of interest to their colleagues under circumstances envisaged in Paragraph 110 of the Ministerial Code; [129149]

  (2) how many times he has been consulted by Ministers under the procedures outlined in paragraph 109 of the Ministerial Code; on what occasions any such consultations took place; and if he will make a statement; [129182]

  (3) what discussions he has had with the Deputy Prime Minister on Paragraph 109 of the Ministerial Code (a) with respect to his tenancy of a flat in Clapham and (b) other matters. [129236]

  The Prime Minister
  Information relating to internal advice and consultation is not disclosed under Exemption 2, Part II of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  Internet Broadcasts
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Prime Minister how many weekly prime ministerial internet broadcasts he has given; on which dates each was available on the No. 10 website; how many hits each broadcast experienced during the week following its posting on the website; and for what reason he has discontinued his weekly internet broadcasts. [129223]
  315W
  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 5 July 2000]There have been 14 broadcasts, all of which are still available on the website. They are:

  30 June 2000—Economic Policy

  19 May 2000—Sierra Leone

  2 May 2000—Strategic Direction of Government

  21 April 2000—Northern Ireland

  14 April 2000—Russia

  7 April 2000—New Deal for over-50s

  31 March 2000—Health

  24 March 2000—The Budget

  17 March—Streamlining Public Services

  10 March—Drugs

  3 March—Mozambique

  25 February—Health

  18 February—Drugs

  11 February—Education.

  The broadcasts can be accessed in a number of different ways—either as a streamed file, a downloadable MP3 version or as a transcript. The streamed versions of the broadcasts have been requested nearly 37,000 times, an average of 254 requests per day, since the first one was posted on the site on 11 February. Downloads of the MP3 version and hits on the transcript page will be in addition to this figure, but the site statistics do not show how often these have been accessed. The site as a whole received over 37 million hits in the three months since it was re-launched on 11 February.

  I will continue to regularly record broadcasts for the website. The latest broadcast, on economic policy, was published on the website on 30 June.

  Lord Levy
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make it his policy to increase the accountability to Parliament of Lord Levy. [129707]

  The Prime Minister
  I have nothing further to add to the reply I gave to the hon. Member on 5 July 2000,Official Report, column 218W.

  Engagements
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for 16 May 1998. [129738]

  The Prime Minister
  I was hosting the G8 Summit in Birmingham.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Former Civil Servants (Pensions)
  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on outstanding pension commitments to former Rhodesian civil servants agreed at the time Zimbabwe became independent. [129136]

  Mr. Foulkes
  At Independence, the pension rights of both retired and serving public servants were preserved under the Zimbabwe Constitution, determined during the Lancaster House negotiations. The Government of Zimbabwe are responsible for the payment of pensions to 316W
  former Rhodesian civil servants. That constitution guarantees the continued payment of pensions to former Zimbabwe public servants, wherever they reside. Occasionally, there have been delays in pension payments being made as a result of shortages in foreign exchange, but, these apart, the Government of Zimbabwe have consistently honoured their obligations. There is no provision in the Constitution to protect the value of externally paid pensions against the effects of fluctuating exchange rates.

  EU Aid
  Mr. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what discussions she has had with European commissioners about the EU's delivery of aid to developing countries; and if she will make a statement. [129515]

  Clare Short
  I have frequent exchanges with Commissioners Nielson and Patten about EC aid to developing countries. It is in sore need of reform. We are working for full implementation of our detailed strategy (a copy of which is in the Library of the House) which requires the European Commission and other EU member states radically to improve the poverty focus and effectiveness of EC development assistance. There is a growing commitment to reform. The reduced number of Commissioners responsible for development, the improvements incorporated in the renegotiation of the Lomé convention and the recently published strategy for development are significant advances, but implementation of the promised reform remains to be achieved.

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what recent discussions she has had with her European counterparts regarding the provision of EU development aid to countries in conflict. [128712]

  Clare Short
  The general issue of the role of development assistance in countries in conflict has been discussed frequently, most recently at the informal meeting of European Community Development Ministers in Lisbon in January, which the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State attended. Further discussion was also held during part of a seminar held in Paris, jointly hosted by the French and Portuguese Development Ministers, on 30 June. The position in a number of specific countries, notably Sierra Leone, the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Ethiopia and Eritrea, was discussed at the meeting of the Development Council on 18 May.

  All development programmes, including the European Community's, need to develop more effective methods for targeting development assistance to countries in conflict. The UK and other member states have urged the Commission to undertake work in this area. Provisions on the issue of peace-building and conflict prevention and resolution were included in the new EU-ACP Cotonou Agreement. The Commission are currently developing guidelines to help officials design programmes that address potential sources of conflict.

CABINET OFFICE

  Civil Service Recruitment
  Ms Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office when she will publish the Fifth Annual Civil Service Fast Stream Recruitment report. [129927]

  Marjorie Mowlam
  The annual Civil Service Fast Stream Report was placed in the Libraries of the House earlier today. It covers the year from 1 April 1999 to 31 March 2000, and reports the results of Fast Stream competitions completed during that period and action undertaken for future competitions.

  The report shows that there has been progress in broadening the diversity of Fast Stream recruits. In particular, for the first time the Civil Service has reached parity in the numbers of successful men and women applicants to open Fast Stream schemes. The standard of entry to the Fast Stream Development Programme has remained consistently high. In line with the experience of other major employers, the Civil Service did not fill all its Fast Stream vacancies in 1999, with specialist areas a particular source of concern.

  Constituency Statistics
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office, pursuant to her answer to the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) of 28 June 2000,Official Report, column 564W, how many requests her Department has received from hon. Members for statistics compiled at constituency level since 1 May 1997; if she will state in each case (a) the name and party allegiance of the hon. Member, (b) the date the request was received, (c) the date the information was provided and (d) the subject matter; and what has been the total cost since 1 May 1997 of meeting such requests. [129723]

  Mr. Stringer
  The information is not held centrally and can be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

TREASURY

  Stamp Duty
  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will bring forward the stamp duty relief for transfers of local authority housing stock, which was announced in the Budget, to include all such transfers made since the announcement. [130094]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  I am pleased to say that measures will be brought forward in Report Stage of the Finance Bill to ensure that transfers of housing from local authorities to registered social landlords taking place after 21 March will benefit from the new exemption. This will apply whether or not the social landlords concerned are constituted as charities.

  Transfers under the large-scale voluntary transfer programme offer benefits for tenants and the programme reflects the Government's commitment to generate private finance to repair and improve the condition of social housing. Bringing forward the extension of the Stamp Duty relief to the earliest possible date following the
  318W
  Budget announcement will help local authorities making transfers between 22 March and Royal Assent to the Finance Bill.

  Local authorities who have made relevant transfers upon which Stamp Duty has been paid will be able to make claims to the Stamp Office for repayments as soon as Finance Act 2000 becomes law.

  Spectrum Auction
  Mr. St. Aubyn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if the receipts from the third generation mobile spectrum auction which have already been received are to be treated under resource accounting rules as capital receipts; [128068]

  (2) if the future receipts from the third generation mobile spectrum auction are to be treated as capital receipts; [128069]

  (3) if the future receipts from the third generation mobile spectrum auction are to be treated under resource accounting rules as an accrual at the time the obligation was secured. [128070]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  [holding answer 28 June 2000]: The Office for National Statistics (ONS) has provisionally decided to classify the receipts from the auction of licences for the third generation mobile spectrum as current receipts (rents) in the UK national accounts, and to accrue the receipts over the period of the licences, according to the treatment it sees as best fitting the principles of the European System of Accounts 1995 (ESA95). ONS are consulting Eurostat about the classification. The treatment of the proceeds under resource accounting will require an accruals, rather than a cash, basis of accounting for the receipts.

  Fuel Duty
  Mr. Swinney
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent discussions he has had with his European partners with regard to revenue loss as a result of differential road fuel duty rates between member states; and if he will make a statement. [128181]

  Mr. Timms
  [holding answer 5 July 2000]: EU member states are free to set excise duty levels in accordance with an agreed structure and current UK policy on the taxation of road fuel is fully in accordance with the provisions of the relevant EC Directives.

  Euro
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer which foreign target group in the UK is to receive material as part of the Euro 2002 Information Campaign of the European Central Bank. [128136]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  We understand from the European Central Bank that there are no plans at present to distribute Euro 2002 information campaign material within the UK.

  Ministerial Code
  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) on how many occasions since May 1997
  319W
  Ministers in his Department have made a declaration of interest to their colleagues under circumstances envisaged in Paragraph 110 of the Ministerial Code; [129152]

  (2) how many times Ministers in his Department have sought the advice of the Permanent Secretary under the circumstances envisaged in Paragraphs 118, 121 and 123 of the Ministerial Code; and on which occasions such advice was sought. [129173]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Information relating to internal advice and consultation is not disclosed under Exemption II of the "Code of Practice on Access to Government Information".

  Disabled Drivers
  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will introduce a tax allowance on petrol for disabled drivers who are dependent on their cars. [128873]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Chancellor keeps all tax issues under review as part of the Budget process. Drivers who receive the higher rate mobility component of Disability Living Allowance can already get help leasing or buying a car from the Motability scheme. They also qualify for the Blue Badge scheme (formerly Orange Badge scheme) of parking concessions and are exempt from Vehicle Excise Duty.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  SMEs
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assistance his Department gives to help develop small and medium-sized business organisations in the Greater London area. [127866]

  Ms Hewitt
  The nine Business Links in London receive financial support from the DTI's Business Link core services budget to deliver a range of help to small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) across the Greater London area.

  From next April, one New Business Link operation covering the whole of London will take over as the primary source of help to SMEs. My Department will be providing substantial funding for the new business support arrangements.

  Lesotho
  Mr. Austin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to his answer of 22 June 2000,Official Report, column 236W, on Lesotho, if he will list the payments by Her Majesty's Government in respect of loans underwritten through the ECGD to the companies listed. [128569]

  Mr. Caborn
  No claims payments have been made direct to the companies concerned as they are not the beneficiaries of the ECGD cover. ECGD's guarantee is given to the lending bank for any defaults arising under any loan agreement.

  Only one of the loans listed has so far given rise to claims payments, namely the loan made by HSBC to finance the Cairo Waste Water project in Egypt. On a closer examination of records, it is regretted that the value
  320W
  of this loan was incorrectly shown as £32.0 million in the answer provided to my hon Friend's earlier question on 22 June 2000, Official Report, column 236W. The total value of this loan was, in fact, £142.8 million. Claims including interest of the value of £190.8 million have been paid to the lending bank following a series of defaults under this loan of which some £43 million has been recovered to date. The balance of the debt has been rescheduled under debt rescheduling arrangements with Egypt.

  Post Office Counters
  Mrs. Browning
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will allow Post Office Counters to contract with parcel companies in the private sector. [129672]

  Mr. Byers
  This is a commercial matter for the Post Office.

  Royal Mail
  Mrs. Browning
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the acquisitions made by Royal Mail in(a) 1997, (b) 1998, (c) 1999 and (d) 2000. [129674]

  Mr. Byers
  None.

  Departmental Vehicles
  Mr. Pearson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list for his Department and its agencies the approved list of manufacturers of(a) cars and (b) commercial vehicles; and if he will make a statement on his Department's leasing and purchasing policy. [128981]

  Dr. Howells
  The Department does not purchase vehicles. The primary purpose of the Department's policy on leased vehicles is to achieve value for money on official travel. There is no restriction on the make of(a) cars and (b) commercial vehicles that can be obtained through the Department's leasing arrangements.

  Regional Aid Map
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he expects the EU to approve a regional aid map for the United Kingdom. [129218]

  Mr. Byers
  In the near future.

  National Insurance
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what has been the policy since 1989 on writing annually to those of his Department's staff who are paying reduced rates of National Insurance contributions, reminding them of the rules governing the payment of reduced rates, as recommended in the Inland Revenue guidance note on reduced rate National Insurance contributions for married women. [129479]

  Dr. Howells
  The Department has not previously issued annual reminders to staff paying reduced rates of National Insurance contributions but this policy is currently under review.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Police Authority
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when the Secretary and Chief Executive of the Police Authority for Northern Ireland was appointed; what the term of his appointment is; how many official visits he made outside Northern Ireland in each year since his appointment; what expenses were reimbursed to him for(a) entertainment, (b) subsistence, (c) travel and (d) car mileage or the use of a vehicle; and what vehicle allowance was paid to him in each year since his appointment. [128360]

  Mr. Ingram
  The current Secretary and Chief Executive of the Police Authority for Northern Ireland was appointed on 1 July 1995 on a 4-year contract. This contract was renewed on 1 July 1999 for a further 4 years.

  The first table shows the number of official journeys made each year by the Secretary and Chief executive outside Northern Ireland since his appointment in July 1995 until 30 June 2000. The second table details expenses reimbursed to the Secretary over each financial year.

  Year

  Journeys

  1995

  8

  1996

  14

  1997

  9

  1998

  11

  1999

  14

  2000

  4

  £

  Financial year

  Travel

  Mileage

  Subsistence

  Hospitality

  1995–96

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1996–97

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1997–98

  549

  622

  158

  41

  1998–99

  492

  1,192

  169

  79

  1999–2000

  0

  578

  79

  357

  2000–30 June 2000

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1Total £669

  Note:

  All figures rounded to the nearest £

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if the Secretary and Chief Executive of the Police Authority for Northern Ireland is authorised to use fuel charge cards issued for the use of the(a) RUC and (b) Police Authority. [128362]

  Mr. Ingram
  Use of fuel charge cards issued to the Royal Ulster Constabulary is at the discretion of the RUC's Chief Engineer and the Head of Transport. The Police Authority is not in possession of fuel charge cards.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if the terms of employment of the Secretary and Chief Executive of the Police Authority for Northern Ireland provide for(a) use of official vehicles (i) on and (ii) off duty, or (b) reimbursement for mileage or the use of a vehicle and (c) a vehicle allowance. [128361]
  322W
  Mr. Ingram
  The Secretary and Chief Executive of the Police Authority for Northern Ireland has access to official vehicles when on duty. The Secretary and Chief Executive is entitled to claim mileage allowance for the use of a private vehicle on official business in accordance with the Northern Ireland Civil Service Code.

  Firearms
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many firearms certificates have been withdrawn in Northern Ireland in each of the last five years and the current year; and how many(a) shotguns, (b) .22 rifles, (c) fullbore rifles and (d) handguns were affected by the withdrawal of certificates. [128613]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Chief Constable has advised that the information requested is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Readily available information is set out in the table.

  Revocations of and refusals to renew firearm certificates under the Firearms (NI) Order 1981

  year

  Revocations

  Refusals to renew

  Partial refusals1

  Total

  1999

  133

  57

  10

  200

  20002

  74

  37

  7

  188

  1When only one, or more than one, of a number of firearms on a firearm certificate has been refused to be renewed.

  2January to June

  Drugs Offences
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many persons have been arrested and charged with drugs offences in Northern Ireland since 1 January; and what is his estimate of the street value of each type of illegal substance seized. [128614]

  Mr. Ingram
  The table shows the number of persons arrested and charged with drugs offences during the period 1 January to 31 May 2000, together with the type of drugs seized and the estimated street value.

  Street values of drugs seized (January to May 2000)

  Drug

  Form

  (£)

  Class A

  Cocaine

  Powder

  5,600

  Wraps

  —

  'Crack' Cocaine

  Powder

  4,900

  Ecstasy

  Tablets

  5,448,988

  Powder

  22,176

  Capsules

  —

  LSD

  Tablets

  1,280

  Opiates (inc. Heroin)

  Powder

  2,800

  Tablets

  240

  Ampoules

  —

  Wraps

  —

  Class B

  Cannabis

  Resin

  1,407,560

  Herbal

  24,489

  Plants

  35,400

  Joints

  126

  Oil

  —

  323W

  Street values of drugs seized (January to May 2000)

  Drug

  Form

  £

  Amphetamines

  Powder

  9,530

  Tablets

  555

  Wraps

  70

  Total value of drugs seized (January to May 2000)

  6,963,714

  Note:

  April to May 2000 figures are provisional and may be subject to change

  Arrested 539

  Charged 228

  Security situation statistics: armed robberies, 1 January 2000–28 June 2000

  January

  February

  March

  Sub-division

  Number

  Amount stolen

  Number

  Amount stolen

  Number

  Amount stolen

  Musgrave Street

  2

  103,000

  3

  283

  2

  121

  Mountpottinger

  6

  1,700

  2

  203

  2

  480

  Donegall Pass

  2

  1,945

  3

  100

  1

  —

  Dunmurry

  4

  6,641

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Grosvenor Road

  —

  —

  2

  470

  2

  30,000

  Lisburn

  1

  2,000

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Woodbourne

  1

  4,000

  1

  1

  3

  242

  North Queen Street

  1

  4,000

  1

  200

  1

  61

  Antrim Road

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  6,000

  Antrim

  2

  250

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Newtownabbey

  2

  13,700

  1

  150

  7

  4,042

  Carrickfergus

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  Tennent Street

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Bangor

  —

  —

  2

  425

  2

  51

  Strandtown

  6

  2,834

  2

  3,500

  2

  210

  Castlereagh

  5

  4,792

  1

  5,000

  2

  2

  Newtownards

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1,706

  Downpatrick

  3

  1,000

  —

  —

  1

  800

  Newcastle

  —

  —

  1

  2,098

  —

  —

  Armagh

  3

  5,401

  1

  —

  4

  7,651

  Newry

  2

  1,300

  —

  —

  2

  100

  Portadown

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Lurgan

  2

  5,000

  1

  2,600

  2

  80

  Banbridge

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Cookstown

  1

  25,460

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Dungannon

  —

  —

  1

  250

  —

  —

  Enniskillen

  1

  100,000

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Lisnaskea

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Omagh

  —

  —

  1

  4,500

  —

  —

  Strand Road

  2

  270

  —

  —

  1

  1

  Strabane

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  1,062

  Waterside

  —

  —

  1

  260

  —

  —

  Coleraine

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  305

  Limavady

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Magherafelt

  2

  1,570

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Ballymena

  2

  6,000

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Ballymoney

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Larne

  —

  —

  1

  1

  —

  —

  Total

  51

  290,863

  29

  20,041

  40

  52,914

  April

  May

  June (to 28)

  Sub-division

  Number

  Amount stolen

  Number

  Amount stolen

  Number

  Amount stolen

  Musgrave Street

  2

  820

  2

  81,930

  1

  2,200

  Mountpottinger

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  300

  Donegall Pass

  2

  9

  3

  38,895

  —

  —

  Dunmurry

  —

  —

  2

  1

  2

  5,001

  Grosvenor Road

  1

  600

  1

  1

  —

  —

  Lisburn

  —

  —

  1

  434

  2

  34,313

  Woodbourne

  3

  20,330

  1

  200

  3

  20,357

  Armed Robberies
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list for each week in each RUC sub division in Northern Ireland since 1 January the number of armed robberies which have taken place and his estimate of the total sums of money and the value of goods stolen. [128615]

  Mr. Ingram
  The table shows the number of armed robberies recorded in Northern Ireland each month during the period 1 January to 28 June 2000 together with the estimated value of goods or money stolen. This information could be further broken down into weekly statistics only at a disproportionate cost.
  325W

  April

  May

  June (to 28)

  Sub-division

  Number

  Amount stolen

  Number

  Amount stolen

  Number

  Amount stolen

  North Queen Street

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  Antrim Road

  1

  50

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Antrim

  1

  23,024

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Newtownabbey

  2

  90,919

  1

  260

  3

  17,123

  Carrickfergus

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Tennent Street

  1

  751

  3

  269

  —

  —

  Bangor

  2

  3,402

  1

  2,900

  1

  12,000

  Strandtown

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Castlereagh

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  5,177

  Newtownards

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Downpatrick

  —

  —

  1

  2,100

  —

  —

  Newcastle

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  10,000

  Armagh

  2

  940

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Newry

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Portadown

  —

  —

  1

  3,500

  —

  —

  Lurgan

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Banbridge

  1

  3,000

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Cookstown

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Dungannon

  1

  10,000

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Enniskillen

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Lisnaskea

  1

  5,420

  —

  —

  1

  180

  Omagh

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Strand Road

  —

  —

  1

  3,500

  1

  3,000

  Strabane

  1

  170

  1

  6,500

  —

  —

  Waterside

  —

  —

  1

  33,979

  —

  —

  Coleraine

  1

  2,061

  1

  6,500

  —

  —

  Limavady

  —

  —

  2

  16,700

  1

  14,300

  Magherafelt

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Ballymena

  2

  1,500

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Ballymoney

  —

  —

  1

  400

  —

  —

  Larne

  1

  150

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Total

  27

  163,146

  25

  198,069

  19

  123,951

  RUC (Vehicle Accident)
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the circumstances of the road traffic accident involving an RUC vehicle driven by the Secretary and Chief Executive of the Police Authority for Northern Ireland; what arrangements were made for the repair of the vehicle; and if he will make a statement. [129215]

  Mr. Ingram
  No official report has been received of any RUC vehicle being used by the Secretary and Chief Executive of the Police Authority being involved in a road traffic accident.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many of the written parliamentary questions tabled to his Department between 19 October 1999 and 20 April have not received substantive answers, excluding those not answered for reasons of(a) disproportionate cost, (b) information not available, not held centrally, or not held in the form requested and (c) commercial or other confidentiality. [127677]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  [holding answer 26 June 2000]: I assume the right hon. Member is referring to parliamentary questions where Ministers indicate in their response that they will write to hon. Members. If so, there have been 44 such cases out of a total of 1,044
  326W
  parliamentary questions answered by my Department in the period in question. In 13 of these cases, I undertook to write to the hon. Member in my capacity as Chairman of the Millennium Commission.

  National Lottery
  Miss Geraldine Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how much money is currently held in the National Lottery distribution fund which is not committed to projects. [128348]

  Kate Hoey
  As at March 2000, just under £200 million of the money held in the National Lottery Distribution Fund was not committed to specific projects. Nearly three-quarters of uncommitted funds are for the New Opportunities Fund (NOF), but NOF anticipate that all its funds will be committed during the course of this financial year.

  Free Television Licences
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) how many households have been sent an application form concerning the availability, to people aged 75 and over, of free television licences; and at what total cost to the public purse; [128817]

  (2) what has been the cost to the public purse of (a) printing expenses and (b) postage, of sending out communications publicising the availability of free television licences for people aged 75 and over. [128816]
  327W
  Mr. Chris Smith
  [holding answer 3 July 2000]: The BBC is responsible for administering this scheme and has advised that the information is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost and by diverting resources which would otherwise be devoted to the successful implementation of the scheme.

  Mr. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what the administrative cost is, including postage, of informing people aged over 75 years about their entitlement to concessionary television licences; and if he will make a statement. [129035]

  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many households have been sent letters regarding the concessionary TV licence scheme for people aged over 75 years; how much the total cost was of printing and posting the letters; and how many replies have been received. [128531]

  Janet Anderson
  [holding answer 4 July 2000]: The BBC is responsible for administering this scheme and has advised that the information is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost and by diverting resources which would otherwise be devoted to the successful implementation of the scheme.

  Junior Sport
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what support and assistance he will give to local cricket clubs in promoting junior cricket. [128832]

  Kate Hoey
  Junior cricket is eligible for funding from Sportsmatch, the Government's sports sponsorship incentive scheme. Since its inception in 1992, Sportsmatch has made 336 awards worth a total of over £2.08 million to grass roots and junior cricket applications in England, attracting a similar amount in commercial sponsorship.

  Funding is also available to cricket through the Lottery Sports fund which has made 523 awards to cricket projects, worth a total of over £60 million, towards total project costs of over £106 million. One of the priorities of the Lottery Sports Fund is that projects should attempt to target young people.

  Cricket is a sport selected by Sport England for a five year sports development programme aimed at young people. The programme is England-wide, delivered at local level and involves local clubs, local authorities, education services, schools and the England and Wales Cricket Board (EWCB) all working in partnership.

  The England and Wales Cricket Board spends approximately 11 per cent. of the £26 million per annum it receives from broadcasting revenue for the development of cricket.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what support and assistance he gives to local tennis clubs in order to promote junior tennis. [128834]

  Kate Hoey
  Junior tennis is eligible for funding from Sportsmatch, the Government's sports sponsorship incentive scheme. Since its inception in 1992 Sportsmatch has made 194 awards worth a total of over £1.15 million to grass roots and junior tennis applications in England, attracting a similar amount in commercial sponsorship.
  328W
  Funding is also available to tennis through the Lottery Sports fund which has made 473 awards to tennis projects, worth a total of over £54 million, towards total project costs of over £92 million. One of the priorities of the Lottery Sports fund is that projects should attempt to target young people.

  Tennis is also one of the nine sports selected by Sport England for a five-year sports development programme aimed at young people. The programme is England-wide, delivered at local level and involves local clubs, local authorities, education services, schools and the Lawn Tennis Association (LTA) working in partnership.

  King Edward VII Convalescent Home
  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if the Edward VII convalescent home at Osborne will accept further patients after 31 October. [129233]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  No. The King Edward VII convalescent home is due to close on 31 October 2000.

  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what steps are taken to publicise the widening of eligibility for admission to Edward VII convalescent home at Osborne to include non-commissioned ranks of the armed services under the Osborne Estate Order 1998. [129234]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  No steps are currently being taken to publicise the widening of eligibility for admission because the convalescent home is due to close on 31 October 2000. Following the granting of the Osborne Estate Order 1998, the Civil Service Benevolent Fund, who have been managing the convalescent home on behalf of the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, advertised the widening of eligibility to use the facilities at the home in a variety of publications. Additionally, they brought it to the attention of the Chief Welfare Officers of the armed forces and a number of Government Departments.

  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many of the convalescents at Edward VII convalescent home at Osborne were from(a) commissioned and (b) other ranks of the armed services in (i) 1998 and (ii) 1999. [129235]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  The information for the years requested is as follows:

  1998

  1999

  Commissioned Officers

  82

  76

  Other Ranks

  0

  15

HEALTH

  London Health Expenditure
  Ms Buck
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the expenditure per head of population in each health authority area in London for each year from 1996–97 to 2000–01. [127010]
  329W
  Mr. Denham
  Expenditure per weighted head of population for 1996–97 to 1998–99 is shown for each health authority area in London in the table.

  These figures are not comparable between years or between health authorities as a result of changes in accounting practice and other technical accounting differences.

  Expenditure by health authority area for later years is not available.

  London-expenditure by weighted head of population

  £

  Health authority

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  Barking and Havering

  565.45

  562.37

  647.90

  Barnet

  600.88

  643.58

  658.78

  Bexley and Greenwich

  579.39

  622.77

  671.51

  Brent and Harrow

  608.69

  641.56

  703.11

  Bromley

  524.58

  580.83

  751.02

  Camden and Islington

  673.66

  647.73

  791.10

  Croydon

  542.71

  575.61

  646.81

  Ealing, Hammersmith and Hounslow

  615.88

  626.99

  678.25

  East London and the City

  614.61

  611.16

  658.96

  Enfield and Haringey

  561.91

  584.89

  626.57

  Hillingdon

  585.23

  594.37

  648.70

  Kensington, Chelsea and Westminster

  697.38

  670.40

  752.56

  Kingston and Richmond

  644.27

  677.07

  748.79

  Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham

  593.35

  611.17

  650.40

  Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth

  612.03

  635.97

  691.65

  Redbridge and Waltham Forest

  584.88

  621.48

  684.47

  London

  603.11

  620.28

  684.53

  Note:

  1. Expenditure is taken from HA Annual Accounts which are prepared on a resource basis and therefore differ from cash allocations in each year. (These are not the total amounts spent on healthcare. General Dental Services expenditure is separately accounted for and cannot be analysed by health authority over the three years). Also, since 1997–98 drugs expenditure has been mainly accounted for by the Prescription Pricing Authority. For consistency, figures have been reduced by the amount of non-cash limited prescribing expenditure accounted for by the health authority in each year.

  2. However, there are a number of other reasons why the figures shown cannot be directly compared between years and between health authorities. These will include:

  (a) Non medical education and training expenditure (NMET); some authorities account for NMET on behalf of local consortia, and those HAs will have different levels of NMET funding over different years;

  (b) The levels of non-recurrent allocations (such as strategic assistance) will have varied between years and authorities;

  (c) The differential impact of cash limited prescribing, eg as a result of differential levels of general practitioner fundholding;

  (d) Services (eg HIV/AIDS) that are accounted for on a district of treatment basis will distort the expenditure per capita figures which are based on resident populations;

  (e) Changes in accounting policy over the years;

  (f) There could also be different interpretations by auditors which may affect direct comparison; and

  (g) Changes in the weighted population figures between years.

  3. The expenditure per weighted head figures in the answer do not therefore reflect real changes in the resources available for spend on healthcare locally over the period or provide robust comparisons between HAs.

  Sources:

  The accounts of health authorities in London for 1996–97, 1997–98 and 1998–99.

  Weighted population estimates for 1996–97, 1997–98 and 1998–99.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many of the written parliamentary questions 330W
  tabled to his Department between 19 October 1999 and 20 April have not received substantive answers, excluding those not answered (a) citing disproportionate cost, (b) stating that the information is not available, not held centrally, or not held in the form requested and (c) citing commercial or other confidentiality. [128020]

  Ms Stuart
  Two written questions remain substantively unanswered for the period specified.

  Guillain-Barre Syndrome
  Mr. Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will list the mortality rate for patients suffering from Guillain-Barre Syndrome admitted to National Health Service hospitals for treatment in(a) 1997, (b) 1998, (c) 1999 and (d) 2000; [122625]

  (2) what proportion of patients suffering from Guillain-Barre Syndrome and being treated in National Health Service hospitals were admitted to intensive care units in (a) 1997, (b) 1998, (c) 1999 and (d) 2000; [122629]

  (3) what assessment he has made of the adequacy of data collection in relation to the number of patients suffering from Guillain-Barre Syndrome who have been treated in National Health Service hospitals. [122630]

  Mr. Denham
  The table shows a mortality rate for patients with a primary diagnosis of Guillain-Barre Syndrome in National Health Service hospitals in England for the financial years 1996–97 to 1998–99. Data for 1999–2000 are not yet available. Information on admissions to intensive care units is not available.

  In terms of data adequacy the Hospital Episode Statistics (HES) are compiled from data sent by over 300 NHS trusts in England. Every effort is made to minimise inaccuracies.

  Mortality rate derived from number of people diagnosed with Guillain-Barre Syndrome; NHS hospitals England 1996–97 to 1998–99

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  Primary diagnoses

  1,489

  1,650

  1,875

  Deaths

  29

  36

  35

  Proportion of deaths/diagnoses (per cent.)

  1.9

  2.2

  1.9

  Note:

  The figures for 1998–99 and 1997–98 are provisional, no adjustment have as yet been made for shortfalls in data (i.e. the data are ungrossed) but for 1996–97 figures are grossed for both coverage and unknown/invalid clinical data.

  Source:

  Hospital Episode Statistics, Department of Health

  Mr. Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what plans he has to encourage clinical governance subcommittees of National Health Service trusts to raise awareness of Guillain-Barre Syndrome; [122626]

  (2) what plans he has to encourage clinical governance groups within primary care groups to raise awareness of Guillain-Barre Syndrome, particularly among general practitioners. [122627]

  Mr. Denham
  Clinical governance sub-committees have been put in place to co-ordinate National Health Service organisations' clinical governance activity. They are accountable for ensuring that clinical services across
  331W
  the whole organisation are effectively managed and that the quality of all clinical services improves. There are no plans at this stage to encourage committees to focus on any particular condition.

  Eye Tests
  Mr. Crausby
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what his policy is on the frequency with which eye tests should be taken. [128726]

  Mr. Denham
  This is a matter of clinical judgment for optometrists and ophthalmic medical practitioners. In order to ensure probity, we have proposed that a requirement be introduced for a practitioner to give a reason when claiming for a National Health Service sight test at an interval of less than two years since the previous test. Officials will be meeting with representatives of the professions to discuss this proposal on 12 July.

  Epilepsy
  Mr. Mudie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps are being taken to implement the Clinical Standards Advisory Group's report on epilepsy. [128807]

  Mr. Hutton
  Departmental officials have recently met with representatives from the Joint Epilepsy Council (JEC) to discuss the findings of the Clinical Standards Advisory Group report and take stock of recent service developments and medical research. As a result of this meeting, officials will be working with the JEC to establish the best way forward.

  New Hospitals
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many new hospitals were opened in each year since 1979. [129036]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 4 July 2000]: Eighty-seven major hospital developments (over £25 million at current prices) have taken place and become operational since 1980. Details are set out in the table. The low figure for 1999 is a consequence of the small number of major hospital developments which started during 1996 and 1997. This was due to all major developments having to test for private funding during this time.

  Since 1 May 1997, 38 major hospital developments worth over £3.1 billion have been given the go ahead. The introduction of the private finance initiative into the National Health Service capital building programme will result in a dramatic increase in the number of major hospital developments in future years. The first of these developments, the new hospital at Carlisle, was officially opened on 16 June 2000.

  Information collection began in 1980 and we therefore do not hold information for 1979.

  Year

  Number of major hospital developments completed

  1980

  0

  1981

  0

  1982

  0

  1983

  3

  1984

  4

  1985

  4

  1986

  6

  332W

  Year

  Number of major hospital developments completed

  1987

  6

  1988

  9

  1989

  4

  1990

  6

  1991

  9

  1992

  8

  1993

  6

  1994

  1

  1995

  6

  1996

  6

  1997

  5

  1998

  4

  1999

  0

  Total

  87

  NHS Pay Review Body
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when biomedical scientists will form part of the NHS Pay Review Body; and if he will make a statement. [129237]

  Mr. Denham
  Our proposals for modernising National Health Service pay, which were published in February 1999 in "Agenda for Change", include bringing some groups of highly qualified staff within the scope of the Nursing Pay Review Body (NRPB), without changing its fundamentally professional character.

  Initial discussions with NHS trade unions on pay modernisation resulted in a Joint Framework of Principles and Agreed Statement on the Way Forward, which was published on 8 October 1999. This sets out the following starting point for more detailed discussions with trade unions on the qualifying criteria for groups to come within the scope of the NRPB:
  Professions with a minimum entry requirement of three years educational study (or equivalent) to diploma level or higher, in a health specific area (other than medicine or dentistry) and which are state registered and have a substantial majority of members employed in health care.
  Exceptions might be agreed for staff groups which met the majority but not all of these conditions.
  Staff groups which support professions added to the NRPB remit, and who have a direct connection with the transferred groups similar to that between nursing auxiliaries and registered nurses would also need to be considered for transfer.

  The widening of the membership of the Review Body is conditional upon an agreement being reached in the current talks about pay modernisation.

  Fluoridation
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what the cost was of the report his Department commissioned the National Health Service Centre for Reviews and Dissemination at the University of York to prepare, into the safety and efficacy of fluoride in drinking water; if the work being undertaken is(a) new research or (b) a review of existing research; and if animal testing forms a part of this research; [129659]

  (2) when he expects (a) to receive and (b) to publish the report which his Department commissioned the National

  333W
  Health Service Centre for Reviews and Dissemination at the University of York to prepare, into the safety and efficacy of fluoride in drinking water; and if he will make a statement on his policy regarding the fluoridation of drinking water. [129684]

  Yvette Cooper
  The contract for the review was for £79,648. The review has been considering existing research rather than undertaking new research. To structure its approach the centre has concentrated on primary research on the effect of fluoride on populations which have been exposed to fluoridated water. The report is due to reach the Department later this month and should be published shortly afterwards. We will take decisions on the way forward after having considered the report.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on his Department's policy towards the British Fluoridation Society; and what contributions were made to the Society by the Government in each year since 1975–76. [129658]

  Yvette Cooper
  The main role the Department funds the British Fluoridation Society to fulfil, is to collect and maintain evidence on the effects of fluoridation. Our support for the British Fluoridation Society since 1975–76 has been:

  £

  Year

  Amount

  1975–76

  4,500

  1976–77

  5,500

  1977–78

  5,500

  1978–79

  5,500

  1979–80

  5,500

  1980–81

  11,000

  1981–82

  14,000

  1982–83

  15,000

  1983–84

  15,000

  1984–85

  15,000

  1985–86

  30,000

  1986–87

  20,000

  1987–88

  20,000

  1988–89

  30,000

  1989–90

  31,000

  1990–91

  45,784

  1991–92

  51,491

  1992–93

  56,000

  1993–94

  62,247

  1994–95

  63,000

  1995–96

  74,000

  1996–97

  117,609

  1997–98

  90,000

  1998–99

  76,000

  1999–2000

  78,000

  Single European Currency
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what budget he has set for expenditure under the national changeover plan in anticipation of joining the single European currency; and how much has been spent to date; [129739]

  (2) by whom the decision was taken to incur expenditure in NHS hospitals in anticipation of joining the single European currency; and on what date. [129740]
  334W
  Ms Stuart
  In his statement to the House in October 1997, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that the Government would begin to prepare ourselves so that, should we meet the economic tests, we can make a decision to join a successful single currency early in the next Parliament.

  The National Health Service is carrying out a measure of pre-planning for the possible introduction of the euro as set out in the second Outline National Changeover Plan published on 9 March 2000. The costs of this ongoing exercise are contained within normal running costs and cannot be separately identified.

  Children's Commissioner
  Mr. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will appoint a commissioner for children; and if he will make a statement. [129441]

  Mr. Hutton
  We have no plans to appoint a children's commission for England, although as our response to the Waterhouse Report made clear, we are keeping this matter under review. In the meantime, we have already embarked on a major programme to improve children's services and strengthen the safeguards protecting children from abuse.

  We consider that this ambitious legislative and policy programme which includes the Care Standards Bill, the Children (Leaving Care) Bill, the Protection of Children Act 1978, the £375 million Quality Protects programme and the new Children's Rights Director post within the National Care Standards Commission together amount to a step-change in the provision of safeguards for children.

  Overdoses (Deaths)
  Mr. Ronnie Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people have died from overdoses of prescribed medication in the Northumberland health authority area in each of the last three years. [129011]

  Ms Stuart
  The information requested is not held centrally.

  New Deal
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many employees of his Department and its agencies have been recruited from the New Deal; and what percentage this represents of total staff. [129103]

  Ms Stuart
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office on 6 July 2000,Official Report, column 286W.

  The number of New Dealers within the Department and its executive agencies as at 1 April 2000 represents 0.52 per cent. of total staff.

  Cochlear Implants (Essex)
  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many cochlear implants for children were undertaken in each of the last five years in(a) North Essex health authority and (b) Essex Rivers Healthcare Trust; and how many children were waiting for more than a year in each case. [125433]
  335W
  Mr. Hutton
  There were no cochlear implants for children treated in North Essex health authority or Essex Rivers Healthcare National Health Service Trust in the last five years. However, there have been seven cochlear implant operations for children resident in the North Essex health authority in the last five years carried out outside the area. Of these, no children waited over three months.

DEFENCE

  Armoured Vehicles
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the Army's current inventory is of(a) Challenger I, (b) Challenger II and (c) Warrior vehicles; and how many are operationally available. [129132]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 6 July 2000]: The current inventories for these vehicles are (a) 414, (b) 250 and (c) 786. Information on availability is collated separately in respect of vehicles held by front-line Units and vehicles deployed on operations. The former category excludes certain training vehicles, vehicles in deep repair, vehicles used as reference vehicles and vehicles in storage (e.g. some 300 tanks being stored at Ashchurch as part of the withdrawal from service programme).

  Vehicles held by front line units on operations (measured against an immediate availability target only)

  Vehicle type

  Percentage operationally available

  Warrior

  96

  Challenger I

  No CRIs deployed on operations

  Challenger II

  87

  Vehicles held by front line units (other than on operations)

  Vehicle type

  Percentage which could be fully operational within 24 hours

  Warrior

  88

  Challenger I

  98

  Challenger II

  89

  Submarines
  Mr. Duncan Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the operational availability is of each of the Royal Navy's Fleet submarines. [129670]

  Mr. Hoon
  Of the Royal Navy's 12 Fleet (hunter-killer) submarines, six are operationally available and six are in refit, extended maintenance or repair.
  Operational or engaged in preparing for service, trials or training

  Sovereign

  Superb

  Splendid

  Trafalgar

  Turbulent

  Triumph

  336W Undergoing refit maintenance or repair

  Sceptre

  Spartan

  Talent

  Tireless

  Torbay

  Trenchant.

  The specific operational readiness of each submarine is classified for security reasons and is being withheld under Exemption 1 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  Otterburn Ranges
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the impact on army training of the delay in making improvements to the Otterburn ranges; and if he will make a statement. [129134]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 6 July 2000]: In 1995 my Department submitted a Notice of Proposed Development (NOPD) to the Northumberland National Park Association for the redevelopment of infrastructure at Otterburn Training Area (OTA). This redevelopment is essential to enable training of AS90 and MLRS units at regimental level. This remains an absolute requirement that cannot occur anywhere else in the UK. Since the NOPD was submitted our proposals have been thoroughly examined by two Public Inquiries (PI) and we are still awaiting the outcome.

  As a result of our inability to develop OTA, AS90 and MLRS units have not been able to conduct the full range of special-to-arm training that is a necessary precursor to deploying with other formations on combined arms training. As a result, individual Brigades will not be trained sufficiently in all aspects of combined arms war fighting that would enable them to react to short notice operational deployments world wide, as envisaged under the Strategic Defence Review. This has direct consequence for our ability to meet readiness liabilities for the Joint Rapid Reaction Force (JRRF).

  The results of the Public Inquiries are currently being considered by the Department for Environment, Transport and the Regions and I am hopeful that a decision will be forthcoming later this year. If our application is successful and allowing time for the necessary construction work on the training area, we expect that AS90 and MLRS units will be able to commence manoeuvre training at Otterburn in 2004.

  RAF Feltwell
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 20 June 2000,Official Report, column 135W, regarding RAF Feltwell, when an official of his Department last visited RAF Feltwell. [129719]

  Mr. Spellar
  Officials from my Department visit daily.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 19 June 2000,Official Report, column 37W, regarding RAF Feltwell, how much notice it is necessary for RAF Commander Lakenheath to give prior to access to RAF Feltwell being granted by the US forces at the base. [129716]

  Mr. Spellar
  None.
  337W
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 19 June 2000,Official Report, column 37W, regarding RAF Feltwell, if there are areas of RAF Feltwell from which RAF Commander Lakenheath is excluded; and on how many days in each of the last 12 months for which figures are available RAF personnel other than RAF Commander Lakenheath visited RAF Feltwell. [129717]

  Mr. Spellar
  The RAF Commander Lakenheath is not excluded from any area of RAF Feltwell. Records are not maintained in such a way as to identify separately all visits by RAF Personnel to RAF Feltwell.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 12 May 2000,Official Report, column 513W, regarding RAF Feltwell, if he will make a statement on the support function afforded to RAF Lakenheath by RAF Feltwell. [129718]

  Mr. Spellar
  RAF Feltwell provides support facilities such as accommodation, schooling and warehousing to RAF Lakenheath.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 20 June 2000,Official Report, column 135W, regarding RAF Feltwell, what plans Ministers from his Department have to visit RAF Feltwell. [129720]

  Mr. Spellar
  None.

  RAF Lakenheath
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the operational purpose of RAF Lakenheath is; and how many(a) United Kingdom and (b) United States personnel are stationed there. [129682]

  Mr. Spellar
  RAF Lakenheath is a United States administered main operating base and hosts the United States Air Force's 48th Fighter Wing. 589 UK and 5,343 US personnel are stationed there.

  Eurofighter
  Mr. Quentin Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if his Department will derate, or otherwise downgrade, the performance specifications of the Eurofighter EJ200 power plants; and if he will make a statement. [128480]

  Mr. Hoon
  We are not planning any change in the performance specification of the EJ200 engine. However, for training purposes only, we are investigating the effect of limiting the thrust of the EJ200 engine fitted to Eurofighter. This, if implemented, should extend the engine life and reduce support costs. The change would be practically invisible to the pilot and have no effect on tactical training. During all operational flying full thrust levels will be available.

  HMS Tireless
  Mr. Duncan Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he anticipates that the repairs to HMS Tireless will be complete. [129671]

  Mr. Spellar
  We anticipate that the repair to HMS Tireless will be completed in the autumn.
  338W
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what work will be carried out on HMS Tireless; when it is due to be completed; and if he will make a statement. [129510]

  Mr. Spellar
  The repair work on HMS Tireless is a standard repair following a contained leak of coolant water in her reactor compartment. This work will be carried out in Gibraltar and completed in the autumn.

  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has received on the repair of HMS Tireless in Gibraltar; and if he will make a statement. [129512]

  Mr. Spellar
  No representations concerning the repair to HMS Tireless have been made. However, the Chief Minister of Gibraltar continues to be fully briefed on this issue. He understands the reasons for carrying out the repair in Gibraltar and will continue to take a close interest in the safety aspects to ensure that no risk is posed to civilian or service personnel.

  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what additional safety guidelines have been issued to staff at HM Naval Base in Gibraltar in relation to the repair of HMS Tireless; and if he will make a statement. [129511]

  Mr. Spellar
  Stringent safety guidelines relating to nuclear safety and nuclear propelled warships are in place at all HM Naval Bases. Additional guidance relating to this repair has been issued to HM Naval Base Gibraltar.

  Export Licences
  Mr. Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what export licences have recently been issued in respect of L3A1 CS irritant cartridges by SME industries in Malaysia. [128900]

  Dr. Howells
  I have been asked to reply.

  The control of exports from Malaysia is a matter for the Malaysian Government. Any export of licensable goods from the UK to Malaysia would be subject to UK export controls. In addition, I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave him on 6 July 2000, Official Report, columns 246–49W.

  Budget Allocations
  Mr. Duncan Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the budget allocation for the Defence Clothing and Textiles Agency is for the financial year 2000–01; and when the agency received its budget allocation. [125093]

  Mr. Spellar
  [pursuant to his reply, 8 June 2000, c. 344–35W]: I can now advise that the budget allocation for the Defence Clothing and Textiles Agency for the financial year 2000–01 is £163.541 million. This was agreed on 26 June 2000.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Disability Benefits (Medical Reports)
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what percentage of applicants for(a) Disability

  339W
  Living Allowance and (b) Attendance Allowance were refused allowances following an examining medical practitioner's report in each of the last five years. [129306]

  Mr. Bayley
  The information is in the table.

  Decisions to refuse Disability Living Allowance and Attendance Allowance following an examining medical practitioner's report expressed as percentages of all decisions on those benefits

  Percentage

  Disability Living Allowance

  Attendance Allowance

  1995

  10

  6

  1996

  17

  8

  1997

  20

  8

  1998

  20

  7

  1999

  23

  9

  Source:

  DSS Information Centre: 100 per cent. data

  Housing Benefit
  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the occasions when he has used his powers under the Social Security Act 1992(a) to require local authorities to improve administration of housing benefit and (b) to impose financial penalties on local authorities for failing to comply with a direction from him to improve housing benefit administration. [129468]

  Angela Eagle
  The Secretary of State has the power to require a local authority to achieve and to maintain specified standards of performance if, following a report by the Benefit Fraud Inspectorate (BFI), the authority fails to propose adequate remedies for any deficiencies identified by BFI.

  Of the 64 reports published by the BFI, none have yet required the issue of a direction. My right hon. Friend remains ready to use his powers if appropriate.

  State Pension
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his oral answer of 15 May 2000,Official Report, column 4, if he will set out the basis for his estimate that the Government are spending £2.5 billion more on pensioners than would have been spent by restoring the earnings link; and what the reasons are for the difference between this estimate and that given in his answer of 11 April, Official Report, column 144W. [129741]

  Mr. Rooker
  The assumptions underlying the estimate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave in his written answer on 11 April 2000,Official Report, columns 143–44W, are given in my written answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) on 11 May 2000, Official Report, column 479W. The assumptions underlying the estimate given in my right hon. Friend's oral answer on 15 May 2000, Official Report, column 4, are the same.

  The difference between the figures is due to the inclusion of estimated expenditure on free TV licences for those aged 75 and over in the latter estimate.

  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer of 27 June 2000,Official Report, column 480–81W, on the state pension, if he will
  340W
  estimate the cost of Option (a), linking the basic pension to earnings and introducing an age addition of £5 for pensioners aged 75 to 79 years and £10 for pensioners aged 80 years and above, on the basis that real earnings grow in line with the Government Actuary's Department's central assumption for long-term growth rates of real earnings. [129516]

  Mr. Rooker
  The information is in the table.

  £ billion

  Gross

  Net of means-tested benefits and income tax

  2001–02

  2.3

  1.5

  2002–03

  2.9

  1.9

  2003–04

  3.5

  2.2

  2004–05

  4.2

  —

  2005–06

  4.8

  —

  Notes:

  1. Annual real earnings growth of 1.5 per cent. is assumed throughout the period in line with the Government Actuary's central assumption for long-term growth of real earnings.

  2. It is assumed that the age addition is paid in full to basic State pension recipients and is not uprated. Figures include the cost of benefits whose rates are linked to the rate of basic Retirement Pension.

  3. Figures are rounded to the nearest £0.1 billion and are in 2000–01 price terms.

  4. Gross costs estimated by the Government Actuary's Department. Costs net of income-related benefit savings are estimated using the Policy Simulation Model. Income tax revenues estimated by the Inland Revenue.

  5. Estimates of income tax revenues not available beyond 2003–04

  Minimum Income Guarantee
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if, for each of the last 12 months, in respect of the Minimum Income Guarantee, he will estimate(a) the number of applications, (b) the number of successful applications and (c) the average value of payments made. [129744]

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

  Minimum Income Guarantee pensioners and average weekly amounts, Great Britain May 1999 to February 2000

  Quarter

  Number of claimants (thousand)

  Average weekly payment

  May 1999

  1,624

  45.30

  August 1999

  1,628

  45.16

  November 1999

  1,626

  45.03

  February 2000

  1,604

  44.88

  Notes:

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

  2. Pensioners are defined as where the claimant, and/or partner are aged 60 or over.

  3. Figure are rounded to the nearest thousand.

  4. Figures include claimants who may be in Residential Care/Nursing Homes.

  Source:

  Income Support Quarterly Statistical Enquiries, May 1999–February 2000.
  341W
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if, for the Minimum Income Guarantee take-up campaign, he will estimate(a) the total administrative costs to date, (b) the administrative costs for the project team and teleclaims service, (c) the cost of the televised advertising campaign, (d) the total number of calls to the MIG claimline and (e) the number of claim packs issued, and of that number (i) the number of completed claim forms so far returned, (ii) the number of successful applications, (iii) the number of those successful claims that have so far been paid and (iv) the value of those claims so far paid. [129745]

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

  The total administrative costs, to the end of June, for the project team and teleclaims service is £2,639,236. The cost of the televised advertising campaign is estimated at £3,427,000 in total. To date the Minimum Income Guarantee claimline has received over 75,000 calls and from these calls over 35,000 claim packs have been issued.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  European Council Political Committee
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what are the terms of reference of the Political Committee of the European Council established under Article 25 of the Treaty on European Union; what is its membership; what opinions from it(a) have been requested by the European Council and (b) have been produced under its own initiative; and where each has been published. [128849]

  Mr. Vaz
  The Political Committee monitors the international situation in the areas covered by the common foreign and security policy and contributes to the definition of policies by delivering opinions to the Council at the request of the Council or on its own initiative. It also monitors the implementation of agreed policies. It consists of representatives of member states (usually the Political Director of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs) and of the Commission.

  The Political Committee submits advice to the Council on all areas covered by the common foreign and security policy. It does not submit advice to the European Council.

  Decisions taken by the Council on the basis of advice submitted by the Political Committee are published in the Official Journal of the European Communities.

  Iranian Jews
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement regarding the conviction of members of the Jewish community in Shiraz, Iran. [129270]

  Mr. Hain
  [holding answer 6 July 2000]: We are deeply concerned at the news of the sentences imposed on 1 July on 10 Jewish and two Muslim defendants tried for espionage in Shiraz. We and our EU partners have consistently raised our concerns about the conduct of the trial, in particular at its closed nature, despite earlier
  342W
  assurances to the contrary. We note that provision is made for appeal to the Shiraz Revolutionary Court within 20 days of sentencing, and if need be, to the Supreme Court. We will continue to follow proceedings closely and will register our concerns with the Iranian authorities.

  Mobile Telephones
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many(a) mobile telephones and (b) pagers are used by (i) the Minister for Europe and (ii) his officials; and what the cost was of (a) the mobile telephones and pagers and (b) calls made on the mobile telephones during the last year for which figures are available, identifying separately the figure for calls to non-UK telephone numbers. [129251]

  Mr. Battle
  It is imperative for the Minister for Europe to remain in close contact both at home and overseas. The Minister is provided with one mobile telephone. His officials have three. There is also a mobile telephone in the ministerial car. FCO mobile telephone line rental and call costs are at competitive commercial rates.

  To provide details of the costs incurred would be in breach of commercial confidentiality.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many(a) mobile telephones and (b) pagers are used by his Department; and what the cost was of (i) the mobile telephones and pagers and (ii) calls made on mobile telephones during the last year for which figures are available, identifying separately the cost for calls to non-UK telephone numbers and the persons to whom the facility is made available. [129252]

  Mr. Battle
  It is imperative for the FCO's staff to remain in close contact both at home and overseas. In the UK the FCO has 900 mobile telephones and 253 pagers. FCO mobile telephone line rental and call costs are at competitive commercial rates.

  To provide details of the costs incurred would be in breach of commercial confidentiality.

  Japanese Investment
  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) which other Departments were sent copies of Sir Stephen Gomersall's telegram on Japanese investment in the UK; [129756]

  (2) if he has ordered a inquiry into the leaking of Sir Stephen Gomersall's telegram on Japanese investment in the UK; [129742]

  (3) if he will list the people in his Department who had access to the telegram on Japanese investment in the UK by Sir Stephen Gomersall; [129746]

  (4) when his Department received Sir Stephen Gomersall's telegram on Japanese investment in the UK; and what action was taken after it was received. [129743]

  Mr. Battle
  I deplore the leaking of Sir Stephen Gomersall's telegram on Japanese investment in the UK.

  Reports of this kind are routinely circulated to all Government Departments with an interest in the subject. This includes the Treasury, the Cabinet Office, the Department for Trade and Industry, the Invest in Britain

  343W
  Bureau (now Invest UK), British Trade International, the Ministry of Defence, the Department for International Development, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the Scotland Office, the Northern Ireland Office and the Office of the Secretary of State for Wales. On the same basis, such reports are also widely circulated within the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.

  Sir Stephen Gomersall's telegram was received in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office on 22 June 2000. It was then distributed in the normal way, through a mix of paper and electronic copies.

  An inquiry into the leak has been launched.

  EU Food Agency
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on progress in establishing an EU food agency. [128508]

  Ms Stuart
  I have been asked to reply.

  We have responded to the European Commission's White Paper on Food Safety which contains proposals to establish a European food authority. The submission of our response was announced via a Food Standards Agency press release of 1 June. The response has been placed in the Library of the House and is also available on the Food Standards Agency website at www.foodstandards.gov.uk/pdf—files/response.pdf.

  The Commission is now considering all the comments it has received from member states and is awaiting the opinion of the European Parliament. The Commission has indicated its intention to come forward with firm proposals by late October.

SCOTLAND

  Drugs Misuse
  Mr. Sarwar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the application of the Government's national policy on drugs in Scotland. [128584]

  Dr. Reid
  Action in Scotland against drugs misuse is being taken forward by the Scottish Executive within the common UK framework established by the 1998 White Paper, "Tackling Drugs to Build a Better Britain" (Cm 3945). Scotland's drug strategy is set out in "Tackling Drugs in Scotland: Action in Partnership" which was launched in March 1999. Copies are available in the Library of the House.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Flax and Hemp
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on progress made to date in the negotiations to reform European support arrangements for flax and hemp. [125072]

  Ms Quin
  There have been lengthy discussions of the flax and hemp reform proposals at official level, but no discussion as yet at ministerial level.
  344W
  The proposals were due to be discussed at the May Agriculture Council—and then the June Agriculture Council—but on both occasions they were removed from the agenda because the European Parliament had not provided its opinion. The Parliament's opinion was finally delivered on 6 July, clearing the way for discussion at the forthcoming Agriculture Council to be held on 17–18 July.

  GM Crops
  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what the number and nature is of the responses he has received as a result of his paper of 8 June on Review of Separation Distances for GM Crops; and if he will place copies of the responses in the Library. [126087]

  Ms Quin
  At the time of writing 36 responses to the consultation letter have been received expressing a range of views. Copies of the responses will be placed in the House Libraries after the end of the consultation period, unless respondents specifically ask for their comments not to be made public.

  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the parties consulted regarding the review of separation distances for GM crops announced on 8 June. [126096]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 15 June 2000]: The review consultation document has been sent to the following organisations.
  Review of separation distances for GM crops: list of consulted organisations

  ACRE members

  Advanced Technologies (Cambridge) Ltd.

  Advanta Seeds Ltd.

  Agra-Europe

  Agrevo UK

  Agrevo UK Crop Protection

  Agricultural Risk Management Ltd.

  AGROW World Crop Protection News

  Apple and Pear Research Council

  Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty

  ASDA Stores Ltd.

  Association of Independent Crop Consultants

  BASF plc—Agriculture Division

  BBSRC

  BCCA (Biscuit, Cake, Chocolate and Confectionary Alliance)

  Bee Farmers Association

  Bio-Dynamic Agricultural Association

  Bioindustry Association—Amersham International

  BOCM Pauls Ltd.

  British Agrochemicals Association

  British Association for Bio Fuels and Oils

  British Association of Agricultural Consultants

  British Beekeeping Association

  British Confectioners Association

  British Crop Protection Council

  British Honey Packers and Importers Association of the UK

  345W

  British Institute of Agricultural Consultants

  British Potato Council

  British Retail Consortium

  British Society of Plant Breeders

  British Sugar Beet Producers Association

  British Sugar plc

  Burson-Marsteller

  Cambridge Environmental Research Consultants Ltd.

  Cameron McKenna

  Campden and Chorleywood

  CCC—Technology

  Centre for Food Policy

  Chemical Industries Association

  Coceral, Belgium

  Consumers Association

  Consumers in Europe Group

  Council for the Protection of Rural England

  Council of the National Beekeeping Associations of the UK

  Country Landowners Association

  CSL National Bee Unit

  CWS Corporate Affairs

  Cyanamid Agriculture UK

  Dairy Industry Federation

  Daiwa Institute of Research Europe Ltd.

  Dalgety Agriculture Ltd.

  DANI Plant Testing Station

  Dawes and Moore

  Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food

  ECOTEC

  ENDS

  English Nature

  Euro PA Associates

  European Commission

  European Public Policy Advisers

  Farm and Food Society

  Farmers Union of Wales

  Farming and Wildlife Advisory Group

  Federation of Oils, Seeds, and Fats Association

  Fertiliser Manufacturers Association

  Food and Drink Federation

  Food Certification (Scotland) Ltd.

  Food From Britain

  Forestry Commission

  Friends of the Earth

  Game Conservancy Trust

  GEN

  Genewatch

  Genetics Forum

  Government and Public Affairs—Europe

  Grain and Feed Trade Association

  Green Alliance

  Green Network

  Greenpeace

  Hoescht UK Ltd.—Agriculture Division

  Home Grown Cereals Authority

  Horticultural Research International

  Iceland Stores

  Institute of Arable Crop Research

  Institute of Environmental Science and Research

  346W

  Institute of Food Research

  Institute of Grassland and Environmental Research

  Institute of Terrestrial Ecology

  International Bee Research Association

  Irish Organic Farmers and Growers Association

  ITE

  Jetro London

  John Innes Centre

  Joint Nature Conservation Committee

  Lion Seed Ltd.

  Marks and Spencer plc

  May and Dawson Ltd.

  McBain Associates Ltd.

  Milk Development Council

  Monsanto UK

  Moorland Association

  Morely Research Centre

  Naish Jones Ltd.

  National Agriculture Centre

  National Farmers Union

  National Farmers Union (Wales)

  National Federation of Consumer Groups

  National Institute for Agricultural Botany

  National Trust

  Nestle UK Ltd.

  NFU

  NFU Scotland

  Nickerson Seeds Ltd.

  North of England Assembly of Local Authority

  Northern Ireland Horticulture and Plant Breeding Station

  Novartis Crop Protection UK Ltd.

  Novartis Nutrition UK Ltd.

  Novartis Seeds Ltd.

  Organic Farmers and Growers Ltd.

  Organic Food Federation

  Pendragon Innovations Ltd.

  Pioneer Overseas Corporation

  Plant Breeding International Cambridge Ltd.

  Proctor and Gamble Technical Centres Ltd.

  Public Interest Consultants

  RBG Kew

  Rhone Polnec Agriculture Ltd.

  Richard Gard Associates

  Rikilt-Dlo

  Royal Agricultural Society of England

  Royal and Sun Alliance

  Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution

  Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB)

  RURAL

  SAC

  SAFE Alliance

  Safeway Stores plc

  SAGE (Scarborough Against Genetic Engineering)

  Sainsbury's Supermarkets

  Schuttelaar and Partners

  Scottish Agricultural College

  Scottish Agriculture Science Agency

  Scottish Beekeepers Association

  Scottish Crop Research Institute

  347W

  Scottish Natural Heritage

  Scottish Organic Producers Association

  Seed Crushers' and Oil Processors' Association

  SERAD

  Sharps International Seeds

  Silsoe College

  Silsoe Research Institute

  Soft Drinks Association

  Soil Association

  Soil Association Certification Ltd.

  South West Industrial Crops Ltd.

  Teagasc, Rural Economy Research Centre

  Tesco Technical Centre

  The Apiary

  The Countryside Agency

  The Family Farmers' Association

  The Institute of Agricultural Management

  The National Trust

  The Pesticides Trust

  The Royal Society

  The Tenant Farmers' Association

  Tim Brigstocke Associates

  Trading Standards Department

  Trading Standards Department, Quality Food and Agricultural Division, Warwick

  Trowers and Hamlin

  Twickenham and Thames Valley Beekeepers' Association

  UK Agricultural Supply Trade Association

  UK Register of Organic Food Standards

  UKREP

  Ulster Beekeepers Association

  Uniroyal Chemicals Ltd.

  United Kingdom Register of Organic Food Standards

  United Kingdom Sunflower Association

  United Oilseeds

  University of East Anglia

  University of Newcastle

  University of Portsmouth

  University of Reading

  University of Surrey

  University of the West of England

  Vegetarians International Voice for Animals

  Welsh Beekeepers Association

  West Country Co-op

  Wildlife Trust

  Wine Standards Board

  Womens Farmers Union

  World Wildlife Fund for Nature

  Zeneca Agrochemicals

  Zeneca Crop Protection

  Zeneca Plant Science.

  Jackie Ballard
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received concerning the proposal to add GM maize Chiodon LL to the NIAB approved list; and what plans he has to hold further consultations on this proposal. [127796]
  348W
  Ms Quin
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford, (Joan Ruddock) on 22 May 2000,Official Report, columns 383–84W.

  As required by the Seeds (National Lists of Varieties) Regulations 1982 (as amended), each of the 227 parties who have submitted formal written representations under regulation 21(2) have been supplied with copies of all of the written representations made. In view of the wide interest in the proposed decision, Ministers have agreed that all the parties who submitted such representations should be given an opportunity to comment, by 31 July, on the other representations made. No fees will be charged for making such further representations.

  Jackie Ballard
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to review the fee for challenging the addition of a variety to the National Institute for Agricultural Botany approved list. [127795]

  Ms Quin
  The National Institution for Agricultural Bottany's recommended list is funded by industry and is not part of the statutory process of considering varieties for addition to the National List.

  Fees for all National List services, including fees for making written representations and requesting a hearing, are reviewed at least once a year. The next review will start this autumn.

  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if his inquiries have established the separation distance used between GM and non-GM crops in the production of the recently contaminated Advanta seeds from Canada. [127219]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 27 June 2000]: The separation distances used between GM and non-GM crops in the production of the recently contaminated Advanta seeds are still under investigation by the Canadian Authorities. The results of these investigations are not yet available.

  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the contracts between his Department and the Central Science Laboratory that are connected with GMOs. [127220]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 27 June 2000]: At present CSL are contracted by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to undertake two GM-related research projects. One is a desk modelling study to assess the risks to the agricultural environment from the release of GM crops. The other is a review of the consequences for agriculture of the introduction of GM crops.

  CSL are also contracted to provide advice on the plant health and agronomic aspects of GMOs.

  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he will publish the findings of the inquiry into the causes of the Advanta seeds contamination incident. [127217]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 27 June 2000]: The possible causes of the Advanta seeds contamination continue to be investigated by the Canadian authorities. The results of their investigations are not yet available the Department.
  349W
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his answer of 8 June 2000,Official Report, column 357W, on what occasions in the last 12 months the Government have received information on GM seed contamination incidents from EU member states; and what information was received. [126818]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  [holding answer 19 June 2000]: At the meeting of EU and EEA/EFTA seed certification agencies, on 2–5 May this year, Greece reported an incident involving the suspected adventitious presence of GM seed in conventional cotton seed.

  Information on the recent discovery of GM rapeseed in conventional rapeseed has been shared between the affected member states.

  Following reports in the French press last week that the French authorities have discovered low levels of GM presence in conventional maize seed imported into France, we contacted the French authorities, who confirmed on 30 June that they had indeed found some GM seed in conventional maize seed, which has been sown in South West France. Further information now indicates that they have found three different modifications in a number of varieties of forage maize imported into France by the company Golden Harvest. The French authorities have not yet confirmed which varieties of maize seed are involved, but have confirmed that sweetcorn varieties are not affected by their current investigations. We are seeking further information from them on the varieties concerned. However, as the varieties concerned are cultivated in Southern France, it is possible that they would be unsuitable for cultivation in UK conditions.

  The GMs found in maize samples by the French authorities are BT 176 and BT 11, and one further, as yet unidentified, modification. BT 176 is insect resistant and has Part C consent within the EU under Directive 90/220 for import, food and feed use, and for cultivation. BT 11 is insect resistant and has Part C consent for import and use in animal feed. Pending further information from the French authorities, my Department, the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, and the Food Standards Agency are considering what the implications would be should further investigations indicate that affected seed might have been sown in the UK.

  Mr. Alasdair Morgan
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when his Ministry was informed of the contamination of seed by GM seed in crops planted before this calendar year. [126630]

  Ms Quin
  I refer the hon. Member to the information given by my right hon. Friend the Minister in the debate on 8 June 2000,Official Report, column 493.

  Milk
  Mr. Robertson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what recent discussions he has had with the main supermarkets on the price of milk; and if he will make a statement. [126956]

  Ms Quin
  My right hon. Friend the Minister and his fellow Ministers have regular meetings with various organisations concerned with the dairy industry, including the main supermarkets. The price of milk has been one of a number of issues discussed.

  Pig Farmers
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what estimate he has made of the number of pig farmers that(a) are eligible and (b) will participate in an outgoers scheme. [129399]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 6 July 2000]: In general terms, all pig producers who can show they were involved in commercial pig breeding in June 1998 are eligible to take part in the outgoers element of the Pig Industry Restructuring Scheme. There may, however, be further conditions applied as a result of the recently concluded consultation exercise on this part of the scheme and by the terms of the European Commission's clearance document. No formal estimate on the number of pig farmers likely to take part has been made.

  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what criteria he has established for eligibility for a pig farmers' outgoers scheme; and when these will be announced. [129397]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 6 July 2000]: As things stand, the eligibility criteria for the outgoers element of the Pig Industry Restructuring Scheme is that applicant must be able to show they were involved in commercial pig breeding in June 1998, that they have pig breeding facilities to destroy or dismantle and that they are prepared to enter into binding undertakings to cease pig production for a minimum of 10 years. These criteria may, however, change as a result of the recently concluded consultation exercise on this part of the scheme or to comply with the views of the European Commission. The final terms of the scheme will be announced following European Commission clearance.

  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what recent representations he has received regarding an outgoers scheme for pig farmers; and if he will make a statement. [129400]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 6 July 2000]: We have received a number of representations from hon. Members of this House and others regarding the outgoers element of the Pig Industry Restructuring Scheme (PIRS). This part of PIRS has also just completed its consultation period and responses to that consultation are being assessed, pending clearance of the scheme by the Commission.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Football Hooligans
  Mr. Jim Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will list those football hooligans who(a) are Category C hooligans and (b) have (i) restriction and (ii) banning orders against them; [128149]

  (2) how many football hooligans have been added to the Category C list in each year; [128148]

  (3) how many Category C football hooligans there are in (a) England, (b) Scotland, (c) Wales and (d) Northern Ireland. [128150]

  Mr. Straw
  The National Criminal Intelligence Service (NCIS) maintains lists of convicted or suspected hooligans, but does not apply the term "Category C" to individuals on
  351W
  those lists. The individuals currently subject to Restriction Orders or other category of football banning orders have been placed in the Library.

  Metropolitan Police
  Mr. Galloway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many crimes remained unsolved in the Metropolitan police area on Monday 26 June; and if he will make a statement. [128275]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  I understand from the Metropolitan police that the information requested is not yet available for Monday 26 June; but that on the latest Monday for which the information is available, 32,303 crimes of all types were classified as unsolved.

  Asylum Seeker Vouchers
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to allow shops which accept asylum seeker vouchers to give change. [128882]

  Mrs. Roche
  We remain of the opinion that the "no change" policy is an essential part of our strategy. It is designed to be a disincentive to those who intend using the asylum process for economic migration. We are giving further consideration to increasing the flexibility of the present voucher scheme by providing more low denomination vouchers given to asylum seekers.

  Criminal Cases Review Commission
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people have been waiting(a) six to 12 months, (b) 13 to 18 months and (c) more than one and a half years, for the Criminal Cases Review Commission to allocate their case to a case review manager; and if he will make a statement. [128608]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  I understand that, at the end of May, the total number of eligible cases awaiting allocation to a case review manager was 899. The kind of breakdown requested is not readily available from the Criminal Cases Review Commission's current management information system, though it will be from a new system that is expected to be in use by the end of August.

  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what effect the recent increase of case review managers for the Criminal Cases Review Commission has had on the waiting time for allocation to a case review manager; and if he will make a statement. [128607]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  It is not yet possible to say. The Commission was notified at the end of March that it would be given additional funding for 2000–01, and allowed to increase its complement of case review managers from 40 to 50. I understand that the Commission has recently completed a recruitment exercise, but that the successful applicants have not yet all taken up post, and further recruitment will anyway be necessary to bring the number of case review managers up to complement. The impact of 352W
  these additional staff on the waiting time for the allocation of cases will also depend on the nature of the cases to be allocated to them, and the rate of receipt of applications.

  Asylum Seekers
  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many asylum applicants whose cases fall to be considered under concessions announced in the White Paper on Asylum and Immigration, published in 1998, have not received a decision on their case. [128763]

  Mrs. Roche
  As at 30 June, outstanding cases are 1,250 (plus 50 pre-1993 cases).

  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if those asylum applicants whose cases fall to be considered under concessions announced in the White Paper on Asylum and Immigration, published in 1998, will be notified of a decision by the end of July. [128762]

  Mrs. Roche
  The Integrated Casework Directorate aims to clear such cases by the end of July, subject to timely receipt of requested information and the case being clearly identified as falling for consideration under the White Paper criteria. Any cases which come to light beyond that date will be given priority criteria in Liverpool.

  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department for what reason the remaining cases held in Croydon of asylum applicants whose claim falls to be considered under the concession announced in the White Paper, have been transferred to the Asylum Arrears Group at the Nationality Directorate in Liverpool; and what effect this has had on the time taken to make decisions on those claims. [128730]

  Mrs. Roche
  Sharing the load of such cases among a greater number of caseworkers was seen as the best means of ensuring prompt resolution. There was also an operational requirement to provide appropriate work for a growing casework unit in Liverpool.

  Ministerial Code
  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on how many occasions since May 1997 Ministers in his Department have made a declaration of interest to their colleagues under circumstances envisaged in Paragraph 110 of the Ministerial Code. [129163]

  Mr. Straw
  Information relating to internal advice and consultation is not disclosed under Exemption II of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  Custody
  Mr. Stinchcombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) men and (b) women have been given a sentence of immediate custody by the courts in the Greater London area in each of the last three years. [129193]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Available information, taken from the Home Office Court Proceedings Databases, is given in the table.
  353W

  Number of persons given a sentence of immediate custody for all offences at all courts within the Greater London area1 by sex, 1996–98

  1996

  1997

  1998

  Males

  14,074

  15,613

  16,237

  Females

  1,060

  1,339

  1,459

  1Courts within areas policed by the Metropolitan Police Service and the City of London Police.

  CS Sprays
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police forces in England and Wales do not hold stocks of CS sprays; how many make it their policy not to use CS sprays; and if he will make a statement. [129248]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Three police forces in England and Wales do not use CS spray: Northamptonshire, Nottinghamshire and Sussex. The remaining 40 forces will hold stocks of CS spray for issue to their officers.

  Firearms
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will estimate the number of unlicensed shotguns held in the UK; and if he will make a statement. [129454]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  So far as I am aware, no reliable estimate exists of the number of unlicensed shotguns in the United Kingdom.

  Young Offenders (Barnet)
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the average length of time was from arrest to sentence of persistent young offenders at the magistrates courts in Barnet in the last 12 months; and if he will make a statement. [129278]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  [holding answer 6 July 2000]: The average time from arrest to sentence for persistent young offenders sentenced at Barnet magistrates court is estimated to have been 100 days in the period April 1999 to March 2000. This estimate is based on data collated by the Lord Chancellor's Department. It is calculated from the average time from charge to sentence for persistent young offenders sentenced at Barnet magistrates court between April 1999 and March 2000 and on the police force level results of a survey on the average time between arrest and charge for persistent young offenders dealt with in 1999. The figure excludes any cases that were dealt with at Barnet magistrates court but were committed to the Crown Court for trial or sentence. It is based on only 19 sentencing occasions and therefore should be interpreted cautiously.

  Lords Lieutenant
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much money his Department has spent in each of the last 10 years for which figures are available on(a) Lords Lieutenant and (b) their deputies in England. [129678]
  354W
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Expenditure incurred by the Home Office in support of Lords Lieutenant in each of the last 10 years was:

  Year

  £

  1990–91

  249,529

  1991–92

  302,793

  1992–93

  369,522

  1993–94

  475,504

  1994–95

  568,509

  1995–96

  731,830

  1996–97

  670,307

  1997–98

  781,063

  1998–99

  660,066

  1999–2000

  686,173

  No expenditure is incurred on Deputy Lieutenants.

  Policing (Cleveland)
  Mr. Fabricant
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police officers were employed by Cleveland Constabulary in each of the last five years. [129519]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The information requested is as follows:

  Officers available for ordinary duty, Cleveland Constabulary, 1995–99 (as at 30 September)

  Year

  Number

  1995

  1,430

  1996

  1,444

  1997

  1,481

  1998

  1,453

  1999

  1,373

  Mr. Fabricant
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many criminal offences were recorded in the Cleveland Constabulary area by category in(a) 1999 and (b) 1986. [129518]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The requested information is given in the table. The data are not comparable because of changes to the counting rules for recorded crime which came into effect on 1 April 1998.

  Notifiable offences recorded by the police, Cleveland

  Offence category

  Year ending September 1999

  Calendar year 1986

  Violence against the person

  3,016

  1,959

  Sexual offences

  372

  284

  Robbery

  836

  121

  Burglary

  16,476

  15,089

  Theft and handling

  30,668

  29,640

  Fraud and forgery

  2,606

  2,097

  Criminal damage

  10,956

  8,876

  Drug and other offences

  1,532

  67

  Total

  66,462

  58,133

  Youth Justice Board
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will place in the Library an
  355W
  analysis of how the Youth Justice Board plans to spend the budget and Development Fund set out on page 77 of the Home Office Annual report 1999–2000. [129523]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  An analysis will be placed in the Library on Wednesday 12 July.

  Research and Statistics
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proportion of his Department's expenditure on the Research and Statistics Service supports(a) the preparation and publication of statistics and (b) research. [129530]

  Mr. Straw
  My Department's Research, Development and Statistics Directorate (RDS) conducts a wide range of social research, development and statistics work, often using multidisciplinary teams working on a range of statistical and research outputs and for this reason details of expenditure cannot be broken down in the way requested. The available information on RDS expenditure as a whole for the 1999–2000 financial year is shown in the table:

  Research, development and statistics expenditure: 1999–2000 financial year

  Category

  Total (£)

  Percentage of total expenditure

  Staff running costs1

  7,827,877

  43.9

  Costs of RDS publications

  495,230

  2.8

  Other non-pay running costs

  3,184,347

  17.9

  Total running costs

  11,507,454

  64.5

  External research and grants

  6,356,819

  35.5

  Total expenditure2

  17,828,772

  100

  1RDS staff running costs includes £206,985 on communications and publications staff.

  2RDS received a total of £454,021 in receipts in 1999–2000, which is excluded from this total.

  In addition, a number of other areas of the Department undertake research, including the Fire Research and Development Group, which spent £542,998 (including £42,456 VAT recovered) on fire research in 1999–2000 in addition to pay-running costs of £761,787 in support of fire research. The Animal Procedures Committee plan to spend £295,000 on research and the Committee of Inquiry into Hunting with Dogs has spent £225,000 (35 per cent. of the total inquiry expenditure).

  Refugees
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will place in the Library an analysis for(a) 1999–2000 and (b) 2000–01 of the main items of expenditure included under reception and resettlement of refugees referred to on page 80 of the Home Office Annual report 1999–2000. [129529]

  Mr. Straw
  The main items of expenditure included under reception and resettlement of refugees referred to on page 80 of the Home Office Annual report 1999–2000 are as follows:

  £

  1999–2000—grants to:

  Refugee Council

  2,500,000

  Refugee Arrivals Project

  2,400,000

  Refugee Action

  850,000

  Other

  2,449,000

  356W

  £

  2000–01—grants to:

  Migrant Helpline

  2,200,000

  Refugee Arrivals Project

  2,900,000

  Refugee Action

  2,500,000

  Refugee Council

  7,700,000

  Other

  2,091,000

  Other expenditure

  Section 4 Support

  7,000,000

  Grants
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the beneficiaries in(a) 1999–2000 and (b) 2000–01 of grants to assist organisations or projects working to reduce racial disadvantage, giving the sums of money paid in each such grant. [129524]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The following organisations have received funding under the Reduction of Racial Disadvantage grant programme:

  £

  Financial year

  Organisation

  1999–20001

  2000–012

  Account Finance Forum

  6,707

  —

  Account 3—PMN

  52,920

  78,698

  Alert in WF

  7.500

  —

  An-Nisa Society

  3,450

  —

  Arachne

  15,000

  —

  ASHA Foundation

  210,000

  —

  Association of British Hujjaj

  20,650

  —

  Blackliners

  1,500

  —

  CEMVO

  —

  60,000

  Community Self-Build

  50,000

  50,000

  Council Disabled Warwickshire

  6,000

  —

  Council Education World Citizenship

  5,000

  —

  Council of Europe

  10,000

  —

  Euro Internet ICARE

  5,000

  —

  Global Cultural Diversity Congress

  50,000

  —

  Greenwich REC

  5,500

  —

  Heartstone

  177,012

  —

  Joseph Rowntree Trust

  20,000

  —

  KENTE

  89,830

  —

  Knights Foyer

  230,000

  —

  Limehouse Project

  21,335

  63,160

  Maternity Alliance

  60,000

  —

  Montserrat Community Support Project

  250,000

  —

  Muslim News

  34,000

  —

  Powys Victim Support

  5,500

  —

  PRIAE Bradford University

  80,000

  —

  Reproductive Health

  400

  —

  Runnymede Trust

  16,778

  —

  Serious Music Ltd.

  —

  2,500

  Southall Black Sisters

  990

  —

  Stephen Lawrence Charitable Trust

  100,000

  100,000

  Theatre Museum (Paul Robeston)

  38,000

  —

  Windsor Fellowship

  123,500

  6,500

  Worcestershire REC

  8,250

  —

  Total

  1,644,342

  374,858

  1Paid

  2Budget

  Crime Reduction Programme
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what grants and items of expenditure were included in the Crime Reduction Programme in(a) 1999–2000 and (b) 2000–01. [129522]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Around £7.5 million was spent on grants and evaluation under the Crime Reduction 358W
  Programme in 1999–2000. Planned expenditure for 2000–01 is £160 million. The programme covers a variety of crime reduction initiatives, including Closed Circuit Television (CCTV) in public areas, Reducing Burglary and Targeted Policing Initiatives and schemes to cut vehicle and property crime, youth crime, offender reconviction rates and violence against women.

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

Life Peerages (Appointments Commission) Bill [H.L.]
Read a third time.
Clause 1 [Appointments commission]:
Baroness Gould of Potternewton Baroness Gould of Potternewton moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 21, at end insert ("which shall include the need to secure proper representation of women and minority ethnic groups").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I added my name to this amendment because, unfortunately, my noble friend Lord Lipsey cannot attend the House this morning. However, it appears that my name has not been added to the Marshalled List.
I can assure noble Lords that I shall be brief in my explanation of the reasoning behind the amendment. We should like to place on the record how important we believe it is for this House in the future to become truly representative of the society for which it legislates. That means that we should increase the representation of women and ethnic minorities in the House. The amendment would place a statutory duty on the Appointments Commission to secure that representation.
While supporting, in principle, the view of the Royal Commission on the House of Lords that steady progress should be made towards gender balance, we do not agree with the recommendation that a minimum of 30 per cent of new Members should be women and 30 per cent of new Members should be men. Rather, we believe that the target figure should be 40 per cent women, for the reason that, all too often, minimum targets eventually become the maximum attained.
An examination of the current composition of your Lordships' House by gender and party shows that one in seven Conservative Peers are women, one in five women Members sit on the Labour and Liberal Democrat Benches, but only one in 10 women Members represent the Cross-Benches. I hope that the interim commission will take note of that. Those figures indicate that there is a long way to go before the Royal Commission's target of 30 per cent women membership is achieved. It is my genuine belief that we shall achieve that target—or even the target of 40 per cent—only if a real attitudinal change takes place and understanding is fostered of why women should be at the centre of policy making.
Briefly, I believe that women bring to this House diversity and greater experience of different occupational backgrounds, as well as the distinct
1710
experience of balancing work and home responsibilities. As a consequence, they often bring a different perspective to bear and suggest different solutions and strategies to the issues under discussion. It is unfortunate that we feel that better representation will be achieved only through statute rather than by an automatic process developing through better understanding of the issues.
I appreciate that the Government do not support the Bill because they hold the view that the interim commission should not be formed on a statutory basis. However, as I said earlier, I hope that the interim commission will take note of our comments and will ensure that any appointments suggested by it will aim to be truly representative of the population as a whole, not only in terms of gender but also in terms of ethnicity. I beg to move.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, I shall oppose this amendment, not because I do not recognise the full contribution made by women and members of ethnic minorities as they play their part in your Lordships' House—that is not an issue in this House—but because of the nonsensical idea that the composition of your Lordships' House should reflect the social anti economic et cetera composition of the population as a whole. That is not the function of a parliament.
Perhaps I may offer an example. We are told that something like 20 per cent of the British population is illiterate. Is it therefore to be suggested that someone should represent that group in your Lordships' House? Given that, if such a person, after arriving in this House, is then fortunate or perhaps unfortunate enough to learn to read and write, would it then be necessary to recruit an additional illiterate person?
I think that this is absolutely the wrong way to proceed. The only way in which to move forward is to ensure that the membership of your Lordships' House is composed of people of merit and excellence who will be able to make a contribution to the work of Parliament. Of course that will include every kind of person, but it will not come about through tokenism—which, I believe, is what underpins the amendment.
Baroness Warnock: My Lords, the suggestion that a quota should be applied by statutory amendment is extremely derogatory towards women. Of course I agree that whoever is ultimately responsible for the selection of people to be nominated to become Members of this House should consider the whole range of the population. I believe that that goes without saying. Indeed, my fear is that it will be difficult to nominate people of sufficient quality because they may not have the time to attend your Lordships' House—but that is a separate issue.
For women to form part of a statutory quota would, I believe, always raise the question of whether they would have been good enough to be selected had a quota not been put in place. That is true throughout

1711
the professional world. For that reason, I believe that the notion of quotas simply diminishes women and I shall oppose any such move with my last breath.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, I, too, should like to support my noble friend and the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, on the basis that I believe that many women are certain to be nominated because they are good potential Members of this House. However, they should not be nominated because of their sex. That matter should be a total irrelevance. People are either good at what they do or they are not good at what they do. Everyone knows that a great many women and a great many members of ethnic minorities are extremely able. I have every faith that the normal processes of selection will bring such people forward.
I agree in particular with the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, that it is derogatory towards women to impose a quota. A quota is not necessary.
Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde: My Lords, for much of my life I have heard people speak in the way that the opposers of the amendment have done. In parallel, I have seen little change in many areas, including in this House. If we do not get a grasp on this issue and make some real changes, this House will not reflect British life generally.
Women do not see this House as representing their views; they see it as male-dominated—which it is. People from ethnic minorities with whom I have the privilege to come into contact feel the same. We continue to employ platitudes: "Of course, there are many people out there with great merit who should be able to come through on their merit and ability". The fact is, they do not. Unless we make some structural changes, in many years' time we shall be exactly where we are today. I hope that Members of this House will reflect on that.
Lord Burlison: My Lords, the motives set out in the amendment are certainly admirable, and I add my support to the remarks of my noble friend Lady Dean. The amendment is right to draw attention to the fact that certain criteria may well be biased against certain sections of the population and in favour of others.
In the context of the House of Lords, the criteria that have traditionally been used to determine someone's suitability for a life peerage have certainly been biased against women and ethnic minorities. That is partly because they have tended to require track records, which people in these groups cannot demonstrate because earlier discrimination has prevented them from reaching the standing that would now be available to them. But it sometimes goes deeper than that.
We have no quarrel with the sentiment underlying the amendment. Indeed, we entirely agree with it. It is one of the issues over which we have charged the independent Appointments Commission that has already been set up to take particular care.
1712
However, I am less convinced that such a provision needs to be included in the Bill. When we debated the Bill in its earlier incarnation as an amendment to the House of Lords Act, we resisted the idea of singling out particular groups for special mention as worthy of membership of the House. The amendment deals with women and ethnic minorities; but other economic groups are currently under-represented. What about regional representation, for example? On balance, I believe that the amendment is unnecessary and I hope that my noble friend will withdraw it.
Lord Kingsland: My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken. I very much share the sentiments expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, on the correct approach to these amendments; and I was particularly grateful to the noble Lord the Minister for his remarks about the first amendment, which seeks to add to Clause 1(1)(c) the expression,
"which shall include the need to secure proper representation of women and minority ethnic groups".
I have no doubt whatsoever that, when the selection criteria are published, proper consideration will be given to the position of women and minority ethnic groups and all the other groups referred to by the Minister. With great respect, I entirely share his view that, simply to single out these two groups would be, by implication, to exclude others. That would be unfortunate. For that reason, I oppose the first amendment.
So far as concerns the second amendment, I should also not be happy to include it in the Bill. The question of quotas is in any case controversial, both politically and legally. I sought, in casting the text of the Bill, to obtain as wide a consensus in your Lordships' House as possible.
I also share the view of those noble Lords who have hesitations about the principle of quotas. The noble Baroness, Lady Gould, herself said that one of the problems with quotas is that what is intended as a minimum often ends up as a maximum. Whatever quota one chooses, I suspect that that might well be true in this case—whether it is the 30 per cent recommended by the Royal Commission or the 40 per cent that the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, has sought to insert in the Bill.
The noble Baroness, Lady Gould, referred also to the role of women at the centre of policy-making in your Lordships' House. I hope noble Lords will agree that noble Baronesses are indeed at the centre of policy-making. One has only to address the composition of the Government Front Bench to realise what an important role they play in formulating legislation and in dealing with the great political issues of the day. So, with respect to the noble Baroness, your Lordships have already satisfied that particular criterion which the noble Baroness sought to assert as important but said was not yet achieved.

1713
I entirely understand the sentiments behind both amendments; but I hope that noble Lords will share my view that, in all the circumstances, it would be inappropriate to amend the Bill to their effect.
Baroness Gould of Potternewton: My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Dean for her intervention, which I support. I also thank the Minister for indicating that he has no quarrel with the principle underlying what we say. That is encouraging.
I find the concept of having someone who is illiterate in this House a strange example. However, it might be helpful to have someone in the House who knows what it means to be illiterate even if they are not illiterate themselves. That is what we mean by having representation: ensuring that we have a better understanding of what society is about.
I have enormous admiration for our Front Bench and the women on it. But we need more women on the Back Benches too.
No country in Europe has managed significantly to increase the number of women elected without some form of quota or positive action. I hope that attitudinal change will be sufficient and that we shall not have to return to this issue, but we may have to do so. However, at present, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 2 not moved.]
An amendment (privilege) made.
Lord Kingsland: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Kingsland.)
On Question, Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

Health Service Commissioners (Amendment) Bill
11.22 a.m.
Baroness Hanham: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. Before speaking to the subject before us, since it is germane to healthcare I must declare an interest as chairman of a National Health Service trust in London.
This Bill was introduced and skilfully piloted through another place by my right honourable friend Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith. The responsibility for introducing it into this House has fallen to me. I hope that I can do his careful work justice today.
In bringing this Bill to fruition, Sir Geoffrey worked closely with the Consumers' Association. That association has acted as a sponsor for it. The Bill is supported by the British Medical Association, the British Dental Association and the Health Services Commissioner, Mr Michael Buckley, among other professional bodies.
1714
It was Mr Buckley himself who first raised the subject in his 1998–99 report. He said:
"A further issue on which I have expressed my concerns to the Department of Health is my inability to investigate complaints against GPs who retire or cease National Health Service work after the events complained of—or even during my investigation".
This Bill, therefore, has an intentionally limited focus: to close the loophole in the Health Service Commissioners Act 1993 which prevents the health services commissioners investigating complaints against general practitioners and those working in the dental, ophthalmic and pharmaceutical services who have retired from the National Health Service even if they have done so specifically to avoid investigation.
Under that Act, which does not relate to hospital doctors, who are covered by other provisions, the commissioner's power to investigate complaints about those particular practitioners, as he has indicated himself, ceases immediately they retire.
This matter is of particular concern in the case of general practitioners, who currently, if they officially retire from the National Health Service (even if it is to avoid investigation), can continue to practise as a locum or in private practice. The general practitioner is consequently safe from investigation but the commissioner is frustrated in bringing the complaint to a conclusion. I think we would all agree that this is a most unsatisfactory state of affairs.
The matter can, however, be rectified by your Lordships agreeing to the provisions of the Bill today. Subsections (2) and (3) of Clause 1 amend Sections 2A and 2B of the original Act. Clause 1 would extend the commissioner's powers to investigate a complaint against general practitioners or other health service professionals if at the time of the complaint they were providing a service to the National Health Service.
Clause 2 amends Section 9 of the original Act by adding two new subsections, (4A) and (4B). These have come about as a result of concern expressed by the Under-Secretary of State, Mrs Gisela Stuart, and other Members in another place that the time within which an investigation could be brought should not he open-ended. As noble Lords will be aware, the Health Service Commissioners Act 1993 already provides that the commissioner shall not entertain a complaint made more than one year after the day on which the complainant first had notice of the matter complained of. However, the commissioner has discretion to waive that limit if he considers it reasonable to do so. These government amendments, therefore, limit the commission's power to investigate any matter to that which arises within three years of the last day on which the person complained about was a health service provider.
Clause 3 prevents the investigation by the commissioner of a complaint against a practitioner who has retired before the new amendments come into force, thus preventing a witch-hunt on past errors. Clause 4 names the Act as the Health Service Commissioners (Amendment) Act 2000, with an implementation date three months after the day on which it was passed. The Act is not relevant to Northern Ireland.

1715
Noble Lords will, like me, want to believe that all those who work in the health service are paragons of virtue—competent, caring and professional. Indeed, the very great proportion of those whom we are discussing today are; and those who need their professional expertise can rely on receiving it. Sadly, however, there is evidence that this is not always true. Patients are on occasions faced with unacceptable behaviour from those health professionals on whom they place great reliance.
I do not intend today to give examples of cases which have been brought to public attention since these were described in another place. Suffice to say, they are distressing to read and traumatic for those involved.
The health service commissioner is the last recourse. He can be involved only once other processes have been completed. It is, therefore, even more important that his role should be all-encompassing so that he can seek an explanation and justice for the aggrieved.
This is a measure which is long overdue and which I believe most right-minded people would assume already existed. It is not expected that these powers will affect more than a handful of cases, but even in one adverse case patients must know that they can seek redress. The Bill will do that. It is a small measure but an important one. It received all-party support, including government support in another place. I understand from the Minister who will reply today that it will have his support. I very much hope that this House will give it a quick and clear passage so that the measures may be on the statute book at the earliest opportunity.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time. —(Baroness Hanham.)
11.30 a.m.
Lord Colwyn: My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Hanham for her clear explanation of this Bill. While I understand that the Bill closes a loophole by which a very small number of health professionals avoid investigation by the Health Service Commissioner when a complaint has not been satisfactorily dealt with at local level, I regret that it is necessary for yet another piece of legislation which can be described as "anti-doctor".
During 1999 the Government produced an abundance of Green and White Papers and consultation documents that, to greater or lesser degrees, affected the healthcare professions. There has been an unusually high number of Private Members' Bills that address healthcare and medical practice. Declaring an interest as a council member of the Medical Protection Society, I should welcome any changes that can protect the public, but I am concerned that the implications for healthcare professionals have not always been given sufficient consideration. Indeed, some measures have deserved opposition because of the potentially deleterious effect that they would have on the professions. I am aware of many cases where complaints against practitioners
1716
have been dismissed but have had a permanent effect on the doctor or dentist, sometimes leading to retirement from all aspects of their profession, despite the fact that they have done nothing wrong. However, this Bill should be welcomed. I know that the British Medical Association, the British Dental Association and most members of the professions support it. But it must be stressed that the number of incidents to which the Bill refers is extremely small.
Currently, I have the privilege to sit on the subcommittee of the Science and Technology Committee of your Lordships' House, under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant, who is in his place this morning, which is to report on complementary medicine at the end of the year. In all the evidence that we have heard one aspect that has become increasingly evident is that complementary practitioners tend to have more time to spend with their patients. A longer consultation time leads to better communication, which improves the doctor/ patient relationship and minimises misunderstandings that may later lead to complaints and claims. I believe I am right in saying that the average NHS consultation with a GP lasts between seven and eight minutes. Inevitably, when one is under that kind of pressure communication is the first link in the chain to break.
In another place the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health said:
"the relationship between individual doctor and individual patient is built on trust. For that relationship of trust to work, GPs must be accountable for what they do".—[Official Report, Commons, 3/3/00; col. 695.]
It is just not possible to build that relationship in the time that is now available to busy doctors in NHS practice.
At a time when there is such considerable strain on the NHS and great concern about its ability to cope with future healthcare needs, it is important that the Government recognise the increasing relevance of the contribution to healthcare made by pharmacists and pharmacies. I hope that in announcing the future of the NHS—which will no doubt be done within a few days of Parliament rising for the Summer Recess—the Government will act on the recommendations of the White Paper and initiate changes so that much of the day-to-day routine work of doctors' surgeries becomes the responsibility of practice nurses and pharmacists. I am told by Boots that 6 million people visit a pharmacy each day. What a wonderful opportunity to seek advice on the sore throat, cough or minor symptom that should not require the attention of a busy doctor. If more time is available to general practitioners it means that there is better communication, the establishment of a trusting relationship and less reason to complain. Doctors should not have to resort to premature retirement to avoid an investigation when in the majority of cases the complaint or misunderstanding is later proved to be invalid.
Finally and perhaps most importantly, it is essential that patients whose complaints against doctors are investigated by the ombudsman, whether or not those doctors are retired from the NHS, should not be

1717
permitted to use the procedure as a trial run for possible future litigation. It would be very easy to test the complaint with the commissioner at no cost and then, perhaps in response to some of the new-style advertising by some lawyers of no win, no fee contracts and a climate in which people are encouraged to complain, take the matter to the courts. The Minister in another place stressed the importance of being scrupulously fair to practitioners and providers, who could be affected by the proposals in the Bill. This would not be fair.
I have not mentioned dentistry. Can the Minister confirm which health service professions are included in the Bill and perhaps give some idea of the number of cases in each profession? With so many dental practitioners leaving the NHS or actively seeking to increase their private patient lists, a minor complaint, however trivial, whether or not it is investigated by the ombudsman, may be the final straw that prompts resignation from the NHS, which is something that the Department of Health seeks to prevent. I hope that the Minister can give these assurances and that amendments will not be necessary. I wish my noble friend Lady Hanham and her Bill every success.
11.35 a.m.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, in this House and Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith in the other place are to be congratulated on sponsoring this useful Bill. As the noble Baroness explained, it rectifies a clear anomaly in the powers of the Health Service Commissioner under the Health Service Commissioners Act 1993 whereby a complaint against a medical practitioner who has retired, whatever may be his motives for so doing, cannot be pursued. As the noble Baroness explained, the Health Service Commissioner went on record in his annual 1998–99 report to identify the problem. The current commissioner, Mr Michael Buckley, has expressed strong support for the Bill, as do we on these Benches. It also has extremely widespread support, not only from the Consumers' Association, which I believe was instrumental in putting forward this measure, but the BMA and Royal College of General Practitioners.
There are some who criticise the Bill for being too narrow in what it sets out to do. They suggest that it should be much broader and incorporate a wider set of reforms to the powers of the Health Service Commissioner. I believe that that is to misunderstand both the purpose and tactics behind the Bill. A huge number of developments are now taking place at trust, NHS regional and NHS national level which affect clinical governance and patient complaints but also, as we shall hear later in the day, the General Medical Council. We shall touch on those matters in our next debate when we discuss more broadly complaints relating to clinical performance.
This Bill is designed to remedy a specific loophole which may operate in only a specific number of cases but causes great injustice when it does. I hope, however, that the Minister is able to cast some light on the Government's intentions in regard to their review
1718
of the powers of the ombudsman and their attitude to reform which has been identified as desirable, such as extending the coverage of the Health Service Commissioner to private healthcare. Are they convinced that the current fairly cumbersome process which needs to be gone through by a complainant is satisfactory?
I should like to make it clear that, despite agreeing with much of what the noble Lord, Lord Colwyn, said, I am not convinced that currently we are in danger of over-regulation of the medical profession. I believe that we need better regulation to restore public confidence.
There may be many other amendments to be made in terms of complaints about clinical performance other than those contained in the Bill. However, we shall support this Bill in its present form. It has been improved by amendments in the Commons so that there is no indefinite liability. I hope that, as the noble Baroness has requested, noble Lords will allow this Bill a quick passage through the House.
11.38 a.m.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lady Hanham who has introduced this Bill with her usual skill and clarity. There is little that I can add to what she said. This is a measure which deserves our support.
It is fortuitous, but perhaps appropriate, that my noble friend should have introduced her Bill on the day when we are to debate changes to the powers and procedures of the General Medical Council. Different as they are, what these two measures have in common is the need to ensure that patients and the public have confidence in the systems that underpin the accountability of the medical profession. It is the trust that exists between doctor and patient that is vital for the effective working of the NHS. Anything, however small, that erodes that trust should be addressed. I pay tribute not only to my noble friend, but also to my right honourable friend Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith in another place who made it clear that the lacuna in the powers of the Health Service Commissioner should be tackled, and who initiated the Bill that we are considering today.
I have no doubt that this lacuna was unintended. It was the Health Service Commissioners (Amendment) Act 1996 which extended the remit and powers of the ombudsman to cover complaints made against GPs, family dentists, pharmacists and opticians, including complaints involving clinical judgment. That Act was very significant because it enabled the Health Service Commissioner to investigate complaints about any aspect of NHS treatment and services, not simply those provided by an NHS body such as a hospital trust.
Since then, legal advice has come forward which casts doubt on the ability of Sections 2A and 2B of the 1996 Act as worded to capture those individuals or organisations no longer providing NHS services at the time of the ombudsman's investigation. That flaw leads to unfairness. Not only is the complainant left

1719
feeling cheated, but there is a fundamental inequity between a retired hospital doctor, whose alleged actions can be investigated by the commissioner, and a retired GP, whose actions cannot be. Indeed, if we are serious about upholding the confidence of patients in the laws governing health professionals, it cannot be right to condone a situation in which a retired GP cannot only avoid investigation, but can also continue to practise as a locum or in the private sector.
My noble friend was right to stress that point. In whatever field—be it the police service, children's homes, care homes or the NHS—it is unacceptable that people should be able to retire in order to avoid investigation into their alleged wrongdoings. Patients need to know that if they feel that a doctor or the NHS has failed them in some way, they can complain about it and be sure that their complaint will be dealt with expeditiously and with the prospect of remedial action being taken as necessary.
I suggested that the Bill was all of a piece with the proposed changes to the GMC constitution and the plans being formulated by the GMC for the regular assessment and revalidation of doctors. It also dovetails neatly with the wider government agenda to introduce clinical governance into the NHS and with the Chief Medical Officer's proposals to identify and deal with that small number of doctors whose performance gives rise to criticism.
Some have argued that against that wider background, this Bill is something of an irrelevance. I disagree. Even after the systems of professional regulation have been strengthened, there will still be a role for the Health Service Commissioner as the final tier of the administrative complaints system in the NHS. At the very least, those complaints which might not constitute sufficient grounds for a referral to the GMC, or even for NHS disciplinary procedures, may nevertheless raise issues of clinical care that are important to individual patients or their families.
I want to touch on only one other issue and it was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones. The Government have recently been reviewing the role of the ombudsman. I do not know how far they have gone with that review, but it would be helpful if the Minister could tell us whether the Government have any intention of reforming the powers or remit of the ombudsman, or any other part of the NHS complaints arrangements.
As my noble friend stated, the Bill is supported by a wide range of professional bodies, including the BMA, the BDA, and the Consumers' Association. I believe that we have a duty to give it our support and I hope that the Government will allow it a fair wind.
11.43 a.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath): My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate. It has been encouraging to see that your Lordships believe it right to close the loophole in the powers of the Health Service Commissioner.
1720
I am particularly grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, for taking the Bill through your Lordships' House. I am delighted that she is chair of a London trust and brings a great deal of experience to your Lordships' debates on the NHS.
As noble Lords have indicated, the provisions of the Bill will close a loophole, but we must see them in a wider context. We will, as the noble Earl said, be debating changes in the powers of the General Medical Council. We have clinical governance and a new determination to ensure that internal NHS disciplinary procedures are made more robust. But I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Howe, that however well we make those changes, there will always be a need for a Health Service Commissioner to act as a final guarantee to the public that their concerns can be adequately investigated.
It might be appropriate to respond to the questions I was asked about the review of the role of the Health Service Commissioner and that of people who carry out public services. A report was published in April which made many recommendations. I suggest that the three key issues were the creation of a college or commission of ombudsmen, which would incorporate the existing public sector ombudsmen and provide a "one-stop shop" for complainants; the abolition of the current MP filter for complaints to the Parliamentary Commissioner; and a range of other measures to enable the ombudsmen to work more flexibly and more closely with each other and with other organisations. A consultation paper on that report was published in June and responses have been requested by the end of September. The Government must then consider those responses and will announce their decisions.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, clearly explained the key aims of the Bill and the reasons for the wording of Clauses 1 and 4 in particular. I do not believe that I need to cover that ground, but I want to comment on the government amendments which were moved in another place. Your Lordships will be aware that the Bill we are considering today has more to it than was originally submitted by the right honourable Member for Wealdon.
The first point relates to time limits. The Government have a responsibility not just to the patients who use the NHS but also to all those who work in it and provide services to NHS patients. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Colwyn, that one of the key elements of any complaints process is that it must be fair to all players.
The proposals in the Bill as it was originally presented would have left the practitioners and providers affected by it subject to investigation by the Health Service Commissioner indefinitely, because of the commissioner's discretion to waive his general one-year limit on bringing complaints.
The Government believed that, although the fundamental aims of the Bill were laudable, permanent susceptibility to investigation was an unfair and unacceptable consequence. Therefore, practitioners

1721
and providers should be able to be reassured that, as in other spheres, there will come a time when their liability comes to an end.
Careful thought was given to the time limit. The key issue was how long after the event might the commissioner want to exercise his or her discretion. The commissioner's view was that three years would be a sensible compromise.
The other amendment made to the Bill related to the transitional provision. The Health Service Commissioners (Amendment) Act 1996 made some far-reaching changes to the commissioner's jurisdiction. It came into force on 1st April 1996 and had no retrospective effect on complaints which had already been turned down because they were out of jurisdiction at the time they were made.
That is clearly no more than accepted practice since amending legislation of this type is not generally retrospective. However, that was not made explicit in the Act and quite a large number of complainants contacted the Health Service Commissioner, when his jurisdiction became known, in an attempt either to have earlier complaints reopened or to make complaints about matters which pre-dated the extension of his remit.
I believe that it was reflected that it was a huge disappointment to those complainants to have their hopes and expectations raised only to be told that the commissioner could not help them after all. Of course, we are not talking about anything like the same volume of cases in relation to this Bill. However, I believe that it was right to take the opportunity to avoid the risk of that disappointment occurring again. That is why the clause was inserted into the Bill.
I turn to the questions asked by the noble Lord, Lord Colwyn, in his wide-ranging speech. I confirm that the Bill covers the four groups of family health service practitioners: dentists, pharmacists, opticians and GPs. I understand that when the Health Service Commissioner considered these matters some time ago, he found one particular case relating to a dentist which occurred since 1997. I believe that that confirms that dentists come fully into these considerations.
I listened with great interest to the noble Lord's more general points regarding his concern about the pressures on professionals in the health service, both in terms of workload and in terms of a series of regulatory mechanisms that have been and are being put into place. I fully recognise the hard work and commitment of the overwhelming majority of professionals in the National Health Service. Indeed, if one were asked to highlight the main achievement of the NHS, it would surely be the high quality of professional people who give such enormous commitment to the service.
I accept that some of the changes that are being made place an extra burden on those professionals. However, as the noble Earl, Lord Howe, said, I believe that we must balance clearly the interest of professionals alongside that of the public. I believe
1722
that we have that balance right and, of course, the overwhelming majority of professionals are well aware of issues relating to public interest.
With regard to the noble Lord's question about the pressures on those professionals, I was glad that he mentioned the NHS national plan. There can be little doubt that a great deal of the extra resources given I o the NHS for the next four years will need to be spent on extra staff in order to relieve burdens and develop services. I also believe that we should examine the current working of those professionals to see whether the boundaries between them can be altered. We need to ensure that the highly qualified professionals about whom the noble Lord spoke are able to focus on the most important and serious matters. It may be possible for other staff to take on some of those burdens.
I do not believe that there is a need for me to speak further. This is an excellent Bill and I commend it to the House.
11.53 a.m.
Baroness Hanham: My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Colwyn for taking part in the debate. I hope that when we finish this morning he will not feel a compulsion to rush off to table an amendment. I also thank the members of the three Front Benches who have given the Bill their support.
It is as inescapable here as it was in the other place that an amendment such as this, which I strove to say—and which I believe everyone agrees—is on a very narrow subject, should generate a wider debate on the health service. I do not believe that it is possible to mention the health service without everyone trying to ladle in other issues.
In closing, I want to concentrate again on the fact that this is, and is acknowledged to be, a very narrow point which affects a very small number of people. I believe that I would be right in saying to my noble friend Lord Colwyn that the dental profession has figured very little in this matter and that in the past year there were no complaints at all against dentists. Indeed, I believe that there were probably very few complaints which would have come under this issue relating to general practitioners. None the less, when the ombudsman himself identifies that there is something with which he cannot deal, it seemed to my honourable friend Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith and to me proper that it should be dealt with and put right.
Therefore, again, I ask noble Lords to give the Bill a fair wind and, in doing so, to give it also a Second Reading. I commend the Bill.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Divorce (Religious Marriages) Bill [H.L.]
11.54 a.m.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.

1723
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Lester of Herne Hill.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Lord Brougham and Vaux) in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Refusal of decree absolute on grounds of non-dissolution of religious marriage]:
Baroness Miller of Hendon Baroness Miller of Hendon moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, leave out lines 14 to 18 and insert—
("(2) On the application of the party to the marriage described in subsection (2A) or (2B), the court may order that a decree of divorce is not to be made absolute until a declaration has been made by the other spouse that such steps as are required to dissolve the marriage in accordance with those usages have been taken by that other spouse.").
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 1, I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 2, both standing in my name. Indeed, one follows on from the other, the first being largely a paving amendment to make way for the second.
Despite my misgivings, which I expressed at Second Reading, about the general principles of the Bill, I urged noble Lords then to give it a passage. That was despite my belief that subsection (2) is morally flawed. A religious divorce is in addition to, not in place of, a civil one granted by the ordinary domestic family courts. However, without it neither party is free to enter into another orthodox Jewish marriage, irrespective of the grant of a civil decree absolute.
As Members of the Committee are aware, only the husband can initiate the proceedings before the ecclesiastical courts to obtain a religious dissolution of a Jewish marriage. It is then generally up to the wife to accept or to refuse it. In other words, a religious divorce, which is in addition to a civil one, requires the mutual consent of both parties. Either party can, in effect, veto it, thus preventing his or her former spouse from remarrying in an orthodox synagogue.
The Bill is well intentioned in its attempt to provide some relief to the spouse who is chained by the refusal of the other to co-operate in the religious formalities. I say "some" relief because the situation where a spouse wants a civil divorce but declines to enter into a religious one is rare indeed. However, as I believe all Members of the Committee agree, even if it helps one distressed woman or man every now and again, it is better than the minimal assistance that they can receive at present from the Jewish ecclesiastical authorities.
Subsection (2) is defective because it begins with the phrase:
"On the application of either party".
That means that even the defaulting party—the one causing the problem—can, under the terms of the subsection, apply to the court to decline to grant a
1724
decree absolute because of his or her own failure to co-operate in the religious procedures. That is manifestly absurd. Whatever happened to the principle of "he who seeks equity must do equity"? This subsection suggests that a litigant is no longer required to come to court with clean hands.
Without detracting at all from the intention of the Bill as originally drafted, my amendment simply makes it clear that the only party who can apply for the decree absolute to be deferred is the innocent party. Even then, he or she must first have taken all the appropriate steps required of him or her. That, I submit, is common sense and common probity.
In a conversation which I had with the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, he suggested to me that it would be impossible for a defaulting spouse to persuade a judge to refuse the decree absolute because of his own misconduct. He told me that no judge would ever countenance such a misconceived application and would dismiss it out of hand. I am perfectly prepared to believe that there is not a single judge in the entire country who would be gullible enough to fall, even momentarily, for some plausible yarn spun to him by the defaulting spouse.
Far be it from me to attempt to offer a legal opinion to the noble Lord, Lord Lester, but I remind him that litigation is not about winning in court; it is about getting a result. If the defaulting spouse made an application to delay the decree absolute on day 40—two days before it would normally be made absolute—there would have to be a hearing of the application before the judge when the applicant would make his or her case orally or on affidavit. Given the congested state of the court calendar, there could be a delay of weeks or months, during which time the offending spouse could continue to attempt to extort a greater share of the family assets or different arrangements for maintenance or access to the children, or simply maliciously try to frustrate the other party's proper rights. That cannot be right.
I cannot believe that the Jewish ecclesiastical authorities could have any reservations about preventing a wrongdoer benefiting from his sins. The amendment would simply ensure that only the wronged party could seek the assistance of the court to grant the remedy that the Bill proposes. I urge the noble Lord, Lord Lester, to accept it. I beg to move.
Noon
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: I welcome the constructive spirit in which the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, has spoken and her acceptance of the aims of the Bill, despite her strong reservations about the means employed.
The aim of the amendments is to ensure that the procedure prescribed by the Bill cannot be abused by one party to a Jewish marriage to prevent the other party obtaining a civil divorce, while that party is unwilling to grant a religious divorce. The amendments would require the party applying to the courts seeking the refusal of a decree absolute on the

1725
ground of non-dissolution of the religious marriage to have taken irrevocable steps to obtain a religious divorce.
I agree with that aim, but the amendments are not necessary and would create difficulties. The Bill is not defective. It empowers the court to order that a decree of divorce is not to be made absolute until a declaration has been made by both parties that they have taken such steps as are required to dissolve the marriage in accordance with the relevant religious usages. The court may make such an order only if it is satisfied that in all the circumstances of the case it is just and reasonable to do so. That was the approach adopted by Parliament in Section 9(3) of the Family Law Act 1996, which has not been brought into force for other reasons.
If either party to the marriage were to attempt to use that procedure without being willing to grant or receive a religious divorce, the application would inevitably be refused. It would be dismissed, because the applicant had shown an intention not to take the necessary steps to dissolve the religious marriage and because it would not be "just and reasonable", in the words of the Bill, to refuse to grant the other party a civil divorce. In the noble Baroness's words, it would be absurd and an abuse of judicial process.
It is not a question of whether judges are gullible, because everything is dealt with on evidence. The innocent party would be able to explain in evidence to the judge that the other party was seeking to abuse the procedure with no intention of enabling a religious divorce to take place. Judges are well able to stop people abusing rights by exercising their judicial discretion and penalising anyone who abuses the processes of the court in costs.
There may be difficulties with the noble Baroness's definition of "appropriate ecclesiastical authorities". Rather than attempting to define in legislation which of the many religious authorities exercise jurisdiction in any given case, it is better for us to leave that task to the discretion of the courts.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, said at Second Reading last week that the Government proposed to introduce an amendment to give the Lord Chancellor the power to add other religious groups as appropriate, to comply with our obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights. That would be much simpler to accomplish without the amendment.
For those reasons, I hope that the noble Baroness will withdraw her amendment. As I have made clear to her outside the Chamber, if her anxiety about abuse is shown in practice to be well founded, I shall support her strongly in any future effort to build into the legislation further safeguards against possible abuse. However, the other supporters of the Bill and I are satisfied that the safeguards in the Bill are strong and
1726
effective and that the courts will interpret and apply the powers conferred on them wisely in the interests of justice.
Lord Mishcon: In the language of an appellate court, I agree with the noble Lord. Lord Lester, and have nothing to add.
Lord Winston: Nobody could question the good intentions of the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, or the great distress that she expressed last week. The whole House will have great sympathy with her on that. However, the amendments raise some difficulties, which have been clearly identified by the noble Lord, Lord Lester. It would be wrong not to look at them carefully. We do not want to delay a Bill that will go a long way to right a wrong.
I should like to amplify one point that the noble Lord, Lord Lester, made. There is a serious problem with the notion of appropriate ecclesiastical authorities. One of the great strengths of Judaism, which is also in a way a weakness, is that it has no single authority. That is a great strength, because individual rabbis have considerable power, but they cannot alter the law, as many Zionist people would like. The noble Baroness referred last week to the halacha. People could arrive in this country requiring a religious divorce, but could then have great difficulty in obtaining it from the appropriate ecclesiastical authority, because that authority was in a different branch of the Church outside this country. That would create a difficult judicial mess and the provisions would be almost impossible to enforce. For that reason alone, we need to be very careful about the amendments.
There may well be other, non-Jewish religious disciplines that might greatly benefit from a similar law. We have to listen to those issues carefully before changing this worthy Bill.
Lord Bach: Before I say a brief word about the amendments, I take this opportunity to comment on something that the noble Lord, Lord Lester, said. The Committee will recall that my noble friend Lord McIntosh of Haringey, who spoke on behalf of' the Government at Second Reading, expressed our support for the Bill in principle. He added that the Government intended to bring forward an amendment to ensure that the Bill was compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights.
It was the Government's intention to move the amendment at this stage and I must apologise to the Committee that that has not been possible in the week since Second Reading. The noble Lord, Lord Lester, has very generously indicated that he is content for such an amendment to be tabled for Third Reading and I shall, of course, send him a copy for his consideration as soon as it is ready. Indeed, perhaps even more that, it is hoped to arrange a meeting with him as soon as it is ready.
I will briefly reiterate here the reasons why the Government consider it appropriate to amend the Bill and the nature of the amendment. Counsel's opinion

1727
indicates that the Bill is not compatible with Article 14 of the ECHR in that it may be discriminatory on religious grounds. The Government, therefore, believe that an amendment is required to ensure that it is compliant. In effect, the amendment will alter the Bill to apply only to the Jewish faith but will give the Lord Chancellor the power to add other groups as and when appropriate.
At the present time, it is only the Jewish community that has approached the Government for this remedy. It would not be appropriate to confer rights upon other faith groups without any evidence that this would be welcome to them. Other faith groups may, if they so wish, make a case to the Government for this provision to be extended to them.
I apologise to the noble Baroness for not turning to her amendment sooner but I do so now. As the Government are seeking to amend the Bill to widen its scope, it would be inappropriate for the Government to support the noble Baroness's amendments, which appear to be focused towards the needs of just one faith. If the purpose behind the amendments is to deal with a party who makes an application with the motive of delaying matters unreasonably, the Government believe that a judge will deal with that appropriately.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: I have listened carefully to what the noble Lord, Lord Lester, said and I listened too to the brief words from the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. I should not dream of attempting to argue with two such learned lawyers.
Of course I am extremely disappointed. When this process started, I did not realise that this provision would be widened to include other religions. There is no way that I should wish to table any amendment which would affect another religion. That would certainly not be my intention. My understanding was that the Bill was drafted by the Board of Deputies and that the noble Lord, Lord Lester, was bringing it forward in order to help people. On that basis, I was concerned that we should get it right.
The noble Lord, Lord Lester, said that he does not believe that the amendment is necessary. In the narrow terms of Jewish divorce, I do not believe that it is unnecessary either. It merely makes the matter safer. But clearly, in view of what the Minister said, the amendment would interfere with the wider aspirations of what the Government wish to do with this Bill; namely, that the Lord Chancellor should later have the power to include other religions.
The noble Lord, Lord Lester, has given me an assurance that if my fears prove to be true, he would be happy to work with me later to improve the Bill in the way that I wish we could improve it now. I understand why that cannot be done. In the light of the noble Lord's assurance, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 2 not moved.]
Clause 1 agreed to.
Remaining clause agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment; Report received.

Medical Act 1983 (Amendment) Order 2000
12.14 p.m.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Lord Hunt of Kings Heath rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 29th June be approved [24th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this order concerns doctors, to whom I wish to pay tribute. We all rely on their expertise and ethical obligations to ensure that when we have to see them we shall be looked after properly. As I said in an earlier debate, we know that the great majority of doctors provide an excellent service and give their patients the best possible care.
Sadly, some doctors let down patients, their colleagues and their profession. Some, like Harold Shipman, bring shame on the whole profession because of their criminal acts. The public has to be protected from doctors who as a result of their conduct, competence or their health pose a threat to patient safety. We must be confident that we have the best systems for regulation and self-regulation firmly in place.
The General Medical Council must exist to protect patients. It must be truly accountable. It must be guided at all times by the welfare and safety of patients. Recent scandals involving a number of incompetent doctors have shocked the public. That is why such urgent action is required.
There is no doubt that the present systems have to be strengthened and changed. There are currently various gaps and loopholes in the GMC procedures which mean that doctors who may be a danger to patients can continue to practise. That is neither acceptable nor in the public interest.
Urgent action is needed to widen the powers of the GMC so that it can deal quickly and more effectively with doctors whose fitness to practise comes into question. This action is the first step in expressing the Government's determination to apply the lessons of recent events so that patients get the protection they deserve. The action we are taking, therefore, has to be seen in the context of the need for wider and broader change, which will be the subject of further discussion with the GMC.
The Government consulted on four proposals to widen the powers of the GMC: first, a new power to impose interim suspension or conditions quickly in any circumstance, including cases of performance and health; secondly, giving practical meaning to the GMC's premise that doctors who are erased from the medical register should not expect to return, save in the most exceptional circumstances, by introducing a minimum erasure period of five years; thirdly, placing a statutory duty on the GMC to notify employers and any other person or body who may need to be

1729
informed of doctors whose fitness to practise is being formally considered by the GMC; fourthly, the GMC will be given a power to require health service and other bodies to supply information or to produce documents relevant to the GMC's consideration of a case; and, fifthly, enabling the GMC to co-opt non-members of the council to the professional conduct and other committees in order to open up the council to wider involvement in its committee work, tackle the backlog of cases currently under consideration and bring in wider views and experience.
The proposals were published for public consultation in Modernising medical regulation: interim strengthening of the GMC's fitness to practise procedures on 24th March 2000. I am pleased to say that there was widespread support for the GMC's powers to be enhanced as proposed, including those from consumer representative bodies, NHS trusts and health authorities.
Medical and other healthcare professional bodies, including the Royal College of General Practitioners, the BMA and a number of the other medical Royal Colleges, also agreed the thrust of the proposals but stressed the importance of striking a balance between the public interest to protect patients, the profound effect of suspension on a doctor and natural justice.
It is important to note that in future the GMC will be able to impose interim suspension or conditions in any circumstance, including cases of performance and health. The power will be sufficiently wide so that the GMC can act swiftly and more effectively in response to unforeseen circumstances, which if it was unable to act would place patients at risk or damage public confidence in the medical profession. This proposal was well received. Many responses commented on the inadequacy of the current arrangements and the need for improvement.
This new power of interim suspension does not interfere with the financial arrangements for single-handed GPs, nor should it mean that single-handed GPs are disadvantaged. Doctors whose names are erased from the medical register represent the most severe cases of conviction or serious professional misconduct. When a doctor is removed from the register it is on the premise that he or she should not expect to he restored. The presumption is that if you are struck off, it is for life save in exceptional circumstances.
Currently, however, a doctor whose name has been removed may apply to have it restored after 10 months. If unsuccessful, he or she may apply every 10 months thereafter. Between the period 1988 and 1999, 153 doctors were erased and 39 were restored. The GMC proposed a package of measures, including a minimum erasure period of three years. The Government welcomed those proposals but believed that they did not go far enough and proposed a minimum erasure period of five years.
We believe that that would more closely match the GMC's own policy that doctors who are erased from the register should not expect to return, and give
1730
practical meaning to the presumption that when a doctor is struck off it is for life, save, as I have said, in the most exceptional circumstances.
The present arrangements need to be tightened, especially in relation to the period a doctor has to wait before he or she can apply for restoration. Views on the minimum period of erasure fell into three fairly evenly matched groups: those who agreed with five years; those who argued that more than three years would be tantamount to a life ban, and those who had no fixed view one way or the other and were much more concerned about having a rigorous assessment of a doctor's fitness to practise before he or she could ever be restored to the register.
The weight of public interest and the protection of patients is such that a minimum period of five years is not considered to be inherently incompatible with the ECHR for lack of proportionality. There was very strong support for the new disclosure provisions, which were particularly welcomed by private health care organisations, medical agencies and universities in respect of doctors working in the NHS on honorary contracts.
The proposals to allow the appointment of non-GMC members to committees were also very well received by the majority of respondents. There is general concern and dissatisfaction with the time taken to resolve cases referred to the GMC, and with the mounting backlog. This proposal has the potential to bring to the GMC a much-needed patient perspective to fitness to practise issues. It will be helpful to have non-members, including both medical and lay people, involved to help open up the council's work and make it more transparent, speedy and accountable.
We shall ensure that the GMC has a transparent selection process and proper training for non-members co-opted to GMC committees. The outcome of the consultation confirmed that there is very strong and widespread support for making sure that the GMC has the powers it needs to act swiftly and more effectively when a doctor's fitness to practise is called into question.
We have made one substantial additional provision. During the consultation period, reference was made to the case of a doctor who had come to this country from Canada where he had been convicted of raping and behaving violently towards a female colleague. The police reported the doctor to the GMC in June 1994 but the case was not determined until January 1996 when he was struck off. I understand that the GMC is currently considering another similar case.
These cases reveal the inadequacy of the current arrangements whereby the GMC cannot affect the registration of a doctor who has been convicted of a criminal offence abroad. The narrowness of the scope of the Medical Act 1983 compares unfavourably with the Dentists Act 1984 which allows the General Dental Council to determine suspension or erasure when a dentist has been convicted of a criminal offence in this country or an offence abroad which would constitute a criminal offence in this country.
The Government believe that what matters most is the protection of the public from doctors whose fitness to practise, whatever the reason, is called into question, and who would represent a serious risk to patients if allowed to continue to practise until the GMC has completed its consideration. We therefore agreed to the insertion of a clause giving the GMC the power to suspend or restrict the registration of a doctor convicted of a criminal offence abroad which constitutes a criminal offence in this country.
Following the consultation, the order has been improved to provide greater clarity, to avoid conflict with other enactments, to make it explicit that it covers doctors holding provisional, limited and full registration, and to ensure compliance with ECHR. In my view the provisions of this amendment order are compatible with the convention rights.
It is important that we learn the lessons of recent cases which have exposed deficiencies in the GMC's current arrangements for dealing with doctors who represent a danger to patients if they are allowed to continue to practise. We are determined to apply the lessons of those events so that patients do get the protection they deserve.
In addition to those matters which I have raised in your Lordships' House this morning, there is clearly a need for wider and broader change, which will be the subject of further discussion with the GMC, but strengthening the GMC's powers in these important and significant ways is a first step to repairing the damage that has been done. I commend the order to the House.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 29th June be approved [24th Report front the Joint Committee].—(Lord Hunt of Kings Heath.)
12.30 p.m.
Lord Walton of Detchant: My Lords, there can be no doubt that in the recent past the medical profession has received a bad press. The problems that arose over the Bristol cardiac surgery cases, Dr Shipman, Dr Rodney Ledward and many other cases, very properly hit the public press and, to some extent, dented the public perception of the efficacy of the GMC and its procedures and dented public confidence in the medical profession.
However, I am glad that the Minister, and earlier this morning the noble Lord, Lord Colwyn, expressed a view with which I wholly concur, that the very great majority of doctors in this country are giving excellent service, often under almost intolerable pressure in an understaffed health service. There is little doubt that many of the procedures now being introduced, including the welcome revalidation procedures of the General Medical Council, will add to the burden under which those doctors are practising. However, that is a burden which, subject to full consultation on the implementation of the revalidation procedures, they will, in the majority, willingly accept.
1732
I had the privilege of serving for 18 years on the General Medical Council and, for the last seven years of that period, as its president. I believe that much of the criticism levelled against the GMC in the course of the past few years has not only been ill-advised and ill-informed, but unfair, for the very good reason, as the Minister said, that many of the procedures under which the GMC has been working, as defined in the Medical Act 1983, have been rigid and inflexible. Many of the issues which it hoped to resolve have not been possible within the present framework of legislation.
During my presidency I and other members of the council became increasingly aware of the fact that we did not have procedures adequate to deal with incompetent or under-performing doctors. It was for that reason that we began consultations as long ago as 1985 on the possibility that new procedures might be introduced to deal with performance review in the medical profession. Under the distinguished presidency of my successor, the noble Lord, Lord Kilpatrick of Kincraig, those recommendations and consultations gathered pace but it took a full 10 years until 1995 before the performance review procedures were accepted as an amendment to the Medical Act. The process was long and tortuous, involving extensive consultation.
At that time, many of us wished to see additional powers vested in the GMC. We wanted to see a single form of registration introduced for all overseas doctors and a whole series of amendments to health procedures. But when we consulted with the government of the day at that time upon whether they would be likely to accept amendments to the performance review Bill or amendment to the Medical Act at that time, we were told that if we pressed such amendments, we would lose the Bill which the medical profession wished to see introduced. Happily, under the Health Act 1999, it is now possible to amend the constitution and procedures of the GMC by order, which is exactly what we are consulting about today.
I have to say, as a former president both of the GMC and the British Medical Association, that I was somewhat embarrassed by the vote passed at the BMA's annual representative body last week. I felt it was unfortunate in some respects; but even more unfortunate was the press publicity which covered that particular vote.
Perhaps I may make it entirely clear that the BMA does not wish to see the abolition of the General Medical Council. It stands by the principle of professional self-regulation. I cannot but recall that, in a notable article some years ago, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham of St Marylebone, wrote that professional self-regulation is one of the glories of a civilised society. In his Jeffcott Lecture to the Royal Society of Medicine, the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, said that professional self-regulation was a principle to be preserved at all costs. He said that the alternative of regulation by the state was too fearful to be contemplated. He spoke with great authority,

1733
having formerly been a German citizen where he had seen the effects of regulation by the state in his original native country.
The BMA is quite clear that, whereas it has criticism of the present constitution of the GMC (upon which I shall comment briefly in a moment), it does not wish to lose the principle of professional self-regulation. It also feels that any reformed council should continue to have a majority of medical members. Where I slightly disagree with its comments is where it says that those medical members should all be involved in active medical practice.
The responsibilities of the General Medical Council are so enormous, not least when service on the professional conduct committee involves such arduous and complex deliberations—often for proper legal reasons—that sometimes cases go on not just for days but for weeks, that it can be extremely detrimental to the professional practice of an individual to have to serve on such committees. Hence it is important that we should keep the opportunity for appointing recently retired doctors who have more time to serve on such committees.
Perhaps I may also comment on the question of lay membership. The public in general do not realise that during my presidency we increased steadily the number of lay members to represent the public interest and that 25 per cent of the council is now made up of lay members. No decision by any committee affecting a doctor's registration can be taken without the participation usually of at least two lay members. Nevertheless, the proposals of the BMA and others to the effect that the number of lay members should be further increased will be welcomed.
Finally, all of the issues raised by the Minister and clearly set forward in his speech this morning are welcome to the GMC and the medical profession. As he rightly said, the GMC has been constrained by the existing provisions of the Medical Act which requires that any conviction or complaint against a doctor, however serious, cannot be acted upon before the preliminary proceedings committee has been able to meet and take full account of legal representations. Hence interim suspension as a possibility is a welcome introduction in that procedure.
As the Minister also said, the GMC at the moment is not able to take account of a criminal conviction in another country; nor indeed is it able, under the Medical Act, to take account of a doctor who has been erased from the medical register in another country. The Minister did not refer to that in his opening speech. One hopes that the regulation will include a similar provision because, under the law at present, that cannot be taken into account by the GMC until it receives notice of a complaint against that doctor.
The one issue upon which the medical profession may disagree with the provisions of the present order relate to the five-year minimum period of erasure from the register. The GMC and the BMA would prefer a three-year period feeling that, with issues such as the principle of rehabilitation of offenders, three years might be more appropriate. After five years the chance
1734
of any doctor being able to return to active clinical practice is remote. My concern is that when I chaired meetings of the conduct committee of the GMC, I often found that lay members of the committee tended to take a somewhat more lenient view of doctors' behaviour than did the medical members. I have a feeling that the knowledge that a five-year ban could be tantamount almost to a lifelong ban may deter such a committee from recommending erasure of the doctor from the register.
With that caveat, I can say that the other provisions set out so clearly in this order are greatly to be welcomed, and I would not in any way wish to delay it. The regulations are timely. The GMC will be meeting next week to consider issues of its constitution and future activity. I believe the Minister is right in saying that consultations must proceed relating to its future structure and future procedures. In the mean time, these provisions are extremely welcome.
Earl Howe: My Lords, first, I thank the Minister for introducing this order and for his clear explanation of its meaning and effect. Subject to the points of detail I am about to raise, it is an order that I fully support. However, one thing needs stating first.
I believe it is important to recognise explicitly that the content of this affirmative instrument is very much the work of the GMC itself. Those who try to make out that the GMC has been dragged reluctantly into a process of procedural reform are completely and utterly mistaken. Indeed, anyone who has read the GMC's five-year review or its well-argued and detailed paper on revalidation can be in no doubt of the intensive efforts that it has devoted to these matters over the past few years under the dedicated and thoughtful chairmanship of Sir Donald Irvine.
I have had the benefit of more than one meeting with Sir Donald in recent weeks. I believe that both he and the council deserve our full backing in their efforts to make the GMC procedures more open and effective. The Minister is of course right to say that complaints are taking much longer to resolve than is desirable. That is as bad for patients as it is for the doctors who stand accused. The measures contained in this order represent the first step in making the whole system more responsive to serious, legitimate concerns about doctors and in taking the agonising delay out of the disciplinary process.
We have last year's Health Act to thank for the fact that these changes can be made by the relatively uncomplicated means of secondary legislation, and we on these Benches supported fully that element of the Act. It may be uncharitable of me, but the resolution passed last week by the BMA seemed to me to be ever so slightly hysterical. The GMC recognises, as it has for some considerable time, that change is necessary and that accountability within the profession has to be improved. Unfortunately, as the noble Lord, Lord Walton, so clearly pointed out, it has been constrained by the legislative framework within which it is currently obliged to operate. It is not fruitful to blame the GMC for the slowness of its internal procedures; nor is it appropriate, in my view, to blame the GMC

1735
for the rise in the number of disciplinary cases referred to it over the past few years. Much of that rise is attributable to a failure within the NHS to handle complaints properly on a local basis as they occur. There is a need to ensure that that improves.
That, I suggest, is a pointer for us in this debate, for this statutory instrument is part of a much wider readjustment of the relationship between the medical profession and the general public. The GMC and the changes to its constitution are only one part of the picture. The GMC cannot deliver quality assurance. It is for the NHS and the private sector to do that by putting appropriate clinical governance systems in place. Those systems, too, have to be effective if patient safety and patient confidence are to be protected. Only time will tell whether they are effective; but, if they are, then the regulatory framework need only be light.
I have several detailed questions arising from the order. The first relates to Article 9 and the change in the minimum period of a doctor's suspension, which has increased from 10 months to five years. The Minister will know that both the GMC and the BMA think that the period should be three years; indeed, the noble Lord referred to that fact. They do so because to exclude a practitioner for five years effectively prevents a doctor from ever rehabilitating himself. Underlying the order is a presumption that when a doctor is struck off the register that erasure should be permanent. That presumption is not in dispute. But there will on occasion be cases where natural justice demands that a doctor's fitness to practise is re-examined in the light of intervening circumstances.
In such cases, a doctor has to be given a realistic chance of resuming his career. A minimum period of three years allows for that. Many would argue that five years does not. I wonder whether the Minister could comment on whether his department is satisfied about the human rights aspect of the five-year minimum period? A desire to be tough on malpractice and the causes of malpractice should not overshadow the need for a proper balance to be struck on this issue.
My second question stems from the provision in Article 5 which allows the GMC to suspend or restrict the registration of a doctor convicted of a criminal offence abroad, which constitutes a criminal offence in England and Wales. This is clearly an important measure. Currently over half of all new registrants qualify overseas. The inclusion of offences committed overseas recognises the reality of the make-up of the medical register and serves to treat home and overseas qualifiers in an equitable manner. However, a disproportionately large number of overseas-trained doctors are the subject of complaints to the GMC. Is the Minister aware of the abiding concerns expressed by the GMC, and others, about the lack of any language aptitude tests for doctors who come to the UK from the European Economic Area? Such tests are currently illegal under European law. Is this something that concerns the Government?
1736
There are good arguments for saying that a provision designed to underpin the free movement of labour has the effect of acting against the public interest. It also gives rise to unfairness as between doctors trained in the EEA, who do not take language tests, and doctors trained outside the EEA, who do. Do the Government plan to raise this issue at European level?
Finally, I should like to ask the Minister some more general questions about the Government's approach to the regulation of the medical profession. Up to now, the Government have reassured us of their commitment to uphold the principle of self-regulation, including the independence of the GMC. It would be helpful to have that assurance restated today. It would also be helpful to have an explicit statement of confidence in the professionalism of doctors. One of the disquieting features of the Government's dealings with the medical profession since they came to office has been what one might call the "anti-doctor tone" of many of their public utterances. The release of anti-doctor stories to the media, comments by the former Secretary of State about those involved in the Bristol case and the branding of doctors by the Prime Minister as part of the forces of conservatism all serve to undermine what the Government must recognise as vital to the well-being of our country and the health of the nation; namely, the trust that must exist between doctor and patient.
No one is saying that the Government should try to paper over the cracks in the system and pretend that nothing needs fixing. But the balance of government statements has been wrong. It has damaged the morale of the profession unnecessarily and unreasonably. I hope that we shall not hear much more from Ministers about the naming and shaming of doctors. The cases of seriously under-performing doctors are very few. Dr Shipman is, I trust, unique of his kind. This is not a trivial issue.
Aside from ministerial statements, a major part of the self-confidence of the profession stems from the fact that doctors feel ownership of their own professional standards. To attempt to set those standards from outside without doctors feeling ownership of them would, I believe, do profound damage to the quality of medical care in this country. In that context, I ask the Government the following questions. Do they believe, as I do, that the GMC has a crucial part to play in upholding professionalism and, thereby, fulfilling its essential role which is to protect patients? Following on from that question, do the Government believe in having a medical majority on the GMC?
There have been reports in the medical press that the Government intend to split the GMC's role to enable the Commission for Health Improvement to take over the task of investigating failing doctors. Can the Minister say anything about that? In particular, can he say whether he envisages the commission being given the power to instruct the GMC to suspend a doctor? If the GMC is to find its autonomy watered down in this way, I fear that that will do great damage to the self-confidence of the profession, with the wider

1737
adverse repercussions to which I alluded. It would also somewhat defeat the point of the new power in Article 10 of the order to impose interim suspension on a doctor quickly in any circumstances.
Self-regulation should not only operate; it should also be seen to be operating. If the GMC and its role are part of a wider array of co-regulation shared between the state and the profession, it is important that the balance between the two should be right. From these Benches we shall be maintaining a very careful watch over the way in which the Government proceed over the next few months in their dialogue with the GMC to develop structures of regulation in which the public can have full confidence.
12.45 p.m.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, as we heard today, the GMC has not, since it was founded in 1858, come under such an intense spotlight as it has in the past two years. Noble Lords have mentioned the Bristol Royal Infirmary cases, the Shipman conviction and the Ritchie inquiry into the conduct of Rodney Ledward. All those cases have caused the public to question their confidence in doctors and, hence, the effectiveness of the self-regulation system run by the GMC.
Criticisms by junior and senior doctors alike have, over the past two weeks, led to an extraordinary crescendo of criticism by local medical committee representatives and the annual BMA conference of the GMC in its current form. Many commentators are convinced that, unless the GMC reforms itself urgently, the era of self-regulation will be impossible to justify. There is a view among some of those commentators—and clearly among many members of the medical profession—that the GMC has been dragging its feet and that it was only the Shipman case that stirred it into greater action.
I am rather less censorious. There are clearly internal tensions within the GMC, but I have never doubted its president's desire for reform. Moreover, as the noble Lord, Lord Walton, so cogently pointed out, the very statutory structure of the procedures and the GMC's constitution have made reform difficult. For that reason, I, too, welcome the powers contained in the Health Act of last year. That is the context in which we must look at the order before us today.
On these Benches we support the provisions of the order. But there are a number of questions that need to be asked and some comments to be made in connection with the various elements of the order. Previously, as we have heard, there was no power to suspend by the GMC unless there was a complaint or a conviction. It fell between two stools if, say, it was simply a matter of a case being under investigation, even where charges had been laid against an individual doctor.
In that context, we very much welcome the powers of interim suspension by the GMC, but we hope that there will be very clear and specific rules of procedure by the new Interim Orders Committee to ensure natural justice for those doctors who are to be heard before it. A s was pointed out when we discussed the
1738
Bill of the noble Baroness, Lady Knight, on the suspension of hospital doctors in recent weeks, suspension is a serious step and there should be appropriate safeguards for doctors in these circumstances.
On these Benches, our view is these provisions should include a number of different elements. There should be no delay in bringing cases before the IOC. There should be a requirement for consultation by the IOC, particularly with appropriate practising clinicians. There should be a duty to consider alternatives to suspension, a requirement to give written reasons for decisions, and a right to appear in person before the IOC, and be represented. If the practitioner desires it, there should be a right for the hearing to be in public. Finally, there should certainly be a right not to be arbitrarily or unreasonably excluded from work premises. Many of those were elements which were very helpfully picked up in the Bill, which did not have government support, but they are nevertheless important elements of what should be in the GMC's codes of practice.
I turn now to restoration to the register. Currently a person struck off can apply for restoration to the register after 10 months. Clearly, as we all agree, this is inadequate. The new regulations will ensure that nobody can get back on the register until at least five years have elapsed. Some have called for lifetime bans, others including the GMC, prefer a three-year minimum period for being struck off. They believe that if a longer time is chosen as a minimum, a doctor might become totally deskilled. That would virtually constitute a life sentence in itself. I part company with the noble Earl, Lord Howe, and the noble Lord, Lord Walton, in that I suspect that these proposals have just about got the balance right. The Minister was correct to say that restoration through the register must be clearly seen as an exception.
There will be a duty of disclosure of information by the GMC to employers and others who need to be informed about someone whose fitness to practise is being considered by it. It will also have the power to obtain information from any person including health and other bodies where it is relevant to a case before it. But what safeguards will there be for individual privacy? Will the confidentiality requirements of the Health Act apply? Access to, and confidentiality of, records is an important issue. Will the GMC have more access to patients' records than patients themselves? What permissions will be required?
We very much welcome the proposals for non-council members on GMC committees. But what numbers are proposed? Is it proposed, as I believe, that there should be 50 such members who can serve on the GMC committees, such as the professional conduct committee? Can they serve on all the committees of the GMC, and not simply on the professional conduct committee?
We welcome other provisions in the order, and particularly the ability to treat criminal offences committed abroad as serious professional misconduct without further proof. The order will bring the GMC's

1739
powers into line with those of the General Dental Council under the Dentists Act. As far as it goes, this is a welcome package of reform. At the same time, however, we should not let the opportunity pass without considering what other key elements are being put into place, and whether they will be sufficient to restore public confidence in doctors, and professional confidence in the GMC.
The Minister alluded to several further developments. We welcome the GMC's recent proposal on the introduction of revalidation. But when will the consultations be completed, and what process is needed to ensure that they come into effect? Many of us are impatient to see a sensible scheme introduced quickly. The Royal College of General Practitioners is to be congratulated on having been early in the field, in November 1999, with its revalidation proposals for clinical general practice, but one asks why other members of the medical profession have not been quite so speedy.
We also welcome the reviews of the structure and legislative framework of the fitness to practise provisions, and of the structure, constitution and governance of the GMC which were announced in May. Currently, as the noble Lord, Lord Walton, pointed out, some 25 out of 104 members of the council are lay people. We very much welcome the increases that have taken place over recent years, and we believe that the principle of self-regulation should be retained if possible. But I very much hope that the GMC will work towards a lay presence on its council of nearly 50 per cent. What is the timetable for the review?
We also welcome the commitment which the GMC has made to speed up its procedures, partly assisted by what will be its new-found ability to have non-GMC members on its professional conduct committee. The GMC's workload has risen enormously. Complaints have risen by three times in six years, and I understand that there is a backlog of some 160 cases. I know personally of cases where severe injustice and heartache are being caused by delays in cases being heard. It is vital that the processes are massively improved and, if necessary, that more resources are devoted to ensuring that cases are heard more quickly.
Other issues clearly need addressing, such as information on candidates up for election to the council. The case of Dr Jennifer Coleman, who had been struck off in 1987 for professional misconduct, highlights the need for reform. We also need to be very clear about the demarcation between the NHS and the GMC in respect of clinical governance, and complaints about clinical performance. How do people know to whom to complain? Who sets the standards? How do doctors know to whom they are accountable, and what safeguards do they have against arbitrary action?
I understand that the Government are due to publish their plans on clinical governance later this month following the consultations on Supporting Doctors—Protecting Patients, along with the new national plan. Can the Minister confirm that this will ensure clarity on the relationship between health authorities and trusts, and their powers and duties, and those of the GMC?
1740
Pension entitlement is also a matter which generates considerable heat. This is clearly a Department of Health issue, but it is clearly wrong that a doctor found guilty of misconduct should be bale to retire on a full pension. What action will the Secretary of State take to ensure that appropriate steps are taken?
At the end of the day, whatever the contents of orders, there is a limit to what can be done by procedures and processes. It is values and culture which matter, and which will prevent another Bristol or Shipman case and make sure that the James Elwoods and Rodney Ledwards of this world do not continue to practise. As Jean Ritchie QC pointed out in her report on the conduct of Rodney Ledward, we need a much more open whistle-blowing culture within the NHS. This is helpfully recognised by the Chief Medical Officer's recent paper Organisation With a Memory, on the reporting of adverse care events. It was also recognised in the latest edition of the GMC's Good Medical Practice. Doctors must clearly be seen to be on the side of the patient, not an incompetent colleague, and the GMC must reflect that in the way in which it operates.
We are heading in the right direction, but we need to move further and faster than we have ever done to date, and I hope that we shall see before us a much more fundamental Order in Council, containing reforms of the GMC and its practices, in a very short space of time.
Lord Patel: My Lords, much of what I wanted to say has already been said, and so I shall be brief. I declare an interest, in that I am a current member, although rather green, of the GMC council.
I support the order and the five elements within it of powers of interim suspension, a tougher restoration regime, a duty to disclose to the Department of Health and employers, a power to co-opt non-members on to the fitness to practise committees, and a power to take action on overseas convictions. The provisions will strengthen the self-regulatory role of the GMC. The argument about three or five years has now passed; and I believe that we should settle for five years.
The order is only a small step towards a modern framework of medical regulation. Far more significant, I believe, will be embedding the process of revalidation, the proposals emerging from the structural review regarding fitness to practise, and the review of the constitution and governance. I would support a smaller council and 50:50 lay:medical membership of the GMC.
I agree with my noble friend Lord Walton that the BMA resolution was at the least unfortunate and unwarranted. There should be no doubt of the GMC's commitment to reform and the strengthening of self-regulation. I support the order.
1 p.m.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, this has been a remarkably well informed and interesting debate. The noble Lord, Lord Walton, was an outstanding president of the GMC and did many things to modernise the GMC during his presidency. I noted

1741
with interest his comments about his frustration in trying to get changes made to its procedures. This is the first time we have debated an order laid under the provisions of the Health Act 1999. The order concerns a crucial matter. I am happy to pay tribute to the GMC's role in helping us take these matters forward.
The noble Lord, Lord Walton, mentioned the public debate on the role of doctors, the public's perception and the kind of media flurry that we have witnessed in the past few weeks. I say to the noble Earl, Lord Howe, that I continue to pay tribute to the vast majority of health professionals in this country and to doctors in particular. As we take forward the changes to the health service and the national plan, we need very much to walk arm in arm with those professionals. The whole process of developing the national plan has involved many doctors and other professionals, leaders of the professions and people in the field who are leading change. That is the partnership approach. It is the only way in which we shall establish the kind of changes we wish to see in the National Health Service.
The noble Earl, Lord Howe, and the noble Lords, Lord Walton and Lord Patel, referred to the deliberations of the BMA last week. All I say in that context is that I believe that it is in the best interests of the profession and the public that the profession as a whole pulls together, works together and marches in the same direction. That is also the foundation on which we wish to work in partnership with the profession in regard to the changes that need to take place in the health service.
The noble Lord, Lord Walton, referred to the workload of members of the GMC. I do not think that anyone can disagree with that. That is why I think that the proposal of the GMC to co-opt 50 non-members, 30 of whom will be lay members and 20 of whom will be medical members, is widely to be welcomed. I am sure that it will greatly assist the GMC, both in bringing in more people from outside but also in dealing with the backlog of cases on which I shall comment in a moment.
I turn to the five-year minimum erasure period. I was glad that the noble Lords, Lord Patel and Lord Clement-Jones, supported that period. I am aware that there has been considerable debate as to whether that is the correct period. However, I reiterate the points that I have already made. The doctors we are discussing represent the most serious cases. When a doctor is struck off, he or she should not expect to return, save in the most exceptional circumstances. Given the seriousness of the cases that will be considered under these procedures, the Government believe that a five-year minimum period gives practical meaning to the presumption that when a doctor is struck off it ought to be for life.
The noble Earl, Lord Howe, mentioned the position of doctors who are forbidden to practise for a lengthy period being unable to gain practical experience of technological and other changes affecting patient care. Any doctor who after the five-year period wished to apply for restoration, must first be able to satisfy the GMC that he or she can satisfy an assessment of
1742
knowledge, skills and aptitude to practise medicine. This kind of assessment is already in place for over seas doctors who may wish to practise medicine in this country. However, I fully accept that the GMC will need to consider how that test should be applied in these cases.
The noble Earl, Lord Howe, also asked how the five-year period complies with the requirements of the European Convention on Human Rights. I am advised that the right to practise as a doctor has an economic value and therefore constitutes a possession in the context of Protocol No. 1 of the European Convention. An erasure from the medical register is clearly an interference with that possession. There are three tests as to whether any interference is justified: that it is in accordance with the law; that it is in the public interest; and that there is a fair balance between the interest of the individual and that of the public. It is the Government's view that the five-year erasure period is not incompatible with those conditions.
The noble Lord, Lord Walton, correctly pointed out that the GMC cannot erase a doctor struck off in another country without a complaint. The order before us today does not address that matter. However, we shall bear that matter in mind for the next round of changes relating to the GMC's own review of its fitness to practise procedures. I very much take that point on board.
I turn to the question raised by the noble Earl, Lord Howe, with regard to the backlog of cases. I am happy to say that in his letter to the Secretary of State in May, Sir Donald Irvine stated that by the autumn the GMC should not have delays in handling new cases other than in bringing those which have completed screening forward for hearing by the relevant committee. By the end of 2001 waiting times will be within an acceptable standard. We must hope that the addition of new members from outwith the GMC, which I have already mentioned, will very much help that process.
The noble Earl, Lord Howe, asked about language tests. The EC directives on free movement mean that the GMC cannot require doctors of EC origin who have qualified in the EC to satisfy a language test as a condition of registration, although it can in the case of other overseas doctors. However, NHS employers are responsible for ensuring that doctors whom they employ have a satisfactory command of English and can communicate effectively with patients and colleagues. NHS employers have been issued guidance on language testing and their responsibilities. I should be happy to send that guidance to the noble Earl.
The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, asked a number of questions concerning the procedures under which the order will operate. Assuming that the order is accepted by the House today, I confirm that the rules of procedure will be made known shortly. Many of the concerns that the noble Lord has raised will be covered in those rules. There are various safeguards; for example, an interim suspension cannot exceed 18 months. After that period has elapsed, the GMC would have to apply to the courts to seek a further

1743
extension. In addition, the first review of the interim suspension has to take place within six months and at three month intervals thereafter.
The noble Lord asked whether a doctor could be made the subject of an order without prior knowledge. I confirm that no order can be made by the interim committee unless the practitioner has been afforded the opportunity to appear before the committee or be represented at the hearing. The rules also provide that if a doctor is not present and is not represented, the committee can proceed with the hearing if it is satisfied that all reasonable efforts are being made to serve the papers.
The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, asked a number of questions about information. I understand that the GMC may disclose any information relating to a doctor's fitness to practise or professional conduct which it considers to be in the public interest to disclose. The GMC intends to use this broad discretionary power sparingly and mainly to disclose information to other public bodies and thereby help to ensure that action necessary to protect patients is taken. I assure the noble Lord that the GMC proposes to develop guidance setting out the criteria it would normally expect to apply when disclosing information under this power. The GMC recognises that its use of the power would rightly be open to legal challenge if it was thought to be acting unreasonably.
A number of questions were asked about the whole issue of future regulation. I am afraid that I shall have to disappoint noble Lords; I am not in a position to respond to the questions. These matters are under consideration and final decisions in relation to the GMC need to await the outcomes of the Bristol inquiry and the Shipman inquiry chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Laming. In the meantime we are encouraging the GMC to make proposals for radical reform for consideration by the Government later in the year.
I hope that I have been able to respond to many of the points raised by noble Lords. I am very appreciative of the general support the House has given to this order.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Legal Aid (Functions) Order 2000
1.10 p.m.
Lord Bach Lord Bach rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 27th June be approved [24th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this order I shall, with the leave of the House, speak also to the Legal Aid (Prescribed Panels) (Amendment) Regulations 2000.
The Legal Aid (Functions) Order 2000 is one of a series of pieces of secondary legislation designed to allow the Legal Services Commission to enter into contracts for the legal services of both solicitors and barristers in very high cost criminal cases. The order
1744
authorises the commission to determine and authorise work to be carried out, the costs and the method of payment of such costs in respect of representation provided by means of a high cost case contract.
A high cost case is designated as a case which, in the estimation of the commission, would be likely to last 25 days or more at trial, or where the total costs for any one defendant or group of defendants represented by the same firm of solicitors amount to £150,000 or more. This figure includes the costs of counsels' fees and any disbursements in the case.
The intention in providing for individual case contracts in high cost cases is to exert appropriate control over the money spent and work done in such cases. Currently, the top I per cent of cases consume approximately 40 per cent of the whole Crown Court legal aid budget. It is essential that the expenditure of such large sums of money is closely monitored and controlled. The Legal Services Commission will be able to do this through individual case contracts, with case management teams working closely with defence teams to scrutinise and authorise items of expenditure. This will be of advantage to the defence team since they will have certainty and regularity of payment. For the public purse it will ensure the best control over the most expensive of cases.
It is the Government's intention to move, under the criminal defence service, to a situation where all very high cost cases are managed under an individual contract. We expect that all such cases arising after April 2002 will be handled under a contract. From April 2001, when the criminal defence service is introduced, the commission will be given powers to insist that very high cost cases are managed under contract. Where a firm with such a high cost case does not wish to enter into a contract, the commission may insist that the defendant choose another firm, one that is willing to work under a contract. However, neither this functions order nor any of the other pieces of secondary legislation on this subject has an element of compulsion.
The Legal Services Commission needs to build up its expertise at managing these very high cost cases, and the intention is to do so with the willing co-operation of firms of solicitors which are expert in handling the largest cases. Until the CDS is introduced, no firm or barrister reporting a high cost case will risk having the case removed from them; they will be free to choose whether to enter into a contract or to continue to do the work under existing legal aid regulations. This functions order will allow a purely voluntary arrangement for contracting to take effect and will give the commission valuable experience in designing these contracts, which will be carried forward as contracting is expanded.
The other set of legal aid regulations to be considered by your Lordships' House today is the Legal Aid (Prescribed Panels) (Amendment) Regulations 2000. These regulations give effect to the long-announced requirement that, with effect from 2nd October 2000, only solicitors employed in offices holding a crime franchise, or which have passed a

1745
preliminary audit against the crime franchise standards, will be able to undertake work funded by the Legal Services Commission.
It had been the original intention to commence the criminal defence service elements of the Access to Justice Act on 2nd October this year. The Lord Chancellor decided, however, to postpone the introduction of the CDS to 2nd April next year in order to allow extra time for preparation and co-operation with the professions in the introduction of contracts. However, it was decided that the previously published date of 2nd October 2000 for the possession of a crime franchise to undertake LSC funded defence work should remain unchanged. Franchises are granted to firms which have passed a Legal Services Commission quality audit.
The name of the game in legal aid is quality assurance. Gone are the days when any firm, regardless of expertise, could provide legal representation for a client merely on the grounds that he was the firm's client and eligible for legal aid. The Government regard it as their duty to ensure that the lawyers who are provided with state funding to represent their clients in courts should be of the requisite skill and experience—that is, quality assured. That is in the client's interest. It is also in the public interest to ensure that public moneys are well spent.
The Legal Services Commission funds the majority of criminal defence work. All work in the magistrates' courts, all advice and assistance, and all duty solicitor work is funded by the commission. Crown Court work is funded by the Court Service and is not covered by these regulations, other than a few very minor exceptions.
The regulations take account of the fact that there are certain items of work which, although defined in the regulations as criminal work, are often undertaken by other specialist solicitors. For example, individuals facing the prospect of imprisonment for non-payment of debt may be assisted by a solicitor who handles debt cases. Solicitors practising in these limited areas with a contract for such work under the Community Legal Service will continue to be able to act on behalf of their clients.
The regulations will ensure that only quality suppliers are given public funds to assist individuals in the majority of cases. They will provide the commission with a known base of suppliers with which to contract on 2nd April next year. The functions order will allow the commission to gain experience of running high cost case contracts and to gradually build up skill and understanding in the most difficult of cases. Together they are important steps in introducing the criminal defence service in April next year. I commend them to the House.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 27th June be approved [24th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Bach.)
Lord Kingsland: My Lords, in the context of the objectives laid down by the Access to Justice Act, both orders make very good sense.
1746
So far as concerns the Legal Aid (Functions) Order 2000, in the view of the Opposition it is a constructive response to one of the central problems of criminal legal aid. As the Minister rightly said, 1 per cent of the cases take up 40 per cent of the resources. It will always be true that difficult cases will absorb a disproportionate amount of money; nevertheless the figure is reasonably capable of being reduced. The basis upon which the Minister has approached the matter in the order is, in our view, appropriate and satisfactory.
So far as concerns the Legal Aid (Prescribed Panels) (Amendment) Regulations 2000, as the noble Lord said, these do not apply to Crown Court matters. We share entirely the Minister's view that, in future, quality audit should be the basic principle behind the relationship between the Legal Services Commission on the one hand, and the solicitors who are selected to do particular criminal work on the other. The regulations reflect that and we are very happy with them.
Lord Bach: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord who, with his long experience of these matters, is kind enough to support us on the order and the regulations.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Legal Aid (Prescribed Panels) (Amendment) Regulations 2000
Lord Bach Lord Bach rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 27th June be approved [24th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I formally move these draft regulations which have already been spoken to.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 27th June be approved [24th Report from the Joint Commit tee].—(Lord Bach.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Special Immigration Appeals Commission (Procedure) (Amendment) Rules 2000
1.20 p.m.
Lord Bach Lord Bach rose to move, That the draft rules laid before the House on 27th June be approved [24th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I invite the House to approve the rules. These draft rules amend the Special Immigration Appeals Commission (Procedure) Rules 1998. A Special Immigration Appeals Commission, known as SIAC, was established in 1997 to deal with cases where the Home Secretary exercises his power to deport or exclude someone from the United Kingdom on national security grounds or other public interest reasons.
It was created in response to criticism by the European Court of Human Rights that arrangements for challenging the Home Secretary's decision in cases

1747
involving deportation on the grounds of national security did not comply with the European Convention on Human Rights. The commission is headed by a High Court judge. The Lord Chancellor appoints its members and makes its procedural rules. Unlike the non-statutory advisory panel, which it replaced, decisions of the commission are binding on the Home Secretary, appellants are entitled to representation and the commission can deal with bail applications. It also pioneered the arrangement for a special advocate to be appointed to safeguard the interests of the appellant when he and his representative have to be excluded because confidential information is being considered. The Home Secretary exercises his powers only occasionally. The House will be interested to know that the commission has heard three appeals so far.
The Lord Chancellor will probably want to review the rules fairly soon in the light of experience. However, the main purpose of the current amendments is to give effect to new provisions arising from Part IV of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, which we intend to bring into force on 2nd October this year. These are the one-stop appeal procedure and the transfer of cases from the immigration appellate authorities to the commission. There is also some tidying up of the original rules.
The one-stop procedure will require applicants to cite at an early stage all the grounds they have for wishing to remain in the United Kingdom, rather than, as now, making a series of applications and appeals. As part of the one-stop process, members of an applicant's family will also need to raise any additional grounds which they may have for wishing to remain in the United Kingdom.
By providing a framework for all aspects of an appellant's case and those of his family to be dealt with at the same time, the one-stop procedure represents a real streamlining of the system and one which will help us to realise our vision of a fairer, faster and firmer process for immigration and asylum appeals.
The way the procedure will work is that when the Secretary of State serves a negative decision attracting a right of appeal in the United Kingdom, he will require a statement of any additional grounds for remaining in the UK. If the person is appealing, that must accompany the notice of appeal. The Secretary of State will review the case in the light of the appeal and any statement of additional grounds. If he maintains his negative decision, he will explain why. Further appeal rights may arise from any additional grounds given for remaining in the UK and appellants will be able to supplement their appeal notice in respect of those. The time limits for appealing mirror those proposed for appeals to the immigration appellate authorities.
Those appealing from abroad will have 28 days to lodge their appeal. We believe it essential that those anxious to enter the UK should appeal against a refusal of entry very quickly. We consider that 28 days is a reasonable time for them to do that.
Those appealing within the UK will have a two-stage time limit. First, they will have five days to lodge their appeal and any statement of additional grounds. That
1748
is fast, but it is surely vital that people facing possible removal should say straightaway if they think the Secretary of State has made a mistake and raise any other grounds they wish to have taken into account. Secondly, if the negative decision is maintained, they will then have another five days to supplement their appeal if there are appealable issues arising from any additional grounds they gave for remaining in the United Kingdom. Importantly, between those two steps, they will have time for reflection while the Secretary of State considers their appeal and additional grounds. There is, of course, no reason why a person should not raise all their reasons for staying here in the very first instance, and applicants will be encouraged to do so.
Apart from the one-stop appeal procedure, the amendments enable the transfer of appeals from the immigration appellate authorities to the commission. This will cater for cases in which national security considerations are introduced either by the appellant or by the Secretary of State when an appeal is already before the immigration appellate authority.
The rest of the amendments remove inconsistencies arising from the introduction of the new procedures, and tidy up ambiguities in the 1998 rules. I invite the House to approve the rules.
Moved, That the draft rules laid before the House on 27th June be approved [24th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Bach.)
Viscount Bridgeman: My Lords, in supporting these rules, I have no doubt that the issue will come up in a debate later today.
Lord Bach: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Viscount for supporting the rules.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

National Assembly for Wales (Transfer of Functions) (No. 2) Order 2000
1.26 p.m.
Lord Bach Lord Bach rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 29th June be approved [24th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving the National Assembly for Wales (Transfer of Functions) (No.2) Order 2000, I should like, with the leave of the House, to speak also to the National Assembly for Wales (Transfer of Functions)(Variation) Order 2000. Perhaps I may speak to that latter order first.
The National Assembly for Wales (Transfer of Functions) (Variation) Order 2000, to which I shall refer as "the variation order", will help to secure the well-being and safety of children in schools in Wales by allowing the Secretary of State for Education and Employment to exercise concurrently with the Assembly the powers under Section 218(6) of the Education Reform Act 1988, to bar or restrict employment in the education sector. Historically the power to bar or restrict a person's employment in the

1749
education services in England and Wales was exercised exclusively by a unit of the Department for Education and Employment. The power in respect of Wales was transferred to the Assembly under the transfer of functions order 1999, but the need for the continued involvement of the DfEE's unit was recognised because of its expertise in the area and the fact that it would take some time for the Assembly to build up its own unit with similar experience.
A number of discussions have taken place between the Assembly and the DfEE with a view to identifying the best way to proceed. This variation order provides a solution that will allow the Department for Education and Employment's dedicated unit to tackle the outstanding Welsh cases and to bar or restrict people from employment in Wales as well as England. It will ensure that the DfEE's dedicated unit has the powers to ensure that cases are dealt with promptly and adequately throughout England and Wales without taking away the ability for the Assembly to take on this role in future if it becomes feasible.
As is required in Section 22(4)(b) of the Government of Wales Act, the National Assembly for Wales approved the variation order in a plenary session on 28th June this year.
I turn now to the National Assembly for Wales (Transfer of Function) (No. 2) Order 2000, which I shall refer to as "Transfer (No. 2)". That order includes the Assembly as an emanation of the Crown entitled to receive notice if a court regards a provision of secondary legislation as incompatible with a right under the Human Rights Act 1998, and is considering making a declaration to that effect. The Human Rights Act generally comes into effect on 2nd October this year, and it is proposed that Transfer (No. 2) will also come into effect on that day.
Section 5 of the Human Rights Act states that where a court is considering whether to make a declaration of incompatibility, the Crown is entitled to notice. This is so that the Crown, which usually has ultimate responsibility for the legislation being considered by the court, can take part in the proceedings. This is particularly important as a declaration of incompatibility will be likely to lead to pressure for amendment legislation that is compatible with convention rights to be brought forward as soon as possible.
Subsection (2) of Section 5 of the Human Rights Act lists those emanations of the Crown entitled to receive notice. These are UK Ministers and the devolved administrations in Scotland and Northern Ireland. The National Assembly for Wales was not included in the list from the outset because it does not have primary legislative powers. However, the Assembly can of course make subordinate legislation, which may also be considered incompatible with the Human Rights Act by a court.
This proposed Transfer (No. 2) Order will bring the National Assembly within Section 5(2) of the Human Rights Act in relation to a court considering a declaration of incompatibility on subordinate legislation made in relation to Wales by the Assembly
1750
or by a UK Minister, if the Assembly could have made that subordinate legislation as well as the Minister. I commend the orders to the House.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 29th June be approved [24th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Bach.)
Viscount Bridgeman: My Lords, I support the order. On Question, Motion agreed to.

National Assembly for Wales (Transfer of Functions) (Variation) Order 2000
1.31 p.m.
Lord Bach: My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 29th June be approved [24th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Bach.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Criminal Justice Act 1993 (Extension of Group A Offences) Order 2000
1.31 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Bassam of Brighton)The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Bassam of Brighton) rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 12th June be approved [22nd Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am pleased to speak to this order which, when approved, will help to combat the serious offence of counterfeiting currency. All currencies should be protected against the activities of counterfeiters whose activities attack not only financial transactions but can also threaten the very stability of a state.
Developments in technology mean that criminal activities can cross national borders with increasing ease and rapidity. It is essential that law enforcers can do the same.
It is here that UK legislation, which is otherwise comprehensive and effective, needs amendment to enable us to participate more fully with our European partners in the fight against counterfeiting. The kind of technological developments to which I have already referred mean that the offence of manufacturing counterfeit currency can be carried out in more than one jurisdiction. For example, someone in the UK may design on a computer part of an image intended to be printed on a counterfeit note. He can then send it electronically to a "colleague" or co-conspirator abroad for the work to be completed.
It is this kind of scenario which the present amendment is designed to address. The order will enable us to prosecute in England and Wales any offence of counterfeiting where a "relevant event"—in other words, any element which contributes to the offence—takes place within England and Wales. This kind of jurisdiction is already in place for other offences of dishonesty, such as theft, fraud and forgery, which

1751
are listed in Part I of the 1993 Act. It will also enable us to participate fully in the implementation of the EU Framework Decision on counterfeiting currency which was adopted in May of this year.
I should stress at this point that these counterfeiting offences apply to all legally issued currencies: the US dollar, the Swiss franc and the Spanish peseta are all equally protected by our legislation. There is no question of this amending order giving extra protection to any one currency over and above any other.
For the reason that this amendment will enable the UK to participate effectively in combating the serious offence of forgery at an international level, I urge noble Lords to approve the order. I commend it to the House.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 12th June be approved [22nd Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Bassam of Brighton.)
Viscount Bridgeman: My Lords, I am happy to agree to this order.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Data Protection (Miscellaneous Subject Access Exemptions) (Amendment) Order 2000
1.34 p.m.
Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 21st June be approved [23rd Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the two draft orders make what might best be described as running adjustments to the data protection regime established when the Data Protection Act 1998 was brought into force on 1st March of this year. I shall briefly explain their effect.
I shall deal first with the Designated Codes of Practice (No. 2) Order. In February, noble Lords approved seven orders subject to affirmative resolution under the 1998 Act. Among them was the Data Protection (Designated Codes of Practice) Order 2000. That order designates five media codes of practice for the purposes of Section 32 of the 1998 Act.
It was a matter of considerable concern to the Government to discover that after the draft order had been approved by your Lordships' House, one of the codes which it designates—the Press Complaints Commission's code—was out of date. I wrote to the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, and the noble Baroness, Lady Nicholson, to inform them of this mistake and undertook to bring forward a fresh order to regularise the position.
That is the purpose of the new order. The original order designates specific editions of the various codes. Designating specific editions means that each time a code is amended, a new order will be required. As we have seen, this can give rise to problems. To avoid such problems in the future, we have decided to follow a different approach in the new order. This designates
1752
each of the codes at large without specifying a particular edition. The relevant edition will be the one in force at the time at which the processing or publication in question takes place. The new order revokes and replaces the existing one.
I turn now to the Data Protection (Miscellaneous Subject Access Exemptions) (Amendment) Order. This order makes one small change to the Data Protection (Miscellaneous Subject Access Exemptions) Order 2000 which was also among the original package of draft subordinate legislation approved in February. The Data Protection Act 1998 creates a right, subject to exemptions, for individuals to see the information which is held about them. Among other things, the original order allows that right to be restricted where adoption records held by local authorities are concerned. The justification for this is that it can sometimes be harmful for the individuals concerned to learn about the background to the adoption. Following the approval of the original order, it was drawn to our attention that adoption records are not held only by local authorities. Approved adoption societies can also hold such records, and similar considerations apply to access to them. At the request of bodies representing such voluntary adoption societies, we are therefore bringing forward this order to apply the exemption to them as well.
I apologise to noble Lords that it has proved necessary to bring these two orders before your Lordships' House so soon after the implementation of the 1998 Act. However, I hope that noble Lords will understand the need for these changes to be made. I commend the orders to the House.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 21st June be approved [23rd Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Bassam of Brighton.)
Viscount Bridgeman: My Lords, I am happy to agree to the order.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Data Protection (Designated Codes of Practice) (No. 2) Order 2000
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 21st June be approved [23rd Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Bassam of Brighton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Asylum Seekers
1.37 p.m.
Lord Greaves Lord Greaves rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether implementation of the arrangements for the dispersal and support of asylum seekers is satisfactory.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Question has been tabled in order to bring to the attention of noble Lords what is happening as regards the implementation

1753
of the Asylum Support Regulations 2000 and the arrangements for the dispersal of asylum seekers by the National Asylum Support Service (NASS). It is my contention that a great deal of unsatisfactory practice is taking place. I believe that the Government should take this into account and take action on it.
The last occasion that noble Lords discussed this matter in detail was in a debate on the regulations initiated by my noble friend Lord Dholakia on 20th April. I do not wish to revisit the ground covered in that debate. Instead, I suggest that, in spite of the great degree of unhappiness expressed about the regulations, what we are dealing with now is the regulations as they are being applied in practice. I contend that the regulations are not being observed properly and people are therefore suffering.
Over 3,000 dispersals have taken place so far under the new system, which was implemented on 3rd April. Those dispersals have been undertaken by NASS. Reports have been received from all around the country that the system is not providing vulnerable asylum seekers with the safe, secure and supportive provision which, not only do they need, but to which they are entitled under the law and under the regulations which have been approved. They are being denied help and services. Furthermore, in many places, they are also being subjected to intimidation and harassment.
A great deal of evidence is being amassed by various bodies, such as the Medical Foundation for the Care of Victims of Torture, the Refugee Council, local authorities and the media. I have collected quite a lot of evidence from my own contacts around the country and from my own experience. I ask the Government to take this matter seriously and to attempt to do something about it.
My involvement with this issue began in my own area of Pendle, in Lancashire. The first that anyone knew of the fact that NASS was sending anyone to our area was when a young man from a North African country who could not speak any English presented himself at the check-out at Morrison's with his vouchers and managed to make it understood that he wanted English lessons. The person on the check-out had the good sense to refer him to the local FE college. Inquiries that were then made indicated that about 20 people had already been dispersed to Nelson, and there are now about 120 reinforcements.
These are small towns with fairly closely knit communities. There are a large number of people who are used to tackling problems, so people cannot be dispersed to areas such as ours without it being widely known and without an attempt being made to provide them with help, support and assistance. So the initial major area of concern was the question of secrecy. Whenever anyone asked questions, there was a blanket silence, a wall of secrecy.
We discovered that an organisation called the "Burnley and Pendle Housing Agency" was busy trawling for empty houses among house owners in the area and offering them perhaps £40 a week for five years if they would allow the housing agency to take a tenancy. It then become clear that the agency consisted
1754
of one young man in his early 20s who was behaving in a entrepreneurial manner in regard to the provision of accommodation. He had managed by some means or other to obtain a contract with Clearsprings (Management) Ltd, one of the national companies engaged by NASS. We then discovered that a landlord who specialises in what might be called low quality housing in Brierfield had a similar contract with Adelphi Hotels Ltd.
But there was still a huge blanket of secrecy over everything. In particular, local authorities were being kept in the dark. Local groups were having to find out by accident who the people were and where they were living. The local college, which was providing English classes, was having to arrange them by word of mouth. Whenever people asked, "Why cannot somebody locally be told what is going on, so that they can engage the resources of the community to help?", they were told, "No, it's against the Data Protection Act". They were then told that the information was covered by the Official Secrets Act. Even people offering their houses are made to sign documents promising never to tell anyone that the conversations had taken place or that anything was going on—on pain, it seems, of being locked up in the Tower! They were told that the matter was covered by considerations of commercial confidentiality. Fourthly—at which I pricked up my ears—people were told that nothing could be said until the matter had been raised in Parliament.
Like many other communities around the country, we have experience of dealing with Vietnamese boat people, of the dispersal of Kosovans 12 months ago, and of many other cases. We have a history of welcoming such people, and a history of providing help and support. The way in which this was done, with a great wall of silence, was guaranteed to start the local press sniffing, smelling a rat and creating difficulties among members of the local community, who are rightly asking, "Who are these people who have come to live in our street?"—and no one will give them any information.
There is a great willingness around the country to help, particularly among local authorities. The Chester Chronicle for Friday, 30th June, reported the Conservative county councillor, Neil Fitton, as saying,
"Cheshire responded magnificently to the plight of the Kosovans and we would like to repeat that response for people who have been similarly oppressed".
However, on Wednesday this week in another place, the Minister, Barbara Roche, said:
"NASS works closely with local authorities, up and down the country, to ensure that dispersal … is a reality, and that it provides an appropriate environment for asylum seekers".—[Official Report, Commons, 5/7/00; co1.106WH.]
That is not true. Indeed, on Tuesday (4th July) the Lancashire Evening Telegraph reported as follows:
"15 asylum seekers have arrived in Burnley but the council doesn't know who they are or where they are living.
"Council Labour leader Stuart Caddy slammed as appalling and unacceptable the Government's refusal to provide information … denying the local authority the chance to provide help and guidance".
Throughout the country, wherever you ask—from Plymouth to Leicester, Derby, Leeds, Liverpool, northeast Lancashire or anywhere else—it is a common complaint by local authorities that they are not being allowed the information that they need in order to help with this problem.
The second main area of concern is over the service that is provided by local providers. NASS has contracts with about a dozen national providers and they contract with local landlords and local providers. The local providers are simply not giving the service for which they are paid.
The Model Contract for the Provision of Accommodation and Related Services for Asylum Seekers (Private Sector Providers), which I was able to consult in the Library, makes it clear that a whole series of support services are supposed to be provided for asylum seekers. But the experience of people all over the country is that that is not happening.
There is meant to be a one-stop service, which, as the document states, should among things,
"provide a focal point for local voluntary and community effort within the cluster groups".
The "cluster group" where I live is Nelson. Our nearest one-stop service is in Manchester, over 30 miles away. How on earth can that service provide what is necessary? How on earth can people who receive only £10 a week afford to go to Manchester to consult the one-stop service?
The document lists a whole series of services that providers should make available. Without going into detail, the provisions are excellent: there should be full-time, trained staff; there should be police checks where there is contact with children under 18, and so on. I do not believe that any of that is being done by the service providers that I know about in many different areas.
It is stated that interpreters should be available on arrival; that there should be induction to premises; that all necessary safety and operating instructions should be provided; as should a local map; and that providers should facilitate registration with GPs, dentists and local schools. That is not happening according to the information that I have from the length and breadth of the land. All that is happening is that people are turning up once a week to obtain the signatures of the "service users", as the asylum seekers are called, on a piece of paper so that they can send it off and get their money.
It is further stated that details of local solicitors and registration advisers should be available. There is a huge problem over the provision of proper and adequate legal advice to asylum seekers. I was talking to two people only a few days ago. One had a local solicitor who had been signed up for the scheme by the Government. Such people are very competent solicitors, but they do not have a clue about asylum law. People have been seen opening up the books, looking up the regulations, and so on, while interviewing an asylum seeker. They are people who have no experience whatsoever in this field—and why should they have? On the other hand, I spoke to another asylum seeker two days ago who seemed to have an excellent lawyer
1756
and to be receiving excellent advice. Unfortunately, that firm of solicitors is 300 miles away in Ramsgate; they are the people with whom the asylum seeker was put in touch on arrival. The amount of legal advice that is available, its quality, and access to such advice are huge problems. No travel allowance is provided for people who may need to see lawyers many miles away. We talk about people appealing and receiving proper legal advice, but I do not believe that many are receiving anything like the advice to which they are entitled.
The document also states that people should be given contact numbers to phone, that there should be complaints procedures in place, that written material should be provided in an appropriate language, and that occupancy agreements should be in the language understood by the service user. In my experience, none of that is happening.
I can tell noble Lords lots of horror stories but I quote just one involving a traumatised teenage girl from another North African country. Her home was in a village in a war zone which had been recently bombed. She was placed alone in a house without any contacts or knowing anybody. In the middle of the night she awoke with severe stomach pains. The only people she knew were others who had arrived with her on the same bus. They happened to live across the road. She managed to wake them and, somehow, they took her to the casualty department of the local hospital. Two days elapsed before the hospital discovered who she was and why she was there. The hospital only discovered her identity when a teacher in a local FE college was told in an English class that a girl had been taken to hospital. She rang the hospital and spoke to the ward sister, who said, "Thank goodness someone has rung. We have no idea who this girl is". Such events occur because the Government rely on private sector providers at local level to provide a whole range of services of which they have no experience and understanding; and some of them have no intention of providing these facilities.
At the other extreme, people are supposed to be provided with cutlery and crockery. In Nelson it was discovered that most of these people did not have tin-openers. The local support group had a whip round to provide tin-openers.
The vouchers give rise to huge problems. People must have a document to obtain the vouchers and then claim the vouchers. Vouchers appear in Burnley but the documents are sent to Manchester, or vice versa. There is huge confusion and a great many people have to wait weeks and weeks before they receive the vouchers that they are meant to have.
There is one local problem that I have already raised and will continue to raise until it is dealt with. The NASS told me, helpfully, that post offices where vouchers could be obtained should not be more than three miles away. The fact is that Nelson is well over four miles from Burnley. A return on the bus costs £1.30. One has a voucher for goods and also a voucher that can be cashed for £10. To get that £10 one must

1757
spend £1.30 return on the bus. All of this is being done on the basis of self-assessment. The service provider simply ticks a list of boxes to say that it is doing them and it is paid the money.
What is NASS doing to check it? My honourable friend in another place Simon Hughes has discovered this week from a Question for Written Answer that there are 433 staff employed by NASS: 423 in Croydon and one in each region. Therefore, there are 423 staff in Croydon and one who has just started work in the North West to check up on all these people. I suggest that that balance is wrong.
Around the country there are far worse stories than have occurred in Nelson. I highlight just one. In Chapeltown, Leeds, Angel Group Ltd has two hostels: Angel House and Angel Hall. There have been complaints of cramped accommodation, intimidation and threats by staff and poor food. That accommodation was visited by some BBC journalists this week. While they were there drug dealers were dealing in heroine outside during the day and a young lady was offering her services on the opposite corner. Recently, a shotgun has been fired into those premises. One of the asylum seekers has been stabbed. That area is totally unsatisfactory to house these people, yet it happens because it is organised by people purely on the basis of housing. People are asked whether they have accommodation. If they do they are allowed to provide it regardless of other factors.
I could also talk about racist attacks around the country which the Refugee Council is monitoring. Perhaps the Minister will follow up that matter. There is a good deal of profiteering going on. The going rate for accommodation in the private sector is about £110 per week per asylum seeker. In Nelson three or four asylum seekers are housed in small two up and two down terraced houses which have separate rooms and communal kitchen and bathroom facilities. Those houses are rented to local providers for £40 per week. Therefore, perhaps £300 to £400 is being shared between the national providers and local agents. If one deducts the £40 per week for the cost of the accommodation and bears in mind that the services being provided are the absolute minimum, a good profit is being made by the companies engaged by the Home Office and NASS.
Lord Bach: My Lords, I apologise to the noble Lord for interrupting him. I know that he feels passionately about these important matters, but speeches in this debate are limited to 15 minutes and already one noble Lord wants to speak in the gap. Perhaps the noble Lord will wind up his speech.
The Earl of Listowel: My Lords, I am content not to make a contribution if the noble Lord wishes to speak for another four minutes.
Lord Greaves: My Lords, I shall wind up. I ask the Government to give this matter serious consideration. Please accept that there is a problem and that local authorities and the consortia may be able to do it better than private landlords who are engaged for this
1758
purpose. I also ask the Government genuinely to cooperate with local people and local councils which want to help and put more NASS staff in the field to monitor what is going on.
1.55 p.m.
Baroness Howells of St Davids: My Lords, I thank the, noble Lord, Lord Greaves, for bringing this matter to the attention of the House. I want to speak only about those persons who genuinely come within the United Nations Convention on Refugees and Asylum Seekers 1951, not those who are accused of being bogus or economic refugees. I also want to focus on the Race Relations Act 1976 and the role of local authorities in the dispersal and support of asylum seekers under that Act. Section 71 of the 1976 Act imposes on local authorities the duty,
"to make appropriate arrangements with a view to securing that their various functions arecarried out with due regard to the need —

(a) to eliminate unlawful … discrimination:

(b) to promote equality of opportunity, and good relations, between persons of different racial groups".

Unfortunately, when asylum seekers are dispersed local authorities do not appear to pay attention to their duties under Section 71. We are all aware of asylum seekers in the care of London boroughs who are shipped out to so-called "cluster" areas. Your Lordships may be aware of asylum seekers in the care of London boroughs, such as Westminster City Council, who are dispersed to seaside towns on the east coast; for example, Great Yarmouth. Other local authorities are also doing this. Westminster is not alone in the shift.
Noble Lords may also be aware of many reports of alleged discrimination on racial grounds and racial harassment suffered by those who seek asylum in cluster areas. Sometimes these acts are alleged to have been committed by the hotel or bed-and-breakfast owners who receive these asylum seekers hundreds of miles away from the local authority that has contracted out responsibility for them. Sometimes the services on the ground in these cluster areas are inadequate, or are not even put in place by the dispersing authority.
This begs the question: how can a local authority fulfil its Section 71 duties when the asylum seekers for whom it has responsibility are 200 miles away? Is it paying any attention to Section 71 in the first place? The answer is that some local authorities which disperse asylum seekers usually do so without ever paying due regard to Section 71. That provision appears to have no meaning when it comes to asylum seekers. The main reason why this failure occurs is because Section 71 is without any effective means of enforcement and thus has had limited, and possibly uneven, impact. Some local authorities ignore this duty because no consequences flow from their failure to comply with it; others do not even appear to be aware of their duties under Section 71, or they have due regard to the provision but decide that it is inappropriate to make such arrangements.
Some local authorities may not even believe that Section 71 has anything to do with asylum seekers, a large number of whom are members of the Roma

1759
community and who arrive in the UK fearing persecution in the Czech or Slovak Republics, or others, such as refugees from the former Yugoslavia, who are white.
Some local authorities associate Section 71 with providing services to residents who are black and Asian only. Section 71 should be observed by local authorities with regard to asylum seekers, whether they are white, black or Asian. The problem is that many local authorities are simply not doing so. Local authorities should ensure that their dispersal and support arrangements are in place.
I recognise that the Race Relations (Amendment) Bill will replace the current Section 71 with a positive statutory duty on all public authorities to promote racial equality. I urge that this new duty be clear and unambiguous. Local authorities need to know the nature of their duties if that duty is to have any effect. I trust that the Minister will give much thought to this matter. While we await the passage of the Race Relations (Amendment) Bill, I hope that the Government will ensure that local authorities fulfil their duty.
Do the dispersal arrangements—they are concerned solely with housing—adequately ensure that asylum seekers have access to GP services? There is strong anecdotal evidence, usually from lawyers advising asylum seekers, that they have great difficulty getting on to GP lists. When asylum seekers are sent to areas from which populations have moved, there is a strong likelihood that there are insufficient numbers of GPs to meet the ordinary health needs of asylum seekers.
Similar questions could be asked about education. At the beginning of the school year in September 1999, there were more than 400 asylum-seeker children in Kent for whom there were no school places. Eventually they were found places, but not at local schools. They were "bussed" to a school or an army base. No integration with local children in the playground was possible.
There are real issues about stigmatisation and the creation of a visible social underclass. Yesterday someone from Kent, referring to eastern European (white) asylum seekers, said, "You can recognise them; they look different; they wear different clothes; they walk differently". The Refugee Council has reports of the humiliation of asylum seekers trying to use vouchers. We received somewhat old stories in our briefing last year on the Immigration and Asylum Bill.
There are also issues about what is happening to the existing local population. Not only is racism and xenophobia being whipped up but, similarly, compassion is being wiped out. Apparently, in Dover the local radio station could find no one who spoke with regret or sadness about the death of 58 Chinese men and women asylum seekers. They did not care.
Ten years ago a young woman came to Britain as an asylum seeker. Today she is one of the leading scientists with the Wellcome Foundation. She has
1760
devoted her training and time in Britain to studying asthma which we know affects our population. Today's asylum seekers may be tomorrow's geniuses.
2.3 p.m.
The Earl of Listowel: My Lords, I was disturbed to listen to the opening speech of the noble Lord, Lord Greaves. It is important to integrate these asylum seekers as they disperse across the country. In Kent some communities engage with asylum seekers. They welcome them, get to know them and support them. That integration works. It needs to be introduced. It cannot work if there is no information and no one knows who the asylum seekers are. The noble Baroness, Lady Howells, made the same point. Compassion can be wiped out if there is no active effort to involve local communities with asylum seekers—in playing football, with help with writing and in other minor ways. I speak as a volunteer with Kosovan asylum seekers. It can be a great pleasure to work with them. If we do not know them, they may appear frightening. If they are our football partners, we can get along with them.
The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, spoke of a traumatised lass. I met a young woman from Sierra Leone whose sister had been murdered by soldiers. They had played cat-and-mouse with her before killing her. She described this appalling experience to me in floods of tears. Sitting with this young woman was an awful experience, yet these people are sent out unsupported into an unknown world. We must do more to support them.
There is a housing crisis in London and the South East. It is hard to house asylum seekers. Working as a volunteer in a hostel in Soho each week, I see young asylum seekers who are in cramped conditions for months on end because there is no move-on accommodation for them, while their peers move on after days or weeks. In future their situation will be worse because they are no longer entitled to social security benefit if they drift back to London.
I shall be interested to hear from the Minister. Perhaps he will write to me; I have not notified him of this question. What emergency measures are in place for asylum seekers who come from those new placements in the country back to London? What will happen to them? There is already great pressure on bed spaces for young people arriving in London, for instance at King's Cross. It is already difficult to place them. If they are not so placed, they are liable to become involved with sex workers and in drugs, and may become minor drug dealers. If those asylum seekers are not properly provided for and drift back, will they be trapped in the same way? Will fewer beds become available, resulting in other young people being trapped in the way I have described? These issues concern me greatly. I look forward to some response from the Minister.
2.8 p.m.
Viscount Bridgeman: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, for initiating

1761
the debate. We have had the privilege of hearing from the noble Baroness, Lady Howells, who has so much experience of the subject.
This country has an old and proud tradition of welcoming immigrants seeking asylum from persecution in other countries. During the centuries, those immigrants have contributed largely to the benefit of this country. One has only to think of the Huguenots and the fact that following the Jewish emigration before and during the war the music capitals of the world shifted from Berlin and Leipzig to London. More recently, the Ugandan Asians contributed much to this country in so many ways. The House must be grateful for the shining example given by the noble Baroness, Lady Howells. However, the situation has been complicated by the arrival of economic migrants; those fleeing poverty rather than persecution. The noble Baroness was right to emphasise the difference between the two.
We on this side of the House strongly support the principle that local authorities in London and the South East should not have to bear the brunt of the costs of accommodating those seeking asylum. The present arrangements for asylum came into effect in April this year, replacing a voluntary arrangement on the part of local authorities with an obligatory one, with the option for the Home Secretary in the last resort to create dispersal areas.
It has to be said that by and large there has been a reasonable degree of co-operation between central and local government, but an objective report by the Audit Commission, issued on 1st June, highlighted some well known problems. Many of them were referred to in particular by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves. They include lack of familiarity with the problems faced by the asylum seekers and the absence of specialised help. Fewer than half the contracted immigration specialist law firms are outside London. In many cases, there is a lack of English language backup. The demand on local services on the part of asylum seekers is likely to be above average. The demands on social services, health—the noble Baroness referred to GPs—and specialised schooling deter certain authorities from offering more than the minimum co-operation. In some areas, support by the local taxpayers for asylum seekers is not at all popular.
The smaller communities outside London and the major conurbations find it more difficult to assimilate fresh minority cultures. It is significant that some of the worse racial incidents occur in the smaller communities. In some cases, that has led to an over-reaction and positive discrimination in favour of asylum seekers—a recipe for intense local tensions. Then there have undoubtedly been cases of exploitation by unscrupulous accommodation contractors. We need look no further than the examples provided by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves.
The history of the gradual drift back to London from the rest of the country has become an established fact in recent times, from the arrival of the Vietnamese boat people. That has the effect of neutralising the good intentions of the dispersal policy by putting extra strain on the London boroughs.
1762
It should also be remembered that, until the National Asylum Support Service assumes overall responsibility nation-wide, the responsibility for immigrants dispersed elsewhere remains with the dispersing authority. Although it can expect its expenses to be recoverable ultimately from central government, Members of your Lordships' House familiar with local government will know the difficulty that delay imposes when budgets are being set.
There have been complaints in certain quarters of a lack of communication between the Immigration Service and local authorities resulting in some cases from a refusal of immigration officials to visit dispersal areas some distance from London. No doubt these instances are caused by the shortage of staffing in the Immigration Service, and this is an area where we are critical of the Government. Perhaps I may give your Lordships an instance. Under present rules, an illegal immigrant cannot be taken into custody by the police unless he or she has been seen by an immigration official, otherwise the individual must be released and told to find his way to Croydon.
In a county such as Kent, immigration officials are for most of their time engaged in searching lorries arriving from continental Europe. So they are for a large part of the time—in Kent it is 50 per cent—unavailable to validate the detention of an immigrant. In other police authorities, the Immigration Service is not available and there is a 100 per cent release rate of asylum seekers.
I note that a government-funded charity, Migrant Helpline, is at hand at the request of the police and the Immigration Service to assist migrants to prepare a written application to the Immigration Office at Croydon. Nevertheless, the opportunities for asylum seekers to become lost, if they are so inclined, beggar imagination. One is reminded of a proposal made in another quarter and the difficulties of inviting a hooligan to remember his PIN in order to withdraw cash to pay for his on-the-spot fine. We are dealing with organised crime which, as we well know, is both sophisticated and, indeed, unscrupulous, as the recent tragic events in Dover have shown.
It goes without saying that once the backlog of asylum applications is brought under control, the strain on the dispersal regime will reduce as its extent contracts. However, the Government's record in the clearing of asylum applications is not good. From the beginning of 1999 until February 2000 the figure climbed remorselessly. While the figures for March and April showed a welcome decrease, the numbers awaiting processing in February 2000 were 38 per cent higher than in January 1999. That is despite a backlog clearance exercise conducted by the Home Secretary during 1999 whereby 11,230 asylum seekers were allowed to remain in the United Kingdom because they had managed to stay for several years without their cases being heard. It is the view of this side of the House that the Government should resist the temptation to repeat this short-term expedient.
There is one category of asylum applicant which the Government are unacceptably slow to address, and that is the unaccompanied minor. These children and

1763
young persons are especially vulnerable. As a category, they are a substantial charge on the resources of local authorities. Since their ability to travel is, by their circumstances, limited, it is not surprising that one-quarter of the total is the responsibility of Kent County Council. A decision in their favour by the immigration department would at least enable the minors to be resettled away from the county.
Another strain on the manpower will arise as the Home Office deals with extra appeals arising from the requirements of the Human Rights Act when it comes into force in October. We have just approved an order which is relevant to that. It will be necessary to appoint nearly 100 full and part-time adjudicators to serve the immigration appeals tribunal.
Perhaps I may say a last word about the Immigration and Nationality Directorate. The Public Accounts Committee published a somewhat critical report on the IND's casework programme. Its principal criticisms were: the lack of quality of service; obviously, the backlog of cases to which I have referred; poor service for telephone inquiries; the human misery endured by applicants as they waited; and the cost to the taxpayer of benefits. It then went on to be critical of the implementation of the programme, the over-ambitious roll-out timetable of the new IT system, the relocation while that system was being installed, and the familiar story of lack of supervision of the contractor. I hope that the Government will address those criticisms.
Therefore, I hope that I have made clear some of the concerns that we on this side of the House have about the ability of the IND to cope with the challenge of the asylum application surge. We shall await the Minister's comments with interest.
Perhaps I may say a word about the voucher system, to which the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, referred. Although we appreciate the intentions behind the introduction of the system, there is no doubt that it is not perfect. For a start, there is the unwanted consequence of identifying users of the vouchers as second-class citizens. The scheme has been criticised heavily by major welfare groups, including the Refugee Council, Oxfam, and Save the Children. One effect appears to be that under the voucher system asylum seekers tend to pay more for their shopping. Forbidding retailers to give change discriminates against those who are most vulnerable. Mischievous eyes at supermarket check-outs do not miss a thing. We hope that the Government will keep the scheme under review with a view to its improvement.
We on this side of the House are well aware that a large number of asylum seekers in the United Kingdom is a fact of life. We are of course supportive of the Government in their endeavours to address the problems that it poses. However, to do so effectively and promptly, there must be an immigration infrastructure at national level which is equipped to meet the challenge. We certainly look to I improvements in this field, first, in order to speed up the process of applications and, secondly, to refine
1764
communications between the IND and local authorities and between the dispersing and receiving authorities.
Finally, there is a continuing need for the Home Office to address the particular problems of Kent and the London boroughs, on whom the burden initially falls. It is not right, for example, that homeless people in those areas should be further disadvantaged by lack of accommodation simply because of the need to lodge asylum seekers or, indeed, that taxpayers there should be required to pay a disproportionate share of what is a national obligation. I shall be very interested to hear the Minister's reply.
2.19 p.m.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I greatly welcome this opportunity to give the Government's answer to the Question posed by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves. I pay tribute to him for his detailed analysis of how the dispersal arrangements for the support of asylum seekers are working and I am grateful to him for making that account available to the House. I shall study his comments very carefully. If he wants to provide me with details of particular allegations of malpractice that I, as a Minister, should follow up, I shall undertake to ensure that they are thoroughly investigated. The same offer is open to any of your Lordships who have participated in the debate. Focusing on the critical comments about the activities of any agency can only help us to improve.
I also pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Howells of St Davids, who highlighted some more general concerns. I shall not go into them at great length, but she spoke with great wisdom, understanding and compassion. Any government, particularly this one, would be very foolish to ignore her concerns.
I shall answer some of the points that have been raised, but first I shall set out the Government's view of how we have managed to implement the scheme to date. There is widespread agreement that the task of establishing a national asylum support scheme has been formidable. Just getting the scheme off the ground has involved an extended procurement effort to obtain accommodation, the establishment of arrangements to get asylum seekers to dispersal areas and the recruitment and training of the necessary staff to assess claims for support and allocate asylum seekers to suitable accommodation. To get all that done and administer the scheme once it was set up, we have had to create a whole new body—the National Asylum Support Service—from scratch. I hope that I am not overly complacent when I say that doing all that in just 18 months is no small achievement. The evident success of the operation says a lot about the dedication of those in management and at all levels in those organisations.
However, getting a scheme going is only half the job. The main thing is to keep it going and ensure that it achieves what it is meant to do. The Government believe that the prospects of doing that are very reasonable. So far, more than 5,000 applications for

1765
support have been dealt with. We are dispersing asylum seekers to cluster areas, as planned. There have been inevitable teething problems—the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, gave ample voice to them—in ensuring that people get to the right place at the right time and that the support packages to which they are entitled are ready for them.
As has been pointed out in the debate, we have had some problems with accommodation and some dispersed asylum seekers have not found the experience easy. We are addressing the accommodation problems. We are getting providers to take the necessary steps to achieve improvements where they are needed. We shall continue to monitor the progress made by providers of accommodation and support services.
On the positive side, the start of the dispersal scheme means that we are beginning to cap the number of asylum seekers who fall to local authorities in London and the South East, a point drawn very powerfully to our attention by the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman. Therefore, the responsibility and support for asylum seekers is more fairly shared, as we all wish it to be, across the United Kingdom. After all, that is the bedrock of dispersal arrangements like these and like those which have had to be put in place historically; for example, for groups like the Vietnamese boat people. That was a scheme which worked very well when it was introduced by the Conservative government of the time.
So far the much-criticised voucher scheme has been working, in the main, entirely satisfactorily. There are now over 19,000 retail outlets involved, including specialist shops. Our contractor, Sodexho Pass, continues to seek to extend the network of retailers. All asylum seekers receive information about the voucher scheme. Part of that information includes a form which can be used to nominate shops or other outlets which do not yet accept vouchers but where the asylum seekers would wish to shop. Sodexho Pass then does its best to sign up those retailers and add them to the network of retailers able to operate the scheme.
I shall turn now to some of the comments made during the course of the debate. I summarise the approach and perspective of the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, to this matter. He drew our particular attention to problems in east Lancashire. He said that there were some unsatisfactory practices; that some asylum seekers were not receiving the right sort of help; and in particular, he drew attention to instances of intimidation and harassment. It would be fair to say that the noble Lord was extremely concerned about the secrecy, as he saw it, behind the way in which the scheme operates. In particular, he drew attention to the importance and value of that relationship between the local authority, which, after all, is the glue which brings together our communities, and the NASS scheme.
He gave us examples of people being told that information was subject to the Data Protection Act and official secrecy legislation. But he said that there is—an extremely important point—a tremendous
1766
willingness to help by a number of communities. Looking through some of the background information on this, I was pleased to find that, in particular, in one of the areas to which the noble Lord drew my attention—Burnley and Pendle—there is an asylum seekers support campaign which has organised fund-raising events. Again, the Nelson & Colne college has organised drop-in centres. We need to help and support such initiatives so that there is a community response and a greater willingness and welcome in those communities which are bearing the burden of the dispersal arrangements.
We shall of course investigate the complaints which the noble Lord has made. Like the noble Lord, I am extremely concerned about allegations of racism, racist attacks, harassment and, of course, we must keep a very careful check on the level of profits which the company providing the services in each instance is able to make. I was especially concerned about the noble Lord's comments in relation to Chapeltown and the desirability of the provision being made there. We shall look closely at that.
The disclosure of information needs to be understood. In each area, there are local authority regional consortia which are informed regularly about the numbers of asylum seekers being dispersed through the NASS scheme. Information about the identity of asylum seekers is not regularly disclosed. The Government owe a duty of confidentiality to those who have applied for asylum support. But there are instances when that can be waived, particularly where the asylum seekers themselves believe that it would be in their best interest. Of course, it can be overtaken when disclosure is in the broader public interest; for example, to prevent or to ensure that we investigate crime.
I turn to contract monitoring. NASS has a dedicated contract manager for each private sector accommodation centre provider. We are also developing an inspection and investigation team to ensure that standards are met. NASS consults local authorities through the regional consortia as to the provider's suitability. The local authorities have an important role to play there.
The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, drew attention to the problem of bus fares. It is the case that asylum seekers will need to pay fares out of that element of their weekly voucher payment. But I believe that we have taken adequate steps to ensure reasonable means so that asylum seekers do not become destitute. We have to strike a balance. The mix of voucher and cash payment attempts to do that.
I turn to the comments made by the noble Baroness, Lady Howells. In essence, to summarise her concerns, she was worried about the dispersal and support arrangements of the local authorities. It is fair to say that local authorities have had to bear the brunt of the burden. That is one of the reasons which informed the development of NASS. We were concerned, under the previous arrangements, at the over-concentration of asylum seekers, particularly in London and the South East. It would be fair to say that in some cases they

1767
placed excessive burdens on the capacity of the local authorities to cope, some of which are not exactly overburdened with riches. We have to turn our attention to their needs. That is why we need a rational system of national dispersal.
The noble Baroness also drew attention to the need to ensure that measures are taken which guarantee that asylum seekers are "plugged into" GP services. She was right to draw attention to the need for healthcare for the asylum population. In particular, the noble Baroness drew attention to the missing 400 education places in Kent last year. We are concerned about that. Clearly, we must do all that we can to ensure that education is available for those who will be here for any length of time while their asylum application is being considered. To that end, the DfEE is making available an additional £1.5 million of funding for schools which take children of asylum seekers. They are obviously in clusters under the national asylum support scheme. We recognise the value and importance of tackling that head on.
We shall, of course, do all that we can to ensure that adequate steps are taken to integrate asylum communities into local areas, particularly if we know that they will be there for any length of time.
The noble Baroness was absolutely right to draw attention to the valuable contribution which people coming to this country—often destitute and fleeing persecution—make to our society and communities. That point was echoed by the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman. We must never underestimate the contribution, richness and diversity they bring to us. However, that does not mean that we must step aside from our duty to ensure that we exercise our international obligations properly and fairly and that we take adequate and strong measures to ensure that immigration legislation is firmly and effectively introduced.
1768
Our Government inherited a chaotic system of control. We have had to take some time to put a new system in place. However, I believe that we now have the balance right. At times, we are criticised for being somewhat illiberal in the measures we have taken. I prefer to view our approach to this rather differently. We have firm and fair procedures in place and are now making far more decisions about people's immigration status and their entitlement to stay here. I think that we are getting the balance about right.
Over the past few months, a record number of decisions have been made. The number of people awaiting a decision about their status is lowering each month. We expect the backlog to fall dramatically by the end of the year. Perhaps I may pass on an important statistic. Since the end of January, the backlog has reduced by some 15,000. We expect to make a substantial reduction in that backlog by April 2001.
I hope that I have been able to allay some of the concerns expressed in this debate. I reiterate that the Government believe that implementation of the scheme has generally got off to a satisfactory start. But, as in any of these sorts of undertaking, there is always room for improvement. We accept that. The successful implementation of the national support scheme means that we shall, over time and with the co-operation of the private sector and local authorities, achieve our aim of providing an adequate support system for asylum seekers in genuine need throughout the country, while deterring economic migrants seeking to use asylum procedures to gain entry into the United Kingdom and stay here.
That is our general philosophy and approach. If I have missed specific points during my summary of the debate, I apologise and shall be happy to address them in private correspondence later. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, for giving us this opportunity to air concerns and issues arising from the introduction of the national asylum seekers scheme.
House adjourned at twenty-four minutes before three o'clock.

  GM Trial Crops: Effects on Bees, Honey and Fruit
  GM Trial Crops: Effects on Bees, Honey and Fruit
  Dartford River Crossings: Tolls
  Dartford River Crossings: Tolls
  Migration and Climate Change
  Migration and Climate Change
  London Underground: Performance Targets
  London Underground: Performance Targets
  The Lord Chancellor: Participation in Lords Debates and Appeals
  The Lord Chancellor: Participation in Lords Debates and Appeals
  NMEC: Accounts to 31 December 1999
  NMEC: Accounts to 31 December 1999
  Northern Ireland: Designation of Public Authorities
  Northern Ireland: Designation of Public Authorities
  IRA Arms Dumps
  IRA Arms Dumps
  Departmental Cars
  Departmental Cars
  Business Closures
  Business Closures
  Emergency Calls: Police Response Times
  Emergency Calls: Police Response Times